Shannon Fisheries Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move: "That the Bill be read a second time." This is a Bill to make provision for the management of the fisheries of the River Shannon by the Electricity Supply Board and for that purpose to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of such fisheries by the Electricity Supply Board and the acquisition or transfer of fisheries by or to the board and to make provision for other matters relating to the management of the fisheries. The problems created in respect of Shannon fisheries by the construction and operation of the Electricity Supply Works have been under consideration for a long time and, as Deputies are aware, a considerable agitation was caused from time to time amongst persons interested in these fisheries by the position which has existed. It was not easy to decide what was the best course to take. Under the Shannon Act of 1925, power was taken to compensate owners of fisheries where these fisheries had been damaged by the construction of the Shannon works and certain sums were due to various fishing owners on that account. Further, it appears that continuing claims for compensation were likely to arise, due to injuries caused by the operation of the Shannon works, and that provision would have to be made for the payment of compensation under that head and the payments would in time amount to considerable sums from which very little benefit would be secured. In addition, there was the fact that certain fisheries upon the Shannon had become the property of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and others were the property of the Commissioners of Public Works. In any event, there was a problem in relation to fisheries on the Shannon which had to be dealt with.

It was, I think, necessary to make a decision at an early date as to whether the interests of the electrical works were to predominate over the interests of the fishery owners or vice versa. The matter was, I think, considered by the previous Government and a Bill somewhat similar to the one now before the Dáil was prepared and introduced, although it never was finally enacted. When I became Minister for Industry and Commerce this Bill which had been drafted was one of the matters that came up for attention and I felt that I could not accept the measure as it stood without having the whole problem examined afresh and I arranged for the establishment of an interdepartmental committee, on which the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Office of Public Works and fishery and other interests were represented. The Bill now before the Dáil is very largely the product of that committee. In certain respects, the recommendations of the committee have been departed from, but these are only minor respects. In brief, their recommendation was that the control and management of the fisheries on the Shannon should be handed over to the Electricity Supply Board and that the Electricity Supply Board should be charged, in addition, but subject and without prejudice to the primary function of maintaining, working and developing the Shannon hydro-electric works in accordance with the Act of 1927, with the duty of managing, conducting and preserving the Shannon fisheries under and in accordance with the present Bill.

It is proposed further that where compensation is payable in respect of damage done to a fishery in lieu of paying that compensation, the board may acquire the fishery, and it is further provided that the fisheries which are owned by the Minister shall be transferred to the board, as also fisheries now in the custody of the Commissioners of Public Works. Thus, the Electricity Supply Board will be authorised to acquire the control of all the fisheries on the Shannon and will be charged with the responsibility of conducting and preserving those fisheries. The powers of the board in relation to the Shannon fisheries are set out in Section 9, and it is provided that the income of the board derived from the performance of its duties in relation to the Shannon fisheries, after the discharge of expenses incurred by the board in the performance of these duties, will be applied, firstly, to the payment of interest payable to the Minister for Finance on advances made under this Bill; secondly, setting aside such sums as the board, with the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall think proper for reserve fund, extensions and other purposes relating to the said duties; thirdly, to the payment of all moneys payable in the current year or owing in respect of a previous year to the Minister for Finance on account of the repayment of advances made to the board under this Act; and fourthly, for any other purpose the board may think proper.

There are certain provisions concerning the appointment of members of boards of conservators and so forth which can, I think, be more appropriately discussed on the Committee Stage. Section 13, in Part IV of the Bill, provides for the making of advances to the board by the Minister for Finance similar to the corresponding section in the Bill we have just dealt with and other Bills relating to the Electricity Supply Board. Section 14 provides for the assessment of compensation where compensation is payable, and Sections 15, 16 and 17 are necessary sections in a Bill of this kind. Section 18 provides that the board shall not, without the previous consent of the Minister, permit the rate of discharge of water through the weir at Parteen Villa to be less at any time than ten cubic metres per second, which is the minimum amount considered necessary for the preservation of the fisheries below the weir. There are certain powers proposed to be conferred on the board in respect of the alteration of the weekly close season.

Then comes Section 21, the effect of which is to limit the number of persons who may engage in fishing with drift nets in the tidal waters of the River Shannon to 70 and provides that the number of licences for fishing with draft nets or seines in the said water which shall be issued in any such year shall not exceed 28. These were the numbers of licences actually issued for the year 1932. The intention is to ensure that those who got licences in that year will get preference for licences—that is, that those who are engaged in that business will continue to engage in it, but that no new licences will issue.

Mr. McGilligan

That is both the 70 and the 28?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Lynch

The 28 should be draft nets.

Mr. Lemass

There is a misprint there. It should be "draft." The principle of the Bill is to effect this transfer of the Shannon fisheries to the Electricity Supply Board. That may, at first sight, appear to be rather a peculiar thing to do, but it represents the position that the preservation of the Shannon fisheries has got to be secondary to the utilisation of that river for the purpose of the generation of electricity. I am glad to be able to say that the pessimistic forecasts made at one time as to the probable effect of the operation of that scheme upon the fisheries do not appear to be borne out. In fact, this year I understand the run of fish has been remarkably good. That is an indication that the fears expressed two or three years ago may not be realised. Of course, one cannot jump at conclusions from the short experience which has been had up to the present. In any event, it is considered that the function of preserving and developing the fisheries can be performed by the board better than anybody else. In view of the situation that arises, it is much better that there should be unified control of the fisheries. If we were to have a second body, it is almost inevitable that there would be a conflict of interests between that body and the Electricity Supply Board at some stage—a conflict which it would be hard to resolve. The board will be able to secure the services of persons competent in every way to look after these fisheries. No doubt, they will be able to regulate them in such a manner as to secure the best economic return from them.

In the main, the advances which will be made under this Bill to the board will be for the purpose of paying compensation to the owners of fisheries which may be acquired. It is not possible at this stage to make any estimate as to what the total amount of such compensation will be, but it will be determined in the manner provided in the Bill, which I recommend to the House.

Mr. McGilligan

I am specially glad to hear the Minister say, because it is so unexpected, that the pessimistic forecasts made nine or ten years ago as to the effect of the Shannon scheme upon the fisheries have not been borne out. I had thought from reading the newspapers that the situation was worse than anybody ever imagined, and I am glad to hear that these were exaggerations. At any rate, the fears expressed were obviously fanned to a certain point of terror—it was a natural enough thing to do—in order to have those who are in touch with the Shannon vigilant on the matter of the fish. I suppose it was a fear excited by the very definite statement made, followed now by the statement to-day, that if fish clash with electricity, electricity is going to prevail. It is natural, in these circumstances, for people who are keen on the fishery as such to raise alarms and excursions of all types in order to get some attention paid to their grievances.

Further, it was recognised at the time of the consideration of the Shannon scheme that, although compensation if it fell due for payment at all in relation to anything except fisheries, should fall due inside a very limited period, in relation to fisheries that period was naturally extended, and I think it was supposed to be a period of about ten years. We are very nearly ten years from the time when these things first came upon the country, and it is to be noticed that Part II, which deals with compensation, refers to injuries which may happen, if happening after the passing of this, within a three-year period. So that time definitely goes well outside the ten-year period at first envisaged as that in which injury might accrue. To that extent, therefore, this measure entirely keeps within any statements that were made in relation to injuries likely to be done to, or to come upon, the fisheries by reason of the Shannon scheme.

In addition to that, and keeping in line with this statement, there is a second feature about the Bill; and this I say by way of answer to some things said by Deputy Kelly on the last Bill, that I am delighted to see, if the Shannon fishery is to be taken over by somebody, it is not being taken over by the Minister. He is not going to answer for it in the House. It is going to be taken over under powers granted by him to the Electricity Supply Board and he is going to have the same relation to that board in respect of fisheries as the Shannon Electricity Act gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to the board in respect of electricity. The same scheme is being carried through here with absolute attention to the old details. The scheme of the original Shannon Scheme in relation to electricity was that a board was being set up, given tremendous powers and privileges, told its duty was to develop the use of electricity throughout the country, and that, in consideration for the powers and privileges which it got, it had to reveal its secrets once a year through accounts. These accounts were to be investigated by auditors appointed by the Government, but paid for by the board. The Government, on receipt of the auditor's report, might call for a further report and that report, plus any explanatory details—there was discretion as to the explanatory details—had to be put before the Dáil once a year and people would be able to debate it. That is the scheme that is being followed in the main with regard to this. The handling of the moneys given to them and the reports are all dragged inside the framework of the old scheme.

So that, much to Deputy Kelly's annoyance, I suppose, not merely is the Minister accepting the old scheme in relation to electricity, but he is now taking over the same board and giving that board control over fisheries: and he is doing it to the exclusion of the ordinary Parliamentary right here day by day to harry and persecute the Minister who has charge of a particular matter as one of his Departmental duties. I think it is all to the good that it is a board. There may be some comment as to whether the Electricity Supply Board is the proper board; but it is to the good that it is a board and not the Minister who is to have charge and answer for the working of the fisheries; always remembering that one of the board's duties, laid upon it by Act of Parliament, is to produce a financial account and, if the need arises, to have an auditor's statement upon that account. The Dáil will be given an opportunity once a year of discussing what is happening and saying whether they think what is happening is good, bad or indifferent.

The Minister says that this Bill definitely, at any rate, marks as a second important feature that the Electricity Supply Board are to have as their important function the working and developing of the Shannon hydro-electric works; that their second job is fisheries, but that the fish are definitely subject to the electricity. That is not entirely so, because there is a clause which insists that the amount of water passing down by the weir at Parteen Villa cannot be less at any time than 10 cubic metres per second. Against that we have the right of the Minister to allow the board to draw off water for electricity purposes so as to preclude the passage of 10 cubic metres per second down at Parteen Villa. That is where two things may be in conflict from time to time. They must let down so much water through the old river for fishery purposes and, on the other hand, they may not prevent water going through the weir at Parteen Villa except in peculiar circumstances when the Minister may give them power. A certain amount of water will be required in certain circumstances to enable the fish to get up the river for spawning purposes. If other circumstances arise the Minister may have to exercise his authority and warrant some other treatment and the point is whether more attention will be paid to electricity and more indifference as to what happens the fish.

I think that the Minister might have stated more definitely the underlying purposes of this Bill. He did emphasise overmuch that the overriding consideration was electricity and fish were to take a secondary place. I understood the real argument for this Bill was that in any event there would be a certain amount of money paid for damage to fisheries and very nearly the same amount of money would actually acquire the fisheries and it is a question as to whether the Government would be prepared to pay the price for doing damage to fisheries or whether they should not take control of the whole property. The idea underlying that is that there would be a better chance of the river being developed for fishery purposes if it were put under the control of one central authority, one body that would have control over the whole river. So many pounds will have to be spent compensating people for damage done to fisheries and very nearly the same amount would purchase all the fishery rights on the river. The position is that you had a river there and you had a definite run of fish in certain circumstances. Those fish had acquired a reputation both in respect of their value and the sport they afforded. The whole original scheme of things in that river was to change. Who is going to restore the former conditions on that river, who will get a newer or even a better system along the river, it is hard to say. Who is likely to remake it? Certainly not the scattered owners, who will be concerned largely with getting money for damage done to their property. The constructive side of it will have to be attended to by somebody, and the question is would it be desirable to have that somebody in control over the whole river?

The river has been taken away from its old system; the fish have been disturbed in their old-time habits. The only thing is to get someone who will have control over the river. The important point is to bring some constructive minds into play and get attention paid to the big problem arising from the change in the river bed. The Minister has been optimistic enough with regard to the condition of the fisheries. Admittedly nothing could be worse than the conditions on the Shannon within the last year or two, conditions in which the drought has played an important part. If, despite these adverse conditions, the Minister is in a position to say that the pessimism and the alarums have really been falsified and that things are really satisfactory at the moment, then there is a good prospect ahead for this national asset under the unified control that the board is likely to bring about. There is the point that there might be confused thought on a body whose main function is the provision of electricity and upon whom is imposed a second task somewhat contrary to the first—that of looking after the fish. The mere fact that they are already in control of the river in one respect makes it rather desirable for this board to take charge rather than to have another board appointed. It is better to have one than to have two boards with constructive views.

I hope that the new function of the board will be adverted to in relation to the personnel and that appointments will be made to the fishery side. When accounts and reports are presented here it is to be hoped that there will be a segregation of the fisheries account. It is to be hoped that the fisheries account will not be included in the general electricity account—that we will have a separate account dealing with the fishery side, so that people will be able to see how far the fishery side is advancing. Expert criticism could then be brought to bear on that aspect by people who might not have so much interest in electricity as in fish. That statement of the Minister ought to lessen any fear people may have, particularly if they are inclined to be so critical as Deputy Kelly is of the board as an electricity supplier. He probably would argue that if they fail in the matter of electricity they will make a complete hash, if the word is appropriate, of fish. If the accounts are separated in the manner I suggest we could occasionally investigate them in order to see what sort of a kettle they are giving us in relation to fish.

Mr. Keyes

One feels rather in a maze as to what is the purport of this Bill. In a previous measure we have given extensive powers to the Electricity Supply Board for the purpose of generating an electricity supply for the country. We have had some complaints that they have not been giving abundant satisfaction in their own special job. It would now appear that not alone are they going to be the manufacturers and purveyors of electricity, but they are going to take over the control of the destinies of the Shannon fish. Whatever special qualifications they may have in that respect, they are not clearly set out. The Minister mentioned, in the course of his remarks, that frequent complaints were being made by the existing fishery interests that had been interfered with by the Shannon works and that compensation claims were being lodged, and were likely to continue being lodged, and he asked what was the best course to take. Evidently, it was decided that the best course to take was to wipe out the lot and to make the Electricity Supply Board supreme over the fishery interests. If that is to be the case, we in this House would want to be very careful to see that justice should be done to all those with fishing interests—some of them existing for centuries—on the River Shannon, that are now being handed over to the Electricity Supply Board for the purposes of sweeping them out of existence and making the board supreme.

As far as the tidal waters are concerned, I fail to see why any interference should take place with them. They do not interfere with the Shannon works in any shape or form. Up as far as Limerick they are being taken in and the line is an imaginary point and extends for 60 miles below Ardnacrusha. All this must be handed over to the Electricity Supply Board, for what reason we would be anxious to know. What is the reason for it or what is the necessity for it? The Minister gave a pretty clear explanation in connection with Section 21 and pointed out that under Section 21 all existing licensees on the lower Shannon would continue to get their licences, but the seven Deputies from Limerick were very anxious to hear the Minister on Section 22. I can assure the Minister that at the moment there is a host of debating societies springing up in the City of Limerick who have been discussing Section 22 of the Shannon Fisheries Bill and discussing it from an angle never dreamed of here in the Dáil, because it affects 50 families, comprising 250 persons, in the shape of the Abbey fishermen who have been carrying on fishing on that portion of the river, known as the first fishery from the tide wave, for four miles below Limerick and four miles above it, for centuries. For three or four centuries back they operated for four miles below and four miles above Limerick but in recent years they have been confined to the first fishery from the tide wave which extends, as I say, four miles above and six miles below to Parteen Villa. So, I cannot see what interference they would make with the Shannon scheme. They are above the old spot in the river which has been denuded of water but they can still continue to make a living of it. They are the actual owners, having bought out the riparian interests of the landowners on each side of the river, and they have continued to enjoy these fishing rights for at least three centuries.

Section 22, about which we are anxious to have an explanation, says that

"it shall not be lawful for any person to fish for, catch or take, or attempt to catch or take, salmon with a net of any kind in the fresh waters of the River Shannon within the meaning of the Fisheries Act, 1842 to 1925."

The Abbey fishermen, however, were there before the Act of 1842 and their existing rights and privileges were preserved in the Act of 1842. We are anxious to see that, in common with the men who will be allowed to get a licence to fish on the tidal water above Limerick, those Abbey fishermen be allowed to do what they have done for centuries. We should like to know whether or not that is the interpretation to be put on this section with reference to the Acts, 1842 to 1925. I suggest that anything in way of compensation would not meet the case of those men. They are actually a clan in themselves and they have clung to their heritage in these fisheries for centuries. Anything in the way of compensation would be regarded by them as an insult. They want to be allowed to fish on the waters which are their own by tradition and by purchase, and to be allowed to provide for the existence of their families, which contain roughly 250 persons, in that way.

There are other interests concerned. Higher up we find at Castleconnell there are seven or eight private fisheries and some of them have got compensation already for the destruction of fisheries higher up. One gentleman, I understand, got compensation to the extent of £15,000 or £16,000. From enquiries I have made, I am given to understand that another £15,000 is contemplated to be paid to certain private owners at Castleconnell. I have not heard one word, however, about compensation for the 20 odd fishermen who are as much part and parcel of those fisheries as the boats or the rods engaged in them. These men are as essential to the fishing as the boat or the rod, and are we to think that those 20 men, who drew a regular wage for nine months of the year in the particular season, are going to be completely forgotten and the compensation handed over to the man who happened to own a fishery? As I say, these workmen are part and parcel of the fishery just as much as the boat or the rod itself. They cannot fish themselves, and now their employment is gone, but, so far, there is no word of compensation for them.

There is a clause in this Bill also which makes it possible for the Minister to extend the close weekly season period. As long as he does not make it less than 48 hours he may extend it. I suggest that it is fatuous to be talking or thinking of extending the close season while the present scandal of the Shannon scheme tail race is allowed to continue. The Minister says that the reports he has now would seem to put away the suggestions of pessimism which obtained in previous years in this connection. The existence of the tail race, as it is at present, is a scandal. It is scandalous that thousands and thousands of fish are getting into it without any attempt being made to prevent them getting into it and without any means for them to get out of it. They are not allowed to be poached. They have to spawn and they come up and get caught in the tail race and are lying dead in thousands and being drifted out by the current. As a result, the place is putrid from the smell of the decaying fish. I am not capable of estimating what the money loss of this would be but the number of salmon themselves is estimated in thousands in the mile and a half of tail race of the Shannon scheme at the present time which are lost to the Shannon fisheries. One would think that, if the Electricity Supply Board were doing their job and doing justice to the fisheries—which, I admit, they had to interfere with to some extent—they would be able to devise, through some kind of engineering ingenuity, some way of preventing the fish from getting into the tail race and allowing them to continue up the old river past Parteen up to Castleconnell and up to their old spawning beds. There was a grid up there once and the results were disastrous. More fish were killed as a result of it than had been the case earlier. The fish going up find themselves with a rush of water against them. They are locked in. Once they get in they are held there and kept inside. They have sometimes been taken, I have reason to believe, by people who have very little right to the fish. They take them out of the tail race and make sale of them illegally in the City of Limerick.

I would say that apart from the compensation to the 20 odd fishermen at Castleconnell, if the tail race was to be attended to as has been suggested already by the engineers, and if it were defended by putting a grid across it to prevent them coming in and to allow the boats to go out where there would be no such rough flow of water it would obviate the big rush of salmon into the tail race. If these things were done the fish would be given an opportunity of going up the river and spawning. I see the owners are to be compensated very generously. There is £2,500 for one man; £4,000 for another; £1,700 for another; £2,500 for another; then there are £3,000, £1,000 and £700 for others. Those gentry are being compensated generously and it would be only decent to have the fishermen who have been fishing on this river for generations given the right to net the river on the payment of a reasonable fine and so provide them with a reasonable livelihood.

Whatever compensation will be given will be only of a small and transitory nature and will not be a suitable return for the loss the men have suffered by the loss of their fisheries. These are a few points which are arousing very considerable interest in and around Limerick. All the Deputies representing that area will agree with me as to the anxiety that has been caused amongst the Abbey fishermen, the oldest body of fishermen in this country and likewise the Castleconnell fishermen. We are particularly interested in the interpretation of Section 22. If the Minister will assure us that the fishermen will be allowed to continue their business in these fisheries it will cause a great deal of satisfaction there and will allow the men to concentrate on their work. I do not think the board has any right to come along without any previous or mutual agreement to take over these interests as it is proposed apparently to do by this Bill.

Mr. Fionan Lynch

I suppose the safe line to take would be to split the difference between the optimism of the Minister and the pessimism of Deputy Keyes with regard to the state of the Shannon fisheries. I do not at all agree with the outlook of Deputy Keyes on this whole matter. It was obvious that some such Bill had to be introduced to deal with the fisheries in the Shannon as a whole. In dealing with a big area like that it is obvious that some corns are bound to be trodden on. As to why the board should be given any control over the tidal waters, the reason is that the whole basis of this Bill, as at first contemplated, was that since compensation was to be paid it was just as well to acquire the rights and to protect all the fisheries as a unit for the future.

Undoubtedly there will be compensation claims along the tidal waters as a result of the hydraulic scheme. I do not know with what success these claims will be prosecuted but such claims will be made. Undoubtedly there has been considerable damage done to the tidal fisheries as a result of the Shannon scheme. If you have to pay compensation to some of those people I agree with the project in the Bill for buying them out. What I do not understand in the Bill is that there is to be any segregation between compensation and purchase. I do not understand why we should not go the whole hog for the purchase and that the board should take over the fisheries in the Shannon as defined here rather than compensate in some cases and acquire in the others. The Bill would seem in one direction to be doing so but then it makes provision for compensation as against acquisition that would lead one to the belief that it is not as Deputy Keyes stated.

The Deputy made one passing reference to the number of salmon that are being killed in the tail race and that are being sold by certain persons. I do not know whether that is so. It seems extraordinary if it is so considering the provisions of the 1925 Act which insists that licensed dealers of salmon and trout should keep records as to where they bought their fish and from whom. If persons were illegally taking fish in the Shannon I think it could be very easily traced. These are by the way in reply to some of the things that Deputy Keyes stated. I think that Deputy Keyes was right in his interpretation of Section 22. That was one of the sections to which the Minister did not refer. Presumably that means that any several fisheries which may exist in the fresh waters of the Shannon will be wiped out and that fresh water fishing in the Shannon will be stopped. That means of course that any several fishery in the fresh waters as well as any public fishery such as that exercised by the Abbey net men will cease. In the ordinary reading of that section that is the only meaning one can draw from it.

I do not at all accept Deputy Keyes' point of view, but I know that he is expressing a point of view that has been expressed to me by the Abbey men—that compensation was no use. I think that is an absurd line to take. There must be some value set on their right to fish in a particular area. If it is for the benefit of the fisheries of the Shannon as a whole that net fishing should cease, I do not see why it should not and why some basis of compensation should not be arrived at. If it has been decided—and I believe it was entirely necessary that the Abbey net men should be stopped from fishing— therefore it was desirable that that should be done and there must, of course, be some compensation. But I am wondering why this section is brought in there and not in the compensation section. I presume they are not excluded from consideration, and so long as they are excluded from consideration for compensation I think they have no grievances.

It is ridiculous to adopt the attitude that no basis of compensation can be found for any loss they may incur through being prevented from fishing there. As to the limiting of the period for claims for injuries before the passing of the Act to the year before and three years after, we know that in a matter like fishing it is very hard to draw a line of that kind because the injury to the fishing will be progressive. Some injury will possibly be done before the passing of the Act and some after. The difficulty is that the cost of the Shannon fishery works does not finish on a certain day. We have put before this Bill another Electrical Bill dealing with the waters of the Shannon. That may have some effect also on the fisheries. I refer to the Bill that has got its Second Reading to-day—the Bill making provision for storage of water in the Shannon. I do not know whether it will or not affect the salmon fisheries on the Shannon, but at any rate I think it is foolish to draw a hard and fast line at the moment fixing dates before which and after which the injury will have been committed, because if there is a further development there will have to be provision for further works. Deputy McGilligan said that we should have reached a stage at which it would have been possible to calculate the exact amount of injury done to the fisheries. He said the period fixed at the time was ten years and that it had now nearly run out. It was ten years since the 1925 Act, but I think the Shannon works, if I remember rightly, did not start until September, 1927. I am not quite clear on that. At any rate I would certainly fix ten years from the date of completion of the Shannon scheme as a moderate period of calculation, that is, if the scheme were then complete and there were no further works being undertaken. While there are further works being undertaken, I think you will always have to prolong that period to see what the effect of those works will be over three or four years.

My attitude to this Bill is that something like it was necessary. With Deputy McGilligan I think it is just as well to have the Electricity Supply Board as to have another board. Having another board would only mean a continual friction between that board and the Electricity Supply Board. They would have absolutely conflicting interests. One would have its mind concentrated on the good of the fisheries, and the other on what was necessary for the hydraulic scheme. Since so much of the national money has been invested in the hydraulic scheme, I suppose it is natural to assume that the benefit of the scheme for electricity supply would have to be predominant. It is, therefore, as well, since that provision is there, that the one board should have the administration of both. Like Deputy McGilligan, I should like if the accounts were kept separate—as they presumably will be—so that one would know what is happening to fisheries as distinct from electricity supply.

I was glad to see provision there for extension of the weekly close season. It is probable that something will have to be done generally and over a far wider area than the Shannon. It is a question which has long been under consideration. Certainly, the extension of the weekly close season as far as the Shannon is concerned was under consideration a good number of years ago, as desirable owing to the possible effects of the hydraulic scheme. I think it will make an extremely interesting experiment if the Board takes charge of the whole river practically from its source to the sea. It will be very interesting, from the point of view of the contemplation of acquisition of several fisheries throughout the country as a whole. There is a considerable demand for that, as Deputies know. There is a considerable amount of attack upon fishery rights at the moment, and claims by members of the public to invade rights which have been exercised over a number of years. I do not think it will be possible to check those invasions, and I think we may get a fairly good headline from the operations of the Board in relation to Shannon fisheries as to what line we might take with regard to a general scheme for dealing with all other rivers in somewhat the same way—that is, a general scheme for fishery acquisition. I have felt for a considerable time that the only solution of that problem will be something in the nature of fishery purchase, on the same lines as we had land purchase to deal with the land problems. This, I hope, will educate us, or at least will give us something to go on when we see the operations of this Board. It does not matter what the Board is, or what previous experience there was. There is no point in that. They can easily employ men who will have sufficient knowledge to deal with the fishery business, and so long as they have administrative capacity in any line they can administer the fisheries the same as any other business. It will be extremely useful, from the point of view of experience, to see how fisheries can be controlled by a unified control, and may give us a very useful line for a future Fishery Acquisition Bill.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

I want at the outset to assure the Minister that I am very serious in the few remarks I am going to make about the effect which the Shannon scheme had upon the lives and fortunes of some people in Killaloe. There is no use in trying to dismiss it lightly by saying that some few people got disemployed. The fact remains that at least 20 families were disemployed. There is no use in dismissing it lightly. They are still disemployed, and have been disemployed all the years since the scheme came into active operation. They are still trying to exist. They kept themselves all their lives since boyhood on this scheme of employment. They endeavoured to rear their families on this scheme of employment. Their fathers before them reared their families on it. Now we are told they have no rights whatever. We were told by a previous Minister that they had no more right than a man carting coal along the road. Was there ever anything so absurd? The present Minister, although he does not state that, has by implication accepted that proposition, because there is not one provision in this measure to give them any compensation whatever. Some £20,000 or £30,000 will, I am sure, be given to people who had other vested interests which were destroyed or injured or affected in some way or other by the operation of the Shannon scheme. That, possibly, is right. The equity of that probably cannot be questioned. What about the equity in regard to those 20 families? There is no use in saying that no demand was made that they should be considered. I can quote for the Minister resolutions passed at meetings in the town, at which prominent and important people attended, and at which demands were made that those people should get consideration and compensation. We were told by Deputy McGilligan during the debate on the Bill which has just been read a Second Time, the Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill, that it was intended that a reserve fund should be set up which would at the end of a period possibly finance a second Shannon scheme—finance it at the expense of those people who have been deprived of their right to live because of the operation of the Shannon scheme.

The Minister set up a committee to inquire into this matter. I never heard what they reported, or whether they reported at all. I never heard how they made investigations. I never heard whether they went to the spot to make investigations, or whom they asked for information on the spot if they did go. It would be very interesting to see the report of that committee. It would be very interesting to see on what evidence they based that report, and from whom they got that evidence. I have never heard a word about the committee since it was set up. I do not know whether or not the Minister has their report. I have already stressed this matter in the Dáil. I have spoken on this matter in the Dáil on several occasions and do not want to labour it now. I do not want to tear open the old wounds of those people who have been practically denied the right to live. I want to assure the Minister that I am as sincere in my protests on this matter as I was on anything I ever undertook. Those people have been severely dealt with. Their right to live has been, to a great extent, taken away from them. I would suggest to the Minister that he should give them further and more sympathetic consideration. I find in Section 15 that control is given to the Electricity Supply Board in the appointment of its servants. Why not introduce a clause to ensure that such people as are capable of being employed in whatever work is going on there will be employed and materially reduce the number of people who would be entitled to and seeking compensation but who could never take work at the present time because five or six years makes a big change in a man when he has reached a certain age? Such a man would probably not be able to take up new employment, but why not give those men who are capable of taking the employment that is to be offered now a chance of working, by inserting a clause that will not alone enable, but, possibly, enforce, the employment of these people under the Electricity Supply Board? I want the Minister to consider that and to consider it seriously. I want to say definitely that up to the present, neither by the previous Government nor by the present Government, has this matter got the consideration it deserves, and I want the Minister to change all that now and to give these people the sympathetic and just consideration which they deserve and to restore to them their right to live which has been taken from them by the operation of the Shannon scheme.

Mr. Bennett

I suppose it will be generally accepted that some such Bill as this was necessary if the fishing on the Shannon was to be preserved and developed properly, but I do not think there will be any unanimity on the selection of the Electricity Supply Board as the body to control the fisheries. The first question that will jump to the minds of those who are interested in fishing generally—I am not one of them, unfortunately—is in what particular manner has the Electricity Supply Board manifested its sympathy with fishing generally or its desire to improve fishing on the Shannon? Deputy Keyes and other speakers made a reference to the number of fish in the tail race. These fish—and there are thousands and, I might say, millions of fish in the tail race—have been there, as I think, Deputy Lynch said, for seven or eight years. It is seven or eight years since the Shannon scheme was completed and since then the fish have been accumulating and dying and they are useless so far as general fishing in the Shannon is concerned. The Electricity Supply Board has not at all concerned itself with any definite method of getting rid of this scandal. A letter appeared in the Press lately from a very eminent citizen of another country who came on a visit to this country, describing this particular scandal and pointing out the injury it did to fishing generally. He is probably more expert than I am, but even if the ordinary man or woman who knows nothing whatever about fishing will take a walk, as Deputy Keyes said, to the banks of the Electricity Supply Board works and sees this particular scandal, it will at once prove that this body would not jump to one's mind as the ideal controlling body in this particular respect.

I said that the Bill might be necessary but to me it appears to be a rather confusing document. I believe the object is to acquire all the fisheries but whether that is to be done compulsorily or not I do not know. So far as I can read the Bill, there is to be no compulsory acquisition of any fishery rights but there is to be compensation for holders of fisheries who may think they have been injured and apply for compensation. If the Bill is going to be a success, which I hope its originators expect it to be and the fisheries on the Shannon are improved and developed, there is going to be a profit, if you like, from those fisheries to this body. What particular desire will any owner of a fishery have to apply for compensation if he knows that the river is going to be improved out of all recognition? If the fisheries are going to be made more valuable, is he not going to stick on to what he has? I do not see how the Bill is going to provide for the transfer of fishery rights because there is no compulsory acquisition clause in the Bill. There is a clause setting out that where a person applies for compensation, it will be obligatory on the Minister or the Electricity Supply Board to acquire the fishery instead of giving compensation. That can only be done when application for compensation is made.

That brings me to another point. There is one set of owners who differ from the rest of the fishermen. They are not individual owners. They are the Abbey fishermen Deputy Keyes spoke about and they are peculiarly situated. They are more, perhaps, what one might call a corporate body than anything else. They are a group of fishermen, who, for a century, or two centuries, have had certain net fishing rights on the Shannon. Some years ago they acquired, permanently and legally, the fishing rights of individual owners on one side of the river. I am not sure if they did not acquire the rights on both sides, but they are now the actual owners in law of parts of that river. Their particular fishery is in a part of the river where it cannot interfere with any of the electricity works. It is above the power scheme and below the intake—a part of the river which will not interfere with the further development of electricity supply work. Their position under this Bill is rather peculiar. As I said, I do not believe they can be acquired. I do not think there is any power in this Bill compulsorily to acquire them, but they are in a position in which the Minister, in effect, says: "We cannot acquire you, but we will make it impossible for you to fish."

Mr. Lemass

We can acquire them all right.

Mr. Bennett

Under what section?

Mr. Lemass

Section 9, paragraph (a).

Mr. Bennett

I apologise to the Minister. There does appear to be a power to acquire them, but why that section was not set out in its proper place before the compensation sections, and why it should have been put in a small sub-section where it escaped my attention, I do not know. These fishermen differ altogether from the ordinary owners of fishery rights who may be taken over by the Electricity Supply Board inasmuch as they are not rod fishermen. They are possibly the only body, although there may be others, with the distinct right of net fishing in the non-tidal waters of the Shannon and they have had these rights for a couple of hundred years. I do not know how many men are involved, but I am told that there are at least 250 to 300 people dependent on them. I do not know how far compensation would help in the matter. I do not believe it would be any great help because one cannot provide much assistance in a matter of this kind. That brings me to another point which Deputy Hogan rather developed—the absence of any provision in this Bill for the under-dog, and by the under-dog I mean the man, apart from the owner of a fishery, who has existed by fishing on the Shannon and who exists primarily as a labouring man or working fisherman. If there is going to be any injury done to any rights on the Shannon it is proper that compensation should be payable, but if the injury extends to the mere working fishermen who have made it the business of their lives to earn their living by this kind of work, it seems to me only fair that, just as the bigger individuals in the social sphere, if you like, should be compensated, these men also deserve some mention in a Bill like this.

They are men who, for years, have been engaged in no other occupation. In fact, they are unfitted for any other occupation. Most of them could not turn their hands to any alternative means of earning a living. I should like to see some provision made either for a continuity of their employment, as Deputy Hogan suggested, or some compensation in lieu of employment. I should like to see that provision made directly in the Bill, making it obligatory on the people who are being compensated for the fishing rights themselves to compensate the men whom they employed. Otherwise, the lot of a certain number of these men will be a very hard one. The main difficulty, I think, will be about the particular case that I mentioned of the Abbey fishermen. I do not see how that is going to be settled under this Bill. From my information, compensation will not be any real solution as far as benefiting these men is concerned. Their situation is much the same, except that they are joint owners, as that of the working fishermen to whom I have referred. These are owners in name, but in reality as far as their particular case is concerned they are mainly working fishermen. They pool their resources, and what they make as a composite body is divided between them. No compensation will adequately provide for them.

I should like to see, if possible, some clause exempting them from the operation of this Bill. When the 1842 Act was going through the Parliament of another country these particular people were expressly exempted from its provisions. Their right to net-fishing in the non-tidal waters of the River Shannon was preserved to them under that particular Act, and has continued ever since. Under this Bill, for the first time, if my reading of Section 22 is correct, that particular right is being taken from them. Deputy Keyes said that there was a great difference of opinion locally in Limerick and elsewhere as to the meaning of Section 22. Like Deputy Fionán Lynch I take it that it means that the right of net-fishing in tidal waters is to be discontinued for everybody. There is, however, a difference of opinion on that particular point. No two people that you meet in the City of Limerick at the moment will express the same opinion as to its meaning. I have met 15 or 20 people and discussed it with them, and no two of them hold the same opinion with regard to its meaning. I think it would be only fair if the Minister would enlighten the House as to what its true interpretation is. As far as I can see it means that the right of net-fishing will not be given to anybody hereafter, so that the position of the Abbey fishermen will be that they will possibly have to fall back on another section of the Bill and be compelled to seek compensation which they do not wish. What they ask is that the right given to them in other Acts, a right that has been preserved to them during centuries, should be continued: that a body of men situated as they are, practical working fishermen sustaining a body of 250 or 300 people, should be allowed to follow their present method of making a livelihood and to fish as they have hitherto fished without doing any damage to the Electricity Supply Board works.

I conclude as I began. While personally I think that a unified control of the whole fisheries of the river Shannon is desirable, it appears to me that some body other than the Electricity Supply Board, some body interested in fishing, with a knowledge of fishing, some body that had proved its desire to help the fisheries generally might have been appointed as the controlling body. The Electricity Supply Board is thoroughly competent in another way. Its primary interest must be the huge electric scheme and works on the Shannon. That body has proved during the last seven or eight years that its interest in fishing, if it has any interest, is very little, and that it has stood by and allowed a scandal, such as we have had referred to appear in a particular lock in Limerick.

Donnchadh O Briain

A Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, is dóigh liom go bhfuilimíd go léir ar aon aigne go raibh gádh le Bille éigin mar seo maidir le cúrsaí iascaigh sa tSionainn chun an díobháil agus an tré chéile a dhein aibléisiú na Sionainne don iascach agus do na hiascairí do leigheas.

Fé mar adubhairt Teachtaí eile, nílim cruinn ar cad a chialluíonn Alt a 22 den Bhille seo agus ba mbaith liom míniú mar gheall ar an Alt so a chlos ón Aire. Tá dream iascairí láimh le Cathair Luimnighe .i. iascairí na Mainistreach, agus creidid siad san go mbaineann Alt a 22 go dlúth leo féin. Creidid siad leis go bhfágann an tAlt san an ceart a bhí acu cheana fé shean-Achtanna gan chur isteach air. Tá daoine eile ann, ámh, a cheapann go ndéanfaidh an Bille seo an ceart a bhí ag iascairí na Mainistreach fé leith do bhaint díobh. Ba thruagh liom dá mba mar sin a bhéadh an scéal. Déirim an méid seo; más gádh cur isteach ar aon dream atá ag brath ar iascaireacht ar abhainn na Sionainne chun slighe bheatha a bhaint amach go mba chóir go mbéadh tosach le fághail ag na dreamanna san in aon obair a bheidh ag imtheacht fén réim nua a thiocfaidh i bhfeidhm de bhárr an Bhille seo.

Mr. Lemass

It appears that there is general agreement on the main principles of this Bill. Most people appear to recognise that it is necessary to take some steps to obtain unification of the control of the fisheries on the Shannon, in order to secure their preservation and development. Doubts have been raised as to whether the Electricity Supply Board is the best possible body to which to give that control, and as to the necessity for including the whole of the river within the scope of these activities. I think that these doubts, when expressed, merely indicate that the Deputies concerned have not given the matter the full consideration it might have received. There is no alternative to the Electricity Supply Board. It is the body which has got very intimate associations with the Shannon, associations of such a nature as would be bound to bring it into conflict with any other body given control of fisheries. On the other hand it can secure competent people to look after these fisheries. It has amongst its membership at the present time at least one person who has had very intimate associations with the Shannon fisheries for a long time. Its whole administrative machinery is available to ensure that it will be able to undertake its new task, in relation to the River Shannon, in such a manner as to enable it to get the best possible results from the development of the fisheries, without allowing the development of its plans to be of such a nature as to interfere with the primary function of the Board in generating electricity. It will be necessary, of course, for the Board to expend substantial sums of money on the development of the fisheries and on their protection. In fact the whole case for taking over these fisheries, and handing them over to any Board, is to enable that expenditure to be undertaken. It is quite obvious that expenditure cannot be undertaken unless the whole of the fisheries are in the control of the body embarking upon the expenditure.

If, as Deputy Keyes suggests, we were to allow the fishermen in the estuary to remain as they are, not subject to acquisition, it would be quite possible that they would get, and not the Board, the whole of the benefit coming from the Board's expenditure. The same applies with regard to the Abbey fishermen. The position is that it is almost impossible to contemplate the adoption of any scheme in relation to the Shannon that does not include acquisition of the various fishing rights of the Abbey fishermen. What is the alternative? Are we to abandon the whole idea of trying to organise and to develop the resources of the Shannon fisheries because of the trouble of acquiring the interests of that group? Are we to throw away what may be proved to be a very valuable national asset because it happens to be politically inconvenient or is in some other way not a task to be undertaken? What can we do? In so far as they have fishing rights on the Shannon we propose to give them full and adequate compensation up to 100 per cent. We are told that compensation is no remedy. What is the remedy? If anything apart from compensation, can be done, we are prepared to do it. It is quite possible that the Electricity Supply Board, will require to recruit men in order to carry out its functions in relation to the Shannon fisheries. I think I can promise for them, without any qualification, that they will give preference to suitable men who are being deprived of regular occupation in consequence of the operation of this measure.

In that connection I want to make some reference to the statement made by Deputy Hogan concerning the Killaloe fishermen, who have been under discussion for many years. I would like to assure him first that I take this matter just as seriously as he does. I arranged to have a very full investigation carried out into the circumstances of persons in respect of whom claims were made. The whole matter was considered carefully by an Inter-Departmental Committee, and their report was that no basis of compensation could be devised that would be of such a nature as to include the Killaloe fishermen and to exclude anybody else. In fact, in order to provide a statutory right of compensation for these people you would have to include a very large number of other persons. In any case we contest the statement that these people are being deprived of a livelihood in consequence of the operation of the Shannon scheme. The investigation of circumstances which I carried out showed that in respect of some of those on whose behalf claims were made—I suppose the total claims came to 20 or 22—we could get no real evidence that they ever earned anything out of or had been employed on the Killaloe waters. Three or four were pensioners of one kind or another, one was an ex-member of the R.I.C., another had a British Army pension, and some had other pensions or were in comfortable circumstances. We were unable to trace others, and some had emigrated. One was the owner of a farm and certain of the others were employed. Some had only been employed temporarily in the dapping season, and others temporarily during rush periods. In fact, the number of bona fide claims that could be sustained were reduced to two, one of whom is at present employed, and the other was receiving some allowance from a former employer who had been compensated for destruction of fisheries.

In connection with these men I feel that if we could make provision for them, now that the Electricity Supply Board will be requiring certain staffs to look after the fisheries, by securing their employment, it will be much more satisfactory than trying to devise some basis of compensation. The only difficulty which might arise is the age of these people. Deputy Bennett and others raised a question as to whether there was any doubt about compensating owners for damage done to fisheries or of acquiring these fisheries. It is necessary to take power to compensate in certain cases that may arise—for instance, the rod fisheries, but in the majority of cases the policy will be one of acquisition, and not one of compensating. I do not want to go into a discussion about the tail-race at Ardnacrusha, or whether it is true or not that salmon are going there and dying. I cannot claim to have expert knowledge of the subject. I am solely dependent on the information supplied by experts, and that seems to indicate that the information Deputies have got cannot or may not be correct. In fact, it has been contended that the existence of the tail-race has saved the salmon fisheries, that if the fish did not get in they would get into deep pools where the Abbey fishermen are netting and that none would get beyond that. These are points upon which I can offer no conclusive opinion, but the position is being investigated. I am quite satisfied we will get no satisfactory measures taken in order to protect the salmon unless and until we have had the control of the fisheries handed over to the Electricity Supply Board. Under the Bill it may be necessary to expend substantial sums for stocking, and it is quite possible that that expenditure would be nullified if the netting of the fish in the portion of the Abbey River was allowed to continue.

I think these are the principal matters that have been raised. Any other details that were mentioned can be discussed more satisfactorily on the Committee Stage. The principle of the Bill is to take over the fisheries of the Shannon, hand them over to the control of the Electricity Supply Board and charge that body with their preservation and development in future as the best method of dealing with a situation that is not altogether satisfactory. I do not want to be misunderstood in my remarks concerning the effect of the Shannon scheme on the fisheries. Deputy Lynch and Deputy McGilligan interpreted me as saying that the position in respect to the fisheries was good. My information is that the number of fish entering the river showed no diminution but, on the contrary, showed an increase over previous years and that that was to be regarded as satisfactory having regard to the fears expressed as to the effect of the construction and operation of the works and the shortage of water upon the future of the fisheries. In fact, various people, speaking with authority, said that the salmon fisheries on the Shannon would almost inevitably be destroyed. There has been no indication that that is so yet and, although as I have said, it is much too early to come to any conclusion on that matter, the reports for this year from the purely technical point of view appear to be quite satisfactory. It does not follow that the situation has proved a profit to the local fishermen or anything of that kind. There may be a situation in respect to the tail-race or for some other reason which is preventing that. That is something which has got to be rectified by some device which only experts can devise.

Question put and agreed to.

Second Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st August, 1934.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 18 Jul 1934