Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1933

Vol. 50 No. 4

In Committee On Finance—Money Resolution - Sea Fisheries Protection (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move: That this Bill be now read a Second Time. The object of the Bill is to obtain fuller powers than exist under the present laws to protect fully from external exploitation the fisheries in the waters along our coasts in which, according to the accepted principle of international law, the citizens of this State have the exclusive right of fishing. It is also the object of these proposals to inflict heavy punishment for certain methods of fishing which, when carried on in inshore waters and bays, whether by externally owned or by Saorstát fishing vessels, have an injurious effect on the stock of fish in those waters upon which the small inshore fisheries depend.

Powers are sought in the Bill to prevent foreign fishing vessels from not only fishing in these reserved waters but also from hovering there. Under the generally accepted principles of international law the vessels of one nation are permitted to enter the territorial waters of another nation for certain purposes, such as to obtain shelter in stress of weather, to procure food supplies and to obtain assistance in cases of break-down or of illness among its passengers or crew. For any of these purposes a fishing vessel which is neither registered nor owned in the Saorstát may enter our waters, but as soon as its lawful requirements are fulfilled that vessel must put to sea. The penalty which it is proposed to inflict in this Bill for not doing so is £50 for the first offence and £100 for subsequent offences, and the fishing gear found on board the boat is liable to forfeiture.

The same penalty is proposed in the case of a non-Saorstát sea fishing boat which enters the exclusive fishery area without valid reason. When such a boat is found to be fishing in such waters, the same fine is to be exacted with the additional penalty of confiscation of all fish found on board.

The most serious injury to our inshore fisheries, and to the immature fish which frequent the shallow waters during their development from the fry stage, is done by the modern highpowered trawlers. The existing laws for the protection of these inshore waters from such vessels have become inadequate, and further powers are required to meet the changed conditions. It will be observed that very heavy penalties are proposed for offences by such vessels, whether they be owned or registered in this country or outside it. The penalties for infringements of the existing by-laws are at present limited to a fine of £100 with confiscation of the fishing gear. In this Bill I am asking for a penalty of £200 for a first offence against new by-laws which I now seek power to pass. The maximum penalty for a second or subsequent offence by the same person is £500. In the case of a third offence, in addition to this fine, the vessel itself may be confiscated if there has been continuity of ownership during the period from the time the first offence was committed. In all cases power is to be given to confiscate all fishing gear found on board the vessel.

It is difficult to detect and identify fishing vessels operating in prohibited waters, because at night the persons on board frequently carry on their operations without lights; and during the day, in order to avoid identification, they obliterate the name and official number of the vessel. The Bill provides specially severe penalties for these offences, which are also contraventions of the Merchant Shipping Acts. The master of any sea fishing boat found inside the exclusive fishery limits, without its proper lights and identification marks—even though not actually fishing at the time of detection —may be fined up to £100. A similar penalty is proposed in the case of boats not regulated by the Merchant Shipping Acts which enter our waters without having on board the official papers.

I now come to deal with the classes of officers who will be entrusted with the duty of detecting these offences and of the special powers proposed to be given to them for carrying out that duty. It is intended to make every member of the Gárda Síochána a sea fisheries protection officer. In addition to the Gárdai, certain officers of the Department of Defence, of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and of the Customs and Excise service, as well as of my own Department will be given the special powers of sea fishery protection officers.

The powers to be given to these officers are very wide. They may stop and board any fishing vessel found in the exclusive fishery limits or even outside those limits in cases where the vessel has been pursued from within those limits. They may search the boat and all persons on board, examine all the boat's official papers and log-book, and where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that there has been an infringement of the law as laid down in this Bill, they can arrest the boat and all on board and bring them to the nearest convenient port for trial. If the boat fails to stop when ordered, the sea fisheries protection officers have power to compel them by gun-fire to do so. It is proposed to make the obstruction of a sea fisheries protection officer while exercising these powers a special offence, the maximum penalty for which is a fine of £50 or three months' imprisonment.

When a vessel has been arrested and brought into port, it may be detained there in charge of sea fisheries protection officers pending the hearing of the charge by the district justice. If as a result of the hearing fines and costs are imposed, the vessel may be detained until these are paid. Should the convicted party desire to appeal against the decision of the district justice, the boat will be detained until security which is satisfactory in the opinion of the district justice has been given for the due payment of the penalty. In the event of the penalties not being paid within the time allowed power is to be given to sell the boat and meet the fine and costs out of the proceeds.

The aim of these proposals which I have briefly explained being to preserve our inshore fishery for the small fishing boat owners and their crews dwelling along our coast, whose livelihood depends to a large extent upon the catching of fish in our own waters, I feel confident that this Bill will have the approval and support of every member of the House.

Mr. F. Lynch

I am sure that every member of the Dáil would have liked to hear from the Minister, in introducing a Bill of this kind, something more as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. Looked at from that point of view, the Bill is scarcely worth the paper it is written on. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember, probably, that on the debates on his Estimate this year I took it on myself to give him some friendly advice. At any rate, I advised him that he should not bring in a Bill of this kind until he had got some guarantee from the Executive Council that there would be a sufficient addition to the coastal patrol to allow for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. In the same speech, I pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the great difficulty with which I was faced during my period of office was in getting sanction for the additional expenditure that was necessary for coastal patrol. The great argument always put up against me was that our sea fisheries were of such comparatively insignificant value, and were so spasmodic, that the expenditure would not be justified. That was an argument that was extremely difficult to meet until the advent of the Sea Fisheries Association. The Sea Fisheries Association was formed in November, 1930, I think. At least, it held its first general meeting in November, 1930, and, before the Association was launched, I had a guarantee that once the Association got under way, provision would be made for strengthening the coastal patrol. The argument that was used against me no longer holds, because no one can say, with any great justice now, that our fisheries are spasmodic or unorganised. The Association has been working for three years and, whether there may be a difference of opinion as to its success, at any rate it has organised the fisheries and put them on something like a systematic basis. If they are to be in any way effective, the guarantee I was then given should be given effect to now, and the coastal patrol should be strengthened. Perhaps the Minister has some assurance in that direction, but, if he has, he should take the House into his confidence.

The Bill itself contains nothing very revolutionary beyond increasing the maximum penalties for certain offences. There is no minimum penalty, and that is a point which, I think, the Minister might have considered—whether or not there should have been minimum as well as maximum penalties. As I was saying, beyond the increase of these maximum penalties there is very little new in the Bill. It leaves the question of our exclusive fishery limits exactly in the position in which they were found. I find no fault with the Minister for that, because I appreciate his difficulty; but I am rather amused when I remember some of the speeches that used to be made from the Fianna Fáil Benches when we were in office. It was usual with them them to tell us what they would do in connection with these limits when they got into office.

Mr. Dillon

And they will tell us again to-day, I am sure.

Mr. Lynch

At that time they said that the three-mile limit was not adequate and that when they got into office they would certainly make it a six-mile limit and, possibly, a 12-mile limit. Now when they have come into office it has been extremely salutary for them. They are now beginning to understand the difficulties of the situation and to appreciate them. I have no fault to find with the Minister for the provisions actually in the Bill. Section 2 says: "In this Act the expression the exclusive fishery limits of Saorstát Eireann' means that portion of the seas within which citizens of Saorstát Eireann have by international law the exclusive right of fishing and, where such portion is defined by the terms of any convention, treaty or arrangement for the time being in force made between Saorstát Eireann and any other State, includes as regards sea fishing boats and subjects of such State the portion so defined." That means that we are taking our stand presumably upon the three-mile limit. That proposes the addition that the distance of the three-mile limit will be measured from a line drawn from headland to headland in the case of bays not more than ten miles in width. That is the provision of the Anglo-French Treaty of 1889. Of course, in Section 4, sub-section (6), an attempt is made to obtain the advantage of extra territorial by-laws made under the Steam Trawling (Ireland) Act of 1899. But personally I cannot see what the effectiveness of that sub-section will be. These by-laws were made when this country was ruled from Westminster. They were easily enforced against British steam trawlers because fines imposed could almost as easily be collected in England as here. I fear these by-laws can now only be effective as against citizens of the Saorstát and against Saorstát boats, unless, of course, there is some arrangement or convention with the British by which they would agree to collect from the trawlers on the grounds covered by the by-laws. That would not be a very easy matter. It would not be an easy matter to get the British to agree to that in any circumstances, even if the most friendly relations existed between the two Governments, because the British steam trawling owners or companies have always complained very bitterly about these by-laws made under the Act of 1899 not only in the case of Ireland but in the case of Scotland. They continue to complain about the operation of these by-laws in the case of Scotland. To-day there is one particular by-law affecting the Moray Firth. That would appear at first sight a legitimate grievance because Belgian and German and French trawlers can come into the Moray Firth whereas their boats cannot. I feel, especially in view of the strained relationship that exists between the British and the Saorstát Governments, that there is very little hope that the British Government would now make representations from the Saorstát to the steam trawling proprietors. At any rate, Section 4 (6) attempts to retain these by-laws. It is an attempt candidly to have it both ways. I do not, in the least, say that in any disparaging way about the present Minister because, to be very candid, I, myself, tried, during my term of office, to have it both ways in so far as these by-laws were concerned. I did so for one reason that is exceedingly important because of the breeding grounds on the coast of Waterford and like places.

I am not going to put down an amendment to delete that particular sub-section, but I am perfectly satisfied that it can only affect Saorstát fishermen and only them. I come now to the section dealing with penalties. Sub-section (4) of Section 3, I presume, has special reference to French lobster boats. I know the provision is couched in general terms. In that sub-section it is provided that the master of a boat found within the exclusive fishery limits of the Saorstát shall be liable to a maximum penalty of £100 and confiscation of any fishing gear found on that boat. If the provisions in the Bill can be enforced they ought to be sufficiently deterrent, but I am not quite clear as to why the Minister differentiates in sub-section (4) in his attitude to paragraphs (a) and (b). I should prefer to have imposed a severer penalty than may be imposed by the by-laws. I should prefer to have included in the Bill a severer penalty against any trawling by foreign boats in the three-mile limit. Then, if necessary, to prevent our own boats trawling in any particular area, I would impose a by-law to deal with them. The penalties set out in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 4 seem to be sufficiently severe for the purpose. I am not quite clear about sub-section (3): "where a person is convicted of an offence under this section the court shall, in addition to any other penalty, order any fishing gear used or attempted to be used in contravention of the by-law, the contravention of which constitutes such an offence, to be forfeited." The words used in that section will probably create difficulties by way of proofs when a case comes before the court. I would insist upon something to the effect that any gear found on a boat offending against the Act should be liable to be forfeited. It may be extremely difficult to prove what particular portion of the gear was actually used in the offence. The Minister would be on the safe side by making all gear found on board the vessel, that was infringing the fishery laws, liable to be forfeited. I presume I can take it that the provision of penalties under Section 5, that is for covering up identification marks, and infringing the carrying of lights, in conformity with the Merchant Shipping Act, are in addition to any penalties that might be inflicted for infringement of other portions of the Act.

To come to Section 6, that is the provision of sea fisheries officers, I have not much to say to that. They are obviously the types of persons who should be appointed fishery officers, and nobody can find any fault with them. Nor can anybody find any fault with the powers—which are very great —given under the Bill to those fishery officers. Again, the question arises there as to how those powers are to be executed by the officers. There is provision in Section 7 (a) for instance that such an officer may order a boat to be stopped for the purpose of identification or of allowing him to go on board it; under sub-section (b) he may board the boat, and so on down along the list. One should like to hear from the Minister how the officers are going to carry out those powers that are conferred on them. The same thing would relate to boats that are detained by order of the district justice pending payment of a fine. How are the boats going to be detained in a particular harbour? If you put a couple of Civic Guards, for instance, on board the boat there is nothing to prevent the skipper taking his courage in his hands and steaming off, Guards and all. We should like to know what provision the Minister intends to make for ensuring that when a boat is ordered by the district justice to be detained, it is going to be detained.

Section 15 seems to me to be rather in conflict with the Minister's attitude in Section 4 (6). Section 15 says "References in the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 1909, to the United Kingdom shall be construed as references to Saorstát Eireann and the said Act shall be construed and have effect accordingly." The title of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Act was "An Act to prohibit the landing and selling in the United Kingdom of fish caught in prohibited areas of the sea adjoining Scotland and Ireland." Its reference was particularly to infringement of the two extra territorial by-laws, namely the one of the Moray Firth, to which I referred a minute ago, and the one off Waterford. It was an attempt made—the only attempt as far as I can learn—to prevent foreign trawlers from infringing those by-laws. It provided that a foreign trawler which was reported for fishing within the limits of the by-laws at Moray Firth and off Waterford should be liable, if they landed any fish in either Great Britain or Ireland within a period of two months—I am not quite sure of the period—to have that fish confiscated. That was of some value because of the fact that many of those foreign trawlers—I mean "foreign" in those days; that is, non-Irish and nonBritish—depended on the British market for the sale of their catch. They were very often caught, within the two months, landing fish, and their fish was confiscated. It was to some extent, therefore, a deterrent. I think that the change which is suggested here—that is the substitution of "Saorstát Eireann" for "The United Kingdom", making the title now read "An Act to prohibit the landing and selling in the Saorstát of fish caught in prohibited areas..."—makes the Act, as far as we are concerned, absolutely useless.

I mentioned that I thought it was in conflict with the Minister's attitude on Section 4 (6). Section 4 (6) was an attempt to retain the extra territorial by-laws, while this section would appear to me to be an abandonment of any hope of getting some reciprocity from the British in connection with those areas. That may be just as well; if he feels that there would be no chance of getting that reciprocity it might be just as well to abandon it, but then he might as well have abandoned putting in Section 4 (6). As far as the Bill is concerned it is, of course, in its terms quite all right. I have nothing in particular to say against it, but there is just the big "If" about it all—the very big question of the expenditure that would be necessary to enforce its provisions. If we have some assurance that in the forthcoming Estimates there will be provision made for greater fishery protection, then the Bill will undoubtedly have a very good effect.

Mr. O'Neill

This Bill is not a very comprehensive Fishery Bill; otherwise, we might have a good deal of criticism to launch on the whole fishery control of the Government, and of the various Departments connected with it. It is simply a Bill to afford some sort of adequate protection to whatever fisheries exist, or rather I should say to whatever fisheries have survived the treatment or want of treatment in the matter of their preservation which has been extended to them not alone by the present Government, but I should also say by the former Government and all other Governments that were in this country. The fisheries of this country are in a very parlous condition. That goes without saying. This Bill is an attempt to protect what does not exist at the moment—sea fisheries. I can speak for one of the biggest maritime counties and the biggest maritime constituency in Ireland—West Cork and South Cork—where some of the best spawning beds in Europe, particularly on the nymph bank, have been scraped out by foreign trawlers, and no attempt whatever is being made to protect those beds. The result is that fishing is practically a lost art along the south coast of the County Cork to-day. In some quarters, that is attributed to the fact that the Cork fishermen have not shown any great desire to cooperate with the Sea Fisheries Association: that they have shown no desire to cultivate that spirit of co-operation which is supposed to be the be-all and end-all of that association.

I am, perhaps, going a little beyond the limits of the present Bill, which is simply, as I say, a Bill for protection. When you speak of protection you must see what you are going to protect, the limits within which protection is possible, and the methods of protection. We have, first of all the three-mile limit. It is evident that the Government has made up its mind that it is not going to have any "truck" or co-operation with any authority outside this country which might lead to the betterment of fishing in general by a reciprocal arrangement for an extension of the three-mile limit. From my knowledge of the fisheries of the coast of Ireland protection of anything within the three-mile limit is of no practical advantage. The limit should be six miles. I refer to a great trawling ground for English trawlers, extending from the Fastnet to the Blaskets well outside the three-mile limit, which has been scraped clean. As an instance of the results of trawling I may mention that in 1918, when all the English trawlers were away mine sweeping, every fishing harbour on the south coast of Cork was supplied every morning with what are called white fish and every other sort of fish. Reference to statistics will show that since then fishing has declined, and has gone back to the old level. The three-mile limit is simply the three mile international limit. As Deputy Lynch pointed out, there are in some places arrangements by which trawlers are permitted to come to certain places not more than 10 miles from head to head. In my constituency trawlers can come into Bantry Bay, within a mile or two of the shore, but they are not fishing in our territorial waters. That is an extraordinary anomaly. On the Committee Stage I suggest that the Minister should reconsider defining "the exclusive fishery limits of Saorstát Eireann" and should make the three mile limit "three miles from low water mark." That would give much more adequate protection than the present regulations.

With regard to trawlers, I believe it is not possible at present to exclude British trawlers from fishing in our waters. There is some sort of a Commonwealth arrangement to that effect, but it does not appeal to me. I believe that the English are as much foreigners as any other nationality, and that they are the greatest offenders on our own coasts. British trawlers are certainly the greatest fishery pirates. About 90 per cent. of those who infringe on our fishing rights, and who prey upon the fishing around our coasts are English. Why should we not have some power to deal with them? The only way at present is the limited law that we have. That is a point to which the Minister might pay some regard. Trawlers of every kind, including those belonging to Saorstát Eireann, should be forbidden to fish within the three-mile limit. That limit should be clearly defined. We hear a great deal about boats being captured. I never heard of a trawler being captured by the "Muirchu." The poor "Muirchu" could capture nothing. We see reports in the newspapers about foreign boats being captured. They turn out to be poor French lobster men, with small boats from 27 to 30 feet long. Did anyone ever hear of the "Muirchu" capturing an English trawler complete with wireless, and probably more than once and a half her tonnage? That shows the inadequacy of the present protection. In the past prosecutions failed, to some extent, because technically the Civic Guards, who brought the prosecutions, were not sea fishery protection officers. As to stopping boats and boarding them, who is going to do that? What provision is there on the sea to stop trawlers steaming 15 or 16 knots an hour? There is no such provision in this Bill. Powers are being taken, but there are no means at our disposal to put those powers into effect. They can snap their fingers at us. I am calling the Minister's attention to what I consider to be the wrong definition of the three mile limit, and to the inadequacy of the protection indicated by the Bill. Before the Bill passes I hope the Minister will give the House some idea of his contemplated power, so that there will be some adequate authority at sea to get at poachers. At the same time, I think this Bill is a step in the right direction and, as such, I am in favour of it. It shows that some Department has at last awakened from its slumbers, and that some one has taken cognisance of the deplorable condition of our sea fisheries.

Mr. Dillon

It is an interesting commentary, when a Bill of this kind is before the House, that the Fianna Fáil Benches are adorned with two members from County Donegal and one from the City of Dublin.

Mr. T. Kelly

Is it not well to have three present?

Mr. Dillon

Except for the bleating of Deputy Kelly from Dublin not a word, not a suggestion, from the Fianna Fáil Party for the improvement of this Bill, and God knows there is ample scope for improvement. Deputy O'Neill stated that he believes that the time has come when somebody has wakened up, and that something is going to be done. That reminds me very much of a peacock spreading its tail, but we have absolutely no certainty that when the sun of publicity goes down, the peacock will not close up his feathers. It is all eye-wash. We are taking grand powers to do the world and all, but we know perfectly well that there is not the slightest intention of doing anything. There is an effective way of doing something, and that is to place a statutory obligation on the Minister to maintain adequate patrols and to define in the body of the statute what this House considers to be adequate patrols. That is the only way. If that is not done we can pass Bills until the cows come home. The Minister knows that perfectly well. If reason prevailed in this country— which, of course, it does not since Fianna Fáil came into office—I could never see why some kind of reciprocal arrangement could not be made with Great Britain to have penalties imposed on British trawlers in the courts of this country, enforceable in Great Britain. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act and under certain other Acts, where it is to the manifest advantage of both countries to see that justice was enforced, there has never been any difficulty in making a reciprocal arrangement, not only with the British Government, but with Continental Governments for the enforcement of the decrees of Irish courts.

There are two alternatives. One is to put a statutory obligation on the Minister to maintain adequate patrols. That is an expensive business. To my mind the argument that our fisheries are, comparatively speaking, a trifle, is no argument against maintaining efficient patrols in our territorial waters. You might as well tell me that if a man goes to the street corner and steals goods worth 10/-, there is no necessity to send a Civic Guard after him, because it would cost more than 10/- to do so. The law is the law and it should be maintained. If anyone breaks the law, whether by shouting "Up the Republic,""Up Dev,""Up France," or "Up Great Britain," that person should be made amenable to the law, and that applies to members of the I.R.A. just as it does to trawlers, wherever they come from. There is no other way of effectively making everybody amenable to the law than by maintaining Irish patrol forces which will be very expensive, that is, to open negotiations forthwith with the Government of Great Britain and the Government of France to make decrees or judgments directed against French or British trawlers recoverable in France and Great Britain. That may be possible and it may not. It is worth trying and if it fails, there ought to be statutory obligation placed on the Minister to put effective controls on this coast and to give some sense and meaning to the high falutin' section here that says that if a boat refuses to heave-to when called upon to do so, a warning shot may be fired and then the patrol boat may fire into the boat, or take any such other steps as the captain may think fit. Section 7, sub-section (1) (h) says:—

... he may after first causing a gun to be fired as a signal, fire at or into such boat.

That sounds lovely, but what is the use of giving a man power to fire into a boat if he has not the power to approach within 20 miles, and if everybody knows perfectly well that he has not got the power to approach within 20 miles? You have a steam trawler with wireless apparatus and the "Muirchu" comes lumbering up on the horizon and the captain of the trawler either gets a message from the mainland or the first trawler in the fleet sends the message down along the line to clear away, as the "Muirchu" is on the rampage. They behave themselves temporarily off the Cork coast, while they do anything they damned well please up on the Donegal coast. When the old "Muirchu" struggles up there, as I must say she does with all the activity at her disposal—and I have never turned to the "Muirchu" yet, and I have turned to her more than once, that she did not go cruising off—she usually got there 24 hours after the offending trawler had closed down and gone away. She got there, but not before everybody had been warned she was coming. So far as that aspect of it is concerned, there are two ways out. One is to make reciprocal arrangements and the other is to put up effective control. Before this Bill leaves the Oireachtas, the Minister should give definite undertakings to do one thing or the other.

Deputy O'Neill speaks of the collapse of the Irish fishing industry, and in my opinion, one of the most potent causes for the collapse is the lack of demand. The complaint I have heard—and I have no doubt that Deputy Blaney is watching me for the purpose of detecting me in a stumble, and I am sure he will confirm me—is that most of the fishermen cannot sell their fish when they catch it. I want to pay a tribute to the Sea Fisheries Association. I think that since they were set up they have done splendid work and extremely valuable work and they undertook the tasks that were put before them with great vision and with great courage, and they had very great tasks to undertake. One enterprise which they put in hand was the distribution of white fish through the rural areas in modern packages and with up-to-date methods. My only regret is that they did not develop it more rapidly. Perhaps they might not have been able to do it to the high standard they set for themselves if they were to develop it rapidly, but so far as they were able to go, it was valuable work and useful work and if we could create a steady demand for all the white fish that the inshore fishermen could land, I think that we would do quite as valuable service as anything we could do by way of restricting the activities of trawlers, vital and important as the restriction of trawlers is. Deputy O'Neill, when speaking inferred from the Bill that we have got no power to deal with British trawlers. Am I mistaken when I draw the meaning from sub-section (2) of Section 3 that under this Bill, we can deal with British trawlers?

Dr. Ryan

Oh, yes, we can.

Mr. Dillon

That, in fact, is one of the improvements provided by this Bill. Heretofore, there was some difficulty about dealing with British trawlers, but this Bill puts it beyond doubt that we can deal with them as we would with French trawlers, or trawlers coming from any foreign port. The sub-section sets out:—

If any sea-fishing boat which is not a Saorstát Eireann sea-fishing boat, enters within the exclusive fishing limits of Saorstát Eireann for any purpose mentioned in the foregoing sub-section the following provisions shall have effect...

I think that should be cleared up. As I understand that Section 3, it means that we can exclude a British trawler from fishing in the territorial waters of the Irish Free State. Am I correct in that?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, that is right.

Mr. Dillon

We can exclude them absolutely. In so far as that is true, I believe it is a most desirable arrangement. We ought to have power to exclude all trawlers of extra-Saorstát origin and to regulate the activities of Saorstát trawlers. I am all in favour of severe penalties, exemplary penalties, when you are dealing with offences such as are adverted to in this Bill, but I would draw the Minister's attention to sub-section (3) of Section 7 which says:—

No action or other legal proceedings whatsoever whether civil or criminal shall be instituted in any court in Saorstát Eireann in respect of the doing of anything authorised to be done by a sea fisheries protection officer under this section where such thing is done personally by a sea fisheries protection officer or by a person acting under the orders of a sea fisheries protection officer.

Surely that goes too far?

Dr. Ryan

Mark the words "authorised under this section."

Mr. Dillon

I do, but it is very difficult at first glance, to see what the eventual judicial interpretation of such a section as that will be. If the Minister can refer me to some statutory precedent for that, with judicial decisions on it showing that if a man went outside the scope of his authority he was made liable immediately for a criminal act, I would have no difficulty in accepting that sub-section.

Dr. Ryan

It is in the Act of 1883.

Mr. Dillon

And doubtless has come up for judicial review from time to time?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Then, I am quite satisfied with regard to that. If the Minister would look at paragraph (b) (ii) of Section 10, he will see there that it will not be an offence for the master of a boat charged with having committed an offence, if he can prove that the acts alleged to constitute such offence were not done by him personally. Does that mean that if his boat comes within the three-mile limit, he can make the case that the man who happened to be at the tiller at the time his boat crossed the line is responsible for the offence and that he is not?

Dr. Ryan

Of course the master of the boat must claim the four conditions—(i), (ii), (iii) (iv).

Mr. Dillon

"Where any offence under any section of this Act has been committed by any person on board a sea-fishing boat the following provisions shall have effect:—

(b) where the master of a boat is so charged with having committed such offence it shall be a good defence for him to prove

(i) that he used due diligence to prevent the commission of the acts alleged to constitute the offence, and

(ii) that the acts alleged to constitute such offence were not done by him personally, and"

I see "and" there. He has to prove all four?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

That covers that objecttion fully. With reference to Section 17, are the regulations referred to therein by-laws and will a breach of the regulations made under Section 17 render a person liable to the new and heavier penalties prescribed by the Bill? The Minister has already referred to the new and heavier penalties for the breach of by-laws. Will a person who may be guilty of a breach of the regulations made under Section 17 become liable to the new and heavier penalties prescribed under the Bill?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, of course.

Mr. Dillon

In that event I would suggest to the Minister, where there are very heavy penalties attached to the breach of condition, he should revert to the old affirmative form of making regulations. That is to say that instead of providing that where the regulations lie on the Table of the House for 21 days without notice, they will become operative, he should provide that the regulations shall be confirmed by a resolution of the House. It is only a detail but as a matter of principle, where it is proposed to attach heavy penalties to regulations, I think it is very much better to have the regulations affirmatively adopted by the Oireachtas rather than by sending men to jail, perhaps, for a breach of a regulation which, in fact, is made by a member of the Civil Service, no matter how responsible that civil servant may be.

Deputy O'Neill has rejoiced that somebody has woken up. I do not believe that anybody has woken up. I believe somebody has stirred uneasily in his sleep and I want evidence of something more than a passing nightmare. The only effective evidence that can be provided for this House will be evidence of effective measures for punishing people who transgress the law. That can be done in two ways. The first is by providing sufficient patrol boats to sink any trawler that flagrantly defies the law. The other way is to make reciprocal arrangements with Great Britain and France, the two principal trawling trespassers, that judgments and penalties imposed by Irish courts will be enforceable within their jurisdiction. Without that, this Fishery Bill is not worth the paper it is written on and nobody knows that better than the Minister. I am not quite satisfied that the Minister does know very well because he has only recently taken over the Fishery Department, but to anybody who has been interested in fisheries for some years and who is aware of the cynical indifference of most people to Fishery Bills, just because they know they cannot be enforced, the production of another such as this is a joke. The Minister is having a stormy time in the sphere of agriculture. He has found himself checked and harassed heretofore. His natural docility and personal charm make it difficult for him to vent his rage upon the position in this House. I suggest that the irritation which he must endure from day to day at the frustration of all his hopes and schemes in the Department of Agriculture might well be vented on the foreign trawlers. I suggest that it would be quite poetic justice and I can further assure him that if he comes to this House for any necessary assistance to strengthen his arm or inflame his ardour we shall give him all he wants. We shall give him every encouragement, every facility and he can go and work off his bad temper, his distress and his disappointment on the people who are making it difficult for the fishermen of this country to survive.

Mr. B. Brady

I did not intend to speak on this measure at all were it not for the reference made to Donegal Deputies by Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon evidently thinks that unless Donegal Deputies speak about everything, we have no suggestions to make and no ideas of our own in regard to sea fisheries. There is an old saying that empty vessels make the most sound. Deputy Dillon has talked here for some time and for a front bencher in Opposition he has made some very irresponsible statements. He spoke about going out 20 miles to interrogate trawlers. In the absence of an international agreement, or even with the assistance of an international agreement, I do not think that would be feasible.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy misheard me.

Mr. Brady

He talks about making a reciprocal arrangement with Britain, France and other countries. Of course, he said, owing to the bad feeling that exists since Fianna Fáil came into office these arrangements were practically impossible.

Mr. Dillon

I said no such thing.

Mr. Brady

You certainly said that when you had a friendly Government——

Mr. Dillon

On a point of personal correction, I am reluctant to interrupt the Deputy, but I said no such thing. If the Deputy thinks I said it, he is simply wandering in his head.

An Ceann Comhairle

A Deputy must accept a fellow Deputy's assurance as to what he has said.

Mr. Brady

I do accept it, but I thought he said that. However, we shall see the official report. He talked about making an agreement with Britain. The Government that was in office before Fianna Fáil were there for ten years. Deputy Lynch, in the first or second month of 1924 promised a Fishery Bill, but he went out of office eight years later, and the Fishery Bill had not been introduced. Now we are attempting for the first time to afford some measure of protection for our fisheries. I do not say that it is all that might be necessary. I do not say that it is even an adequate measure of protection, but it is certainly a step forward, and a vast improvement on anything that was ever attempted before. For a number of years past we have had the farce of foreign trawlers being captured. The "Muirchu" did capture some trawlers. They were brought to various ports even in Donegal. The farce was gone through of having the skippers brought to court and fined, but there was no power to retain the vessels or seize the nets or gear. The result was that all that energy and cost went for nothing. Power is taken in this Bill to detain such vessels. I think that is a big step towards the protection of our fisheries. If the powers taken are carried out and the Minister sets up the necessary machinery, I believe that a great deal of protection will be afforded towards our fisheries, and that the Bill, so far as it goes, will be welcomed by the fishermen on the Donegal coast.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to the points raised, I am satisfied that there is a clause in the 1882 Act almost identical with the clause brought in here with regard to the indemnification of officers. With regard to the question raised by Deputy Dillon as to the regulations, I think we did not understand each other. There would be no penalties in the regulations. It is not intended to impose heavy penalties for a breach of the regulations themselves. The regulations, of course, would be concerned with some of the sections in the Bill where heavy penalties are mentioned.

Mr. Dillon

Is it under some other statute the Minister makes by-laws?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. As to the three-mile limit, the present limit, as mentioned by Deputy Lynch and others, is three miles from the high water wark and a line drawn across a bay ten miles wide and three miles outside that. In that way we get the territorial waters. I do not know if Deputy Lynch was right when he said that when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition they said that the three-mile limit should be extended. Perhaps that was said. It would be desirable if it could be done, but it is rather difficult. It must be done either by force or by agreement with the other nations. If we are not able to force them we shall have to get them to agree to do it, and either is rather difficult just at present. The same thing applies to enforcing fines that Deputy Lynch spoke of. He asked why we should not get fines enforced in Great Britain and France and so on. We have not very much to offer as a reciprocal arrangement. We have not trawlers going to the French and British coast and taking their fish, so that they are not very interested in making a reciprocal arrangement. At present it is a one-sided thing and that is the difficulty about it. We have not, however, as Deputy O'Neill suggests, lost hope altogether of reciprocal arrangements in this Bill. He suggested that we had adopted a three-mile limit and that we had no hope of going any further or of making a reciprocal arrangement. The Deputy will see that in Section 2 we provide for treaties and conventions. If, at any time, we are able to make a friendly arrangement with any of the nations whose boats are fishing around our coasts we hope to be able to get more than the three-mile limit from them. But, as we stand, however, it would be very difficult, because we would want to send our trawlers to do a little poaching in their waters before we get an agreement from them. Deputy O'Neill said the three-mile limit should be from low water and not high water. There, again, we would have the difficulty either of enforcing our law or getting an agreement upon it, and either might not be possible just now. Then as to another matter raised by Deputy O'Neill, we can under the Bill deal with British trawlers. Up to this we could not, as the power was not there. Under the Bill we shall have power to deal with British trawlers. The Deputy says that no British trawler was ever captured by the "Muirchu." That is true, because our officers had no authority to interfere with British trawlers. They never tested their strength against a British trawler. We shall have to wait and see whether they will have to do it under this Bill.

Deputy Dillon said that the Bill is all eye-wash. I do not think it is. I suppose we shall have to wait and see whether anything comes out of it or not. We are bringing in the Bill because we think it is the right thing to start with. It would be ridiculous to spend £50,000 or £100,000 on patrol boats and not have any authority behind them. Surely the first thing to do is to get the authority.

Mr. Dillon

There ought to be statutory obligation on you to provide patrol boats.

Dr. Ryan

We should get the authority first before we purchase patrol boats. The penalties provided for are very severe, and we think that they will act as a deterrent, and that we should give some short time, at any rate, to the patrol services we have and the other ways we may have of getting after these people. It is likely that we may have to come and ask for more patrol boats and a reinforcement of the coastal defences in that way. Deputy Lynch said that when he was Minister for Fisheries he had great difficulty in convincing the Minister for Finance at the time of the advisability of and justification for spending more money on fisheries defence, because the value of the fish caught at the time was so very small. I believe that was true. In fact, I am sure it would be still rather difficult to convince the Minister for Finance. His argument would probably be that money could be spent in better ways than that, because the receipts from fisheries are very small. We hope, however, that things will improve somewhat through the efforts of the Sea Fisheries Association, and also from a change of market. Deputy Dillon said that the whole thing was the loss of the market. That is true. I am not sure whether he said the foreign or home market, but there is something in that.

Mr. Dillon

I spoke of both. I referred to the German market and foreign markets generally, and to the home market.

Dr. Ryan

There has been a serious loss in the herring and mackerel market, and the Scottish fishermen are in much the same position as our own. They have suffered very severely as a result of Russia, Germany and America, where there was a good market for herrings and mackerel, practically supplying their own demands. The Irish and the Scotch fisherman have suffered as a result of that. We are turning, however, to the development of the home market for white fish, and that development is likely to lead to an improved market for the type of fish that we use at home. It is really the only dependable market at present for fishermen. Deputy Lynch raised a matter also with regard to the minimum penalty. He said that there was a maximum penalty, but no minimum. I do not think that there is any necessity for it. In some Acts, the penalty is actually named, and the judge has no option but to inflict that penalty. In practically all Acts of this kind there is a maximum penalty, and the justice is given discretion to go below it. In a case of this kind, where he will be dealing with foreign trawlers which are destroying the prospects of our own fishermen, the district justice is not likely to be too lenient. Therefore, I think we need not mention a minimum penalty. A boat may be taken up at times for a more or less technical offence and it would, perhaps, be unfair to inflict the maximum penalty in that case. It would be better to give discretion to the justice to inflict a small penalty for a trivial offence.

Deputy Lynch raised a question regarding the by-law areas. He is quite right in saying that the difficulty is that, in these areas, the by-laws can only be enforced against Saorstát boats, that foreign boats are only bound by the territorial-water rule and can fish outside the three-mile limit. Sometimes, the by-laws extend beyond the three-mile limit, so that our own fishermen are prohibited from fishing in a certain area in which foreign fishermen can fish. That is a grievance in England as well as here. Deputy O'Neill referred to the development of the Nymph Bank. That is outside our exclusive fishery rights and, if we were to develop that, we should have no right to protect it. We should be developing it so that foreign fishermen could come along and reap the harvest of any expenditure we might incur.

Question put and agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I should like to get this Bill through before Christmas. I suggest, therefore, that the Committee Stage be taken to-morrow. In these circumstances, I think the Ceann Comhairle would be prepared to facilitate Deputies by accepting amendments up to a late stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. O'Neill

Will the Minister have any amendments?

Dr. Ryan

Drafting amendments only.

Agreed to take remaining stages of the Bill on Thursday.