asked the Minister for Lands if he is aware that owners of land registered under the Registration of Title Act are concerned that the fishing rights on rivers bordering on their lands which are reserved to superior landlords or others and which have not been exercised for 12 years or more, will become valuable in EEC conditions and could be purchased by foreigners from these superior landlords; and, if so, if he will consider extending the provisions of section 18 of the Land Act, 1965, to provide that fishing rights shall cease to exist in the same manner as sporting rights, other than fishing rights, were so declared in the 1965 Act.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishing Rights.
36.
The purchase of fishing rights by non-qualified persons is controlled by section 45, Land Act, 1965, and the written consent of the Land Commission is required before such a right can vest in any company or other non-qualified person.
For the rest, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has established a Commission on Inland Fisheries with the following terms of reference: "To examine all aspects of inland fisheries (i.e. those for salmon, trout, eels and coarse fish) including their tenure, development, management, administration, optimum utilisation and anti-pollution measures, and to make recommendations."
The Commission have not yet furnished their report.
Will the Minister agree with the suggestion in my question that this is a really urgent matter? If so, will he and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries decide as soon as possible what should be done in this regard?
This is reverting the rights to the owners or occupiers if the rights are not used. As the Deputy knows, it is a very complicated matter and the best thing we can do is to try to get the commission to hurry up their report.
Will the Minister not agree, with regard to sporting rights other than fishing rights, that the matter was easily got over in the 1965 Act? Why should the fishing rights not be incorporated in the same way?
Because it is so complicated.
Will the Minister not agree that his predecessor did a bad turn to the farmers by allowing this situation to continue in spite of the efforts made by a number of us in this House to have them included along with other sporting rights? Whether we go into the EEC or not should the Minister not take some steps as soon as possible to have the matter rectified now?
I do not accept that my predecessor did a bad turn in this matter.
The Minister does not. Does the Minister think his predecessor was right to leave it so that every "chancer" in the country could have those rights?
I do not accept this as being in any way accurate or justified by Deputy Tully. The matter is quite complicated and is not amenable to the sort of analysis that Deputy Tully likes to operate in this House in matters of this kind.
The Minister for Lands may consider himself making a smart answer.
I am not making a smart answer.
I would like to ask the Minister for Lands if he is aware that we have the descendants of Cromwell and of Charles II holding on to the fishing rights on land which has been divided by the Land Commission and given to small farmers? Do not let the Minister cod himself because he is not codding anybody else. If the Minister is defending them here he will not get away with it.
I do not think Deputy Tully is impressing anybody at all. He may be impressing himself or he may think he is impressing the people looking at him. He is not impressing anybody.
I am not trying to impress anybody. I am stating facts.