For the purpose of amendment No. 16 the Bill will have to be recommitted. Is it the Minister's intention to recommit for all amendments, apart from amendment No. 16?
Supplementary Estimate. - Fisheries Bill, 1938—Final Stages.
It is not intended to recommit, except for amendment No. 16.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 6, Section 6, line 27, to insert after the word "person" the following "(in this section referred to as the owner)", and in line 28 to insert after the word "benefit" the words "or, if the owner so requests by notice in writing to the board of conservators concerned, such other person as the owner specifies in such notice".
On this point, during the Committee Stage there was a fairly full discussion and Deputies expressed the desire to have such an amendment moved Deputy Lynch in particular was very keen that the person might be empowered under the Act to nominate somebody to represent him in such circumstances.
Mr. Lynch
I raised this point and I accept the Minister's amendment as meeting it, but I regret I do not see a similar amendment to Section 14.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 7, Section 9 (1), line 15, to insert after the word "shall" the words "so long as such order remains in force", and before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) A board of conservators may, at any time, revoke any order made by it under the immediately preceding sub-section.
This is also a point that was raised by Deputy Lynch, that, if the board of conservators scheduled certain waters, they would have no power to withdraw those waters from the Schedule.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 7, Section 9 (2), line 17, to delete the following "sub-section (1) of this section" and substitute the words "either of the immediately preceding sub-sections".
This amendment is a consequential one.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendments appeared on the Order Paper:—
4. In page 7, Section 9 (3), line 20, to delete the word "three" and substitute therefor the word "four".
5. In page 7, Section 9 (3), after paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) trout rod (special concession) licences.
6. In page 7, Section 9 (4), after paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) trout rod (special concession) licence, a licence duty of sixpence.
7. In page 7, Section 9, before sub-section (8), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) Any person who satisfies the board of conservators of a fishery district that he is for the time being in receipt of unemployment assistance or home assistance or that his income or earnings does not exceed £2 per week may obtain from such board a trout rod (special concession) licence and such licence shall be valid only in such fishery district.
9. In page 8, Section 9 (9), at the end of paragraph (c) to add the word "or" and a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) such person is the holder of a trout rod (special concession) licence for the time being in force issued by such board of conservators.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 may be taken together: they all deal with trout rod licences.
I move amendment No. 4. This is an amendment which seeks to make some easier provision for persons who are in receipt of unemployment assistance or home assistance. In some cases I understand that the sum available to those people would amount to about 6/- per week; and in a case where it was necessary to pay for the licence it would take 5/- out of the 6/-, which would be a hardship. The principle is admitted of having to buy a licence, but an effort should be made to bring it within the means of the person concerned. It is unlikely that there would be many such cases, and, of course, the administrative difficulties have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, it would be advisable that people who are in poor circumstances ought not be debarred by reason of a charge which, although merely nominal, is almost prohibitive to persons in the two classes that are mentioned. If it were possible to make a scheme of this sort workable, it might be a good thing for everybody concerned. In other countries you have fruit trees growing alongside the road, and they are never interfered with. There has grown up a respect there for what Providence provides. It is more than likely that, if special consideration were shown to people of these classes, to people in these circumstances, there would be a corresponding interest shown by them in the fisheries and all concerned with them. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is one that I think the Minister ought to consider in the exceptional circumstances of the case. From the information at our disposal, quite a number of these people have fishing rods, but naturally they are not of the expensive kind, and if occupation and useful recreation of this sort were available for them, it would be a benefit to their families and generally, I think, would be of use to the country. I put down the amendment in order to deal with persons who are either in receipt of home assistance or unemployment assistance. I can quite appreciate the case that the Minister may make against it—that a man may not be long in receipt of unemployment assistance or home assistance. But it is possible that in such cases, if provision were made for them when they are in receipt of assistance, they would themselves respond to that if they got into more affluent circumstances.
I wish to support the amendment. If this Bill as originally drafted were introduced in the British House of Commons 30 or 40 years ago, representatives of this country would feel like saying very hard things about it. As a matter of fact, one might say that it was a landlord's Bill. Of course that does not arise now. Apparently it is substantially agreed that, in the interests of the country and to make these fisheries a national asset, it is prudent to do something for them. But we must consider the background of this whole question. People of this class in the past, to put it plainly, would hardly be allowed to walk on the bank of a river. It was an offence to walk on the bank of a river if there was any suspicion of poaching. We are now introducing a universal licensing provision, and we are making an appeal on behalf of this class of people, who at present have no amenities to enjoy. The first two classes particularly are people who could not possibly afford any amusement for which they would have to pay. There is nothing for them except to walk the roads or the fields. I suppose they will be at liberty now to walk on the bank of a river without committing an offence. I said on the Committee Stage that if you give a man like this a licence he possibly would not catch a trout in ten years. But that is not the point. The point is that you get the goodwill of men who, when they take a stroll on the bank of a river on a Sunday, might otherwise do damage to valuable fisheries.
With regard to the two first classes, I do not see any administrative difficulty whatever. If the concession were granted and such a man were to look for a licence, all you have to do is to ask him to show his unemployment certificate or his home assistance certificate and that settles the whole matter. Some trouble might arise with regard to people earning under £2, but with regard to the two first classes there would be no trouble whatever. But I think that when we give a concession to riparian owners and their families we should also give it to the labourers. On the farm of a riparian owner there may be a labourer who may have two or three sons. All the amusement that these boys would have on a Sunday evening would be to take a fishing rod of some kind and go and fish a river or a stream. As we have admitted the principle with regard to the riparian owners, surely a very strong case can be made for these agricultural labourers and their sons, because, although the riparian owner actually owns the land, these are the men who assist him in working it and keeping it in production. We have admitted the principle of giving a 6d. licence to farmers. A farmer may be a man who has £1,000 in the bank and may own a farm of 60, 70 or 100 acres. There may be three or four labourers' cottages on his farm. We are giving the concession to the farmer, but we are not giving any concession to the labourers. When we are giving the concession to the farmers, I think we should certainly meet these other cases.
Mr. Lynch
The Minister has attempted, I think, to meet very fairly the views put up by Deputies. I wonder would he consider this matter before the Bill goes to the Seanad. He has met nearly every possible point put up with reference to this trout rod licence. He has gone farther in some respects than, perhaps, I would be inclined to go myself. I think it would be worth while, in order to get general agreement on this trout rod licence, to agree to consider meeting this one remaining point, especially with regard to those who are in receipt of unemployment assistance and home assistance. I think the Minister will agree that I have shown right through the whole course of the Bill appreciation of the difficulties with which he has to contend. When a person who is in receipt of one of these licences ceases to be either unemployed or in receipt of home assistance, I can see a difficulty arising as to how you are going to get him to change from a special concession licence to an ordinary 5/- licence. That is the difficulty that the Minister would have to consider, and before the Bill goes to the Seanad I think he ought to consider whether he could meet this last point.
I wonder do Deputies Cosgrave, McMenamin and Browne mean these amendments to be taken seriously. My belief is that it would be better to withdraw the licences altogether. If these amendments were passed it would take an army of officials to operate even the concessions already made. I doubt if it can be carried out. The Dáil is only inviting hundreds of other people to break the law even with the previous concessions. It would be far better to have something in the Bill that we can carry out. A man may be in receipt of home assistance this week and go off the next week, and we should then change his licence. Then there is the matter of earning under £2 a week. If that were in the Act we would have arguments over it in court every day as to whether a man earns £2 or £2 1s. a week. Thousands of officials would be needed to operate the provisions for juveniles and riparian owners though it would be easier to know whether an applicant was a riparian owner or whether he was a juvenile. But to establish the fact in court that a man is in receipt of home assistance or unemployment assistance or that he has a wage of £2 a week would be extremely difficult. Every employer in the country would need to make returns to the boards of conservators. In my opinion that is what it would mean.
Though I see some of them, I think the difficulties are exaggerated by Deputy Allen. I would like the Minister to consider that the number affected is very slight. One of the main difficulties was the one mentioned by Deputy Lynch, that is the question whether a man is in receipt of home assistance or unemployment assistance and what his wage is. These are theoretical rather than practical difficulties. The number of such cases would be slight. If a man bona fide gets a licence and exercises it for a year there is not much damage done. The number of people fishing is not so very numerous and there would be no army of officials necessary. The man has his unemployment card. I admit there is some difficulty so far as earning under £2 a week is concerned, but I do not think an army of officials would be required to deal with that. I suggest to Deputy Allen that it would be easier to establish the receipt of unemployment benefit than juvenility.
From day to day?
That is a theoretical objection. I do not think if a man is in receipt of unemployment benefit it will matter much whether he gets this concession. The number affected will be slight. For that reason I think the Minister, in order to meet the objections, some of them not well founded, should consider at least two of the cases first mentioned in this particular amendment. I see the difficulty about the £2 a week earnings. Possibly in the other cases the Minister might consider the genuine purpose that is served by this particular amendment.
Deputy Allen more than exaggerated the difficulty in connection with this amendment. A man gets a licence and gets it for a year. During that 12 months a certain number of months only will be operative. Assuming that a man were getting home assistance or unemployment assistance for three weeks and then gets employment, some one or other will inform the clerk of the board of conservators that that is so. Assuming that no action is taken, will not the clerk mark in his book that this man was employed for a certain period of the year and when the man in the following year comes in for his licence he will ask him for 5/- for it. The individuals will have to make a case for the licence. The man will have to satisfy the board of conservators or rather satisfy the clerk, for that is what it would mean. It does not appear to be a very onerous task. It is possible if there are difficulties that there are compensations as well in the whole business. The desire here is to ensure—and it is possible to do it—greater respect and regard for the fisheries, to make them of interest to everybody and not to have men going along and saying "only the rich can enjoy this; how can I pay 5/- for a licence out of 6/- unemployment assistance?" or something of that sort. These amendments are moved in order to get a true appreciation of citizenship. The number of persons affected will be inconsiderable. If the amendment effects the purpose of getting the interest of everybody in the fisheries, it will be worth paying money in order to get it.
The concessions so far made on this section are on the age or residential basis and not on the means basis. In these amendments there is a departure from what has been the principle. It is not following on the lines of the concession already brought in in respect to Section 9. I think we are going to put a very big task on the board of conservators in these cases. I could understand that a question like this may arise where it was a case that the Government were collecting the money and keeping it for Government purposes, because in that case we would have organisations such as the Revenue Commissioners and the Civic Guards at our disposal to investigate the cases. Here we have only the board of conservators and I think it is hardly fair to ask these boards to take the responsibility of deciding whether a man is getting unemployment assistance, home assistance or earning less than £2 a week. It is not so easy for the clerk to satisfy himself in these cases.
In some big districts like Limerick the clerk is resident in Limerick and that district runs up to Leitrim. That is an extraordinary case if you like, but there are other districts where the clerk can have no knowledge whatever of the people who will apply for licences. I think it would make it almost impossible for the boards to carry on this business at all if these amendments were passed. The boards have to pay the expenses of their local representatives in court and if they were to lose one case in ten or 12 it would not be worth while fighting the cases. If the Deputies gave the matter full consideration they would come to the conclusion that the boards would be almost powerless to carry on the business. In every case they would have to accept the word of the person that he was in receipt of unemployment assistance or that he was earning less than £2 a week. I think by bringing these people to court they cannot lose on them; it is not likely that there would be more than one dishonest person in ten and therefore they could not lose. The only sensible course would be to take the word of the person applying for the licence in each case. I am not sure that Deputies are satisfied that everybody's word can be taken.
There are people in this country who if they think they can get a thing for sixpence instead of paying 5/- for it, would not object to go in and tell a lie. I think you would have this result, that every dishonest person in this country who wants a brown trout licence, if he can get it for sixpence, I am quite sure he will make every possible effort to get it for sixpence.
There is another point about what would happen during the year. It is quite obvious that if this amendment is passed the licence will hold for the year. I think it would be better to have it that way than to have any reinvestigation during the year. Take it that the beginning of the brown trout year is the 15th February. We might regard that as the beginning of the brown trout licence year. There are people who may not be earning as much during that particular week as in other parts of the year. There are people who earn a good deal of money in the Summer or the Autumn or the Spring and they might possibly be earning very little at that time of the year and they would be entitled to this sixpenny licence.
Deputies will observe that there are all sorts of anomalies cropping up which will be very hard to deal with. I think if this matter is examined very minutely we will have to come to the conclusion that if we do this there is no use in saying that we can investigate it or verify the facts when a person comes forward for a licence.
What trouble would you have to go to in order to verify the facts?
You would have a great deal of trouble. For instance, if the clerk were to doubt a person who might be living many miles away it would entail a lot of trouble. If the clerk suspects that the man is not telling the truth, and if he brings him to court, there will be a great deal of expense. He will have to accept the man's word, or otherwise it will become very expensive.
The unfortunate official you put on the banks will have to do all the inquiring.
Even that is not sufficient. He will have to bring them to court, too. I do not really know why Deputies should bring this particular amendment in connection with this Bill and place the very unpleasant task of investigating cases of this sort on the boards of conservators. You could imagine a Deputy or other people suggesting, if this amendment were passed, that people who are unemployed should not be taxed going into a cinema, that they should go in for less than a person who would be working. What is perhaps more important is that they might suggest that unemployed people should not be asked to pay the tax on sugar, that they should get it from their grocers free of tax, and that persons who are working should be obliged to pay the tax. That sort of thing could happen. It is a new principle that has not been seriously advocated, so far as I can recollect, in the Dáil before, and I think it is unfair that we should put this task on the conservators and select them as the first on whom we should try it out.
In this connection I might mention that in regard to another matter Deputy Norton raised a question relating to rents. From my knowledge of the subject before the Deputy introduced it, I believe that there are great difficulties arising in the charging of rents to people according to their various circumstances. In that instance you would have a case worth while investigating in order to find out the person's circumstances. The local authority would have 20 or 30 people, and they would set out to investigate their circumstances. Even so, the members and officials of the local authority would have a great opportunity of knowing the individual circumstances of the applicants for houses, and yet they would find it very difficult to get the facts and act fairly in putting a higher rent on one person than they would put on another.
In spite of all this, Deputy McMenamin says that a man might not catch a trout. That is a bad argument. After all, if they did not catch a trout, why should we have all this trouble about it? I prefer Deputy Cosgrave's point, that these people who are poor might add something to the family income by catching trout. If it were not for a point like that there would not be much in the amendment.
Will the holding of the licence entitle the fisherman to a right of way, or is there any provision made in that connection?
I will deal with that in a moment. On this matter of the licence I may say I have given it great thought and so have the officials of the Department, and they think, and I think, that if this amendment were pressed and passed it would, as Deputy Allen suggests, make this section practically impossible. I know that the conservators would get the 5/- from the tourists who come along. Obviously they are not local unemployed. But I do not think they would get it from anybody else. I think we will have to resist this amendment. I am quite prepared, as Deputy Lynch has requested, to consider every aspect of this matter even up to the last stage in the Seanad, but at the moment I see no hope of anything being done.
Now, with regard to Deputy Walsh's point, there are two very distinct questions there. A person must get a licence to fish in the first place, and he must get leave to fish in the second place from whoever owns the fishery. If it is a privately-owned fishery, unless the person gets leave from the owner the licence does not entitle him to fish there at all. The licence does entitle him to fish in a public fishery. The licence does not give him a right of way.
That will also apply to salmon fishing?
Yes. If the owner of a fishery does not want a person to fish he can keep him out whether he has a licence or not.
Is there not some documentary evidence that a person out of work or in receipt of benefit can supply?
I think there is, but I am not sure.
I would ask the Minister to bear that in mind. I was rather shocked to hear the Minister say that people could tell lies. I recollect that a couple of years ago I was almost hurled out of the House for suggesting that, and I was told I was casting a slur on the fair name of our people. I think our conscience is sometimes extremely subtle, and while a man can tell a lie to the clerk of the conservators, he might not be so ready to produce false documents, and the number of cases, therefore, would be greatly diminished, I suggest. It is a subtle distinction, but it has a funny effect on people. There is documentary evidence, I think. I am not dealing with the case of the man with £2 wages but with the other cases where there may be documentary evidence supplied and the clerk could act on that. In that case I do not think many people would get through the net.
There was one point I omitted. When this section was first brought in I could quite understand Deputies putting down numbers of amendments, but I think the position has changed considerably since the Committee Stage and all these small rivers and streams are absolutely free to the person with a low wage. We are now only dealing with the larger rivers and lakes.
One point made by the Minister was that these cases might go to court. I do not see how they could. The person applying must satisfy the board of conservators and, if he cannot satisfy them, apparently he will not get the licence. Surely, they are the persons to be satisfied? It is scarcely fair to compare this with the tax on sugar. It is rather more comparable with the case of income-tax, where certain allowances are given to certain people which are denied others. This is not something that we are taking off right away. We are imposing a licence of 5/-, which was never in existence before. If we elect to reduce that by 4/6 in respect of an unemployed person, we are still taxing him to the extent of 6d. The same might be said with regard to the entrance fee to cinemas and other places of that sort. Those charges were always there and we are not asking for any special dispensation in the case of the trout licence. We are saying in respect of a particular tax that it should be mitigated in the case of those who have practically no means.
In so far as this matter of a licence is concerned, the case has been made by Deputies and by newspapers that it was likely to injure fishing. It is to correct that impression, as well as to maintain, as far as is reasonably possible, a sort of right that people had, at a moderate price, that the amendment is proposed. Assuming that we take 20 years as the age of persons interested in fishing, presumably 80 per cent. of those who fish one year will be fishing the next year, so that the secretary of the board of conservators is probably acquainted with them. It does not mean that there will be a new onslaught by unemployed looking for licences. It will simply mean that those who were engaged in the sport, occupation, recreation, or whatever it is called, will still be interested in it. The strength of the case for the amendment is that if a man has been accustomed to fish for a number of years, and has not had to pay a tax, he may consider that some limit is being put on his activities. If he is unemployed he will feel aggrieved at not being allowed to take out his rod, unless he pays 5/- licence. I do not think it is administratively impossible to work this proposal. I believe that sufficient case has been made for it to warrant reconsideration by the Minister. It is unlikely that there will be a very large number applying for this concession. In a case like this, where the number will be limited, it is better in the first place to have people fairly well satisfied that an attempt was made to preserve and further develop fishing, and in the next place, not to interfere with those who have been engaged in this sport, pastime or recreation.
The Minister seems to be putting up hurdles so that he may knock them down. In the first place the amendment leaves it discretionary to issue a licence. There is a simple remedy regarding the identification of applicants, inasmuch as they will have to send a certificate, a card from the home assistance authorities or an unemployment certificate to the secretary of the conservators. A letter from the sergeant of the Gárda district in which the applicant lives would identify him as the person specified in the unemployment certificate. No responsibility is thrown on the secretary of the board of conservators. The onus is on the applicant. The proposal does not apply to a large class, because a trout would never look at a fly cast by a man who had not fished before he was 20 years of age. That man might as well be whistling jigs to a milestone as fishing for trout. We are only concerned with men who have been fishing all their lives, and who believe they had a right to fish. They are a limited class who began fishing young; otherwise they will never be trout fly fishermen. Up to this they have been free to fish.
They will surely catch trout.
I know the Minister is trying to assist us, but he thinks there will be administrative obstacles. In my opinion there are no obstacles, because if a man is not able to produce his card, then the question of issuing a licence is within the discretion of those concerned. Fishing has been more or less a reserved right in this country. There was an absolute tyranny in some respects in the past, because a local water bailiff who saw a man on the river bank could summon him.
For what?
For attempting to poach. As a matter of fact, if I was in the British House of Commons and saw such a measure as this and some of the proposals, I would denounce it as a reactionary one. We want to get good-will in this matter. Are we to close the door to a poor man who takes a fishing rod out on Sunday? I am supporting this for the purpose of developing a source of national wealth. A big advance was made when licences were given to all riparian owners. I want to get good-will by getting this concession for a class that cannot afford any expenditure. The British Government never made such a proposal. Even the Irish landlords in their worst days never thought of it. All these years the poor man could take out his rod on Sunday and have free fishing. Such people had free fishing in the past. I want to improve this Bill by getting good-will behind it, and to imbue people with a better sense of citizenship. It should be remembered that very many cases involving violent breaches of the law have taken place in recent years, and that Civic Guards were permanently injured in connection with disturbances arising out of fishing. This is a question on which we should try to carry the people with us by getting their good-will.
I am as anxious as anyone to grant this concession to the unemployed, but I am rather inclined to agree with the suggestion that there would be a certain amount of chaos created. It has been suggested by Deputy Cosgrave and by Deputy McMenamin that the production of an unemployment card or something of that kind would meet the position. That is not so at all, because, under the Unemployment Assistance Act, the man continues to hold that certificate even though he is working. He can claim to get that certificate when he is in employment, long before he thinks he will be idle. As a matter of fact, the labour exchanges suggest to men that they should obtain in advance the certificates to enable them to obtain unemployment assistance when they shall have drawn all their unemployment benefit. If those who have spoken approach the Minister for Industry and Commerce they will realise that that is the fact—that a man holds the certificate in his possession even though he is working. I was wondering whether the Minister could not agree to a scheme to grant this concession to people who have been in the habit of fishing on certain rivers and have been licensed for an agreed number of years up to this—to give that concession to them if unemployed.
They would not have had any licence up to this.
I forgot that part of it. There may be other means of dealing with the matter, but certainly the production of the certificate will not enable the Minister to decide whether a man is working or not.
The Minister is not concerned in the administration of the matter at all.
What would be the position of licence holders if they were found to be fishing on a public bridge crossing a river? The water beneath, and the lands, would be the property of the riparian owners. Are these people to be at liberty to fish, or are they not?
That is a job for the Minister for Justice.
It does not arise on this Bill.
It would be a matter for the Chief Justice.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I think the Minister offers to consider it between now and the time the Bill reaches the Seanad.
Without holding out any hope.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 8, Section 9 (9), before paragraph (c), to insert the following new paragraph:—
(c) such person is a member of the family of the occupier of land contiguous to the portion of such scheduled trout waters in which such person is found fishing and such occupier is entitled to fishing rights in that portion and is the holder of a trout rod (riparian owner's) licence for the time being in force issued by the board of conservators for such fishery district and valid for that portion, or.
The point was raised here that giving a concession to the riparian owner was not in all cases giving very much because the riparian owner's son might be more interested than the riparian owner himself. This amendment includes any member of the family.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 8, at the end of Section 12, to add the following new sub-section:—
(2) Where, not later than the first day of the open season for fishing with engines other than single rod and line in any year for a fishery district, an application is made to the board of conservators for such fishery district for a licence to fish with a draft net or seine or a drift net, and the applicant tenders with his application one moiety of the licence duty payable in respect of such licence—
(a) such board of conservators shall issue such licence to the applicant subject however to the condition (which shall be endorsed on such licence) that the balance of the said licence duty shall be paid not later than the thirtieth day after the first day of such open season,
(b) if such condition is not complied with such licence shall on and after the expiration of the said thirtieth day cease to be in force.
A number of Deputies urged that the licence fee should be accepted in instalments. In this amendment, we go as far as we can in that direction.
Mr. Lynch
As the amendment is to Section 12, I think the Minister has overlooked one matter or that there has been a mistake somewhere. The Minister did not put in the amendment that he accepted from me with regard to 1944.
I was rather doubtful about that, I must admit. On reading the Official Report, I thought my word was accepted because I pointed out that it might be better not to have the amendment, because if the amendment were put in it would compel the change to take place.
Mr. Lynch
The Minister is quite right.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 16, Section 29 (1), line 1, after the word "satisfied" to insert the words "notwithstanding any certificate granted by the Commissioners of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act, 1863".
I put down this amendment with a view to finding what the Minister's view on that matter was. I understand that there have been legal decisions, particularly in connection with the gap in the Lismore weir. The judges hearing that particular case said they were bound by the certificate of the Commissioners of Fisheries, which certificate was granted pursuant to the Act of 1863. If the Minister is already satisfied that under this section he can review or cause to have reviewed gaps in weirs even though they hold certificates as being correct under the 1863 Act, I am satisfied. But I think he might look into the matter as to whether he should, if necessary, take power now to consider whether or not these gaps are in accordance with the law, even though the proprietors may hold the old certificate of the Commissioners of Fisheries that they are all right. It would be well that the Minister should have power to have these gaps inspected if he thought fit. It was entirely in connection with the Lismore weir that I put down the amendment. It was the only case I had in mind as one which might be worth looking into.
We never had the intention of going over the findings of the tribunal that sat in 1863. Many of these findings were, I think, reviewed on appeal. We have inspected some of these gaps and found them to be all right. When it is realised that these weirs will be taken over by the Minister in the future, I think it will be admitted that there is no necessity for making a provision of this sort.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 17, Section 30 (2), to delete lines 31 to 37 (both inclusive) and substitute the following—
report to him upon such representation, and upon the making of the report the following provisions shall apply, that is to say:—
(a) if the report discloses that the execution of the repairs specified in such notice would involve a reduction of more than five per cent. in the working horse power which was available to such mill or factory up to the date of the service of such notice (as measured when the level of the water at such dam is at the average level of the crest of such dam), the Minister shall withdraw such notice and inform such occupier accordingly;
(b) if the report discloses that the execution of the said repairs would not involve such a reduction, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(i) the Minister shall serve a copy of such report on such occupier,
(ii) such occupier may within fourteen days after the service of such copy, send to the Minister a statement in writing objecting to the report and specifying the grounds of his objection,
(iii) if an objection is so sent to the Minister, then—
(I) the Minister shall refer the matter to the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers in Ireland or some person appointed by the said President who may, after investigating the matter, either, as he thinks fit, agree or disagree with the report,
(II) if the person investigating the matter disagrees with the report, the Minister shall withdraw such notice,
(III) there shall be paid to the person investigating the matter such fee as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance may fix, and there shall, in case such person agrees with the report, be paid to the Minister by such occupier a sum equal to the said fee and such sum shall be recoverable by the Minister as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction, and when so paid to, or recovered by the Minister shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance may direct.
There was some doubt about the "fit and proper person" mentioned in the section and I undertook to have the matter referred to the President of the Institute of Engineers.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 38, Section 67 (2) (a), line 59, to delete the word "primarily".
It has been put to me that there is a possibility that if the word "primarily" remains, some of the proprietors of these fisheries might, during the transition period, over-fish their rivers in order to push up their returns for the purpose of compensation. The Minister and the officers of his Department will know that, in the past, many of those proprietors did not fish the rivers as much as they would have been entitled to do under the law because they looked forward to these fisheries remaining in their families for generations. They took care that a certain amount of fish were allowed to pass up to spawn so as to keep the stock up for the years to come. During the last four or five years of the transition period, it might happen that a proprietor would say that it would not matter what happened to the fishery after such a date and that he would lay himself out to take up every salmon he possibly could, so as to run up his returns. The arbitrator would be bound by the figures this proprietor would return as the ordinary profits of the fishery. I think it would be worth while to accept this amendment. In my own mind, there is one proprietor to it. I have heard of one proprietor already carrying on very intensive fishing with a view to pushing up his returns. I would rather like to have that person caught, because his returns are bound to go down during the transition period. At the same time I am afraid that leaving the word "primarily" there will be an inducement to some proprietors, at least, to over-fish their fisheries during that period and consequently hand over to the Minister an asset which would be certainly not worth the amount represented in the returns put before the arbitrator.
I had down amendments covering a similar matter, namely, that when a fishery is taken over, the owner should not be allowed to destroy any of the amenities before it is finally taken over. This is a double-edged weapon. You can test a fishery this year and destroy it for the fourth year. The owner might have luck and he might have a run of fish in one year whereas there would be a failure as a result of the intensive fishing in the next year.
Mr. Lynch
I am glad to see the Deputy accepting my biological argument.
When it suits me. If Deputy Lynch's contention is found to be right on examination, I think provision should be made to meet it.
I think Deputy Lynch has given an instance himself which does raise án objection to this amendment. That is that the owners know now that these fisheries will be taken over, some of them in the near future and some of them in the distant future. They may go out this year, next year and the year after to do intensive fishing and then be able to point afterwards to the period 1938-40, or whatever it may be, to show the great value of their fishery. The intention of the Bill as it stands, with the word "primarily" in it, is to compel as far as we can, the owners of fisheries to keep their fisheries wellstocked, in other words, not to over-fish them, during the period that is going to elapse from now until the transition period should commence. There is no danger, I think, of overfishing during the transition period because we shall have an officer of the Department there present during that time to see that everything is carried out properly. If the owner should attempt to over-fish at that time, of course the officer's report will be very much against him.
Have you power to restrain him?
I do not know that we have power to restrain him but we have power to report him to the arbitrator and the arbitrator can take that into account.
How do you decide whether a fishery is well stocked or not?
I am afraid you will have to fall back on the biological argument for that.
Some years there is a free run of fish while in other years the opposite is the case. How can that matter be decided? I can see immense litigation arising as a result of this provision. Nobody can carry these suggestions into effect at all.
Deputy Gorey knows that if we take a five-years' average, it will give us a fairly good idea of how a river is going because it covers the biological period we have been talking about. If the coming five years are the same as the last five years, we can come to the conclusion that the river has not been over-fished and that the owner has been allowing some number of fish to go up for spawning. All these things have been taken into account. The arbitrator will have a hard job but he will have to make up his mind as best he can.
You get a cycle of years when fish run very freely. It all depends on the floods and the volume of water in the river. Sometimes they do not come up the river until about October or November. I think you are embarking on something about which you know very little.
I do not know much about it at all.
I know something about it and I think the lawyers' hands will be full. They will stand to benefit a good deal.
I think Deputy Lynch's fears are unfounded in this matter. I do not think that he need have any fear that, by leaving the word "primarily" in the section, these people will benefit during the transition period. I think, on the other hand, it would prevent their injuring the fish from this time until the transition period comes.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 go together.
I move amendments Nos. 15 and 16:—
15. In page 39, Section 68, line 56, to delete the word "section" and substitute the word "sub-section".
16. In page 40, at the end of Section 68, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) Whenever a transferable fishery becomes vested in the Minister under this Chapter of this Part of this Act, every person who proves to the satisfaction of the Minister or to the arbitrator appointed to fix compensation in respect of such fishery all the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) that, during the whole of the period (in this sub-section referred to as the appointed period) of five years ending on the day next preceding the date on which such fishery became so vested, he was employed on a whole-time or substantially whole-time basis by the occupier of such fishery in a managerial or supervising capacity in connection with the operation of such fishery, and was so employed at a fixed monthly salary, with or without additional remuneration calculated by reference to the value of the catch, and
(b) that his said employment has been terminated as the result of the vesting of such fishery, and
(c) that equivalent alternative occupation is not open to him,
shall be entitled to be paid by the Minister, in respect of his loss of employment, compensation of an amount equivalent to whichever is the less of the following, that is to say:—
(i) a sum equivalent to the total amount (in this sub-section referred to as his annual salary) paid to such person by way of fixed monthly salary during the fifth year of the appointed period, together with one-fifth of the amount (in this sub-section referred to as his additional remuneration for the appointed period) paid to him as such additional remuneration (if any) during the appointed period;
(ii) an amount calculated as follows, namely, for each year of the appointed period and each previous year (if any) during the whole of which he was similarly so employed, a sum equal to one-twelfth of his annual salary together with one-sixtieth of his additional remuneration for the appointed period (if any).
The question was raised that while we had provided for most of the employees in the fisheries that were being taken over, we had not provided for managers. This section deals with that matter.
Amendments put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Question—"That the Bill, as now amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
When does the Minister propose to take the Fifth Stage?
Now, if there is no objection.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Mr. Lynch
At the outset, I might say that I think the Minister has set a very good example to his colleagues in the way that he has met suggestions put up from the various parts of the House.
He represents the Model County.
Mr. Lynch
I think the Bill is now a much better Bill than it was when introduced. I said on Second Reading that I thought it was a good Bill, and I think it has been very considerably improved as a result of the way in which the Minister has met suggestions put forward by the various Deputies in Committee. Since amendment No. 14, standing in my name, was ruled out of order, I want to make a brief reference to the point with which it dealt. The Minister does make certain provision with regard to these residences which have angling amenities in Section 69 (2) of the Bill. First of all, Section 58 (2) provides that where there is any angling with rod or line appurtenant or contiguous to one of these transferable fisheries, the fishery shall, for the purposes of that part of the Act, be deemed to include such right, that is the right of fishing with rod and line. That becomes a portion of the transferable fishery. Section 69 (2) provides that in the case of a rating, the appropriate authority may review the rates on the particular demesne. The fact of the matter is that what will be left will be usually a white elephant. If you take away the angling amenities from some of the residences, they will be neither saleable nor lettable, and if there could be some provision brought in on the lines which I suggested in the amendment— which I knew would be ruled out of order and which I put down merely to remind myself of this point—or if the Minister would consider the matter before bringing the Bill to the Seanad I think it would be worth while, because quite a number of these houses are good houses, which might be an asset if they had the angling amenity still attached to them, whereas they would be absolutely useless if that amenity were taken away. That is one point that I wish to raise on this stage.
There is also another point. I forget whether the Minister has any responsibility in this matter or not, but it is well known that after the 1925 Act was passed—that is, where the rates on valued fisheries went to the board of conservators—a number of fisheries which had never been valued before were brought in for purposes of valuation. I do not know whose responsibility that is. I have no objection to that, where there were netting pools or things of that kind brought in, but I know of some cases where it is a matter of annoyance to the riparian owner, even though the valuation is small—as I say, they are more annoying than of any real substance—but it is rather annoying for many of these owners, who have stretches of river and who invariably allow the public to come in and fish them without any charge whatever. It is of no value to the riparian owner, and I raise the matter now for the Minister's consideration. I think that if he could use any influence in the matter, where fisheries belong to persons like that who let the public in—and God knows they have little enough from fishing nowadays, and will have less when the Minister for Industry and Commerce is finished with them in his Tourist Traffic Bill— it would be a good thing. It is hard lines on a decent farmer who has a stretch of river, and who allows every Tom, Dick and Harry to come in along the banks of the river and fish there, to find himself salted, even if it were only to the extent of £1 a year, in connection with that fishery.
There is one remaining point to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. I do not know very much about this matter myself, but a big memorandum was handed to Deputy Giles and he told me that he could not be here himself and asked me to mention the matter. This memorandum is on behalf of the owners of fisheries on the River Boyne, between Oldbridge and Rosnaree. They put up the case here that they were in a particular position as distinct from other proprietors of inland fisheries; that is, fresh water netting and traps and so on. I am not necessarily prepared to accept what is in this amendment. As a matter of fact I have not studied it, and I remember that I opposed an amendment by Deputy Pattison on a previous stage, because I think that when we are doing this thing at all we should go the whole hog. However, I intended to pass the memorandum on to the Minister so that he might consider again, before the Bill is taken in the Seanad, this memorandum with a view to seeing whether there is anything in the case they make for special treatment on the Boyne. I think these are the only points I wish to make now.
I should like to know from the Minister if he is taking powers under this Bill to cut down the number of nets operating in tidal waters. I do not think he has that power already, and, if he is getting such powers, would he tell us what process he proposes to adopt? I have a hazy recollection that the Minister referred to that on the Second Reading. If it is correct that they have these powers, I should like to know how the Minister proposes to carry that into operation and apply it. As far as I remember, the Minister said that there would be no interference with present licence owners or those who had been in the habit of fishing certain rivers, but that he would not entertain any fresh proposals. Take the case of a father and three or four sons, and that the father died, or gave up the fishing for some other reason, what would happen in that case, or would the others be entitled to be licensed? The Minister knows the Slaney well, and he knows that at least three different people there have about a dozen boats on the river manned by different people. The licences for those boats, I think, are in the one man's name, and one wonders what would become of those boats if that man died or went out of fishing for some reason or another? Would the other people be entitled to apply for a licence, and would it be given to them? That is what is annoying certain people on the Slaney, and I should like the Minister to clarify the position.
I should like to have some information from the Minister with regard to riparian owners. I am referring to people who enjoyed certain fishery rights some 40 or 50 years ago, and the landlord eventually took them over and deprived them of any hope of regaining these fishery rights, under the Land Purchase Act, and even under the Act of 1923. I understand that no provision is made in that Act for the acquisition of these fisheries by the State. The result has been that the landlords in these cases sub-let or sold these fisheries to other people outside this country, or to people outside the county concerned, and these tenants claim that they have a just right to these fisheries. They themselves agitated, and their fathers before them agitated, for some 40 or 50 years and held out against the original landlord in their claim for these fisheries, and the result was that they had to pay an increased rent for 20 or 30 years when all the other tenants had purchased and got the advantage of the reduced rents.
We are asking the Minister whether some steps could be taken to consider people who come within that category. The fisheries are adjacent to their lands and they certainly have a right to them. The landlord disposed of them and sublet them to some person from another county or country. These people claim that that is an amenity which is part and parcel of their holdings, that they were deprived of in the land purchase agreements, simply because no provision was made to give them assistance with regard to fisheries under any of the Acts, and particularly under the 1923 Act. We thought that something could be done to meet their case, and I should like to get some information from the Minister as to what hope there is for these people.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. The Minister referred to the question of compensation to employees on the fisheries that are to be taken over, and the question of alternative employment is also mentioned. I suggest that, if the State takes over the fisheries, the men already employed under the existing owners should be re-employed under the State. We have a case in one district in County Kerry, where men have been agitating for years, and in fact went to prison in 1920 and 1921, in connection with their claim to these fisheries, and we submit that when any fishery is being taken over these men certainly have some claim either to employment on that fishery, when the final arbitration is being put through as between the vested owner and the State, or to compensation. These men who claim the right to fish in that district should get either some type of compensation or employment in that fishery. About 20 of these men were imprisoned at the time, and their own people and the countryside subscribed to fight the case in court. So far as I know, the title has never been decided one way or the other, and I submit, when the State takes over that fishery, these people who still claim the right of employment in that fishery are entitled to consideration. We submit that they have the same right now as in 1920, and that they should be either compensated or employed, when the State takes over.
Is it the Minister's intention to compensate an aged fisherman to whom he would not be prepared to grant a licence and who would be fishing in the estuary of a tidal river like the Blackwater? I need not tell him that that man might have a family and that very considerable hardship would be inflicted on him if he did not get a licence or compensation instead of a licence. There are a considerable number of weirs here and there throughout the country on various rivers, the Blackwater in particular, on which the employees get a certain amount of work throughout the year. Is it his intention to give those men compensation as well, in the event of their not getting alternative employment?
I would ask the Minister not to act too quickly, or too drastically, in the matter of reducing these draft-net licences. If he does, he will be letting himself in for serious trouble in those places where it has been a tradition. After all, he has ample powers to ensure that the rivers will be properly stocked, and so on. In support of what Deputy Corish said, this livelihood is traditional in certain families, and if the licences are cut down too drastically, it will cause serious trouble and serious poaching, and it would be very difficult for the Minister to deal with it.
With regard to Deputy Lynch's point as to rates being put on after the 1925 Act was passed, I may say that these rates were put on by the rating authority. I do not know whether the attention of the rating authority was drawn to it, but it was the rating authority put them on. There is a point, I think, in what the Deputy says, that some consideration should be extended in the case of a farmer who has a right to a certain fishery, who is rated for it, but who has never prevented anybody from fishing there—a fishery which, in other words, is a public fishery so far as that owner is concerned—but I think it would be a matter for the Bill which I have forecast, the co-ordinating Bill, which will deal with such matters as that, boards of conservators and so on. I am taking a note of the point to see if it could be dealt with in that Bill.
The Deputy also raised a point with regard to his amendment which was ruled out of order, but if the Deputy will look at Section 64 he will see that the person he has in mind may, if he wishes, keep the angling rights on his holding. If he does not exercise that right, and allows the Minister to take these angling rights, I do not think he should get any special treatment because he has allowed these rights to go. He would be having it both ways, if we were to give it to him. The Deputy further mentioned that he had a memo which had been handed to him with regard to some waters in which Deputy Giles is interested. I should like to have that memo. to examine it and to see if any point arises on it.
Deputy Corish asked about the cutting down of the net men in the public fisheries. That is very fully dealt with in Section 37. It amounts to this: there is a standard year taken, 1935, and when that section of the Bill comes into operation, we will take the number of nets that worked in the tidal waters of the Slaney in 1935. The Minister has power to give licences for the same number, that is, 100 per cent., or he may reduce them to 80 per cent. for the first three years, which period he can extend to ten years, if he wishes. Subsequently, he has power to bring them down to 50 per cent., but for the three years or ten years period, he must permit 80 per cent., and he may permit up to 100 per cent. The intention is to allow the regular fishermen to continue. As a matter of fact, it is provided in the Bill that those who have been fishing regularly must get preference. As far as the other point raised with regard to a father of two or three sons, who had been fishing and who dies the intention is to give the licence to sons to carry on. When speaking on the Second Reading, I said that the intention of that section was to make fishing, as far as possible, a regular profession, because in a good year, like 1937. I knew people who came to fish in the Slaney who had never fished for years before and never will again. but it was, however, a good year and these people came along and took a good bit from the fishermen. I think the regular fishermen should be given the good year with the bad year.
What about the case of a man who controls a dozen boats and who goes out?
They are all preferred licences, and the same would hold. We want, however, gradually to cut them down.
I understand that, but at the moment they will be safeguarded?
In a case like that, where a man owns eight or six boats, we possibly would avail of the opportunity to take at least one from him. Deputy Bartley raised the same point and said that we should be slow to reduce the licences. It is the intention to be slow in reducing the licences and to give licences as far as possible to the regular fishermen. I should like very much to have particulars of the matter raised by Deputy Flynn. It would be impossible to deal with the point raised without full particulars as to the men he has in mind. He also referred to employees who were working on privately-owned fisheries and he advocated the taking over of those employees, when the State takes over the fisheries.
That will be done as far as possible. The State will naturally take over these employees. If they are not taken over, they must get compensation. That, I think, answers Deputy Brasier's point also. The State will try to employ them, but if they are not employed, they will be compensated, and the compensation is laid down in the Bill. The other matter raised—that those who thought they had a right to the fisheries should be employed—is different altogether. It would be very hard to give a promise in that respect because I do not know where it might stop.
What about the old fishermen I spoke of? If you do not grant him a licence for net fishing, will you compensate him?
Yes, he is entitled to compensation under the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.