I have not got much to add to the remarks I had to make on Deputy McMenamin's amendment. I think he can safely trust the commission to ensure that his point of view will be kept in mind and that they will sympathise with the purpose that the amendment is intended to serve. I think it would be undesirable to put an absolute compelling clause of this sort in the Bill to achieve the purpose. I think that abuses could very possibly arise if the commission were forced to do what Deputy McMenamin purports to do in this amendment. If he leaves the matter in the commission's hands I think he will not be disappointed at the manner in which they will carry out their duty in this respect.
Committee on Finance. - Foyle Fisheries (No. 2) Bill, 1951—Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (2), line 47, to delete all words after "allocated" and substitute "to those who work for hire and have habitually acted as fishermen in the waters to which this Act refers".—(Deputy McMenamin.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete sub-section (2).
I would like to know what is the meaning of this sub-section. Are there any outstanding licences other than those we know about or is this merely an omnibus sub-section, to cover any situation like that existing?
As the Deputy will recollect, a measure was introduced some months ago to empower the Moville Board of Conservators to suspend the issue of licences. That special legislation had to be passed because the board could not refuse to issue licences on application and it was deemed undesirable to have a large number of licences already issued on the coming into operation of this measure. It was thought better that the commission should start off, so to speak, with a clean slate. Rod licences, of course, were exempted from the power given to the board of conservators so that if any rod licences were in fact issued, they will under this section be deemed to be still in force when this measure becomes law.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary know of any such cases?
No. In any event if the enactment of this measure were delayed for a prolonged period the board could in its discretion issue licences other than rod licences, but if there have been any rod licences issued they will now under this section be deemed to be in force when this measure is passed. This is to ensure that those licences will not be affected adversely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), lines 3 and 4, page 11, to delete "(other than a fishery of which the commission is the occupier)".
I have already, on the Second Reading, stated my objection to this part of the Bill. The commission are exempt from rates on their property. That would be all right if they had no control over anything except what the commission is basically appointed for, State control and management of the tidal waters from Lifford to Lough Foyle. But here they purport to strike rates and they will not rate themselves. It is all right to say that there are fixed rates; in other words that they may not exceed 20/- in the £; but if the commission paid rates on their own property that would proportionately reduce the rates payable by the owners of the tributaries that constitute this area. If the State is going to get the benefit of this they should contribute a share of it. The people who would be contributing are local people. They are not the taxpayers of the country generally but are a limited and specific number of people. They will have to bear this burden, and the commission purport to exempt themselves from that. The Government will get any profit that is made and in my opinion it is not fair to strike rates on three or four people to maintain and pay the costs of the administration of this entire commission in regard to protection, and so on. With regard to the property of which the commission will become absolute owners, this is the very part of the river that will require most watching and protection. The major portion of the efforts of those watchers will for a number of years, at least, be confined to protecting the property in the actual possession of the State. It is highly inequitable that three or four people should have to pay the entire rates in this respect. I have no instruction from them; it is merely a question of equity and the Parliamentary Secretary should consider this matter.
I do not think that a good case can be made for making an exception of this particular piece of public property any more than any other public property which is exempt from rates. It is the practice to exempt public property from these rates.
There is no comparison.
The commission will not operate the fishery for the purpose of making a profit. Whatever income it gets by way of rates or licences will, I take it, be utilised for the further development of the fishery.
The provision in in this Bill is to make a return to the Minister, to account for the moneys and to pay them over if called upon.
That is the mechanism by which State income is usually handled. The Deputy can take it that the income from this fishery will be utilised for the development of the fishery and the State will not be anxious to make a profit on its working. The general principle in respect to the liability of public property to rates is that the liability is usually terminated when the property comes into public ownership. I do not think that any good case can be made for making an exception of this, simply because it is a fishery. I think the Deputy might accept it as being part and parcel of the pattern of the treatment of public property generally. There is really no other answer to it. I might point out to the Deputy that property is usually rated because some benefit accrues to the occupier; the occupier, in any event, is the person made liable for the rate where it is not paid. I do not think you could apply that principle where you have a commission appointed by two Governments in nominal occupation of this fishery. The benefit of it will, in fact, go to the people who fish the river. These licensees could hardly be treated as rated occupiers. I think the obvious and simplest answer to Deputy McMenamin's point is that, being public property, it is in a very different position from ordinary private property.
I am not at all impressed by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. This is a typical section inserted in Bills to exempt governmental authorities where Governments themselves are concerned. Public property, as we know it generally, is quite different from the sort of property in question here. By public property generally is meant property such as Government buildings, schools, Garda barracks, etc.—that is, the property of the State. The citizens of the State generally get a certain benefit from the purposes for which these buildings are used but the property here concerned is a particular thing and I think it is neither fair nor just that the private persons concerned should have to bear the entire burden of maintaining and protecting a property which is vested in this commission. This technically comes under the State but it comes under it in a very special way, quite out of the general order of things. I think it is not right that we should classify property of this description as public property. It is a special and particular thing and I think the commission out of their funds might justly and equitably be called upon to bear the cost of protection of the waters of the entire area.
I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not just that this provision should be allowed to pass in its present form. While a Government with a majority in the House has power to pass any law, however unjust, by the exercise of that majority I would point out that the moral law is just as binding on Governments as on individuals. The Government is not justified in adhering to a headstrong attitude which conflicts with justice. I think it is not right that the few men who get really no benefit out of this arrangement should have to bear the cost of it. If the money is expended on increasing the fish population in these areas, it is expended for the benefit of this river of which the commission and the Government are the owners. The owners of the private fisheries are not the only beneficiaries; they are being used to defray the cost of propagation of the fish for the benefit of the commission. The House will therefore see that this is quite different from any other example of public property that can be put before us. As I have said before, I do not want to be taken as representing these people. I know very few of them. I met one of them once only but I put up this case on the grounds of equity and justice. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should place this property in the same category as that which is generally classified as public property. There is no analogy between ordinary private property and this class of property and I do not think it fair or just to attempt to treat it as ordinary public property.
I think Deputy McMenamin is not having due regard to the fact that the commission will protect the property of these private owners to whom he has referred.
They are protecting their own property.
In so far as they own property, the benefit of their ownership will pass to the people who will operate the licences. The commission, as such, will operate only that part of the river which is located in the County Derry and that will be put up to public tender for the transitional period referred to in the Bill. The commission will not profit by the protection of the river. Whatever they do in the way of increased protection and, therefore, increased propagation, will inure to the benefit of these private owners and, in so far as it improves the fishery in the part of the river they own themselves, the immediate benefit of that will go to the people who fish the river. Perhaps the Deputy may also be under some misapprehension with regard to the payment of rates to the local authority. He did not specifically mention that.
I am not raising that. I have no objection to it.
I do not think that I can add anything more to what I have already said.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is quite fair to himself in basing his argument mainly on the fact that the property of the private owners will be protected. That is true, but with what? With the State's money? Not at all; with their own money. Watchers are to be paid out of moneys paid over to the commission for that purpose. They appoint the watchers but the main part of the river which these watchers will protect is the property of the commission. There is no logic whatever in the statement that the property of the private owners will be protected as a result of this arrangement. They are protected with their own money, are they not? You are asking them to pay not only to protect their own property but to protect yours. Surely that is not justice. I do not mind their contributing to the pool for the protection of the entire area but I object to their having to pay for the protection of property from which they will get no benefit whatever—and never will—without the commission contributing some part of the cost. There is no equity in that state of affairs.
The commission will protect the entire area including its own property. If it does not protect its own property it cannot protect the propagation of fish in the privately-owned parts of the fishery. It seems to me an unnecessarily roundabout way of getting the money. They could strike a rate for themselves but I take it that a very large part of that would have to be paid out of the public funds, in any case.
It is provided in the Act that the expenses of the commission will be provided by the Oireachtas. I think that Deputy McMenamin is attaching more importance to this matter than it deserves. I think that the statement I have made twice since he moved this amendment, that this is public property and, on the general practice of its being exempted——
I have known every yard of the rivers in this area for the past 60 years. These rivers were protected before this commission was ever heard of. They were better protected then than they are now either by the Moville board or by you. Why take the statutory power of imposing taxation on these owners without any benefit accruing to them from it? You give them no benefit whatever. I base my objection on the ground of equity. Were I the Parliamentary Secretary I should not ask these people to pay for the protection of another man's property. He can protect his own property himself. In any event, he has to pay for it so why not let him do it himself?
Could the Parliamentary Secretary offer this degree of reassurance? Assuming that the commission undertake certain expenditure in any given year for protection, is there any possibility of arranging that there shall be a segregation of that part of the cost which is involved in protecting the commercial fishery and that part which is properly assigned to the riparian owners of rod and line fishing and then striking whatever rate is to be levied on the riparian owners on that basis, so that if it appeared that the commission laid upon the riparian owners an unreasonable share of the total cost of protecting the fishery the riparian owners would be able to make representations to somebody that part of the cost should be removed from their shoulders on to the commercial fisheries account and their rate proportionately relieved? I think that Deputy McMenamin would probably agree that if the Moville board is no longer there, and unless the commission protect the waters of this fishery area, the riparian owners would themselves have to go to some expense to protect them. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is more rational to allow the commission to undertake the comprehensive protection of these waters. It can be more economically and efficiently done in that way.
I think, however, there is a strong case for the view put forward by Deputy McMenamin that the riparian owners are entitled to some reassurance that, inasmuch as the commission is in itself to be the body to levy the rate, if it should seek to make the riparian owners bear the total cost of protection, thus relieving itself of any contribution, the riparian owners would have some tribunal or body to go to and say that the costs have not been fairly apportioned and that they would like a review of the rate struck.
I should be satisfied if the commission would contribute a proportionate part of the cost of protecting the entire area or even the cost of protecting the particular waters over which they have direct and complete charge. That is all I ask and the equity of it cannot be contested by anybody.
I should like to point out to Deputy Dillon that these private owners are at present paying 23/- in the £. That sum is now limited by this Act to 20/- in the £. All over the country, the tendency has been for these rates to increase. The commission will collect licence fees and they are going to spend these licence fees for the general protection of the whole area.
With the money of the people in that area.
Yes.
None of their own.
The commission will give licences to the public at large to fish in what now becomes the commission's own property.
They may give them licences, but they cannot give them legal authority to fish in a river belonging to me, as private property.
I do not suggest that.
A good deal of that was generally done.
Now they are going to operate what was formerly in the occupation of the Irish Society and they will license a number of people to fish in it, to whom they will charge a licence fee.
Did the Irish Society not pay rates to the Moville board?
Yes, as every fishery owner does.
Why do you not do it?
The Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to make his case without interruption. The Deputy has had an opportunity of presenting his case.
If Deputy McMenamin would make allowances for the very special circumstances under which this commission comes into existence, I think he would not persist so much in his point. After all, there is a Border running right through this district. Two jurisdictions are governing in it. This is a very special problem requiring a very special solution. It is not possible to deal with it in the way in which we deal with an ordinary fishery that is entirely within one jurisdiction or the other. That is the fundamental problem and it has produced a number of other difficulties as well as this one.
A big stick.
There is not much point in the commission's striking a rate upon itself and applying that rate back again to produce the equity which he thinks is now lacking. If he examines every aspect of the question he will find that equity is not outraged at all in the method by which the money is provided for the protection of this fishery. In the protection of its own property the commission will, in fact, be helping the propagation of fish and enhancing the value of the private fisheries.
I see the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary. This is an agreed measure and regard must be had to that fact. Deputy McMenamin rightly expressed apprehension lest an undue burden would be placed on the riparian owners. I am bound to concede to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in all the circumstances, he gave a reasonably reassuring answer when he pointed out that the present level of rates payable to the Moville board was 23/- and the maximum rate that can be levied by the commission is 20/-. It does not meet, I admit, Deputy McMenamin's point, but I submit to the Deputy that it does go a long way to ensure that, whatever inequity may arise hereafter, it cannot result in an undue burden being placed on the riparian owners so long as we have the reassurance that the statute provides that the future rate can never come within 3/- of the rate which is at present being levied and paid to the Moville board.
I am aware of that.
The riparian owners then cannot suffer.
But if the rates came down? Whether they go up or down, I want everybody to contribute equitably.
The position is that the commission is the body responsible for protection generally. They can collect up to £1 in the £ rates from the riparian owners and then they must defray out of their own resources the difference between the yield of that rate and what it actually costs adequately to protect the fishery. Therefore, assuming that they levy a rate of £1 in the £ forthwith, the fluctuating element here will be the share attributable to the commission's own property. Certainly, my experience as Minister for Fisheries gives me no reason to apprehend that there is any conceivable prospect of the fishery rate being reduced, because my anxiety when I was Minister was that every fishery authority in Ireland seemed to regard their existing resources as ludicrously inadequate and it was the stock excuse for failing to do their job. Therefore, I think it would be showing apprehension over a very unlikely contingency if we were earnestly concerned at this stage to protect any prospective benefit that might accrue to the riparian owners consequent on a stiff reduction in the rate payable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 24 to 54 inclusive put and agreed to.
SECTION 55.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) The inspector and river watchers who have been in the employment of the Moville Fishery Board shall continue to be employed by the commission.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept the amendment?
It is provided in the Bill that the existing staff of the Derry and Moville boards are being taken over.
I shall accept that statement from the Parliamentary Secretary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
Remaining sections put and agreed to.
First and Second Schedules put and agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In paragraph 8, sub-paragraph (1), before "secretary" to insert "part-time".
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether an officer of the Department or some other civilian is to have a whole-time appointment in this office.
A member of the commission will be the secretary, quite apart from the staff which is being taken over. Under the arrangement, one of the senior members of the commission will be the chairman. During the year of his chairmanship the junior member on the other side will be the secretary. When the senior member from the other side becomes chairman, there will be a corresponding change in the secretaryship as between the two junior members.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In paragraph 10, to delete all words after "office" in line 14 to the end of the paragraph.
This paragraph provides for two offices, one on each side of the Border, to accommodate four men. Of course, the cost of these offices, and even the rent of them, will have to come from somewhere. We purport to have agreement on this matter between the two Governments, but it strikes me that there is a considerable amount of suspicion of one another when two offices are required to hold four men. In view of that, one just does not see where amity comes in. I take it that the cost of these offices will have to come out of the funds of the riparian owners, and that this proposal represents another part of the injustice which inspired me to bring forward an earlier amendment. Is there any technical reason for having these two offices, or is this just a mere piece of playacting to satisfy the ideas of certain people on either side? Surely, the four men could meet in one office somewhere.
I take it that this arrangement is being carried out to meet any possible objection which there might be on the part of anybody in one jurisdiction to transact his business in the other jurisdiction. I imagine that if we did not provide this convenience, we would be pilloried for compelling people to leave the jurisdiction in which they live and to go and do business in the other. There might be very strong objection on the part of people if they were compelled to do that. I do not know whether I could offer the Deputy any better reason than that for the provision of these two offices, but I submit that that is a fairly substantial reason.
Where is the rent to come from?
From the income of the commission.
If there is to be one office, where is it suggested it should be? When those who object have answered that one, they will be quite entitled, on the merits, to substitute it for my modest proposal that there should be two.
I think the suggestion was made that it should be on the middle of Lifford Bridge.
Or in the ante-room to Heaven.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In paragraph 17, subparagraph (2), line 18, to delete "an auditor appointed by" where the phrase secondly occurs.
The proposal in this subparagraph strikes one as amazing in view of the fact, as we have been told, that this Bill is the fruit of complete unanimity between the two Governments. Yet, in spite of that, the petty accounts in regard to the management of a stretch of the river require the services of two auditors. The auditors will have to be paid out of the funds of the commission, these funds being extracted from the riparian owners. One auditor will represent the Northern Government and the other the Government of the Republic. I submit that proposal represents the limit of absurdity. Could there not be agreement on having one man? Have you no faith and trust in one another? The public are being asked to pay for this piece of play-acting. Is there no confidence between two Governments—one going up to Belfast and the other coming down here—which are falling on each other's necks? With all that unanimity, they cannot trust each other to have one public auditor. Surely, one should be enough to audit these petty accounts. I do not care where he comes from, I would take his figures. The proposal here is to pay two. Again, the payment of the auditors will come out of the funds of the commission, which will be provided by the riparian owners. All this talk about unanimity makes one sick, all this talk about this being an agreed Bill, and of each Government falling on the other's neck. Could not the Governments trust one another and agree to appoint one auditor?
I think it is wholly unreal to suggest that the two Governments have spent their time exchanging embraces in connection with this Bill. I think that even Deputy McMenamin will agree that this Bill represents an astonishing achievement. We have undone, by this modest piece of legislation, a very undesirable transaction which had survived for three centuries. There is not the slightest doubt that sensibilities on both sides had to be remembered. There is no use proceeding on the basis that everyone was actuated by nothing but a plain, unvarnished common sensible approach.
This was a settlement of an extremely difficult problem which had excited both Deputy McMenamin and myself in our salad days in politics. I can remember him addressing the multitude in Milford, in language that shocked the most seasoned politicians of the time, on this exact topic, and I can remember myself speaking with some trenchancy in Inishowen on this topic. I cannot associate any of our younger colleagues in the representation of County Donegal with those stirring days because they were not there. I think that some of them were not born then, but I remember the time when blood and thunder were the mildest elements in the Lough Foyle situation. We had to do in this Bill something which may appear to be a little impractical; the world would be a dreary place if everyone was practical. The appointment of two firms of auditors, one on each side of the Border, probably rose from a tacit acknowledgement by both sides that the all-important matter in the peaceful and successful acquisition of this fishery by goodwill was to preserve in every aspect the outward appearance, together with the inward fact, of complete equality.
Some firms such as the Imperial Chemical Company and the Imperial Tobacco Company—I could name a number of other large combines—have two firms of auditors. It is quite a common practice. I am not pretending that the volume of the accounts of this trust was such that two firms of auditors were indispensable. What I am trying to show is that, where provision has been made for a somewhat equilibrious arrangement of this kind, it was a very small price to pay for what appears to me to be the miracle of securing an agreed measure.
Complete unity.
This agreed measure gives the Foyle Fishery back into the ownership of the Irish people and banishes from it a London company that was installed there by a foreign power 300 years ago. It is unique that we in Ireland have managed to undo gradually the conquest by effort in some departments and by peaceful purchase in others. We may get a kick out of removing the vi et armis but, in retrospect, I think we have every reason to congratulate ourselves in that, before any attempt to enjoy the kick of using power and arms, we succeeded in bringing the settlement of this matter down to the pedestrian level of pounds, shillings and pence and a firm refusal to shed our neighbour's blood or crack our neighbour's crown.
If Deputy McMenamin's amendment were accepted it would read: "That the accounts for each year shall be audited by an auditor appointed by the Minister and the Ministry."
Why do you do it?
I have been informed that the Comptroller and Auditor-General does not wish to have imposed upon him the duty of auditing the accounts of the commission and that the same holds good in respect of his opposite number in Belfast. I have no doubt but that there would be no practical difficulty in doing what Deputy McMenamin wishes. Apart from the situation Deputy McMenamin visualises, there might be disagreement for some very substantial reason, such as the type of auditors' report that either Government might require. Difficulty might arise there. Lest it should turn out in that fashion, because of the relatively insignificant cost involved, it is thought better to obviate the possibility of such a situation arising by having the matter dealt with in this way. It is perhaps double auditing. If the expense were very big one might see objection to it. It is one of the problems which has arisen out of the double jurisdiction running right through this entire matter. I do not think Deputy McMenamin need be very apprehensive as to the expenditure of money under this head. I think the expenditure will be negligible in relation to the entire cost.
I think I know my fellow countrymen in the Six Counties and I think if I had to go to Belfast to do this, that would put an end to that piece of codology.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass."
I think this stage should not pass without the House turning for a moment to a consideration of the magnitude of the achievement represented by this measure. This is a Bill containing 80 sections and five schedules. It has received the consent not only of the owners and those who had charge of this property but of three parliaments, for the Parliament of Northern Ireland had to get legal licence from the Imperial Parliament to enact legislation corresponding with ours.
When I think of the difficulty that arises in getting agreement about anything anywhere, I appreciate that in respect of this very formidable document we have succeeded in arriving at an acceptable agreement to which effect is being given by a measure containing 80 sections and five schedules. Every word and line was checked and double-checked by the parliamentary draftsmen of two parliaments and reviewed in globo by the third. When I recollect, as Deputy McMenamin recollects, the magnitude with which this problem bulked in the politics of County Donegal 25 years ago——
A piece of play-acting—disgusting play-acting. It is all play-acting.
——in the days when we used to be told that fire and sword were the only means of resolving this problem, I stand in awed admiration of the distinguished public servant who successfully negotiated this most difficult matter.
I have said before that the tradition of the Civil Service of this country is that a Minister must get all the credit for the success registered by his Department and he is usually effectively sheltered from the probable consequences of many of his own mistakes. There is no recent event in which that fact is more manifest than in connection with this particular piece of legislation. In the resolution of innumerable complex and difficult matters that had to be resolved in bringing this Bill into existence, my effective contribution as Minister for Fisheries was relatively trivial. It is true that Mr. Justice Lavery, then Attorney-General, and Mr. Justice Casey, who was his successor, made no unsubstantial contribution; but the main burden of that extremely difficult job was borne by one member of the public service, who has now retired in the ordinary course, and I feel it would be wrong not to call to mind again what a remarkable achievement for him this Bill represents.
I do not expect that all the difficulties in the administration of the Foyle Fishery are ended with the passage of this Bill. There will be many difficult and delicate problems to be resolved by this commission, but I am greatly encouraged with the hope that, formidable as these problems may be, we shall be able to master them in the knowledge of the complexity and difficulty of the problems that were overcome in arriving at this agreement. I remember that not the least formidable difficulty was in getting the terms of the agreement down in black and white in 80 sections and five schedules to which no party to the agreement took exception and which all parties to the agreement were prepared to steer through their respective parliaments.
I remember saying on a previous occasion—and I think that Deputy McMenamin will agree with me in this —that I was first familiarised with this problem by the late Chancellor McCafferky of the Diocese of Raphoe. It was very near to his heart. I would wish that he had lived to see something so near to his heart so effectively achieved. Had he lived and if this Bill were my responsibility, I would cheerfully acknowledge him as its spiritual father. He is now where such tributes no longer have a value, but certain it is that it was his memory largely inspired me to authorise the embarkation on this very difficult task. Its successful conclusion is a monument, however unworthy, to his memory and I hope that in so far as it begets better understanding amongst neighbours on the Donegal-Derry border it may hereafter grow into something less unworthy of the memory of that remarkable man than it must at present be.
May I be permitted to endorse the tributes that have been paid to the officials, north and south, who contributed so signally to the enactment of this measure? It is now a significant fact that, by common consent of these two governments, for 15 miles of the Border, at least, they have agreed to ignore it in the manner of fishery administration.
Question put and agreed to.