Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jul 1941

Vol. 84 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 31—Fisheries.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £6,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Iascach Mara agus Intíre, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair, agus chun íocaíochta ar cuntas in aghaidh cúitimh.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £6,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1942, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-aid, and for a payment on account of compensation.

On the 24th May, 1939, this subject was before the Dáil. The Dáil agreed to Vote £25,000 on account to the late owners of the Erne fisheries as it was decided that we should compensate those people as the owners under the Act. It will be remembered that they had been declared as not the owners by the Supreme Court here. Nevertheless, we thought that they should get compensation as they had purchased the fisheries in good faith, and thought that they had a proper title to the fisheries on that occasion. I said then that I thought we were not going too far in voting £25,000, because the fishery was purchased in 1869 for £45,000. In 1926 we had documentary evidence that a one-sixth portion of it was sold for £12,000. That would mean that it was worth about £70,000 in 1926. That transaction, of course, included the fresh-water fisheries as well as the tidal-water fisheries. Now, the owners claim that the fresh-water fisheries are not worth very much, if anything, but, whether they are or not, it does not make any material difference to this particular Estimate, because they would eventually be purchased, and the whole transaction would come up for final settlement at the same time as the tidal-water fisheries and certain fresh-water fisheries. Some of those people are old, and would naturally like to get whatever amount may be coming to them now, as it is believed that it may be some years before this thing will be finally settled.

We have gone into this very fully in the Department, and I think that I can safely recommend the Dáil to vote another £6,000. That is on the understanding, which has been made clear to the owners, that the matter is not to be reopened for another four years— until the end of 1945. As I said before, we have to be careful not to set any headline for the arbitrators who may be appointed in connection with the Inland Fishery Act of 1939. There are certain guiding principles laid down for the arbitrators, but I think we are well within the amount that they may decide to pay. I do not think we can be accused of setting them any headline by voting £6,000, in addition to the £25,000 already voted, which will make a total of £31,000. I, therefore, recommend the Estimate to the Dáil.

These fisheries came to the State as a result of a decision in the Supreme Court, and it has now been determined that morally there is an obligation on the community to compensate the owners, an obligation which is being honoured in these several Estimates and in the Bill. Would the Minister say if it is intended to give the owners interest on the capital sum which they have received and will receive under the Supplementary Estimate for the period between the date of the surrender of the fisheries and the date of the receipt of these compensating sums?

I have not come to any decision on that.

As the Minister has pointed out, many of the people beneficially interested in these fisheries are elderly. Now, it may be very nice for them to know that their posterity will ultimately get, under the terms of whatever wills they care to make, a capital sum for compensation in respect of the fisheries. In the meantime these people have to live. They are getting no income, whereas formerly they had been enjoying a very substantial income. On the one hand, I think we are behaving very reasonably in making an ex gratia payment. But there is an old saying that it is “a mistake to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar,” so that if we recognise the equity of their claim, can we not see to do it that we will take such measures as will provide them with an income which will bear some relation to the income they would have been enjoying had this Supreme Court decision never been handed down? I recognise the complexity of the problem and the difficulty of arriving at a reasonable figure. I commend the matter to the Minister for his consideration. I have no doubt that if he came before the House with a modest proposal on those lines, he would have little difficulty in convincing the House that it should be passed. Would it be expedient for the Minister at this stage to say what the future of these other several fisheries in the State is? I take it that all legal proceedings in regard to the several fisheries are suspended now in view of the Fisheries Act that we passed declaring the titles to be valid, whether in fact they were valid or not, and providing for their acquisition by the State.

With regard to the Deputy's point concerning interest, that will be considered. I think that between now and the end of 1945 we will hardly be called upon to pay anything further, because the £6,000 spread over four years would represent, at least, the net income which they had from these fisheries before they lost them.

Agreed, but the Minister will see at once that he might force those people into spending their capital, which is not very fair. If it is meant as a payment which will be ultimately off-set against an agreed sum for interest during the period that those people were waiting for compensation to be assessed, that is all right, but, if it is to be regarded as part of the ultimate capital compensation, I think it is unfair to force those people to spend their capital by depriving them of their income at this time. However, the Minister, having reviewed the position, might say: "I see that we will have to give those people some sum of money at the end of those proceedings in view of the interest they would have drawn on the capital sum had they received it on the date of compulsory acquisition, and this £6,000 that we are now giving them will be first deducted from the interest payable at the end of the negotiations. If the interest payment does not amount to £6,000, the balance must come out of the capital." I think that would be reasonable.

It is on account in any case, whatever fund it may come out of.

Estimate put and agreed to.

Estimate reported and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Top
Share