Skip to main content

Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 1938

Vol. 70 No. 5

Shannon Fisheries Bill, 1938—Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Hogan

I think this is a rather appropriate place to raise certain matters concerning rights which are given to the board in respect of the condition of property on the Shannon owned by weir owners, and such things. This section reads as follows: —

On the appointed day, every fishery and every fishing right in or over the waters of the River Shannon above the weir known as Corbally Mill weir, together with all ancillary rights appertaining to or necessary for the enjoyment of such fishery or fishing right, shall, if and in so far as it is not already vested in the board, become and be transferred to and vested in the board...

I am very anxious to know what exactly is the position regarding these rights, and what are the ancillary rights. I find, in the 1925 Act, a section — Section 13 — which gives power to strike a certain rate and deprives the local authority of the right to strike a rate. That section says: —

Every person who is liable to be rated under the Fisheries (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1909, as amended by this Act in respect of a fishery, shall be exempt from liability for any rate leviable by the council of any county, county borough...

and so on. Does that mean that any county council where these rights have existed will have to exempt the fisheries from rates?

Mr. Lemass

From what Act is the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Hogan

The Fisheries Act, 1925.

Mr. Lemass

I thought the Deputy was talking about the Shannon Electricity Act.

Mr. Hogan

I am not so foolish as that. The weirs on the Shannon were exempt from the county council rates, and I want to know if the Electricity Supply Board, when it acquires these weirs, will also be exempted from rates by the county council? We have had an epidemic of that kind of thing in County Clare.

Mr. Lemass

Do I understand that the Deputy was quoting from Section 12 of the Fisheries Act, 1935?

Mr. Hogan

No, the Fisheries Act, 1925. I want now to guard against these exemptions so that the Clare County Council will find some revenue somewhere in the county. If the Electricity Supply Board is to have the right of not paying any rates to the county council where does the county council come in? We have had an epidemic of that thing in County Clare. Already we have had the Shannon works at Ardnacrusha exempted. We have had no information up to this about the Rhynana airport. Now we want to know if these weirs are to be exempted from paying rates to the county council. That is a very important point for my county and I want to get a definite answer from the Minister as to whether the Electricity Supply Board is going to be liable for rates to the local authorities.

Mr. Lemass

Whatever the general fishery laws may provide in that regard, I cannot say. I am not familiar with the fishery code. The fishery code is not being amended by this Bill.

Mr. Hogan

By this section all ancillary rights in this fishery at Corbally Mill weir become transferred to the Electricity Supply Board. Sub-section (6) of the Fishery Act, 1925, definitely states: —

"Every person who is liable to be rated under the Fisheries (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1909, as amended by this Act in respect of a fishery, shall be exempt from liability for any rate leviable by the council of any county, county borough or urban district, or the commissioners of any town, in respect of that fishery for the local financial year commencing on the 1st day of April next after the commencement of this Act or for any of the nine next succeeding local financial years..."

That is the kind of thing that would be construed as an ancillary right. If the Electricity Supply Board is going to get that right, that it will not be liable to rates to the county council as the local authority, I would like to hear the arguments that the Minister will adduce to defend that kind of legislation. He is taking away rates from the county council.

Mr. Lemass

That was done by the Act of 1925 — the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Hogan

If the Minister transferred the ancillary right which these people held, he transfers the exemption to pay rates.

Mr. Lemass

Whatever right they held under the 1925 Act the Electricity Supply Board will acquire under this Bill. These are rights ancillary to the fishery rights.

Mr. Hogan

Sub-section (1) of this section lays down that every fishery and every fishing right together with all ancillary rights shall become vested in the board on the appointed day. I do not know what may be the decision on that matter. I do not know what the ancillary rights would be construed into under that section. I believe that ancillary rights would be construed into freedom from local rates. I want an assurance from the Minister that that is not intended. If it is not intended why does the Minister not say so?

Mr. Lemass

The board is being brought into the same position as any other person who would buy these rights. If they are not liable now they will not be liable then.

Mr. Hogan

Does the Minister think that is equitable legislation?

Mr. Lemass

That matter was not raised when the 1925 Act was passed. There is now no question of amending the general Fishery Acts by this Bill. It is only a question of transferring to the Electricity Supply Board certain fishery rights.

Mr. Hogan

Then I may take it that it is the Minister's opinion that the Electricity Supply Board will not be liable for rates to the Clare County Council? Does the Minister think that is a good attitude to take towards the local authority?

Mr. Lemass

The law is not being changed by this Bill.

Mr. Hogan

Then I think it is bad legislation. It is treating the local authority very unfairly.

Mr. T. Kelly

How did Dublin fare under the Shannon Electricity Act? I think it lost everything.

Mr. Hogan

Dublin is a rich county.

Mr. Kelly

Not so rich as you think.

Section 5 put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hogan

On Section 6, would the Minister tell us what is meant by "an estate or interest"? Has the lessee an estate or interest in a fishery? Is the lessee entitled to compensation under this Bill?

Mr. Lemass

If he has any estate or interest in the fisheries he is entitled to compensation.

Mr. Hogan

That phrase "estate or interest" is not defined in this Bill. Would the Minister tell us what is meant by an estate or interest?

Mr. Lemass

The lessee has an interest in it.

Mr. Hogan

Therefore lessees would come under it.

Mr. Lemass

There may be categories but I do not know. The Deputy is leading me up to something that he has at the back of his head.

Mr. Hogan

I would not attempt that at all; I would not be able. I have an interest in this Bill because it affects a great many people in my county. It affects the county council. It interests a large number of people on the western Shannon, the people who own fisheries and have let them and I want to know if lessees have a right or interest when that is transferred.

Mr. Lemass

That is a matter to be determined by the arbitrator. Any person who believes he has a claim can make a claim. That claim for compensation will be adjudicated on by the arbitrator who will decide.

Mr. Hogan

That is very good equivocation, but it does not meet the question I asked. Has the lessee a right or interest? What is the intention? Is it the intention to give the lessee a right or interest? Is it the intention to give the lessee an estate or interest in the fishery.

Mr. Lemass

I am afraid I cannot follow the Deputy. If I lease property from another person, say on a 99 year lease, and that property is compulsorily acquired by the State I am entitled to compensation. I have a very definite interest in that property.

Section 6 put and agreed to.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

This is a section that is brought in here nominally for the purpose of making it possible to pay compensation to certain persons who are not provided for in the Acts previously passed by this House dealing with the Shannon electricity undertaking and the fisheries affected thereby. I suppose the Castleconnell fishermen would come under this. In any case a number of parties who are aggrieved might get compensation under this section. The categories into which these aggrieved parties fall are so many and so divergent in character that an omnibus clause of this kind is considered to be the most effective way of providing for them. In so far as that is true, this clause has a great deal to be said for it; but when we come to examine who is to determine which of these various categories of aggrieved persons are to get compensation, and how much they are to get, we discover that the person who is to determine who will get compensation and how much they are to get is the person who will have to pay the compensation.

The Minister argues that that is the only way of doing it, and if he did not do it that way it would mean shutting out these people from getting any compensation. I submit that argument is nonsense. When any aggrieved party applies for compensation, for one of the heterogeneous reasons that may be advanced under Clause 10, somebody must decide whether, in fact, he has been injured and how much he is entitled to receive. The Bill says that the Electricity Supply Board shall decide those matters. There is no conceivable difficulty about providing that, instead of allowing the Electricity Supply Board to determine these matters, they shall be determined by an independent arbitrator. It is usual, if you provide an arbitrator, to give him pretty close terms of reference. The difficulty here is that the heterogeneous quality of claims likely to be made render the creation of close terms of reference a virtual impossibility. But at least the arbitrator will be in no greater difficulty in determining these claims than will the Electricity Supply Board, and before the Electricity Supply Board pay the claims they have to determine each one of them.

Now, if on this occasion, on the excuses made by the Minister, we admit the principle that where a citizen of the State is injured in his property or rights that person's claim for compensation shall be determined as to its validity and amount by a Government Department, by the Minister or, worse still, by an autonomous corporation like the Electricity Supply Board, that precedent will be relied upon in subsequent Acts of Parliament and the very essence of genuine compensation is that Parliament will erect between the party aggrieved and the party offending an independent arbitrator to determine their respective rights and the amount of the damages due. If you depart from that fundamental principle, that the question of damage must be determined by a party independent of both aggrieved persons, then there is no end to where you may go.

All Deputies will have seen the growing tendency in all Government legislation to make the responsible Minister a final court of appeal in determining appeals made by citizens against decisions taken under legislation. That is a wrong principle. We go a step further here in Section 10 and, where a grievance is admitted, where damage is known to have occurred, we leave it to the autonomous Electricity Supply Board to determine whether they will pay and, if so, how much they will pay to the aggrieved party. That principle is rotten, so rotten, so dangerous, that on that single issue we voted against the Bill on the Second Reading and on that single issue now we shall have no hesitation in dividing the House. We welcome the opportunity afforded by Clause 10 of getting compensation for aggrieved parties not provided for in the Principal Acts, but we reject absolutely the proposal that the person who is to be mulcted in damages shall himself be the judge of whether he is to be so mulcted and, if so, in how great a sum.

Mr. Bennett

I have no doubt the Minister's intention is to help unfortunate people who could not get compensation under the original Act but, like Deputy Dillon, I do not believe this is the proper way to do it. I have been a consistent opponent of clauses in the various Bills which give Ministers discretion in certain circumstances to operate the legislation of this House. But this is even more objectionable than the clauses which give the Minister discretion, because here we have the discretion vested in an interested board, a board set up by the House and which is itself interested financially. It will be their object to expend as little as they possibly can in this, or any other, direction and, unless they are supermen, possessing a charity unbounded, they are not likely to be as liberal as an independent arbitrator.

There are several sets of fishermen concerned in this matter, the Castleconnell men, the Killaloe men, the Abbey fishermen and others, and any Deputy from Limerick or Clare must object to the proposal to allow the Electricity Supply Board to occupy the position of assessing compensation. I believe this difficulty could have been surmounted otherwise than by the arrangement in this section. I appeal, even at this late hour, to the Minister to accept some other way of dealing with these particular sets of fishermen than by leaving them to the discretion of the Electricity Supply Board.

Mr. Lemass

In a fit of pique, Deputy Dillon challenged a division on the Second Reading of this Bill. His Party, knowing nothing about the Bill, or about the motives which had actuated Deputy Dillon, obediently followed him into the division lobby and voted against it. Since then they discovered what they had done, and they have obviously instructed Deputy Dillon and Deputy Bennett to explain away their action. Hence the speeches we have heard. What is all this talk about compensation? The word compensation is not mentioned in the section.

Mr. Bennett

An ex-gratia payment.

Mr. Lemass

In so far as people are to be compensated, adequate provision for that compensation has been made in the Principal Act passed by the Dáil. We do not bring in an arbitrator to determine what their compensation should be. There were set out in the Act rigid rules by which the amount of compensation to be paid to them was to be determined. They are there set out in black and white. Every person who the Dáil considered was entitled to compensation and who came under that section, got compensation in accordance with its provisions. It was because there were classes outside the category, who could not be held to be entitled to compensation but in respect of whom it could be urged that there were grounds for ex-gratia payments, that this section is introduced in this Bill. The people who will get these ex-gratia payments are people not entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act, provisions which were drafted much more liberally than the corresponding provisions in the Act of 1925, under which the Shannon works were constructed, and this question of compensation was created for the first time.

If we were to attempt to do what Deputy Dillon is suggesting, we would have to set down rules to guide the arbitrator who would be called into existence. He would have to be given some terms of reference, and no matter how you attempt to frame them, they would be bound to operate to deprive some person who would get an ex-gratia payment under the section as it stands, from getting that payment. The only way to deal with cases of this kind is to give discretion to the party concerned to make what payment, in their opinion, real justice requires. I mentioned the case of certain fishermen who were engaged in exercising a public right of fishing. Do Deputies opposite seriously suggest that people should be compensated because circumstances arose which prevented them from exercising a public right — a right which they share with every member of the public? Could it be claimed that these persons had any interest or ownership in the fishery in that particular case? They had not. To attempt to establish as a precedent the right of such persons to compensation would involve widespread complications in every direction. It would establish a precedent which would make public administration almost impossible. I am prepared to agree, and have agreed, with those who have brought forward the case of these men that, although we cannot admit their right to compensation, there are, in all the circumstances, grounds to justify an ex-gratia payment. That is what we are providing for. There are, perhaps, cases of persons affected by the acquisition of the Shannon fisheries or the construction of the Shannon electricity works who might think they should get ex-gratia payments but concerning whom the board may have a different view or vice versa. I do not think it is possible to approach consideration of this matter on any other ground than that it is necessary to give somebody unlimited discretion to deal with these cases but, from the point of view of the parties concerned, there is no better body to which to give that discretion than the Electricity Supply Board because the Electricity Supply Board have an obvious reason for trying to secure the goodwill of all these parties. They have got to operate these fisheries from the source of the Shannon to the sea. They have got to protect these fisheries and they are naturally anxious to secure that all these minor grievances which have accumulated in consequence of the acquisition or destruction of the fisheries should be liquidated by cash payments, if possible. They are much more likely to deal generously with these people than is any arbitrator, even if it were possible to frame rules under which an arbitrator could act. From the point of view of the parties concerned, the best provision in this Bill is that contained in Section 10 and I am prepared to resist, in the interest of the parties concerned, any proposal to amend that section on the lines suggested by Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I am always interested in the form of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. When he is satisfied that he has a good case, he is suave and polite and as pleasant a person as you could have dealings with across the House. When he is satisfied that he has a bad case, he always starts off by attacking the other side and by saying something personally offensive to somebody. In this particular instance, the Minister was not in one of his suave moods. If I may say so, he was in one of his offensive moods. It immediately occurred to me that the Minister did not believe very much in what he was going to say. What are his arguments? There are certain persons, he says, who are not entitled to compensation under the original Act. The original Act set out that certain classes of persons were entitled to compensation. Other persons who, he thinks, have a moral claim to compensation did not come within the terms of the original Act. What does that prove except that the original Act was too narrowly drawn — that people with a moral right to compensation did not come under its terms? The Minister now rightly comes along to amend the Act so that these people who have a moral claim to compensation, but not a legal claim, shall receive adequate compensation. What is our suggestion. Our suggestion is a very simple one — that instead of saying "whenever the board is satisfied" to say "whenever an arbitrator appointed by the Minister is satisfied..." I cannot see why an arbitrator appointed by the Minister — assuming, as I am entitled to assume, that he appoints a man of ability and integrity — will not exercise a judgment as impartial as, if not more impartial than, the Electricity Supply Board or any similar body. What is the Minister's real argument? He wants to draw a verbal distinction between compensation and an ex-gratia payment. I do not care a button what he calls it. If “whenever the arbitrator is satisfied that a person is engaged by a way of trade...” he awards compensation, what it is called is a matter of no importance. I suggest that the course we propose will give more confidence to the people and the public. An arbitrator should deal with these claims, which may not be enforceable in law, and not the people who have got to pay the money and who have got to secure that the Electricity Supply Board will be a paying concern.

The Minister says that a public right of fishing is a thing in which no private individual has any right. Granted. If a public right of fishing be taken away, there may not be any legal right but there may be a moral right to compensation if a man's means of livelihood be taken away. The State recognises that man's moral right to make a living. Why should he not receive an amount decided upon by an impartial arbitrator rather than an amount decided upon by an interested party like the Electricity Supply Board? I think that these arguments were running through the Minister's mind and that was why he was in his mood of attack when defending this section. I suggest that he abandon his mood of attack, that he get back to the much more pleasant, suave manner of which he is sometimes master and accept our views on this section.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister's assertiveness is always in evidence when his logic is lacking. His logic is lacking now and his logic has been lacking in his piloting—"piloting" is a good word in this connection — of this Bill. He tells us that this is an ex-gratia payment. It is no such thing as an ex-gratia payment. It is payment in respect of a right destroyed by two successive Governments, which right was not legally recognised up to the present. He tells us that under a section of this Bill fishing rights and ancillary rights are being handed over to the Electricity Supply Board. Does he recognise that the employment of some of these men upon the fisheries, in respect of which several riparian owners were compensated, was also a right, and does he recognise that it was the right of these fishermen on the fisheries at Killaloe to be handed over to the buyer when the fishery changed hands?

There were two kinds of fishermen at Killaloe. There were the fishermen employed by the riparian owners on the fisheries which belonged to them, and the fishermen on the free waters. The fishermen who were employed by the riparian owners went with the sale of the fisheries. It was a recognised right that a person buying a fishery took over for employment the men employed on the fishery. If A., a riparian owner, had five men employed on a fishery, B., who bought that fishery, had to take over those five men. That was the right of these men. What did the Shannon fisheries reconstruction work do? It destroyed that fishery and it compensated the riparian owners, but ignored the claims of the fishermen who were entitled to be handed over to the purchaser with the purchase of the fishery. Now the Minister tells us that that was not a right. It is a right that has existed for generations along these banks, from Killaloe down by O'Brien's Bridge and on to Limerick, and, therefore, in respect of these people, there is no case whatever for saying that it is an ex-gratia payment. It is payment in respect of a right, and it is only just that the Minister should amend the old Act and bring these men under its provisions in respect of the fixing of their compensation. If there is machinery at present under the old Act for the fixing of compensation, let the Minister put it into operation, but let him not say that the people who are expected to pay the compensation should be the people to fix it. Surely that is not justice, or anything like even-handed justice. Suppose he were to do the opposite and to say that the employees should be entitled to fix the compensation in one case and the Electricity Supply Board in the other. Would the Minister agree? Surely it would be just as right to say that the people who are entitled to compensation should have the fixing of it as to say that the people who have to pay it should fix it. That is in respect of the people on the weirs down the Shannon.

Let us take the case of the fishermen on what have been described as the free waters. The Minister tells us that anybody could fish on the free waters. They could not fish in the way these fishermen fished and earned their living. Tourists came from England and employed these men who fished from what were known as cots, and that was a matter which had to be learned after years of practice. The Minister would probably get a very severe ducking if he endeavoured to fish on the Shannon from one of these cots. Fishing on the Shannon from one of these cots has almost to run in one's blood before one can do it. But the Minister went in deliberately, and in the interests of the community — I admit that freely — destroyed that right. He took it away completely from them and said to them: "Go home and starve"— because that is what they had to do. Killaloe was a thriving, prosperous place at one time. You raised the level of the waters by 15 feet and destroyed all the fishing in it and now what was a prosperous little village is a graveyard. These people who were sent home to starve and who were making a frugally comfortable living have now no means of living. I am basing my case on the fact that everybody could not do that fishing on the Shannon. It was something which had to be acquired after years of practice. Now, none of the English tourists come over to fish, taking a cot out on the Shannon, and fishing from it, and giving these men 10/-, 20/- and 30/- as sometimes was the case, a day, and, therefore, their means of living is gone. These are the two cases—the riparian owner with whose fishery, when it was sold, the men had the right to go, and whose right was destroyed when the electrification of the Shannon was brought about, and the men on the free waters whose case I have endeavoured to explain now. There is another set of men I want to mention. I want to know if the employees of the lessees on the Shannon will be entitled to compensation under this Bill? I should like the Minister to endeavour to be a little more lucid and less assertive.

Mr. Lemass

I am afraid I cannot understand what Deputy Hogan's grievance is. I want to try to be suave and polite, and to show Deputies opposite that the case I have is a really strong one. The flooding of the waters at Killaloe took place 11 years ago, and the Act under which that was done made no provision for the payment of compensation other than to owners of property which was either acquired or destroyed for the purpose of the construction of the works. For the first time, a Bill has been introduced here which provides the possibility of payment being made to the many persons who thought they had a claim to compensation in consequence of what happened in 1927, but who could not be given any compensation, or any payment, because there was no legal authority in anybody to provide the money for that purpose. Here we are giving the party most directly concerned the power to make payments, and there is no limitation upon that power otherwise than is set out in the section. It is confined to persons who were engaged, by way of trade or otherwise, for profit in fishing in the waters of the River Shannon——

Mr. Hogan

Why do you not make it incumbent on them to pay compensation in respect of these rights?

Mr. Lemass

——or was employed for reward by any person in such fishing, or was both so engaged, or so employed. He must be able to show that he conforms to three conditions: (1) that he was engaged by way of trade or otherwise in fishing; (2) that he suffered loss of profit, or loss of earning, by reason of interference under any of the Acts from the Shannon Act, 1925, down to date, and (3) that he has not been compensated already. Subject to his fulfilling these three conditions, the board is empowered to make these payments to him. I was interested to hear Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney arguing their claim to compensation. I wonder did he argue as eloquently at the meetings of the Executive Council, of which he was a member, when his Government was taking the decision, which they reiterated again and again until they went out of office, that no compensation could be paid to these persons and that they were not entitled to payment of any kind whatever. The matter was frequently discussed here in the years between 1927 and 1931 and the Government of the day took a most definite line on the subject. The first departure from that line was when we made provision by a special Act for the payment of compensation to certain employees of the Cork electricity undertaking who were employed on trams. The second departure was when we introduced the Act which this Bill is designed to amend, the Shannon Fisheries Act, 1935, which, for the first time, made provision for the payment of compensation to persons who lost their employment by reason of things which happened under the Act. It set out the conditions they had to fulfil in order to become entitled to compensation and the rules by which the amount to be paid in compensation was to be determined.

Now, we are going further. We are giving to the board discretionary power to make further payments in cases not covered by the 1935 Act. We are putting no limit on that discretion, otherwise than to the extent shown here, that it is confined to those who suffered loss by reason of the effect on the fishing. It is confined to persons engaged in fishing operations. I am very strongly of opinion that the only way of dealing with the multitude and with the variety of cases which have from time to time been brought to light is to give some wide discretionary power of this kind to the Electricity Supply Board. I am quite satisfied that no arrangement that could be devised between these persons and an arbitrator will prove as satisfactory as the operation of this section. In fact, the circumstances are such that no arbitrator could in many cases do otherwise than refuse to recommend any payments, where the board, in its own interests, might decide to make payments in order to remove sources of ill-will.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister is slightly wrong in his historical statement because, as a matter of fact, I did not become a member of the Executive Council until the Minister had left the wilderness and come into the House.

Mr. Lemass

1927.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That was not the year the Shannon Act was passed. The Bill was passed before 1927 but we will leave it at that. The Minister's speech amounted simply to this: that this had not been done up to the present and because it had not been done, any scheme he suggests must be right. I cannot follow that argument at all. If the previous Government or the present Government has not up to this dealt with these people, that does not seem to have the slightest bearing upon the question as to whether the method embodied in this section is right or wrong. Personally I cannot see that it has the slightest bearing on the question of method, and I have heard nothing from the Minister, except a statement that the arbitrator might not give what the Electricity Supply Board might give. I cannot follow that at all. The arbitrator can make up his mind upon the meaning of words just as well if not better than the Electricity Supply Board. The Minister's argument seems to be this: that the Electricity Supply Board will walk outside the terms of this Act and will give compensation to people to whom they are not empowered to give it under the terms of the Act. Otherwise I cannot follow his argument. What can be given under the terms of the Act can be determined, in my opinion, much better by an arbitrator. As the Minister says, the Electricity Supply Board will give where the arbitrator will not give. Therefore, the Minister's argument, that the Electricity Supply Board will give compensation to persons to whom under this Act they are not entitled to give it, means that or nothing.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister is telling the Electricity Supply Board that they may or may not do certain things. That is what it means and these people will be left in the wilderness as long as that is the position. There is to be no governmental action. It simply means that they do not recognise that these peope have any rights whatever for what was taken from them, but that the Electricity Supply Board is entitled if in their goodness they choose to do so, to consider their cases and pay them compensation. That is all that is in the section. The board may do what they like. They may leave these people in the widerness until they are old enough to get the old-age pension and the burden of compensation will die with them. The section simply means that the board is given power to do what they like. The burden handed to them is being handed over to others because they were exposed to criticism. There is this difference, however, that whatever the board does will not be discussed in the Dáil. There is no Minister in the Dáil responsible for their activities. So long as it was a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce it could be raised without any difficulty in an estimate or in some other way, but when it is the Electricity Supply Board it cannot be raised again. The Electricity Supply Board is being told to do what they like but they will be forced to do nothing. The section means: "Take the burden off the Department. I am not going to face the Dáil about it any longer." That is the sum and substance of the proposals in this section. In regard to people to be given compensation, does the Minister not know that in respect of the Electricity Supply Board tribunals were set up to deal with employees and to fix the compensation? Does he not know, what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney stated, that a tribunal or an arbitrator is well able to come to a decision? If the Electricity Supply Board are going to deal with this question differently from a tribunal they are going to do so in an illegal fashion that would be outside the Act. The Minister has no case and he knows it.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister was not able to deal with them.

Mr. Dillon

Our application is a very simple one. The Minister says he has drawn the terms of reference for the Electricity Supply Board very wide because, frankly, he could not foresee every kind of case and no one else could. All we ask him to do is to draw up the same terms of reference for an independent arbitrator to be appointed by him. If he will take out of the section the name of the Electricity Supply Board and put in its place the name of any Circuit judge sitting on the bench, that will meet our need. Small as that concession may appear to be, I regard it as something very much more vital than the protection of particular rights under this Bill. I regard it as a precedent which will be followed in subsequent legislation. I think it is right we should take our stand against any proposal to entrust the assessing of compensation, whether by legal or moral right, to the authority which will ultimately have to pay whatever compensation is given.

Mr. Lemass

I shall explain that this section did not initiate in the way suggested. An indication of the section was foreshadowed when the Electricity Supply Board approached me saying: "Here are classes of people who in our opinion have a claim for compensation, but unfortunately we are debarred by law from making payments to them." If the Deputy knew the history of the section he would appreciate that the dangers he foresees cannot arise. The Electricity Supply Board were anxious to get into the position when they would have power to make payments which they thought should be made to certain parties.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister realise what that means? He informs us that the Electricity Supply Board had power to exclude a large class of persons, and they then came to the Minister stating that they wanted power to deal with persons they already knew of, the assumption being that having dealt with them nothing definite resulted.

Mr. Lemass

A most foolish assumption.

Mr. Dillon

They have sought this for ten years, and apparently there is a catalogue of them.

Mr. Lemass

The Shannon Fisheries Act was only passed in 1935.

Mr. Dillon

The Electricity Supply Board were approached this year, and then they told the Minister: "Here is a list of people we want compensated. We think they ought to get compensation." That implies that they have already rejected dozens of others. All we want to ensure now is that not only those that the Electricity Supply Board after criticism indicates are entitled to compensation, but that there should be compensation also for the others that they have announced their intention of turning down, so that they will have an opportunity of going before someone of the standing of a Circuit Court judge to make their cases. Surely that is not a concession too great to ask for, particularly in view of the information which the Minister has just communicated to the House. Unless he gives us that, the whole issue is determined and there is virtually no use in anybody else applying, because the Electricity Supply Board have made up their minds and they only want this section to deal with the group of people they have already got before them. Surely that copper-fastens our case.

Mr. Lemass

It would, if it were true.

Mr. Dillon

Surely it must be true. The Minister tells us that the Electricity Supply Board asked for it because they said: "We have a group of people whom we think ought to be looked after." They did not come and say: "We think, we hear talk, we see in the newspapers that there is a number of people who are likely to apply if they think it worth while." They say: "We know of a certain group of people who do not come under the principal Acts, and we think we ought to do something for them; facilitate us in this matter." This is to exclude all the other people. Could proof go further of the reasonableness of our contention? I press on the Minister, with the information placed in his hands by the Electricity Supply Board, that he should come to see the urgent and vital necessity of providing an independent arbitrator to allow those people, with whom the Electricity Supply Board do not see eye to eye at present, to have an opportunity of having their submission impartially considered.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 37.

Tá.

Níl.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 11.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 1 to this section is out of order, as being outside the scope of the measure as read a Second Time.

Mr. Lemass

Do I understand, Sir, that you are ruling the first amendment out of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order. I understood that intimation to that effect had been sent to the Minister. If that is not so, I apologise.

Mr. Lemass

It is not a matter of great importance. I move amendment No. 2:

2. In page 5, to add after Section 11, a new section as follows:

In sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Principal Act, all words from the words "other than" to the words "hereinafter mentioned" are hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby declared and enacted that the said sub-section (1) shall not apply to or render unlawful anything done under and in accordance with the written permission of the board.

This amendment is required because the Electricity Supply Board have already acquired all the fisheries in the freshwaters of the Shannon which they have been able to identify. Any others, of whose existence they are not now aware, will automatically vest in them under this Bill on whatever day may be appointed under Section 4. The board will, accordingly, become the sole owners of fisheries and fishing rights in the tidal waters shortly after the Bill becomes law. This amendment is necessary to protect the rights of the board by prohibiting the use of nets in the fresh waters of the river other than for the catching of eels or as an auxiliary to angling by rod and line except by written permission of the Board.

Mr. Dillon

Fishing with rod and line is not covered by this?

Mr. Lemass

No. This refers to net fishing.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title of the Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Lemass

If there is no objection, I should like to have the Report Stage taken now.

Mr. Dillon

We should like to have an opportunity of putting down an amendment on the Report Stage.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 9th March.

Top