Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 8

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - FISHERIES BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE.

Section 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 agreed to and added to the Bill.

SECTION 6.

Section 29 of the Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act, 1863 shall be construed and have effect as if the word "district" were inserted therein in lieu of the "electoral division" now contained therein.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I beg to move amendment 1:—

Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

"(1) In addition to the elected members and ex-officio members of a board of conservators the Minister shall appoint to every such board such number of additional members, not being more than one-fourth of the total number of elected and ex-officio members, as he shall think expedient, who shall have a vote in all matters and shall have all the powers and privileges conferred by law upon members of boards of conservators.

(2) In the appointment of additional members of a board of conservators the Minister shall have regard to the necessity for securing representation of persons dependent wholly or to a considerable degree upon fishing as a means of livelihood and representation of the public interest in the preservation and development of fisheries."

The object of the amendment is to secure that the Minister shall have the right to nominate a certain proportion of the members who constitute these boards of conservators. Under the proposals in the Bill as it stands, the boards of conservators will be constituted, in the first case, of a number of people who own private fisheries up to a certain valuation. In the Bill it is proposed that that valuation shall be £50. Heretofore people who had fisheries valued at £100 or over were entitled to representation. The second class of people who will be on the boards are those to be elected under the provisions of Rule 8. As I see it, the constitution of these boards will be made up almost entirely, indeed I think I should say entirely, of people having an interest of a private nature in the preservation of fisheries. I think it is advisable and essential that the Minister, representing the public interest rather than the purely private interest, should have the right to nominate a certain proportion of the members who constitute these boards. There was a certain right which, I understand, did not work very satisfactorily, a right which it is now proposed to abolish, whereby a public board had, under certain circumstances, the power to nominate certain representatives on these boards of conservators. The boards in future will be constituted of people who own fisheries and of members elected in accordance with Rule 8.

My proposal, in brief, is that the Minister should have the right to nominate up to a certain proportion, and that in exercising that nomination he should have regard to the necessity for securing the representation of people who are wholly or largely dependent for a livelihood on the fishing industry. There is no provision whereby the people who earn their living by fishing, as against those who own fisheries, would be able to get adequate representation on these boards of conservators. I ask the Minister to have regard to those people in the public interest—the people who make their living out of the fishing industry. My amendment, too, would give the Minister an opportunity of giving representation to voluntary associations set up for the preservation of our fisheries. I do not see any other way except by this amendment in which they would be able to get representation on those boards of conservators. I think the acceptance of my amendment would make for the more efficient working of those boards, and that it would tend to secure for them a greater sense of authority in their own districts. In that way, it would lead to what I might call the development of a civic sense and a realisation of the importance of preserving the fish in the different districts. We know the opinions which were held amongst the general public with regard to these boards of conservators in the past. We know, too, of the difficulty they had in exercising authority and in preventing poaching. That was largely due to the fact that the boards themselves did not possess the confidence of the public. Now, in this matter the Minister is the keeper of the public interest, and it will be his duty to see that there are people on these boards who will have an interest in the fisheries from the public point of view. I think if he accepts the amendment he will be helping to create boards which will enjoy the confidence of the public to a far greater degree than did the old boards. I see no reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment.

Mr. GOREY

This question of nominating a certain proportion of those who will constitute the new boards is one that deserves to be fully inquired into. It is true that under the Bill a certain section of the people interested in the fisheries will have representation. It is true, also, that fishermen holding licences will have the right to elect men to represent themselves on these boards. If the rights of the fishermen to secure representation were interfered with in any way, the amendment, of course, would be a very good one, but that is not the case. Those who make their living out of fishing, and who hold a licence, already possess the right to elect representatives on these boards. It is an extraordinary thing, as regards the abuses which are committed in connection with the fishery laws, that the largest number of poachers has always been supplied from the ranks of those who are known as the people who make their living from fishing. That is the class, more than any other class in the community, that supplies the poachers. I think the Minister knows that, too, and really it is a very extraordinary thing. These people poach, not only in the close season, but also in the open season as much as they can. One would imagine that they would take an active interest in helping to protect the industry, and that they would, as it were, act as river police. They have not done that, and as far as their representatives on the boards of conservators are concerned they, too, have done very little. A case has come to my knowledge where a conservator, a man who makes his living out of fishing, is one of the most practised and best-known poachers that there is on a certain river.

I think when the Bill provides that those who make their living out of fishing will have representation on the boards of conservators, in proportion to their strength, that the Bill goes far enough, except perhaps that some useful purpose might be served by putting men on these boards such as the representatives of clubs who would be animated by a genuine desire to preserve and develop the fishing industry. That is the only object that I see the amendment could serve, namely, that the representatives of anglers' clubs and associations of that kind should be afforded an opportunity of getting representation on these boards. As regards those who make their living out of fishing they have the right already, and as far as they are concerned I do not see any need for this amendment.

MINISTER for FISHERIES (Mr. Lynch)

I am opposed to this amendment. The Bill provides already for the election of those boards; first of all by persons interested in the fisheries, including persons who earn their living by fishing and, secondly, it provides for certain representation for the owners of the fisheries. There are in the Saorstát altogether 230 elected conservators. Under the provisions of the Bill we will have sixty-three of these who will represent the owners of private fishery rights. That is to say, that the elected conservators will be four to one, to the ex-officios. I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by my reserving to myself the right of nomination to the boards. The Bill gives me sufficient authority which has not been held before by my predecessor or myself or by the Department of Agriculture or by the inspectors of fisheries, and more powers and authority over these boards than heretofore. If, as I anticipate, it is a question of seeing that a fair show was given to the preservation of trout in certain districts, I have sufficient powers under the Bill to see to that, and it is my intention to see to it. I am providing, under the Bill, more money for those boards so that they can exercise their functions more efficiently. It will be my duty to see that the increased money is well spent and it is my duty to see that they will conserve all the fisheries that come under their control in the districts, whether trout or salmon. I am, therefore, opposed to this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister inform us not merely what the number of elected persons and representative owners are, but who are the electors of the elected persons? Is it not a fact that a very considerable proportion of the elected are people who are more or less hand and glove with, and are subject in some way to, the owners of the private fisheries and, therefore, they are not merely representative boards? It occurred to me, while Deputy Gorey was speaking, that the evil he was deploring is caused by lack of confidence in the ruling body. And it is a case of cause and effect that appears right through history, as regards all laws dealing with the preservation of fisheries and game and the like. If you have a body, on the one hand, that seems to be the preserve of a small section, governed and controlled by a small section, and also people living by the exercise of certain fishery rights or game rights, as the case may be, in such a case you will have the governing authority, and the public generally at loggerheads, one with the other. It is the absence of any sense of confidence in the governing authority, on the part of the interested public outside, that leads to the conflict of interest and an apparent antagonism.

I would urge that it is very important that conservators should be recognised as the authority exercising their jurisdiction in the interest of those people who are earning their living by the industry, as well as those people who are controlling the industry in the interest of sport, and it is the apparent conflict of interest, whether there is a real conflict or not I do not know, between the board of conservators and the people earning their living that leads to the breaches of law that Deputy Gorey and others deplore.

I daresay that further discussion of further amendments will raise the question in more definite form, but it seems to me that a comparison between the figures of those elected and those on the board by virtue of the ownership of the fisheries does not represent the facts of the case, and unless there is a change made in the electorate you are going to have a continuance of the same system, and the persons elected will rather represent a particular class of interest, and will not obtain the confidence of the remainder of the public.

I am sorry the Minister has taken up the attitude of opposing the principle embodied in the amendment, because it is quite obviously desirable that all the interests affected by the fisheries laws shall have confidence in the board of conservators, and that we should not perpetuate what has been, and what is up to now the system—the system which rather suggests the old landlord and tenant idea. The fight and the struggle that took place as regards the land has its parallel in the basis of the ownership and control of the fisheries. And unless people generally have confidence in the administration, as they have not up to now, the depredations and the poaching, and the like of which Deputy Gorey spoke, are not likely to be removed.

Mr. CORISH

I am rather surprised that the Minister cannot see his way to accept this amendment, because to my mind it is the right sort of amendment, which would secure for him and the nation what we are all so desirous of bringing about, that is the development of the fisheries proper. As Deputy Johnson has said, the boards of conservators that have been elected for the various areas for some time past have not the confidence of the people because of their personnel. At least a great majority of the people represented on them are regarded by the ordinary people depending upon fishing for a livelihood in various areas of the country in the same way as landlords were as regards the land. So far as I know, all over the country in regard to the board of conservators, there is a vicious circle at work. On the one side you have the representatives of the net-fishing and on the other side you have the representatives of the rod-fishing. They are antagonistic to one another. No one can deny that. The Minister is aware of it, and his Department is aware of it as well, and unless you can get somebody who is not so deeply interested and so deeply affected as these two elements on the board of conservators, that vicious circle will be continued. If the fisheries are to be developed properly it is absolutely essential that the Minister should accept this amendment.

I ask him to reconsider his recent statement made in this connection. He said he is placing more money at the disposal of those boards, but he is doing it at the expense of the ratepayers, to some extent, at all events, not to the full extent perhaps. To my mind, people other than those engaged in fishing, either in the rod or the net fisheries, are entitled to representation on the board, if the Minister finds that there is a greater interest taken in fisheries in various parts of the country, with the result that you will have greater developments.

Major COOPER

I hope that the Minister will not take Deputy Corish's description of a board of conservators as being divided between rod and net interests as a description applying to boards all over the country. It may be a description of the Wexford boards, but it is not a true description of the board of which I have been a member for fifteen years. In all these boards, so far as I know, there are a considerable number of members who are not identified closely with other interests. They have sense enough to see that the development of the net interests helps to support the board, and that they could not carry on otherwise. As regards the substantive matter of the amendment, I do not object to it very strongly. I have been approached by various representatives of boards of conservators and others, and asked to put down amendments, but I take the view that in the first two sections the Minister has done his best to hold the balance evenly. I believe that we should take the Bill as it stands. I believe that the Minister is trying to be fair to every interest, and I refuse to put down amendments on these two sections, but I shall put down amendments later on in the Bill.

Mr. HENNESSY

I think that there is something to be said in favour of the amendment. If we wish to get away from the old system, if we wish to encourage the industry, I agree with Deputy Johnson that we must get away from the old system of landlord and tenant. We must have boards of conservators in which the fishermen would have confidence and on which they would be represented. I know that in the South and in the port of Cork we have not a system which we would like to see in operation. I hope, however, that it will come about now as a result of this Bill and the coming elections, and that we will have a better system. We have had war between fisherman and the conservators, and we had fisherman shot a few years ago.

We have had an antagonistic feeling against the conservators and their system. The men are in open rebellion against the conservators, and I think that they take every advantage they can to get over the drastic regulations of the conservators. They have drift and other nets. Here is one of the regulations. If a body of fishermen go out to fish outside the mouth of the harbour they are not allowed to carry their net in a boat through the harbour. They must take it all over the country by a circuitous journey of, perhaps, from fifteen to twenty miles from their homes to get to the mouth of the harbour which they could reach by boat within two miles. Even if the net is dry when they are proceeding to the harbour, severe penalties are inflicted on these unfortunate men. There are many other drastic regulations enforced by the conservators, but there is no necessity for them. We know that the fishermen are satisfied to help the conservators provided they feel that they have some interest in the fishermen. I hope that as a result of this Bill and of the coming elections a better state of affairs will exist between them.

Major COOPER

I am at a loss to understand Deputy Hennessy's argument. The conservators are appointed to enforce the law. Does Deputy Hennessy suggest that they are not enforcing the law? They cannot alter the law. Deputy Hennessy can alter it if there is hardship inflicted, but until the law is amended conservators must carry it out. The adoption of Deputy O'Connell's amendment would leave the conservators in the same position, except, judging by the arguments I have heard, you would have on every board of conservators a body chosen by the Minister who would, apparently, argue against the enforcement of the code of laws which the Minister would administer.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

That is not intended.

Major COOPER

I am sorry if I misrepresented Deputy O'Connell, but that would be the logical conclusion of the arguments used by other Deputies. I do not say that it is Deputy O'Connell's argument, but the argument is that the law is wrong, that it should be enforced by other elements or should not be enforced at all. That is in part the argument which we have heard from Deputy Johnson and Deputy Corish, and I hope I have not misinterpreted Deputy Hennessy. I do not see if that is the case that the acceptance of this amendment would make for the easier working of the boards of conservators or for the more efficient administration of the law.

Mr. HENNESSY

If it is right and proper to use certain nets in Youghal, Ballycotton, Dublin, Bantry and other bays, why should it not be proper for them to be used in the port of Cork? We have conservators who have no interest in the fishermen, and who have made those by-laws in their own interests.

Mr. LYNCH

The conservators do not make by-laws. They are made by the Department and the conservators have to enforce them.

Mr. CORISH

Do not the Minister and Deputy Cooper agree that practically all the boards of conservators are controlled by the owners and rod fishermen?

Mr. LYNCH

I do not agree, and I am trying to avoid that.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

My object, and I take it it would be the object of every Deputy in this House interested in the matter, is to get as good a board of conservators as it is possible to get. We are all agreed on that. The way the Minister gets the new board is that you have, first, the ex-officio members who own the fisheries, and then you have those elected by the licence holders. I am anxious to have another element introduced, not to argue against the enforcement of the law. I hope that I did not at any time say anything which would lead anyone to think that that was the object in the amendment. My object is to introduce an element into the boards of conservators which would be mainly interested in the development of the fisheries from a public point of view, rather than from the point of view of the owners or others immediately interested. As I see it, the board of conservators is supposed to be a board which will conserve, and take steps to conserve, all fisheries in the district, but it gives no representation to that large class of people interested in trout fishing. The Minister said that he is taking steps in the Bill to give them an interest in the preservation of fisheries, but he did not say exactly where or how. He did not make that point clear.

I cannot find that they will have any means of getting representation on this board, which is supposed to be a board responsible for the preservation of all the fisheries, and not salmon fisheries alone. They are not asked to pay licences for fishing, and therefore, they will have no vote. They cannot exercise any influence on the election of the board of conservators, and it is that class of people, largely, whom I would be glad the Minister would look to when getting his nominees for the board. It would create a greater sense of authority and confidence if it were known that the Minister had in the public interest nominated a certain number of people to look after the preservation of fisheries in a board national way, rather than from the point of view of the individual members of the Board. I can only repeat what Deputy Johnson said in reply to Deputy Gorey, that the very fact that those fishermen turned poachers goes to show how little confidence they had in the Board.

Mr. GOREY

Human nature.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Exactly. They believed that the board was not acting in the public interests, but that its members were acting in their own selfish interests. I think, although I do not stress that point, further than the necessity of appointing men who would have a public interest in the fisheries, if it were seen that these men who derive their living mainly from fisheries got adequate representation on the board it would be all for the good, and it would be for the Minister to see when the elections are over how the board is constituted and to look at the interests the members represent. It will be for him to choose the class of men he would appoint. If he considers—it is for him to say—that the fishermen had adequate representation on the board, then, he will not put on more of that particular class. It will be entirely in his own hands. He certainly has not convinced me that this amendment would not be a good one in the interests of the fisheries as a whole. I think it would. He has given no argument to show that it would not. In my opinion, he should reconsider his attitude in the matter, and give himself the power which he agrees is necessary, as he says he is taking larger powers in this Bill to have control over these boards of conservators. That is true to a limited extent, but it does not seem to be very practicable in some cases. I think if he had the power which this amendment would give—to put his nominees on the boards of conservators—it would increase confidence in the members of the board.

Mr. GOREY

It is quite refreshing in connection with a Bill bearing this title to see the lack of knowledge and innocence that Deputy Hennessy, and, to a lesser degree, Deputy O'Connell have displayed in the matter.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

It is as much as Deputy Gorey's ignorance of teaching and school-masters.

Mr. GOREY

Very little I know about school-masters and teaching, but when I come to fishing I know a little about it, as I have been at it for ten or fifteen years.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Poaching?

Mr. GOREY

I have done both. I can speak with authority on both sides.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is it as a poacher you are speaking now?

Mr. GOREY

No, as a good citizen sent here, and with some sense of responsibility. Deputy O'Connell referred to the want of confidence on the part of the people in the conservators, and for that reason they do wrong, and Deputy Hennessy talked about some friends of his, fishermen at the mouth of the Lee. I want to know whether Deputy Hennessy is speaking for all the fishermen of the Lee, or speaking only for the particular class of fisherman at this particular point?

Mr. HENNESSY

The fishermen of the Lee.

Mr. GOREY

The fishermen of this particular part of the Lee. What about the fishermen on the other stretches of the river who object to the law being enforced at a particular point? I have never heard of fishermen yet, and I have met them on all stretches, who do not want the law enforced on the lower stretches.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendment has nothing to do with the non-enforcement of the law.

Mr. GOREY

I am not, perhaps, as well able to regulate my language as you would wish, but I am trying to do my best. Every fisherman in the villages along the different stretches of the river wants the law enforced below. Even among the crews of fishermen there is the utmost jealousy, and rows occur amongst them even in the same village, all because the law is enforced. None of them wants the law enforced where he is concerned. The amendment would be ideal if everyone was of a proper frame of mind, but I have yet to meet the fisherman who is out to make a living who has the proper frame of mind. There is scarcely a fisherman worth his salt who does not know when fish are passing, and it would take the National Army to keep the fishermen out of their boats when a shoal of fish is passing in the river. They will be out whether it is legal or not, whether it is the close weekly season or the open weekly season. It is all nonsense to talk about want of confidence in the conservators, and a certain state of things in one river and another state of affairs on another river. I only hope that the reduction from £100 to £50 will not have any disastrous results. Anyone who knows anything about fishing knows that some of our best fisheries are those controlled by the conservators. I have as much objection to these conservators as anyone else, and for sufficient reason, which I will not go into now. On the Blackwater, where that class of board might be said to predominate, is one of the most valuable fisheries in Ireland. Where the ordinary fisherman rules, and there are representatives of the men on the board of conservators, the reverse is the case. Some of our worst rivers are where the rank and file have representation, or are in the majority on the Board. That is my experience.

Mr. SEAMUS MURPHY

took the Chair.

Mr. GOREY

That is the experience. Fish have been, practically speaking, almost exterminated from some of the rivers under this class of management. If you want an extension of that system of depriving rivers of fish, and if you want our fisheries destroyed, then by all means accept the amendment. If Deputy O'Connell would strike out that portion of his amendment touching on the representation of persons dependent upon fishing as a means of livelihood, and would suggest instead the nomination by the Minister of men who would act fearlessly—and they would want to act fearlessly in this matter—it would I think, be more satisfactory. If the amendment were so framed as to give power to people other than those actually engaged in the trade or earning their living by fishing, I could quite understand it, and I believe the amendment in that form would be acceptable. There is no use in putting anybody on a board of conservators who will not uphold the law and see that it is strictly enforced. And again, the law should not be enforced for one village or in respect to one class of fisherman, but its application should be general.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is what the amendment seeks to do.

Mr. GOREY

It will not have that effect, and that is the reason I quarrel with it.

Mr. JOHNSON

If the Minister does his duty, it will have that effect.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

The whole thing would be in the Minister's hands.

Mr. GOREY

Reference has been made to confidence in boards of conservators. What confidence is there? There is confidence that the boards of conservators will do nothing to anybody who is caught, and there is confidence that breakers of the law will not be punished under the present boards of conservators. As a matter of fact, it is too much confidence they have that nothing will happen. Reference has also been made to the net men being in opposition to the cot men, and vice versa. That is not true. The net men are in opposition only to net men, and rod men in the upper reaches are in opposition to the whole lot. I would ask the Minister, if he is going to consider this amendment, to strike out that portion touching upon representation of interests concerned and people making a living out of fishing. That should be excluded absolutely. Let some people who are interested in the national development of fisheries be put on, on condition only that they will recognise the law and strictly enforce it.

Mr. HENNESSY

I wish to assure Deputy Gorey that I have had experience of fishing, but not of poaching.

Mr. GOREY

You must be an innocent boy.

Mr. HENNESSY

I am placing my case rather impartially before the House. When I say there has been an open revulsion against conservators in Cork for a number of years, I am saying what is true. Why is that? It is simply because the fishermen have no confidence in the conservators, especially on the Lee. If it is right in Deputy Gorey's country, or if it is right in Dublin Bay or any bay in the Saorstát, to use one particular net having a special mesh, why is that not permitted in Cork? Why are they in peril-of their lives while engaged at fishing down there? Why have they been fired upon for using these nets? The fishermen have no confidence in the conservators, who are using drastic by-laws in their own interests.

Mr. JOHNSON

I suggest to Deputy Gorey that if he reads this section carefully and takes into account its phraseology, he will be bound to come to the conclusion it is just the sort of proposal he would like to have made law. The question really is as to whether the present boards of conservators, the present system of election and constitution, are satisfactory. It is also a question whether, as Deputy Gorey rather regrets, there should be a tendency to depart from the time when the only people who had authority over such matters as fish and game were landlords, and they exercised their authority purely in their own private interest, in the interest of sport and not in the communal interest. If that is Deputy Gorey's desire, then he will oppose this amendment. I think it is recognised in the 1848 Act that there were public rights and public interests apart from the purely private fisherman's interest whether he be a rod fisherman or the owner of a fishery. The question really is whether public interest ought to be represented on the board of conservators, or whether it must be looked after and safeguarded solely by the Minister. That is really the issue—whether there are to be elected representatives of the public, interested in fishery conservation as a whole and as a national asset, or whether that function should be exercised by the Minister himself.

The amendment suggests that the Minister shall have power to appoint additional members. As regards the nomination of associations, I pointed out, on an amendment to another Bill, that that is hardly feasible under such an enactment as you are dealing with. The suggestion now is that the Minister should have the power to appoint certain additional members and it is sought to impose on him the obligation that, in appointing those additional members, he shall have regard to the constitution of the board and the necessity for securing the representation of fishing interests, people who get their livelihood, if such are not already represented. The Minister shall also have regard to the representation of public interests in the preservation and development of fisheries. He shall make the selection as apart from the personal private interests of fishery owners and the interests of sportsmen, and he shall endeavour to work for the general preservation of fish and the development of fisheries. Surely that is quite a reasonable thing, and surely it is in accord with Deputy Gorey's desire and in accord with the changed relations between the people and the fishery owners? It is surprising that so simple a proposition as this was not readily accepted and even embodied in the Bill before it came to us. I think if the Minister had the opportunity of codifying the law as he originally intended, he would have made some change in the constitution of the boards of conservators. This is not a radical change. It is simply an attempt to introduce representatives of the public interests into the development of fisheries, as distinct from the representatives of purely private interests.

Mr. GOREY

Before the Minister replies, let me say that I have no objection at all to what is intended by Deputy O'Connell or Deputy Johnson. I do object to the middle portion of paragraph 2. There is a distinct pointer there as to the class of interests the Minister is asked to give representation to. "In the appointment of additional members ... the Minister shall have regard to the necessity of securing representation of persons dependent wholly or to a considerable degree upon fishing as a means of livelihood. ..." I do object to the words indicating the persons whom the Deputy would like to see the Minister giving representation to. If it read like this: "In the appointment of additional members of a board of conservators the Minister shall have regard to the necessity for the representation of the public interest in the preservation and development of fisheries," I would be quite satisfied, and I am sure the Minister would accept it.

I certainly object to the pointer in the middle of the paragraph. All my objection is based on that. When people talk about the development of fisheries, they should know how fisheries have been developed in other countries, and what has happened in the development of the Scotch and the English fisheries. They were useless a few years ago; they were certainly useless ten years ago in England. They have been taken up by their owners and clubs, and developed into valuable properties. At the moment the Scotch fisheries are the most valuable fisheries in these islands, at least, and the reason of that is that they were in the hands of private owners. Here our fisheries were in everybody's hands, and their development was not attended to at all, except in a few rivers. For my part, I would be inclined to agree to the amendment if the middle portion were deleted. That pointer I object to.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

With regard to the middle portion of the amendment which Deputy Gorey objects to, I cannot see for the life of me what his real objection is, except it is that that class of person should not have any representation on the board.

Mr. GOREY

He has already representation by election.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

If he has and if the Minister is satisfied that he has adequate representation, he shall not look into that matter at all. The only reason we put forward the amendment is that he should have some chance of representation.

Mr. GOREY

There is the pointer. That is what I object to.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

It is quite possible, and it will be seen later if Section 8 is not altered, that this particular class of men will have a very poor chance of getting any representation at all. Unless Deputy Gorey says that he should have no representation he should not object to this amendment, because this is merely put in to ensure that he shall have representation. In practice it will work out that a number of people will be elected. The Minister has the right to nominate a certain number of people, if this amendment is carried. The net effect of the amendment is this, that people who earn their livelihood will have some representation. If they have it already by election, the Minister is not asked to nominate more people for that interest. He will then have regard entirely for the representation of the public interests, and I cannot see why Deputy Gorey should have any objection to that particular point. There is no question of giving them over-representation, and I take it that is what Deputy Gorey fears. The intention only is that they should have some representation on such a board, that they should have adequate representation, adequate in the opinion of the Minister. If they have adequate representation already the Minister will seek his nominees from some other class of people interested in the public development of fisheries. The owners, as has been pointed out, are ex-officio members, apart from election altogether. In the election, the class of people who will come forward will be mainly those who have what I might call a private interest in the salmon fishing.

Mr. LYNCH

In spite of all that has been said, I am not yet convinced that there is any necessity for this amendment, and I am certainly not convinced that it is desirable. Deputy Corish attempted to put me in the position of being opposed to fishery development if I were opposed to this amendment, and Deputy O'Connell in a lesser degree attempted to do the same. It is because I believe that it is in the best interests of fishery protection that I am opposed to this amendment. Great play has been made about a lack of confidence in the boards of conservators. There may have been a lack of confidence, but I believe that this Bill, as it stands, is going to dissipate that lack of confidence and tend towards creating boards in which there will be confidence in the future. At any rate, if the board is not doing its work under this Bill, I have power to dissolve that board if it is unsatisfactory. The analogy between them and the landlord and the tenant is absolutely absurd.

Mr. JOHNSON

What about the Grand Juries?

Mr. LYNCH

Suppose, for instance, I went along to put my nominees on the board, of course I would look only for persons who would be interested in some particular end of the fishery business—say the trout business. I could imagine what would be the result on the boards. I am imagine every board-meeting being a dog-fight.

Mr. CORISH

Why?

Mr. LYNCH

Especially, if suppose any elected section of the conservators had any particular grievance against the Minister, their representatives on the Board would be out against the Minister's nominees. It may be very flattering to me—it was possibly intended as such—to say that my nominees would have more confidence than the elected members and the ex-officio members. I do not feel that it would create more confidence in the members if I were to plank in something like 25 per cent. of the number of members on the existing board. I am still opposed to this.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister's argument leads me to this conclusion, that he would rather, in the interests of the fisheries, let the ex-officio members be really the board of conservators. The owners of the fisheries are really the people who would constitute the board of conservators.

Mr. LYNCH

I have said no such thing.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister dissent from that?

Mr. LYNCH

I said the board as elected under this Bill will be deserving of confidence. I do not hold that they will be all persons who are proprietors of private fisheries.

Mr. JOHNSON

Am I to understand that the Minister does not consider, as an ideal solution of this question, that the ex-officio members, the owners of fisheries will make an ideal board. Does the Minister dissent from that?

Mr. LYNCH

I say the present suggestion in the Bill is a better suggestion, that is, it gives the licensed holders the right of election.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then there are differences, I take it, in the interests between ex-officio members who are the owners of the fisheries and the elected members. They apparently meet on the boards, and are really either harmonious or they create a dog-fight at every meeting. The very fact that there are divergent interests or that they are appointed by a different method does not, I take it, necessarily involve a dog-fight at every meeting. The Minister thinks that if a third section came in, somebody representing neither of these two private and peculiar interests but the public, that they would inevitably create dog-fights.

Mr. LYNCH

Under certain circumstances.

Mr. JOHNSON

I suppose under certain circumstances even the present boards might constitute themselves into a dog-fight, so that that portion of the argument on which the Minister seems to rely, does not hold very much water. It may, and no doubt it has been held, whenever there has been a devolution of authority from the man at the top—in the old days it was the landlords who had the power through the Grand Juries, and the argument was used in the same way—if you popularise in any way these public authorities that you are going to degrade and generally make them vulgar and of no popular value. The Minister's arguments, though he dissents from the conclusion, leads me to the conclusion that he thinks the single interest would be best, only that he dare not nominate it in this Bill—that the owner's interest should be the real board of conservators. If we are going to depart from that single interest, then surely we should have some representatives of the wider public interest on those boards. If the districts had been co-terminous with the county councils, or any local governing authority, I would have preferred that these authorities should nominate the representatives on these boards, assuming, as a matter of fact, that they had an interest in the preservation of fisheries as a public benefit. But the districts are not co-terminous, and this, in my opinion, is probably the best way to secure that public representation. I hope the Minister is adhering to his assurance that throughout the discussion of this Bill he will not bring any pressure to bear on any section of the House, and I take it that every other section of the House is in the same position—is going to vote on the merits of the particular amendments put forward. I think the issue raised by the amendment is one of prime importance and affects the question of whether we are to recede from the introduction of a public authority over such interests as fisheries—whether we are to go back or maintain the view that the private and personal interests are to have control of a public service.

Mr. LYNCH

I am not responsible for what Deputy Johnson thinks that I think. As to the other point he raised, I said on the Second Reading that I would not ask for the Whips to be put on, and I am holding to that.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 33.

Tá

• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Mícheál O hAonghusa.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

• Earnán Altún.
• Pádraig Baxter.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Sir James Craig.
• Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• John Good.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• Connor Hogan.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• James Sproule Myles.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Risteárd O Conaill.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Donnchadh O Guaire.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
• Liam Thrift.
• Nicholas Wall.

Tellers: Tá, Risteárd Mac Fheorais, Tomás O Conaill. Níl, Séumas O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird.

Amendment declared lost.

Question—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Section 6 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1848, shall be construed and have effect as if the words "fifty pounds yearly or upwards" were substituted therein for the words "one hundred pounds yearly or upwards."

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:—"To delete the section." I think justification is required before the Dáil be asked to alter the qualification, which allows an owner to become an ex-officio member of a board of conservators, from £100 to £50. At present an owner or occupier of a fishery rated at £100 is entitled to be an ex-officio member of a board of conservators. The purpose of the section is to reduce that qualification to £50, which will, of course, have the effect of increasing the number of ex-officio members of these boards, so that the ideal which I hinted at as being the Minister's ideal, is a little nearer accomplishment. There is bigger chance of a majority of the boards being ex-officio members—that is owners—than hitherto prevailed. The Dáil has decided not to allow the Minister to appoint additional members. As I understood from the Minister's statement some time ago, there will be 230 elected members and 63 representative owners ex-officio members. Under this Bill I am not able to compute what the change may be in the numbers——

Mr. LYNCH

The 63 will be the provision under this Bill. The existing number is 29.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is to say, the ex-officio members will be more than doubled under the new provision. Of course, that is quite retrogressive. I do not think we should begin now to put men in responsible representative positions merely by virtue of their possession of property, and without any other factor or qualification whatever. Merely because of their possession of property we are going to give them responsible positions on an administrative authority. One would have thought that we had got away from all that in this year of grace, and that it would not have been proposed by the Minister for Fisheries, with his record as a democrat, to increase by more than one hundred per cent. the number of persons on a representative authority, merely by virtue of the fact that they own fisheries. That would require a great deal of justification, and I will be interested in the kind of justification that the Minister is going to put forward.

Mr. LYNCH

I should thank Deputy Johnson for his very nice reference to my record as a democrat. I do not hold that this section is retrogressive. It is not because of their possession of property merely. The real cause is that these people will be obviously more interested in fishery preservation. I hold that it is really only doing the barest justice to persons who are paying the greatest amount of money for fishery preservation that they should have that representation on these boards. As Deputy Johnson said, the qualification heretofore for becoming an ex-officio member of a board was to own a private fishery valued at £100 or over. The number of persons so qualified was 29. There used to be a rather large number of these ex-officio members of these boards, when certain Justices of the Peace, who were riparian owners and licence owners, were ex-officio members. These have disappeared through the operation of the Saorstát, and I do not believe that the increased number of ex-officios, who own private fisheries, will amount in all to the number of ex-officios there were before.

Mr. GOREY

That is no harm.

Mr. LYNCH

I think that is a sufficient answer.

Mr. JOHNSON

Am I to understand from the Minister that he thinks it is advisable to replace J.P.'s, who at least had some kind of claim to popular representation, by adding to the number of fishery owners? That appears to be the Minister's view. I do not think it is sufficient. I think that the reduction of the qualification is retrograde, because it is, in fact, placing power in the hands of owners merely by virtue of ownership. The Minister says it is because they pay a greater sum— I take it to be in rates—than those who are not owners of fisheries.

There again, I ask is it to be the policy of the Dáil to revert to the time when ownership alone secured representation on public authoritative boards? The assumption that that ownership creates an interest in the preservation of fisheries may be a fair assumption, but it may create an interest without creating any judgment, and without creating any ability. It is merely power by virtue of ownership. The same argument was always used by the landlords, that they were the people to look after the best interests of agriculture, because they had the greatest interest in the country. Of course the country turned that idea down completely, and the tendency of the times has been rather to dissent from the feudal notion that ownership of property, whether of fisheries or of lands, is better kept in very few hands and leave these few people to control and direct it.

This proposition, then, to increase the number of people who by virtue, purely, of ownership, are entitled to representation, is, I think, a retrograde move, and I was hoping that the Minister would be able to make a case for the reduction, but he has not yet made a case. I think that Deputy Gorey, for other reasons altogether, doubted the wisdom of reducing the qualifications. I suppose on this occasion at any rate, we shall be able to secure Deputy Gorey's support in the deletion of the section which makes a change from £100 to £50 as a qualification for ex-officio representation.

Mr. LYNCH

I have only to repeat that it is not a case of ownership; it is because of the fact that it is obvious that they will be more interested than the ordinary person in fishery preservation. Even if it is from their own selfish interests they will at least have considerable interest in the enforcement of the law. Deputy Johnson referred to the J.P. having some claims to popular support. That may be. In fact they were not a satisfactory type of conservator. That was the experience of the Department.

Mr. JOHNSON

Because they were ex-officios.

Mr. LYNCH

No, it was because they had really no interest in fisheries as such, and they usually only turned up to the meetings of the board when there was a job on.

Mr. GOREY

That is a fact. The position was that a man holding the Commission of the Peace and owning property abutting on the river took out a salmon licence and was entitled to be an ex-officio member. In order to illustrate what the Minister says about jobs, I wish to say that I knew at one time of an election for the secretary to a board of conservators, and the candidates, or somebody on their behalf, found money to license, I think, about forty men to qualify on one side and about thirty on the other side. This was the class of ex-officio conservator we had under the old system, and it is time to do away with it. All that can be said in favour of this original clause—and there is a good deal to be said for it—is that the people who will be on that board will have a real interest in the fisheries. After all, it is not a question of who is the conservator. It simply is, is he interested in enforcing the law? Is the law good enough in the first instance? The whole thing hinges on that. Is the law likely to be enforced? The people likely to enforce it, in my opinion, are the people who have a direct interest in the fishery. This whole question hinges on the law. Is the law sound and sufficient to develop the fisheries and to protect the fishery interests? If it is not, get better law, and if it is good law, get people on the board who will enforce it. Again. I say it is entirely a question of enforcing the law, and if they have not the law to enforce, they cannot enforce it. I object on principle to have any private ownership of fisheries. I said before that the State should own the fisheries, and the fisheries should be developed as a national asset. I put up that as a proposition at a conference composed of conservators, but it was not accepted. I was in a minority. But I am trying to make the best of what we have got, and I say it is the people directly interested who are the best to enforce the law.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Deputy Gorey seems to argue as if the supporters of the amendment are anxious to have back the old J.P. ex-officio members.

Mr. GOREY

I did not mean that.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I am quite sure he did not. As a matter of fact, we would be anxious to wipe out the ex-officio element altogether, because the principle is not a sound one, and the chief reason that this amendment is put down is that the Bill, as it stands, increases the ex-officio representation. Now, as I say, I think the principle of appointing ex-officio members, purely on the assumption that because they own property they are therefore more interested in the public development of fisheries than others would be, is not a sound one. It has been said that they would take more interest than the ordinary person in the development of fisheries. If that is so, they are the class of person who will come up for election, and if they are the right persons in the eyes of the voters, they are the persons who would be elected. But it is not open to the Minister, I think, to say of necessity that the man who holds property is the person who is most interested in the public development of fisheries, or that he is a person who has the ability and knowledge and experience to devote to the work which the conservator will have to perform. I think that increasing the ex-officio members in this way and the reduction of the valuation of the fishery in order to bring in more of this class of person, is not sound in principle, and that it should not be accepted by the Dáil.

Mr. LYNCH

I think that in all fairness, fishery owners should get representation. They pay rates on their fisheries as distinct from their ordinary rates—from the rates on their ordinary holdings, or any other property they might have. The salmon-rod licence payer, and the drift-net licence payer, have representation because they pay their licence duty. Why, then, distinguish between these payers and the owners who pay rates?

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister surely is astray. The licence holder has representation because he pays a licence duty—that is to say, you are making the holding of a licence a qualification to be a voter. Surely that is a very different thing from saying because I hold a licence I am ex-officio a conservator. The owner may not live in the country at all, he may not live in the district at all, he may be an absentee landlord, but he is entitled, ex-officio, under this proposal to be a conservator. That is the proposal, and you are proposing to increase the number of possible absentee landlords by 100 per cent. or rather more—from 29 to 63. There were possibilities, under the old qualification, of having 29 such persons. Now the Minister proposes to make that possibility 63. I noticed Deputy Good looking very earnestly and very seriously at the Minister when he was saying “Because these people pay rates they are entitled, ex-officio, to be members of these boards.”

Mr. LYNCH

To representation, I said.

Mr. JOHNSON

This proposal is not representation.

Mr. LYNCH

But it is. They are representing all the fishery owners; that is the idea. The original idea was that the provision was for persons of £100 valuation and over, and this number would represent all fishery owners, the lesser men as well as themselves.

Mr. JOHNSON

Now we are getting along nicely. Any such people who have property of a valuation less than £50 are not to have any representation as owners of fisheries; they are not even allowed to vote for a representative on a board.

Mr. LYNCH

I did not say that.

Mr. JOHNSON

But that is what is embodied in this proposal. If a person happens to be an owner of a fishery of a valuation of £50, he is to be deemed to be a representative of owners who have valuations less than £50, not because he has more intelligence, not because he has a keener interest, not because he has greater experience of the fisheries and their needs, but because he owns a fishery of a valuation of more than £50. The whole principle is utterly retrograde. To remove the £100 valuation as a qualification for membership would be bad enough, but when we are asked to grant double the number by reducing the valuation by £50, surely we are stepping a long way to the rear. Then, to call it representation of the fishery owners is more amusing still.

As I said, Deputy Good was looking very earnestly and seriously and I am sure he took a mental note of the Minister's argument. He thought that when any question of representation on public bodies comes forward, on the basis of property ownership and rateable value, he would be able to claim the Minister's support if he ever says that because a man pays £100 in rates or £200 in rates, or any sum you like to fix, it should give him the right to be an ex-officio member of a public authority, to represent the smaller people, the common herd, the people who have a smaller rateable value. The argument of the Minister, in justification of this proposal, will land him in a very difficult position some day, I am sure. He will have to turn his back upon his present attitude and realise that his earlier love was much more deserving of support and continued affection. I ask the Dáil to delete this section and not to increase the number of ex-officio members of boards of conservators merely because they own property to the value of £50 a year.

Mr. GOREY

Deputy Johnson, in this connection, must have lost sight of the things that have been happening. He must have lost sight of the operations of the recent Land Act, which purposes to buy up or redeem the landlords' interest in fishery rights.

Mr. JOHNSON

And create new ones.

Mr. GOREY

Create new ones, quite right. New interests will be created. These properties coming on their hands can be let or sold to the people who actually own the land—farmers and people of the district—and run as a business. It is altogether wrong to say that the number of ex-officio members has been increased. The fact is it has been reduced to probably one-fifth of what it was when the class of people we have been referring to as Justices of the Peace held certain qualifications. These have been dispensed with and the number who claimed to be conservators under the previous Act was far in excess of the number contemplated under this Bill. After all, it is not a question of representation at all. That is not the thing that ought to animate us, so much as to make proper fishery laws and then hand them over to people who will enforce them. If they are going to be enforced at all it will be by the people who have permanent fishing rights. I do not see what fear there is of having this law abused. You have secretaries of boards of conservators who are responsible to the Minister and who have to advise him in every particular. I do not see how there can be any abuse of the law. It is a question of your making the law and of getting the best people to enforce it.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to ask the Minister whether the function of conservators is merely to enforce the law. If that is so, perhaps it would be better to leave the job to the police. I think the Deputy will find if he reads this Bill that the boards of conservators have other duties; they have duties not merely to preserve the fisheries against poachers, but to encourage and improve the fisheries by every means. They have positive functions, as well as merely police functions. I am not quite sure whether Deputy Gorey is arguing that the prospective owners of fisheries are going to be more keenly interested in the development of fisheries, or as keenly interested, as the old owners.

I thought the earlier argument was that it was the old sporting landlord who had an interest in the owner's rights to the fisheries, such as is the case in Scotland, that was the most keen and careful preserver, and that as you devolve duties upon other orders and sections, such as farmers, you lost some of that care and attention in the preservation of the fisheries. If that view is right, then the new owners are going to be less capable and less qualified to be appointed as ex-officio members of these boards than the old people. Therefore, the case for ex-officio representation, by virtue of ownership on such a board, whether as a policing authority or as a building up authority, is one which cuts at the root, as I think, of all responsible and democratic Government, and I hope the House will not agree to this second limitation of authority, and handing over of public rights to ex-officio persons.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Question put—"That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 8.

Tá

• Earnán Altún.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Séamus de Búrca.
• John J. Cole.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• James Sproule Myles.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Donnchadh O Guaire.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.

Níl

• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Tellers.—Tá: Séamus O Doláin and Partholan O Conchubhair; Níl: Risteard Mac Fheorais and Tomás O Conaill.

Motion declared carried.

The PRESIDENT

I move to report Progress.

Question put and agreed to.