Deputy McQuillan has given notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 24 on the Order Paper of 29th May last. The Department does seem to have some responsibility in respect of ex gratia payments and on that account I am allowing the matter to be raised. The Deputy, of course, will confine himself to that part of the question.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Lough Ree Islanders' Fishing Rights.
I propose to give the facts of this matter and then appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to use the powers he has to make ex gratia payments to these fishermen for the loss they have sustained as a result of the operation of the 1939 Fisheries Act which came into force in 1948. I put down a question to the Minister for Agriculture last week asking:—
"Whether or not he is aware of the grave hardship imposed on the islanders of Lough Ree as a result of being deprived of their licences for net fishing; and, if so, whether in view of the fact that fishing is their principal means of livelihood, he will have their case investigated with a view to making an ex gratia payment to the islanders concerned under the Freshwater Fisheries (Prohibition of Netting) Act, 1951, or taking other suitable steps to alleviate their position.”
I want to make it quite clear that it was no political purpose that urged me to put down this question. That should be plain to any member of the House and to the Parliamentary Secretary, because this calamity, as I describe it, happened outside my constituency and there are no votes involved for me personally. I believe, however, that there is a grave matter of principle involved, and I propose, in the short time at my disposal and in my own way, to make the facts clear to the House. I do not think it is necessary at all for me or for anybody else to be an authority on the Fishery Acts in order to establish the case which these islanders have. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary is humane enough not to wish to see an injustice done to a section of the community who have very few to speak on their behalf. Consequently, I want to make it clear to him that the question of political capital does not arise, so far as I am concerned.
The position briefly is that, in the past six or eight weeks, three young men from one of the islands on Lough Ree went to prison rather than pay a fine for having been allegedly in possession of trout caught on the River Shannon. These young men, as a matter of principle, refused to pay the fine imposed on them in the local court, on the ground that they had netted on Lough Ree all their lives, that they had fished for their livelihood in the same manner and in the same waters as their fathers and grandfathers before them, and that the fishing they carried on was the mainstay of their livelihood. These men's families have not got farms to enable them to make a living and to rear their children, and from time immemorial they have depended solely for their livelihoods on the fish they netted in the waters of Lough Ree. Due to the operation of the 1939 Act, which came into force on 1st January, 1948, these fishermen were prohibited from carrying on fishing in these waters. I want to make it clear that when ownership of the Shannon waters was being transferred to the present authority, the Electricity Supply Board, a special clause was inserted which set out that the existing rights must be respected or due compensation paid. Is it not quite clear to everybody in the House that if the fathers and grandfathers of the men who live on the islands of Lough Ree fished in those waters for the past 100 years, their sons to-day have a similar right to fish?
1,000 years.
I will go back 1,000 years, if you like. Is it not also clear that if they were deprived of that right to fish, suitable compensation should have been given to them? When this prohibition came into effect, claims were made on behalf of these fishermen for compensation. These claims so far have been ignored. I drew the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary last week to the fact that the chairman of the Electricity Supply Board, Mr. Browne, declared in no uncertain fashion that he believed that the fishermen who live on the islands of Lough Ree were entitled to suitable compensation for the loss of their livelihood. No mention has since been made of compensation for these men, and to-day there is one young man still in jail. Two were released last week when their time expired.
The Parliamentary Secretary replied to one of my Supplementary Questions last week in these terms:—
"In the matter of the Shannon, compensation has not been paid for the reason that it has not been shown that the Electricity Supply Board in fact permitted these fishermen to fish in Lough Ree, and, in the absence of such permission there is no power to pay them compensation. If it can be shown that they were in fact fishing with the permission of the Electricity Supply Board the question of compensation will then arise."
Just imagine that statement from the Parliamentary Secretary: "If it can be shown that they were in fact fishing with the permission of the Electricity Supply Board the question of compensation will then arise."
These men were fishing on Lough Ree before the Electricity Supply Board or the Parliamentary Secretary were heard of and their fathers and grandfathers fished in those waters before Cromwell came to this country. Because they had not the permission of the Electricity Supply Board to fish in those waters, they are now deprived of their means of livelihood on the one hand or suitable compensation on the other hand.
I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that there is a serious principle involved in this, that perhaps due to a slip-up in administration or legislation, this tragedy has taken place but that is no excuse for this House allowing that position to continue. The Parliamentary Secretary should remember that other issues have been raised in this House in the past and even raised throughout the country. These things may have started in a small way, but when public opinion gathered force behind a really good case the Government in power was forced to act in accordance with the wishes of the people. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should tackle this problem before a similar situation arises in this case. I can assure him that there are many people and many organisations at the present time interesting themselves in a very serious way over the problem of these unfortunate fishermen who have been deprived of their livelihood by the State. This House should tolerate no delay in having their grievance rectified. Such barefaced robbery and such contempt for the rights of the people could not be paralleled outside the Iron Curtain.
Let me put it this way. These fishermen and their families depended on the netting of salmon, trout and eel on Lough Ree for a livelihood. That was the method by which they reared their families. But supposing that to-morrow morning the State acquired the house of some public representative, took it over in the interests of the State and handed it to the Electricity Supply Board, without compensation to the owner, I would expect a queer uproar in this House. Supposing the State acquired a man's farm of land, his means of livelihood, and handed it over to the Land Commission and gave no compensation to that man, there would be a queer uproar in this House in order to have that grievance remedied. Yet here we have the position that a small group of defenceless fishermen have been deprived of their livelihood by State interference and no compensation whatever is offered to them for the loss of their livelihood.
I do not want to hold up the House on this particular matter as there are other Deputies here who, I am sure, wish to raise other points in connection with it. I want clearly to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not a political issue and I hope that no attempt will be made to make it one. It is a question of right to see that this terrible wrong done to these individual families will be corrected. I can promise that, as far as I am concerned, if no steps are taken I will travel around that county and other parts of Ireland to organise and see that pressure is brought to bear on whatever Government is in power to remedy a wrong like that.
The Parliamentary Secretary will find an example in Galway City which he knows perfectly well. Along the River Corrib, and at the famous Salmon Weir Bridge, all the rights of fishing for salmon, eel and trout belong to one individual, an alien. Those rights are worth thousands of pounds, but as soon as those rights are acquired by the State that individual is going to be suitably compensated— make no mistake about it—and rightly so, from the point of view that it is from that he has made his livelihood, even at the expense of hundreds of people in the locality.
The Deputy should not discuss that now.
I am merely referring the Parliamentary Secretary to that aspect of it, that that man will be compensated for his loss when the rights are acquired from him. Surely the State will see that justice is done to a group of Irish fishermen who have been deprived of their livelihood, their right to net salmon and trout, and that the State will give them suitable compensation. I look on the Parliamentary Secretary as an honourable man who will not allow his conscience to be overruled in this particular matter, a man who will not try to hide behind the evasive tactics of the Electricity Supply Board and the Department of Agriculture in this connection.
So far, it has been a matter in which the Electricity Supply Board say they have no function. The Department of Agriculture say they have no function, that it is a problem of the Electricity Supply Board. Between the two bodies concerned, the unfortunate fishermen are left without compensation. There is only one body which can finally adjust matters and there is only one man in the position at the moment to take immediate steps to remedy this grievance. That man is the Parliamentary Secretary and I look with confidence to the efforts he will make to do so.
I want to intervene to say that the facts of the case have been stated by Deputy McQuillan very fully. There is one point I want to stress, that prior to the present time the fishermen were divided upon the question as to whether they would accept compensation, whether they could be compensated for the loss of their livelihood. They have now decided that compensation is the only thing they can get. The facts are that their livelihood has been taken from them or is in the process of being taken from them and the only way they can be dealt with is by giving them ample compensation. I agree that it is a big question, but the compensation must be such that it would be adequate to meet the loss they have sustained.
Mr. Byrne
I will not delay the House. I rise to support Deputy McQuillan in his appeal to the Minister. I was in the House when this measure was passed and I think Deputy MacEoin was also here. At that time we all understood that if there was an injustice perpetrated or found out it would be remedied. Deputy McQuillan is merely asking for ample compensation, and if that compensation cannot be paid that the rights be restored to the persons concerned. Deputy McQuillan says they have been fishing there all their lives and that their fathers and grandfathers were fishing there for hundreds of years.
1,000 years.
Mr. Byrne
Deputy MacEoin says it goes back 1,000 years. When the case is made as it has been made by the two previous speakers, it is up to the House to see that the wrong perpetrated and now discovered will be set right immediately. I know that at the time the Act was passed there was a number of points involved. I remember a time when the Electricity Supply Board were looking for a certain privilege—they are a monopoly, as we all know—and they got this privilege. Now that they have got it and that it has been discovered that an injustice has been done, it is up to the Minister to introduce legislation immediately that will remedy the present position.
I should say that if there is any happy side to this particular discussion it lies in the fact that I can agree with everything that has been said on this subject —strange as it may seem. What I was trying to do for Deputy McQuillan when he questioned me very closely on this was to indicate to him that these people were aiming at the wrong target.
I could not convince them of that, but that is the position. It has been sought to make the public believe that the prohibition on fresh-water netting which came into operation on the 1st January, 1948, is the enactment which took the livelihood away from the people of Lough Ree. Will Deputy McQuillan or Deputy General MacEoin assert here that the Electricity Supply Board had not prevented netting for trout in Lough Ree before the 1st January, 1948?
Did they give compensation?
Does Deputy MacEoin deny that the Electricity Supply Board had, in fact, prohibited netting for trout in Lough Ree and in the entire freshwater part of the Shannon before this national Order came into effect?
That is just the peculiar part of it. The Electricity Supply Board gave these men a permit to fish. At first, there was a battle with the Electricity Supply Board years ago. The Electricity Supply Board came along and, in my opinion, deliberately broke the law. Revolver shots were fired, and so forth. The Electricity Supply Board gave a general permit to fish until the time for the compensation to be paid under the Act expired.
Is Deputy General MacEoin quite sure of that?
Certain.
If that is so, then it ends the matter. That is the very thing I have been trying to get established. If Deputy General MacEoin can now come forward and satisfy my Department that these men were netting trout in the Shannon with the permission of the Electricity Supply Board, they come within this Act. I am afraid Deputy MacEoin's information is not correct and that he is confusing two things. I should like to reassert the position again in case Deputy General MacEoin does not appreciate the significance of what he has said. If they were fishing for trout with the permission of the Electricity Supply Board until the time the national prohibition became operative, the case is settled. We can pay them compensation. Will Deputy General MacEoin undertake to produce the proof of that for me?
I propose to produce the evidence I have collected from time to time from the fishermen, and some of it no later than three weeks ago. It is to the effect that they fished for trout, coarse fish and eels with the permission of the Electricity Supply Board and that the Electricity Supply Board deliberately——
Does the Deputy include trout and salmon?
Yes.
Will the Deputy produce evidence from the Electricity Supply Board?
I cannot produce it from the Electricity Supply Board but I can produce it from the people themselves who had permission.
I know very well that there was permission before 1948 to net for coarse fish.
No, more than that.
When did the Electricity Supply Board first prohibit the netting of salmon and trout in the Shannon? When did they put it into operation against the Lough Ree fishermen?
I do not know the exact date, but it was some time after the enactment of the Shannon Fisheries Act, 1938.
Did the question of compensation not arise at the time for preventing the fishermen from exercising the right they had in that connection? Did the question of compensation not arise then?
I agree with the Deputy that it did. I understand that the claims for compensation were sent to the Electricity Supply Board and were not paid by the Electricity Supply Board.
That is right.
We are practically at one on this question. I want to impress on the Deputies that they are aiming at the wrong target. I have no power in this connection. Here is what the Act says: Deputy McQuillan and Deputy General MacEoin were in the House when it was passed as recently as the end of last year. It says: "... where nets for the capture of fish were lawfully used." The word "lawfully" is the operative word. The only proof the legal advisers of the Department will accept is the proof submitted by the Electricity Supply Board that, in fact, they were netting trout with the permission of the Electricity Supply Board. That is the only proof that will satisfy that section. If we can get the proof, we can pay the compensation. When the netting was stopped I understand that claims were made by a number of the fishermen—I do not know if claims were made by all of them—and that the Electricity Supply Board did not, in fact, pay these claims.
That is the point. I am not interested in any other point except the rights that existed on the lough up to the time the Electricity Supply Board stopped these fishermen and the chairman of the Electricity Supply Board said that compensation should be paid to these men. It is a quibble after that as to amending the word "lawfully" or anything else.
It is very difficult to convince Deputy McQuillan. He says that it is only a quibble on my part and that I must ignore the words of an Act of Parliament passed only a few months ago——
That legislation can be changed. Is that not correct?
Am I to leave out the word "lawfully"? If I do, the poachers all over the country can be included.
No.
That is what it means. We must be guided by our legal advisers as to the form of words that goes into these provisions. If we leave out the word "lawfully" every man who casts a net in this country will be entitled to compensation. I take it that it would be quite impossible to implement a provision of that sort.
Nobody would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to do any such a thing.
The word "lawfully" must be there. It imposes an obligation on me—otherwise compensation cannot be paid—to establish that they were lawfully fishing. I assert that they were fishing there from time immemorial.
Lawfully.
Their moral claim is as strong as any in this country. I do not challenge that. Certain words are contained in the Act and all of us were a party to it. Everybody agreed to it. The Bill was there and everybody, I think, was able to understand it. If I knew the Lough Ree case as well as Deputy McQuillan knows it, surely the matter would not have escaped my notice at the time.
That is a very unfair suggestion.
A much smaller thing than that caught my attention in relation to the Corrib on another Act.
A legal right has been rendered illegal by this Act.
Deputy Rooney has taken somewhat from the strength of the case made by Deputy General MacEoin and Deputy McQuillan. They both said—and I agree with them— that the claim of these men was stronger than any claim legally based, that it went back beyond the memory of man. That is a stronger claim than a claim legally based.
What will be done about it?
Can I get Deputy McQuillan to understand that he is aiming at the wrong target? I have no power in this connection, unless evidence is furnished that they were lawfully fishing in accordance with the terms of an Act passed unanimously by this Dáil. Does Deputy McQuillan or Deputy General MacEoin ask me to ignore the advice tendered by the legal advisers of this Department?
Mr. Byrne
Do justice.
Can I get it home to Deputies that the Shannon Fisheries Act of 1938 established the Shannon fisheries as a several fishery? In other words, they vested the entire ownership of the Shannon fisheries in the Electricity Supply Board.
Can anything be done to the Electricity Supply Board?
Will Deputy McQuillan please cease interrupting the Parliamentary Secretary?
I did not interrupt Deputy McQuillan, and I hope he will let me talk now without interruption. This continuous series of interruptions seems to suggest to me that my case is much stronger than even I had thought. We have not much time left to explain this difficult matter. For Deputy Byrne's information, an attempt was made by my predecessor to restore some of the rights which had been taken from these men. On 12th August, 1949, the Minister for Agriculture made a by law legalising the use of nets in Lough Ree for the capture of coarse fish.
That is true.
What happened? I take it that it was done on the advice of the person nominated in the fishing interest to the Electricity Supply Board by the same Minister, now Deputy Dillon, who made the by-law. The Electricity Supply Board refused to give permission to the men of Lough Ree to catch coarse fish—in spite of the fact that the Minister had made a by-law. Now, if Deputy Dillon was unable to get for the Lough Ree fishermen the permission of the Electricity Supply Board to catch coarse fish—in spite of the fact that the man who was advising the board was his own nominee, recently appointed—is it not obvious that the same position exists for me and that, in effect, and in fact, the Shannon fisheries have been made a several fishery vested in the Electricity Supply Board to the exclusion of even the fishery authority? We cannot force the Electricity Supply Board to give permission to use nets even for coarse fish.
Can you force them to pay compensation?
Force whom?
If I am able to get evidence for the Parliamentary Secretary—I am informed that I can— that these men fished for these fish under the authority of the Electricity Supply Board, does that bring them in?
We can pay them compensation.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 o'clock until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 5th June, 1952.