SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF SALMON AND TROUT.
(1) From and after the commencement of this Part of this Act no person shall sell, expose for sale, or keep for sale any salmon or trout (other than salmon or trout preserved and sold in tins) without being duly licensed under this Act so to sell the same or at any place where he is not authorised by his licence to sell the same.
(2) Any person who shall, after the expiration of two months from the commencement of this Part of this Act, sell, expose for sale, or keep for sale any salmon or trout in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section, and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
(3) This section shall not apply to a fisherman selling fish of his own lawful capture.
I move:—
Section 16, sub-section (1). After the word "tins" in line 55 and within the bracket to insert the words:—"or cured, or pickled, or smoked and cured, or American or Canadian salmon imported under certificate of the country of origin or such English, Scotch, Welsh or North of Ireland salmon caught in the open salmon season of any of these places when the same are held in cold storage under seal of the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers of London, or salmon caught in the Saorstát and held in cold storage under seal of the Ministry of Fisheries of the Saorstát."
This is a formidable-looking amendment, but really there is not a great deal in it. Such fish is sold, and freely offered for sale, not so much by fishmongers as by others. Pickled salmon is sold by grocers, having been imported from Canada. I do not think it is likely that salmon will be imported form the other places. It may be wanted sometimes for big dejeuners. If imported after the season it could be imported on bond. It is to meet such occasions that I am moving the amendment, and I hope it will be accepted.
I am at a considerable disadvantage with regard to Senator Love's amendments. I only received them this morning with the Orders of the Day. I would like to look more carefully into this matter. I know that poached salmon are pickled and barrelled in many parts of the country during the winter season. How are you going to get over that if you insert this amendment in the Bill? I am afraid the amendment will leave a loophole.
The fish must be imported under certificate of origin.
I think the best thing to do is to leave this over to the Report Stage. In the meantime I will look into it carefully.
I suggest to the Minister that he should favourably consider the acceptance of this amendment because of the fact that it is only on occasions such as Senator Love mentioned that some people will have an opportunity of tasting salmon. I think the Minister is safeguarded by the amendment, as there is no danger of salmon coming in unless under bond. I think there is no danger of it coming in. It is practically under bond, and it is released from bond before it is allowed in here.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Minister has promised to consider the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I would like to raise a point following on sub-section (2) Sub-section (2) deals with the prohibiton of the sale of salmon without a licence. I presume the object of the Bill is the preservation of salmon and the restricting of the activities of the poacher. The licensed dealer in a great many cases is probably a purchaser from the poachers, but he also sells to private individuals.
I have an amendment on this particular point.
It is following on sub-section (2), to add that no person shall, after the commencement of this part of the Act, purchase salmon or trout from any person other than a licensed fisherman or dealer.
That is Amendment 3, in my name.
I think the Minister will see the point. It has been put to me by practical fishermen, because the person who purchases from other than licensed fishermen helps the poachers.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator the Earl of Kerry has an amendment for the purpose of accomplishing what you propose. You can speak on the amendment.
I move:—
In Section 16, sub-section (2), line 61. After the word "section" where it first occurs to insert the words "and any person who shall knowingly buy the same from a person who is not duly licensed under this Act."
I am sorry Senator Kenny did not finish the moving of this amendment. He could do it much better than I can do it. It deals with the very point he raised. Whereas this section gets at the seller of fish it seems to me something more has to be done to get at the buyer from an unlicensed seller of fish. In the case of an unlicensed seller who, so to speak, parades his unlicensed fish in the market-place, or even who sends them away in rather obvious packages by train, the Gárda Síochána can get after him very quickly, but there are other ways of disposing of poached fish. I have in my mind particularly the fish poisoned in the manner I endeavoured to describe to the Seanad last week. That is, fish poisoned in large or small quantities are not taken into public places and disposed of for one reason, because the seller is given away by the barrels of fish. Experts can see if the fish are poisoned. They are hawked about the country by farmers. It is hard to believe that those who buy them are not pretty well aware that the fish are not being properly obtained. If it were possible to make them in a way particeps criminis I think the presence of the fish poisoner would be gone very soon, because it is obviously no use to poison fish when you cannot get anyone to buy them. I think that could be achieved by some such amendment as that which I suggested. I throw it out as a possibility to the Minister. I put in the word “knowingly” in order to give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they could show that they had no reason to believe they were buying the fish from an unlicensed person. Would there be much difficulty in making the person selling the fish show his licence to the buyer? Would it not be quite equitable to make the person buying from him guilty of a lesser offence for which he might be punished in a court of law?
I second the amendment. I must apologise to the Earl of Kerry as I had not time to read down the amendment. I think there is a little weakness in the word "knowingly." It is a simple matter to ask the fisherman for a copy of his licence. Otherwise a person who bought the fish might say: "I forgot to ask the man for his licence." The Senator himself should see the weakness of the word "knowingly." I think it is better to throw the entire onus on the purchaser.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the word "knowingly" is out of place here, because it refers to the man who is licensed. If the amendment is to be accepted, I think it should run like this: "Any person who shall buy the same from a person whom he knows, or has reason to believe, not to be duly licensed to sell the same."
There is always great trouble with the word "knowingly." Perhaps the Minister could get out of the difficulty in that way in the first sub-section of Section 16. There it is prohibited to sell fish without a licence at any place where the dealer is not authorised by his licence to sell the same. There is no reason if he is licensed why he should not be obliged to put over his house the fact that he is a licensed dealer, or as in the case of other licences the name of licensed people could be put up in the Civic Guard Barracks of the place. If that were done it would be difficult for persons who bought poisoned fish from an unlicensed dealer to show that they did not know he was not licensed.
I think the thing could be done in that connection by way of regulation, that the condition of the licence should be that the licence should be exposed in a conspicuous place in the shop of the dealer who sells his ware in the shop.
Like the notice of a publican's licence.
Anyway it is absolutely impossible to prove that the person who purchased the fish knew that the person from whom he purchased the fish had no licence.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it would be better to leave the matter for regulation. I will consider this point between now and the Report Stage.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is all we can ask you to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 4:—
In Section 16, sub-section (2), to add after the sub-section a new sub-section (3) as follows:—
"(3) No person not being a licensed fisherman may sell anywhere on the public street or highway any salmon, grilse or trout except as a licensed vendor from promises rated or from any public rated market, municipal or corporate as the case may be."
While provision is made for the licensed fisherman to sell the fish he catches himself, and while it is a provision that I am in agreement with, yet that is a right that might be carried to extraordinary lengths by hawkers and other classes of people. What I want to ensure is, that only people who are licensed to do so will have the right to sell fish either in their own premises or in some other place recognised by law.
The effect of the Senator's amendment, if carried, would be to prevent a man who had caught a nice basket of brown trout from selling it. I think that would be most unjust.
But he would be a licensed fisherman.
He would not. The effect of the Senator's amendment would be to prevent a brown trout fisherman from selling some brown trout which he had captured in a lawful manner.
I had not thought of brown trout.
Well, even apart from that, there is objection to the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to suppress the hawker. The hawker, in order to get a vendor's licence to sell fish, will have to go through the same procedure as the person who has a shop. He will have to go before the District Justice and will have to get from him a certificate stating that he is a person fitted by character to be allowed to deal in salmon and trout. It is only when the hawker gets that certificate from a District Justice that the clerk to the board of conservators will issue a licence to him. I do not think it would be right to put the hawker out of business. In many parts of the country which are difficult to get at by train, the hawker has proved to be a very useful distributing agent as regards the sale of fish.
I am afraid that, as far as the hawkers are concerned, most of them sell nothing but what might be described as ancient herrings.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I have seen hawkers selling salmon in Greystones. They go around from house to house.
I am talking of the rural parts of the country, not the towns.
I think the people Senator Love wants to get at are poachers who go around to private houses endeavouring to sell fish which they have caught in an unlawful manner.
I am inclined to think that the adoption of this amendment would create a great deal of unnecessary hardship on poor but, at the same time, very worthy people. The ostensible object of the amendment is, of course, to protect the salmon and trout fisheries, but even that, I think, could be carried a little bit too far. The amendment would inflict a great hardship on people who are provided for under the Bill, and who, after complying with the regulations laid down, are entitled to get a licence. In effect, its adoption would drive hawkers who wanted to sell any of the fish mentioned here out of business altogether. My experience of hawkers is not quite the same as that of Senator Bennett. Some of them, in Dublin at all events, sell fairly presentable and eatable fish, and they do their best to make a decent and comfortable livelihood for themselves. I think it would be a gross injustice, and that it would be absolutely unjustifiable, to take from these people their means of making a livelihood.
When I put down this amendment it never entered my head that it was calculated to deprive hawkers of their means of livelihood. I admit, of course, that in places like Dun Laoghaire and Greystones hawkers go around selling fish of good quality. The object behind the amendment is to prevent people who capture fish in an illegal or unlawful way from taking the fish through the country and selling it. What I want to ensure is that all fish sold in the country must be sold on premises licensed under the Act or by licensed fishermen.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I beg to move amendment 5:—
In Section 16, sub-section (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "always provided that only a whole salmon constitutes a sale, and not any part thereof."
The object of this amendment is to prevent people who get possession of poisoned or drowned fish from cutting it up and selling it in parts. In the case of a whole fish, it is easy to tell whether it has been captured in a poisoned river or whether it is a drowned fish, but if the fish is cut up and then taken around to be sold it would be impossible to tell whether, in fact, it was a poisoned or a drowned fish. I quite admit, of course, the right of the licensed fisherman who captures fish himself to sell it, but I think the sale should take the form of a whole fish. In the case of people who require to purchase fish let, say, two or three of them join together and buy a whole fish, and then divide it up amongst themselves afterwards. An arrangement of that kind would prevent people who become possessed of poisoned or drowned fish from disposing of it in part.
These amendments, in my opinion, are going to interfere with the liberty of the subject to an alarming degree. If this amendment were carried it would mean that a person could not buy less than a whole salmon. The people to whom fishermen usually sell their fish belong to a class that, as a rule, cannot afford to buy a whole salmon.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is a sub-section that excludes the operation of this section in the case of fishermen —in the sale of fish that they have captured themselves.
But Senator Love proposes to add at the end of this section: "Always provided that only a whole salmon constitutes a sale and not any part thereof." I hold that that would prevent the licensed fisherman from selling in part fish that he had captured himself.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This amendment, if carried, would come in as a new sub-section, and the present sub-section would become sub-section 4.
I think if you read the amendment again you will see that it does hit the licensed fisherman in the way I have suggested.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I see that now, and I think you are right.
This amendment, of course, would be in the interests of people engaged in the fish trade in a big way, but it hits at the people who are trading in a small way. This and subsequent amendments, if carried, would make the fishing industry the preserve of wealthy people. In view of some of the proposals put forward, it would look as if the idea of protecting this fishing industry is to be carried to degrees of fanaticism. I hope the Seanad will reject this amendment. It is an absolutely undemocratic and ridiculously unnecessary amendment. I do not know if the idea is that there is a very large section of the population that seems to make a livelihood by poaching only. I did not know that poaching was carried to that extent at all, but in attempting to prevent it we are making ourselves ridiculous, and at the same time are inflicting a serious injustice upon people making a livelihood out of the sale of fish.
I do not know where we would be if this amendment was accepted.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is an exception to the penalties in the section, made in favour of a fisherman selling fish that he has captured himself, and Senator Love proposes to limit that exception only so long as he sells the whole fish.
If he sells anything less than the whole fish is it the case that there is no sale and he cannot be penalised?
It is quite unusual for fishermen to go round with the whole fish. If a man has a nine or ten pound-weight salmon he may sell half of it to one person, and if he sells half of it to me, am I to ask him to go back to the place where he made his first sale and bring the other half of it so that I may see he had a whole fish?
This amendment would impose undue hardship upon farmer-fishermen. Supposing a man got a salmon of 15 lbs. weight, he could not sell that to one person whether it was his own capture or not. I am strongly opposed to this amendment.
This amendment would prevent people in the districts where the salmon fisheries are from ever tasting salmon. If a man is making a livelihood in connection with the sale of salmon it is because he is able to sell it in lots of 2, 4, 6 lbs. and so on.
I understand from Senator Love that it is only by looking at the head and gills of a salmon that you can tell whether it has been poisoned or drowned. The head is the last part of the salmon to sell. If a man had a large fish he could make provision that the purchasers should be in a position to see the head and gills at each sale.
An offence is only committed if the fish sold is a poached fish. Is there anything in the amendment to prevent a man selling less than the whole fish?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The latter part of the section prevents the sale of salmon or trout without a licence, but there is an exception in favour of the fisherman who is selling fish captured by himself. The object of the amendment is to put a limitation upon the exception in favour of this fisherman by providing that if he does sell fish of his own capture he must sell it in whole.
The amendment does not seem to be very popular so I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 17, 18 and 19 were agreed to.
SECTION 20 (2).
Before revoking any licence under this section the Minister shall give to the holder of the licence and to the board of conservators by whom the same was issued one fortnight's notice of his intention to consider the revocation of the licence, and the Minister shall consider any representations which shall be made to him by such holder or such board before the expiration of such notice.
I beg to move:—
Section 20, sub-section (2), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "in writing and despatched in registered cover."
Serious consequences are entailed on the seller of salmon under this Bill, and I want to make it perfectly clear that he shall receive notice of the revocation of his licence, if such is to happen, in writing and in a registered letter so that there may be no quibble about it. If a man gets an ordinary letter he may cast it aside thoughtlessly, but if he gets a registered letter he may be sure to deal with it, and the consequence of not dealing with it would be his own.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The effect of the amendment is that the fortnight's notice to revoke a licence should be sent to the licensee in writing and in a registered letter.
I am prepared to accept that amendment, subject, of course, to re-drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move:
Section 20. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) No licence shall be issued or renewed under Section 17 of this Act to a person who has been convicted more than once of an offence under the Fisheries (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1909, the Fisheries Act, 1924, or this Act."
I am not sure, whether as a matter of drafting, this amendment should not have been moved to Section 17, which deals with the renewal and issue of licences to dealers. My amendment proposes to prevent the issue of renewal of a licence to anybody who has been convicted more than once of offences under this Fishery Act. If a man offends against this Act more than once, he is doing it deliberately, and it becomes a habit with him, and it would be a great deal better that such a man should not have a licence issued to him as a dealer. If the Minister thinks that as a matter of drafting this would come as an additional sub-section to 17, I would be quite willing to accept that arrangement.
Does Senator Brown mean that a licence would not be issued to any person who had offended under any Act since the year 1848?
Oh, no; since the passing of this Act. I am quite willing that that should be made clear.
That is not plain in the amendment.
I think it is plain enough. In the Licensing Act a man does not lose his licence for the first offence.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This requires a second conviction.
I think it ought to be three.
I had presumed that it was not referring to the past but was subsequent to the passing of this Act that any offence would disqualify any person.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
"No licence shall be issued to a person after the passing of this Act."
Even with that, I consider it very drastic. Most people feel that the licensing laws are very drastic and stringent, but these laws do not revoke a licence after the first or second offence. There must be three endorsements before a licence can be withdrawn. Apart from that, I think that we have sufficient safeguards without the amendment. In Section 18 a dealer who is looking for a licence has to apply to the District Justice for a certificate to the effect that he is a fit and proper person to receive and hold a licence. I think that we must assume that the District Justice will exercise a good deal of caution before certifying that a person is so fit. Under Section 20 the Minister has power, even after the first conviction, if there are circumstances surrounding the conviction in which he would feel himself justified in so doing, to revoke a licence immediately after giving 14 days' notice. In that respect I think the amendment is unnecessary.
Another point, of which I do not wish to make very much is, that it would create a difficulty in administration. I feel that if a suggestion is good difficulties of administration would have to be got over. This, however, would throw a good deal of further responsibility on the clerks of the Boards of Conservators as they would have to find out, when a person is applying for a licence, whether or not he had been convicted since the passing of the Act, whereas now they will merely demand the certificate of the District Justice. If they do their work the clerks have plenty to do. We would like them to concentrate on the work they have got and not throw additional work upon them. I feel that the amendment is unnecessary, but if the Senator presses it I would have to ask for a re-drafting of it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
A man might be convicted in one county and his application for a licence might be made subsequently in another county, and the District Justice would not be aware of his conviction.
If a register of convictions could be supplied to the District Justices there would be some protection. Perhaps this could be worked out by regulation.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is a forfeiture now. In any event you would have to put in "since the passing of this Act." Would you be prepared to extend it to three convictions?
Then I will consider it before the Report Stage.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Then it will come up again subject to two amendments, one making it plain that it is "after the passing of this Act," and the other that it is after three convictions.
I only wanted to get the hardened criminal out of the way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
(2) Every register kept in pursuance of this section may at any time during which the premises to which the register relates are open for the carrying on of business be inspected by any person authorised in that behalf by the Minister or by any member of the Gárda Síochána, and it shall be the duty of the licence-holder and of every person keeping such register to produce for the inspection of such person or member as aforesaid on demand such register, and also all invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents (including copies thereof where the originals are not available) reasonably demanded by such person or member for the purpose of verifying any entry in or explaining any omission from such register.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) inspection of a register or document shall include taking copies thereof or extracts therefrom, and
(b) a demand for inspection of a register or other document shall be deemed to have been duly made to the licence-holder if such demand is made verbally on the premises of the licence-holder to any person in his employment, and
(c) a refusal or failure to produce a register or other document for inspection if made or committed on the premises of the licence-holder by a person in his employment shall be deemed to have been made or committed by the licence-holder.
I beg to move:—
Section 21, sub-section (2). To delete all after the word "register" in line 19 down to and including the word "available" in line 21 and to substitute therefor the words:—"copies of all parts of such invoices, consignment notes, receipts or documents showing the number and weight and disclosing the constitution of the consignment, setting out the number or weight of fish contained therein and of each kind, if more than one sort is contained, where all or some be either salmon, grilse or trout."
The object of this amendment is to alter that provision in the Bill which leaves the books of a fishmonger or a fishsender completely open to officers of the Civic Guard, or of the Boards of Conservators, who might have other objects behind their inquiries. I think that as long as they get the essential information which they require, such as particulars as to quality, weight, and the number of fish, it should be sufficient. I certainly am satisfied to give them all essential information, but I do not think that they should be at liberty to examine invoices or figures which might militate against the sender of the fish. They should get all particulars necessary to prove an offence against a man, but they should not ascertain particulars as regards prices or contracts.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In other words, instead of allowing them to inspect original documents you want to confine them to copies.
How would they know that they would be true copies?
No railway company will receive any package without a consignment note. That must disclose the contents of the package. Such things as salmon are sent at a high rate and the railway company must have a statement on the document as to how much fish there is. Such packages are divided into two classes, "coarse" and "prime." Salmon always comes under the description of "prime." There will be a collateral security to the Department, inasmuch as they can compare the statement made by the sender with the note of the railway company. Thus, a man could be trapped if he gave false particulars. My object is to protect the dealer as regards disclosing particulars as to price, contracts, and so forth.
The objection I see to the amendment is that it assumes that the officers of the State will have wrong motives in examining documents and using information which they get officially for wrong purposes. When you come down to talk about parts of invoices you are leaving yourself open to giving fishmongers or dealers power to show as much, or as little, as they like. I am afraid that that is what will happen if this amendment were carried. If there is a danger, on the one hand, that an officer of the State would use his information for illegal motives, there is also, on the other hand, the danger that a fishmonger would give as little information as he wished.
I do not think that that is so. Perhaps the Minister would leave it over until the Report Stage. Evidently this amendment has been too hurriedly drafted and perhaps the Minister did not grasp its meaning. Its object is, as I have said, to give all information except particulars as to prices and so forth. That is what I want to safeguard.
Very well, I will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
Section 21, subsection (4). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "unless he can satisfactorily prove the contrary."
I am sure the Minister will accept this amendment. The penalties are very heavy under this section. Any of a fish dealer's assistants may be asked for certain information, and he mayfail to give it, or he may obstruct an officer or do something which would be quite contrary to the instructions which he got from his employer. It would be a terrible thing that a man should be punished severely for a thing of that kind, if he could prove satisfactorily to the Minister that at all times he had given instructions that all justifiable information should be given to the officer of the conservators and the Civic Guards. I only want to protect a dealer from the action of somebody who may be employed by him, and who may, for one reason or another—we are all human—do something which is contrary to the absolute instructions he has got.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The words of the amendment would be very unsatisfactory, I think. He might deliberately abstain from inquiring and then he would get out of the case. A man who employed agents to sell his fish for him might abstain from asking what they did, and in that case he could prove satisfactorily that he did not know anything about it. I see what you are trying to accomplish, Senator. Such words as that he did not know or had no reasonable opportunity of knowing, would need to be put in, otherwise the amendment would be an absolute barrier to a prosecution.
I am afraid this amendment can hardly be accepted. Nowadays I think it is generally recognised that an employer is responsible for the act of his employees.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In most legislation now it is, but sometimes when imposing a penalty for the action of a servant, a proviso is put in that he is not to be personally liable if he can show that he did not know what was going on and that he took reasonable precautions to prevent it. I do not know if we could put that in here.
I am satisfied to put in that proviso—unless he can prove the contrary to the satisfaction of the Minister.
That is making the Minister the judge.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes; I do not know that that could be done.
I think the wording would require to be altered altogether, because it is no offence if he can prove to the contrary.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think it is any hardship, Senator, where an employee deliberately refuses to produce his employer's licence, to punish the employer there, because he can get rid of that man.
I am opposed to the amendment even if it were redrafted.
In deference to everybody's wish I will withdraw the amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It certainly would not be satisfactory in its present form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22, SUB-SECTION (1).
From and after the commencement of this part of this Act every package containing salmon or trout in course of transit in Saorstát Eireann shall be marked conspicuously on the outside with the words "salmon and trout," or the word "salmon," or the word "trout," as the case may require.
I beg to move:—
Section 22, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and the name and address of the consignor shall be stated on or affixed to each such package."
This sub-section provides for what is to be put on every package containing salmon or trout which is in course of transit in Saorstát Eireann. The amendment proposes that in addition to the words "salmon or trout" or "salmon and trout," as the case may be, which describe the contents of the parcel, there should also be placed on the parcel the name and address of the consignor. It would greatly help. It can do nobody any harm, and the dealer or sender of this parcel will not object to putting his name and address on it. It will, if it is truthfully put on it, help greatly in the detection of offences under the Act.
I think this is a good amendment and I am prepared to accept it. I would like, however, to consult the Parliamentary draftsman as to the most suitable form of words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 22 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move:—
New section. After Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(23) In the event of malicious injury by the use of poison or explosives to any river or lake fishery, it shall, in default of action by the owner of such fishery, be lawful for the board of conservators concerned (if in their opinion the injury is such as to affect the general interest of the fisheries in their district) to claim compensation therefor. Any monies so received shall be applied by the conservators as the Minister may direct."
This amendment is meant to cover a case of poisoning or dynamiting a river which has not been detected. I am afraid that notwithstanding the many excellent regulations in the Bill, there will be in the future, for a time at all events, some poisoning carried on. I think it is generally recognised that such things happen within the knowledge or connivance of some people on the spot, but certainly not all of them. I know the procedure under the Malicious Injury Acts was a very cumbersome method of obtaining compensation, and it hits the innocent as well as the guilty. It does seem to me that unless something of this sort is done, which will ensure that those living on the spot will see to it that these things are not allowed, they will go on. If a section of this kind were added I think the Minister would find that he would have no difficulty whatever in getting all the information which the Civic Guard require in order to put a stop to such cases. I propose that action in such cases should be taken when necessary, if not by the owner, by the conservators. The idea underlying that is that this sort of damage is a matter which concerns the whole district much more than the individual owner, and I think it is right to emphasise that. I have, however, suggested that if the action is successful any damages accruing should go to the conservators and not to the owners and should in the last resort be put at the disposal of the Minister to be disposed of as he may direct. That is all I have to say on the present amendment and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept it.
I think we should not accept an amendment of this nature. It seems to open up a very large prospect of the extension of malicious injury claims. The question of compensation for malicious injury is a very old one and is looked upon as a very old-time grievance amongst the people in the country. It was supposed to be a penal enactment, and now it is proposed to extent that penal enactment. I for one do not think that is a proper proposal. I think instead of broadening the basis of malicious injuries compensation it should be narrowed. I certainly oppose the insertion of this amendment in the present Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think that is quite right, Senator. I do not know what the law is now, but three or four years ago the law was that you could recover compensation for malicious injury to fisheries. I think that is the law still, but this does extend it to the extent that where the owner does not claim the board of conservators may claim. To that extent this does extend it, but it does not confer a new right.
I beg to support Senator Bennett in opposing this amendment. I think when the owner of a fishery that is injured maliciously refuses to make a claim for compensation there is pretty good evidence that he has not a very good case, and this amendment extends the power to the conservators to come in and claim compensation when the owners refuse to do so. I do not think it is desirable to extend the claims for compensation in view of the fact that all these claims will have to be met now by the local ratepayers. Considering that the owner is the person most clearly hit by any injury, and considering then the fact that he refuses or neglects to have any claim made, I think it should not be open to any other body to put in a claim. I do not see why the local ratepayers should bear the burden of such a claim, and I object to the amendment.
I should be strongly in favour of this amendment if I did not see a certain legal difficulty in the way of carrying it out. At present the owner of a fishery, that is the owner of the bed of a river, can obtain, under the Damage to Property Acts, compensation by a very curious straining of our law. He has to prove to the court the injury that has resulted to him, in order to measure his compensation. In the case of the owner that would be possible. Now, the amendment of the Earl of Kerry, with which I am entirely in sympathy, would be very difficult to carry out. You would have actually to make the conservators owners in order to get them inside the Malicious Damages Acts. To measure the damage in their cases would be extremely difficult. It would be difficult to carry out this amendment. I am not sure that it really does not involve the amending of the Malicious Damages Acts. Perhaps it would be as well to leave it over until Report Stage to see if it would be possible to carry it out without an amendment to the Malicious Damages Acts.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is another legal obstacle in the way, because under the malicious injury code there is a time fixed within which notice of the application should be made, and if the owner makes default and the time has passed by, then the conservators would be late, because the owners default would not be ascertained until the time for serving the notice had expired. And when it has expired for the owners it has expired for everybody.
It would need a further amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes, it would need a further amendment. I am not saying anything for or against the amendment, but as it stands at present there is that legal difficulty in the way which would make it abortive.
I have been looking into this matter, and I am inclined to believe that the difficulties are so great it would be absolutely impossible to have it carried out.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think they are so great that the advantage is not compensated by the difficulties. The Senator might bring it up again in some other shape.
In view of the legal opinions I do not think there is much use in proceeding with it. I would like to say one word as to what Senator Linehan said, that when the owner made default in taking action that nothing should be done. Of course, we all know that it is sometimes a very invidious thing for the owner to take action. People living in the neighbourhood cannot get it out of their heads that the owner is doing it out of a feeling of revenge or spite. That is why I suggested that the conservators should do it. There would be no question that they were not doing it in the public interest and not in their own. I am not pressing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 23.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (1), Section 23, line 35, after the word "instrument" to insert the words "including poison or explosives."
That clause gives the power of inspection, examination and detention. It provides under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) that Gárda Síochána have power to stop and search any person conveying, or believed to be conveying, fish of any kind or an instrument used or adapted for taking fish illegally. I only want to widen that in order to include poison or explosives by inserting the words in my amendment. It may be that the word "instrument" would cover poison or explosives, but if the Gárda Síochána had heard that somebody had put poison in a cart, and they suspected a certain person of bringing poison and putting it in a certain place, it would be desirable that the Gárda Síochaná should be able to search the cart in which it might be brought.
I believe the amendment would be useful if it was made read "any instrument, poison or explosive" in the singular.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Suppose you leave out "instrument" and put in the word "agency." I think it would cover everything.
I think that if we put in this way it might cover it, "any instrument, poison or explosive." That would make it fool-proof.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 23, sub-section (1). After sub-paragraph (i) in line 45 to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
"(ii) any premises in which poison or explosives intended for the destruction of fish is believed to be kept."
This is an amendment with the same object as the previous one. This provides for the searching of premises. Under sub-section (b) there are regulations as to the searching of premises. I have suggested that it would be necessary to have a new sub-head (b) to put in there these words: "any premises in which poison or explosives intended for the destruction of fish is believed to be kept." That would cover the case where it was learned that there was a big supply of poison lying in a house. Under the law at present it would not be possible to have a search made. It would sometimes take several days before a warrant could be got. This amendment would permit the Civic Guard to make a search.
I am accepting the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 24 to 29, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 30.
There is no amendment to Section 30. I simply wish to say with regard to it, that I am instructed that in Scotland there is no rule prohibiting the erection of an engine for the catching of fish on the open coast. There is no licence in regard to it, but I think there is some limitation that these nets or engines shall not be erected within a certain distance of an estuary. It has been found that fish keep to the open water, but stragglers come in on these shelving ledges, and a great many of the fish are caught by these netted weirs on the open coast in that way. They are not erected, as I say, within a certain distance of the estuary where the fish naturally come up, but on the open coast, or a mile from the mouth of the river along that coast. Fish migrate, and if they are not caught they possibly go to some other coast. They keep migrating from the west, and pass by the southern and northern coasts of Ireland, and possibly hit the coasts of Norway, Denmark and France.
The Fishery Department of Scotland recognise that fish are a great source of wealth to the nation, and they permit landowners along the open coast to erect such weirs as they think fit to catch any passing fish. Every fish caught like that in the open sea is food for the people, or if sold, brings in so much money. There is no reason why a harvest of that kind should be allowed to pass along our shores without giving the people an opportunity of reaping it. If that right is allowed in other countries, where a close study has been made of fishing interests, why should our people be debarred from a similar right? I think the Minister should insert a section giving the people in this country the same facilities in this matter as they have in Scotland. I propose that these weirs should be confined to the open coast, no weir to be erected within a mile of any estuary. and that any landowner who has his own foreshore can erect a net upon it, subject to the conditions I have mentioned. That would not interfere with the fish coming up to spawn, as these fish would naturally go up the river. If the passing fish are not caught by these nets they will go up the rivers, or the coasts of some other country.
I do not quite grasp what the Senator is driving at. In the Fishery Act of 1863 it is enacted that no engine that was not erected in 1862 should be used. The Fisheries Acts of 1863 and 1869 provided that certificates should be issued for such engines, and we are merely putting that into the Bill now. We feel that any person who had any kind of claim or right to use a fixed engine would have asserted his claim since then. That is why we put it into the Act that no further claims for the use of fixed nets would be considered. I do not think there is any reason to believe that any valid claim exists.
I do not think that the Senator is quite correct in saying that the position in Scotland is that the coastal fisheries belong to the Crown, though they cannot get a licence from the Scottish Board of Conservators or Fishery Department. I take it, at least, they have to get permits from the Crown, and probably there is a licence fee.
There is no licence charged even for stone weirs in Scotland. Why hark back to these old Acts if it is a source of revenue to the country and a source of extra food supply and is not going to damage spawning interests? You have limits within a mile of the approach of a river held free from such erections. The fish gravitating towards the river will naturally go up it and spawn. With regard to the fish, I am instructed by those who study the habits of the migrating fish, that the actual percentage of the fish that pass close inshore is a negligible quantity. The myriads of fish that migrate from the Atlantic are of such a vast multitude that as the harvest is passing by it is almost criminal not to take advantage of it for the benefit of your country, at the same time not interfering with the fish left to spawn.
My biological information is not the same as that of Senator Kenny. Half the fixed engines we have in the sea have not been used for years, because it would not pay the owners to take out a licence.
What is the cost for upkeep?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator must not interrogate the Minister.
The licence is prohibitive. All the legislation in the past has been for the benefit of the riparian owners, and you are harking back to that as if it were sacrosanct and as if nothing should be done to disturb it. We should do now what is for the benefit of our people.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Have you written out anything?
Yes; the idea is to add at the end of Section 30 the following: "This clause shall not apply to fixed engines erected or that may be erected on the coast not less than one statute mile from any estuary."
Amendment put, and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
Question—"That Sections 30, 31 and 32 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move:—
After Section 32 to insert a new section as follows:—
"33—From and after the passing of this Act the weekly close time for net fishing for salmon shall be thirty-six hours."
The reason I bring that in is that in Ireland the weekly close season is hours. In Scotland the weekly close season is 24 hours, and in England it is 36 hours. I take the medium course, because it would give the maximum fishing to fishermen here. As we stand, fishermen have to give up on Friday nights. It is a hardship on a man who pays a licence fee not to have as good a week's fishing here as they have on the English rivers. I think English rivers suffer more than our rivers from obstructions of various kinds. In Lord Dunraven's book he tells us—
"Some alterations are certainly desirable in the early close time, at any rate in the Shannon tributaries."
I agree with what the Earl of Dunraven contends, but my amendment deals with the weekly close season. I think the Minister could look into that between now and the Report Stage. I will not press my amendment. Unquestionably it is unfair to the fishermen of this country that they should have a weekly close season hours longer than it is in England and Scotland.
The weekly close season is not well fixed either for the fishermen or the weir owner. It is from 6 o'clock on Saturday morning to 6 o'clock on Monday morning. The result of that is that at times the whole week with him may be rather bad. The weather may not be favourable. Where fixed engines are concerned sometimes the wind is setting off the land and the conditions are unfavourable the whole week. There may be a break on Thursday afternoon and conditions may then become favourable. At 6 o'clock on Saturday morning the close season begins for 48 hours until 6 o'clock on Monday morning. I have known favourable weather conditions during that time to pass by and to leave fishermen with a barren week. In America and other places they do not do that. Another difficulty is that you cannot get tides to synchronise with the closing hour. Tides are not always agreeable in this country. There is a difference of 20 minutes between each tide. You might have a high tide on Saturday morning and the weir owner has to close the pockets, possibly, at 10 or 11 o'clock the previous night. On Monday morning he hits a high tide again and may not be able to open the weir until late in the day. Sometimes he misses one or two tides in the week-end.
In England they fix the week-end close season from low tide. The close season is fixed from low tide on a certain day to low tide on another day. The owners will only close the weir at low tide. They could not close them with five or seven feet of water over them. That is the rational and equitable thing to do. The owners of the weirs have to pay an annual licence duty of £30 and they are at very heavy expense, from £300 to £400 for the upkeep of the weir. They give a great deal of employment the whole year round mending the nets and so on, and should be relieved of any disability from which they suffer. I sympathise with the principle of the amendment although I would rather see it the other way, to make the week-end close season from low tide to low tide.
I am opposed to the amendment as I think it cuts across the whole principle of the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to give greater protection to the inland fisheries of this country than they have got in the past. We are doing that in various ways, by giving more finances to the boards of conservators and by trying to get at poachers through the persons who sell the fish. If at the same time we do away with the close season, or extend it for another 12 hours for netting in the estuaries, we defeat all that we have done for the fisheries in other parts of the Bill. If they have 36 hours close season in England, and 24 hours in Scotland, the Senator knows that the amount of poaching that has gone on here for the past five or six years has been far in excess of that which took place in England or Scotland, and that the destruction, as a result of such poaching, has been greater here than from the disturbing elements in England or Scotland, such as the pollution of rivers and so on. We have a provision for 48 hours for the close season and I think it would be extremely foolish, until the rivers have had a fair chance, to start cutting down that period, or to allow more estuary fishing during the week-end. This is a kind of amendment that I cannot even promise to consider between this and the Report Stage as I think it cuts across the whole object of the Bill.
I am usually an advocate of shorter hours, but on this occasion I must take the opposite view. I do not profess to know a great deal about fishing, especially salmon fishing. It is a luxury that I could not afford to indulge in. As far as I can understand it, this amendment seeks to protect the rights of people who earn their bread by fishing, and not the rights of those who fish for sport. The object of the amendment is that the fisherman who fishes for a living shall not be deprived of being able to fish during any week-end a certain number of extra hours provided he keeps within the law. The Minister's argument in opposition to the amendment was based on the fact that, owing to the excessive amount of poaching that has gone on in this country for the past five or six years, it was necessary to take all the steps possible to protect inland fisheries. A statement has been handed to me which proves conclusively that the Minister's argument is based on wrong information. I have a return of the number of boxes of salmon that were sent from Ireland to the fish market in London, and it shows that there has been increased exports from 1914, when 7,922 boxes were sent. That was a considerable increase over previous years. I think it is unfair to deprive persons who earn their living by fishing of a certain number of extra hours for fishing. Some Senators who understand this question have given very good reason why fishermen should not be confined to a certain hour.
It is important that the Seanad should really understand what this amendment means. The close season is not, as Senator Farren thinks, for the purpose of protecting one class of fishermen against another—those who fish for sport against those who fish to earn a living. That is not the object of the close season at all. The close season is for the protection of the fish that are going up the rivers to spawn. If you shorten the close season over the week-end you will have less salmon going up the rivers, less salmon in the sea, and the people Senator Farren is trying to protect will lose by such an amendment.
I am familiar with a weir going out on a sandy shore for 700 yards. There are two pockets in it, and from the termination of the 700 yards to the shore at the other side is a distance of 3½ miles. That is a free run for the fish to go up and spawn. There is more destruction done in the spawning beds under the present provision for licensed anglers who catch potential fish breeders than could possibly be done by a few fixed engines or netted weirs. A flock of farmer's ducks in a spawning bed will destroy more potential salmon than all the netted weirs around the coast. In Scotland once a fish gets inside the river it is protected all the way up during the spawning season, and it is a very serious offence to attempt to molest the young fish. In this country I know farmers who have fed their pigs on bucketfuls of salmon spawn. It is calculated that every fish is a potential layer of about fifteen hundred eggs. Not all of these, however, are hatched out. Out of the fifteen hundred eggs it is reckoned, taking into account the number not hatched out, as well as the large numbers of young fish killed by cormorants, that only about two hundred fish get back to the open sea. It is at that time that the greatest effort is required to protect the fish, even to the putting of a restriction on the angler with his rod.
It has been said that these fixed weirs are a source of injury and that they impose a limitation on the fish going up the river to spawn. Theoretically they may impose a limitation, but that limitation is negligible in comparison with the lack of encouragement and protection afforded to the fish in the spawning beds. In my opinion, the whole system of the licensing laws requires to be drastically revised in relation to the actual habits of the fish. All the legislation in the past had a tendency to protect the sporting rights of anglers and rod-men. They had a tendency to protect the rights of the inland owners, because they were a class of people who had large influence as regards legislation in former days. I do not think that we should hold to these laws because of certain prescriptive rights that were laid down at that time, or that we should consider these things as being very sacred. Why should we hold to certain dates that were fixed at that time as regards the erection of weirs and matters of that kind?
The Senator seems to be suffering from the delusion that this weekly close season is directed entirely against the fixed engines. That is not so. It applies to all sorts of nets, as well as to the staked weirs. The Senator seems to think, too, that we have not a close season for anglers. As a matter of fact, we have, and during that close season the angler is forbidden to fish. We are fully alive to the fact that it is of the greatest importance to preserve the fish in the spawning beds. We have very drastic laws dealing with that. The Act passed last year was directed almost entirely to that particular end. It dealt almost entirely with the protection of the fisheries during the spawning season. As well as giving protection during the annual close season, we must also take steps to see that in the spawning beds there is something to protect, and to that end we must provide that the fish are allowed to go up to them. The provision that is now sought to be changed by this amendment was made some years ago. I might point out that I am not seeking to change anything. I would like to remind the Seanad that the provision of having a weekly close season extending over a period of 48 hours was made some years ago in order to allow the fish to go up the river to the spawning beds. If you allow over-netting at the mouth of the river, the fish cannot get up the river, and, therefore, I say there is very little use in talking about affording protection to the spawning beds if there is nothing in these beds to protect.
I agree that this was done for a good and proper purpose, but would the Minister explain why it is that the close season is 48 hours in Ireland, 36 in England and 24 in Scotland? I have here a list of fish sent from Ireland into Billingsgate in the last 10 years or more and it shows a very good, straightforward average from Ireland. In 1914 we sent from Ireland 7,086 packages of fish to Billingsgate; in 1915 we sent 7,354 packages; in 1916 5,992 packages; in 1917, 9,106 packages; in 1918 we only sent 4,261; no doubt it was a very dry season or something else abnormal occurred; in 1919 the number was also low, 4,778; in 1920 we sent 5,344; in 1921, 7,887; in 1922, 7,271, and in 1923 we sent 7,920 packages, and when we come to last year, notwithstanding all these terrible poachers that we heard so much about and that are found in Ireland, we sent from this country 8,164 packages into Great Britain. We are told that 134 were caught in Cork. The nets were only a few yards long and, in fact, we were never able to get the real length of them.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator has now made a rather long explanation. You stood up to clear up a little point upon which you did not agree with the Minister, and I think you made that to your own satisfaction at any rate.
Notwithstanding the great disturbing performances of poachers the rivers are full of fish.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Does your return show how much of the annual transport of fish was the result of poaching?
No, it would be very difficult to do that.
Does the Senator distinguish between fish caught in the estuaries and fish caught in the open sea?
The Senator's speech is the greatest justification for our Bill. He has shown the size of our trade with Billingsgate, so that the 48 hours close season is conclusively a good thing. Therefore why change it?
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 33 was agreed to.
I move:—
New section. After the foregoing section to insert a new section as follows:—
"34. On and after the passing of this Act the following modification shall be made in the By-law of the Conservators of No. 5 area in the Saorstát—which deals with net fishing (salmon)."
"(1) Fishermen who are licensed to fish with drift nets in No. 5 area may embark the same from any public strand, shore, pier, jetty, slip or stairs within that part of the No. 5 area which is east of an imaginary line extending in a northerly direction from Ram Point, Cork Harbour, and passing through the most easterly point of Spike Island and running still northward to Long's Dock, situated on the south shore of the great island of Cork Harbour and carry to the fishing grounds and return from the same their nets, gear and catch in their licensed fishing boats.
"(2) That licensed drift net fishermen of No. 5 area who comply with the conditions of the foregoing sub-section may fish with drift nets within that part of the No. 5 area as is east of the imaginary line mentioned in the foregoing subsection."
I divide this into two parts because there may be a difficulty for the Minister in accepting both. He might at least give freedom to the unfortunate man who goes out to fish, to return with his nets, gear and catch in his fishing boat. As the law stands, a fisherman would suffer the greatest penalty if he is caught coming into Cork Harbour with nets and gear in his boat and would be liable to all these penalties. But a man on the other side of No. 5 area, that is the Lismore side of Coor Head, could do what he pleased. Now supposing a man from the Waterford side, through stress of weather or otherwise, was driven into Cork Harbour, is he to be liable to penalties then the same as the Cork fisherman? It seems extraordinary that such a state of affairs should exist or that such a state of law should be sanctioned. I do not blame the Minister, because he was not the cause of this, but I hope he will amend the law and give these men an opportunity to earn their living. I hope also that he may see his way to adopt the second part of the amendment.
The amendment deals with two by-laws that were made a good many years ago. It is just as well that the Seanad should know exactly how by-laws are made. Before a by-law is made an inquiry is held by an Inspector of Fisheries in the locality concerned. First of all there must be a demand for the inquiry. The inquiry is held by an inspector who hears witnesses and tries the case and brings back a report to the Department, and if the Department sees fit it makes a by-law or refuses to make it after the inquiry has been held. If there is a by-law that is wrong that is not the way to cure it. The way to cure it is to get a local demand to hold an inquiry. Now, the last inquiry was held in 1902 and the Department refused on the strength of the evidence put before it to change that by-law. If there is a local demand for an inquiry I will grant an inquiry and an inspector will go down and will take evidence on the spot. Senator Love's friends or the persons for whom he speaks can come there and put up their case. There will be other persons who will put the case against that, and the inspector will come back and report and I will decide whether we should revoke the existing by-law and do what Senator Love asks or not. That is the way the thing should be done. I do not think it is quite fair that the Seanad should be asked to pass an opinion upon a merely local matter of that kind. It cannot judge the merits or the demerits of the particular case that Senator Love puts up. The way that is done is by having a local inquiry conducted by a trained inspector who will hear both sides and give his decision.
I think it was in 1910 the last inquiry was held.
I will not dispute the matter, but I think your date is wrong. On that occasion I made an application and the Fishery Department sent down Mr. Green and another. They visited Cobh and they took evidence there. They examined the late Mr. Maurice Healy, the late Mr. Harry Donovan and others, and they proceeded in exactly the same lines on the following day in Cork. These gentlemen came back to Dublin and in due course they made their report and that report stated that they were absolutely in favour of altering the existing laws, that caused the death of so many fishermen. They decided that the line ought to be altered in the way suggested in my amendment.
All this evidence that I speak of must be within the archives of the Department. It is very easy for the Minister to say that I ought to go over all that work again. It was very expensive work. Before it was decided, we had to proceed to the Law Lords of the Privy Council, and they heard our case in Dublin Castle. Lord Chancellor Walker presided, and there were also present Mr. Justice Kenny, Lord Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Wylie, Mr. Justice Cherry and another judge. The Admiralty put up the case against it, and the chief inspector for the Admiralty told me that he pulled the Admiralty men in Kerry to make the case against us. "All you need do," he said, "is put out a few nets in order that we may capture them and make a show." They divided the case into two parts. They heard the Admiralty case first and threw us out on the ground that drift nets, which are the merest gossamer, would interfere with the periscopes of submarines. Now, the shores of Ireland, England and Scotland are lined with mackerel drift nets which are deeper and miles longer than a salmon net, which is the merest gossamer compared with them. The submarines are gone and our Irish navy is not troubled with them. A few unfortunate fishermen still try to exist, and only about three boats remain in what used to be a thriving fishing village.
I heard Mr. Topping, who was the district inspector in Queenstown, say in court in reference to these fishermen: "I am sorry that I have to do my duty towards these men. They are a decent and deserving class, and I only hope that when I go before my God I will have as good a case as they have now." I think it is a harsh and penal clause against these men, and all I ask is that they be allowed to go eight miles to Roches' Point with their nets and boats. I must say, however, that this law has not been pressed against them since that inquiry. It was an outrageous law. Some extra-officious Civic Guard or conservator who may not understand the facts may come along and enforce these harsh conditions again on these people, and you may again have the same occurrence in the harbour of shooting and killing. I remember a case arising out of that being tried by Mr. Justice Dodd. There were two cases before the court: one for an explosion at Ballincollig, and the other for shooting a bailiff, in which a man was sent to jail. I remember the late Serjeant Moriarty, commenting on the sentences, saying: "It is a pretty state of the law to have two years imposed on a man for killing a salmon, and eighteen months for killing a man."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
REVISED RATES OF LICENCE DUTIES.
|
1. (a) Single salmon rod for one calendar year
|
£2
|
0
|
0
|
|
(b) Single salmon rod for one calendar year where the applicant already holds a like licence for another district
|
0
|
10
|
0
|
|
2. Snap nets
|
£2
|
10
|
0
|
|
3. Draft nets or seines
|
£4
|
0
|
0
|
|
4. Drift nets of any length
|
£2
|
0
|
0
|
|
5. Eye, gap, or basket in any weir for taking eels
|
£2
|
0
|
0
|
I beg to move the following amendment:—
To add to number 1 the following:—
|
(c) Single rod for sea trout and brown trout for one calendar year
|
£0
|
10
|
0
|
|
(d) Single rod for brown trout only
|
£0
|
2
|
6
|
Before I move this amendment, I wish to say that I will not emulate the oratory of my distinguished predecessor, whom I must congratulate upon the successful manner in which he pleaded the case of the fishermen in his particular district. This amendment is really a double-barrelled one, and with your permission, sir, I shall move part (c) first. This amendment is moved in the interests of a number of fishermen who fish for sea trout sometimes, who fish for brown trout more of the time, and who, sometimes, catch sea trout. When they do catch a sea trout with a brown trout fly, they do not like to put it back in the water. These fishermen are not to be placed in the category of poachers, and they are mostly respectable citizens. As a rule, they are business men who go fishing for a week end on a hardly-earned holiday. They do not catch many sea trout, but when they do they think it hard lines that they should have to pay one pound for a licence for, perhaps, two or three sea trout during the year. A number of these gentlemen approached me on the subject. They have no objection to paying a 10/- licence which, I think, would be a fair proposition. It would enable them to catch sea trout as well as brown trout. They do not want to pay this £1 licence, especially as they have to pay for it in different districts, and they asked me to make this plea on their behalf.
I cannot approve of this amendment. In the definition of salmon given in the Act of 1850, sea trout are included, so that the person who fishes for sea trout must take out a salmon licence.
With the permission of the Seanad, I shall withdraw that portion of the amendment under (c). Now I come to the second portion of it, and I may say frankly that this is mercenary. It is for the purpose of getting what Irish fisheries badly want, namely, a certain sum of money. What the development of our fisheries needs more than anything else is the expenditure of money in restocking our rivers, hatching trout and salmon, and carrying on the business of pisciculture as it is carried on in most countries. Very many people come over to us during the year to enjoy our trout fishing. There is no reason why they should not contribute a little towards the expenses of providing them with this enjoyment. There is no reason why they should not make some small return such as I suggest for the enjoyment they have amongst us. What I propose is the custom in nearly every country that I have fished in in Europe. In Germany, for instance, you have got to pay a small licence. In all the Dominions they have got to pay for a licence, in Newfoundland and New Zealand and other places. All the money which is contributed by means of these licences is devoted to the improvement of the fisheries in the respective districts. Every single State in the American Union charges you a licence for fishing for trout. Every single province in Canada charges you a licence for fishing for trout, and it is well perhaps that I should give the Seanad some idea of some of the charges that are made.
I take the province of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia charges you, for fishing for trout, five dollars a year. In New Brunswick the charge is twenty-five dollars a year for salmon and ten dollars for every other kind of fish. Quebec charges you twenty-five dollars for salmon, that is £5, and ten dollars, or £2 for other fish. Roughly speaking, the same thing happens in Ontario and in Alberta. The same thing happens in British Columbia, and even in the Island of Vancouver, which is part of the province of British Columbia, they charge a special licence of ten dollars. It seems to me the time has come when we should put ourselves on the same basis as all these self-governing communities. They all recognise that a most important asset to the State is the wild game and fishing resources, and the result is that they take care to encourage them by wise legislation. They also take means to provide a certain amount of money from those who enjoy these sports and profit by them. They take the means by these licences to obtain a certain amount of money. I submit these facts for the consideration of the Minister. The sum I suggest is only 2/6. It is a nominal and a really ridiculous sum, but at the same time we could get thousands a year in this country from the small fee of 2/6 which no true fisherman would have any objection to pay.
I am opposed to this amendment in the first place, because, as far as getting in funds is concerned, from the 2/6 brown trout licence, the cost of administration would really eat that up. Then, in the second place, I put this matter up for discussion to the Advisory Committee of which the Senator was a member. It was very fully discussed there, and they advised me not to impose a licence for brown trout rods. I think the reasons they gave there were pretty good. The licence would affect a youngster who, during his holidays from the National School, went out the country for a day and threw a worm into a stream. You would impose on such as he the necessity of taking out a licence. This 2/6 would be a very big sum to him, while at the same time, from our point of view, a 2/6 licence would be no use for getting in funds. The least it would take to collect such a licence would be about 10/-, and I believe it would not be fair to impose that burden on the type of person who engages in brown trout fishing.
I did not raise the question of expense because I thought it was self-evident that there would be no expense in collecting this licence. These licences would be issued by the Post Office like every other licence. We have the means at our disposal of obtaining money to develop our fisheries if we do the same as every other country does. This country in some ways is quite archaic. We are very old-fashioned in our ideas. We think it is very unfair to ask some people to pay for anything. While we go on in that way, we cannot raise money to stock our rivers.
When I referred to the cost of collection I meant, of course, the cost of seeing that a person took out a licence. There is another point that I did not mention. If you impose a tax on the brown trout fishermen you must give them representation. You must give them representation in some way or another.
That would mean amending the whole of the first portion of the Bill in regard to the scale of votes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move:—
First Schedule. To delete number 4 and to substitute therefor the following:—
4. Drift nets not exceeding 400 yards, £4; for every additional 200 yards, 5/-.
The duty payable by drift nets at present is £3. As the Bill was originally drafted it was £4, but the Dáil fixed the licence at £2. That is, they have have reduced the existing licence from £3 to £2. My amendment proposes to make the licence what it was in the original Bill. These drift netters really have no case. The theory is that because they fish out in the open sea they should not pay money for using their engines inshore. There is no greater fallacy than that they fish in the open sea. They do not; they fish in the estuaries, they fish close in near the shore, where the fish can come up, and they make enormous catches in the estuaries and close to the shore. They do not contribute one penny towards the preservation of the fish or towards the local rates. I am perfectly certain they do not contribute what they should contribute to national taxation in the shape of income tax, and they have not to bear a ten per cent. rate on the valuation, which has to be borne by the fishery owners. In these circumstances I strongly urge on the Seanad that the licence should be made what it was in the original Bill. That is £4 for nets not exceeding 400 yards, with 5/- for every additional 200 yards. I say that some of these drift nets extend for over half a mile.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
What do you mean by the original Bill—do you mean the Bill as introduced?
I oppose this amendment, and I do so because of the fact that this is an attempt to put a tax on men who are ordinary fishermen, men who live by fishing, and to compel them to pay a fee of £4 for being allowed to follow their avocation. As far as I understand these men fish on the high seas. That being so I do not think that they can be put in the same position as those who are fishing in inland rivers and who are fishing for pleasure. Undoubtedly the people on the north coast of Ireland, in Tirconaill, are the people who will suffer most by this amendment if passed. In the original Bill the fee charged for drift nets was £4 as it is in the amendment now. After a long discussion in Committee in the Dáil and after the full facts had been put before them it was decided by a fair majority that the fee should be reduced from £4 to £2. Now if this amendment is passed it means that we are going to get back to the original state, and I believe that that would be a gross hardship on those unfortunate fishermen who have to work hard for any fish that they catch. It is one thing to be fishing in inland waters for pleasure or sport, but it is quite a different thing to be on the high seas fishing for one's living. That being so I do not think it would be fair that these men should be compelled to pay these large fees. It is only during a small part of the year that these fishermen do catch salmon. My information is to the effect that if these men were deprived of fishing for the few salmon they catch it would be almost similar to them as if you were to deprive a migratory labourer of his living, because these fishermen in the north coast of Ireland are almost in the same position as migratory labourers going to England and Scotland. These fishermen on the north coast look forward to this period for a livelihood for themselves and their families during the bad period of the year.
I do hope that the Seanad will not pass the amendment, and indeed I hope it will be withdrawn. This amendment is putting an unfair tax on hard-working men. Senator Love to-day made reference to a pamphlet issued by Lord Dunraven some time ago. I got a copy of that pamphlet and I was much impressed by what he said about the great amount of value that can be got for this country from the fisheries. If we are going to get value I do not think we should be penalising the men who go out on the high seas. I ask Senator Brown to withdraw this amendment.
Senator Brown stated that these fishermen fish at the estuaries and that they made several great catches. That is contrary to the information I have, and my information is first hand. The majority of these men are men who live on small uneconomic holdings. They only fish for about three weeks of the year and for about 10 or 12 miles on the open Atlantic alongside the foreign trawlers. The French boats carry nets too. I think that instead of making these men take out a licence at all, they ought to be given a bounty for going out there to fish considering the poor circumstances under which they live. I would appeal to Senator Brown's sense of fair play to consider the cases of these fishermen, and not to press this amendment. No case has been made out for doubling the amount of the licence paid by these men. I do not think it is fair, after the long discussion in the Dáil and after a decisive vote had been taken there, that the Seanad should now be asked to reverse that decision.
I oppose this amendment. It is not fair to the fishermen who fish in the high seas that they should be charged in this way.
I have seen these men fish in the estuaries of the rivers. The general feeling of net owners is in favour of this amendment as they recognise that it is necessary to keep down the number of nets.
I am in rather a difficulty about this amendment. This is an attempt to reinsert in the Bill a provision that I originally had in it and which was defeated in An Dáil. I made as strong a case as I could in the Dáil for this provision, and I was beaten. I think myself that it is absolutely inequitable that a drift net 1,500 yards long should pay only the same licence duty as a single salmon rod or half the duty that is paid by a draft net. As the Bill stands now, there is payable on the drift net £2 and on the draft net £4. The latter is not half the size of the other. Several of the Senators were slightly wrong as to where these drift nets fish. Some do fish on the high seas. Outside Tirconaill the majority of drift net owners fish for salmon in the estuaries. In Tirconaill they are allowed 1,500 yards, and they fish entirely there in the open sea. In the other parts of the country they fish in the estuaries and the nets are restricted accordingly. In the Shannon estuary the drift net is limited to 130 yards. It varies along the coast. In some places it is 400 yards, in other places 600, and in Tirconaill 1,500, but, as I have already said, they fish in Tirconaill in the open sea, and they make a very lucrative business out of this fishing. They get very substantial catches. Senator McLoughlin said that they fish beside the trawlers, and he even suggested that we should give them a bounty for going out. Now, the French do not fish for salmon. It is perfectly certain that they do not. They come for lobsters.
My information is that they have salmon nets.
Well, they do not have salmon nets. My information is to the contrary. I think the proper thing in connection with this matter would be to arrive at some form of compromise. It is inequitable to have drift nets pay £2 and draft nets to pay £4. I object to our provision in the Bill being referred to as penalising. This Bill is intended to help in the preservation of fish, and to provide money for that purpose. If the fish are not preserved, and if they are not to go up the river to spawn, that injures the men who fish in the open sea just as much as those who fish in the estuary, or the anglers. The men who fish in the open sea benefit by the preservation of the fish, and they should contribute something towards their preservation. I am not prepared to say what the compromise would be now, but I think it should be based in some way on the length of the net used. If the matter were left over for consideration, a compromise might be arrived at which would be agreeable to the Seanad and to the Dáil. I think that would be the most desirable way of settling the matter. I do not want to go back to the Dáil with this proposal, which has been already turned down by the Dáil, and to ask them to agree with the Seanad, that is, if the Seanad passes the amendment. I prefer to go back after having arrived at some com-compromise. Perhaps it might be that the £3, as at present, should stand as the basic figure for the first 400 yards, and 2/6 for every 200 yards after that.
I agree that it is inequitable to charge draft nets £4 and drift nets £2. I would suggest that the tax for the two should be the even £3.
That is as it is at present.
It would be more equitable.
I would be prepared to fall in with the Minister's suggested compromise, but I do not know that we could arrange the matter between now and report. If the proposal is £3 basic for the first 400 yards, and 2/6 for every 200 yards in adition to that, I would accept it, and I now move that as my amendment.
I oppose the amendment. In my opinion this would be a great hardship on a number of poor salmon fishermen. It has been already stated as regards these fishermen that theirs is a purely occasional employment in various districts in the country. While I have little knowledge of salmon net fishing, I saw some of it in operation. I know that down in Lough Corrib, in Galway, a very much smaller net would be required to fish there, although the captures would be very much greater than by the net required to fish in a Dublin river, and consequently I think it would be very unjust to have the licence fee as in the Bill originally. We know that at Ringsend at one time a very large number of men had employment—at least partial employment—by salmon fishing there. Whether it is due to the licence or the absence of salmon, there are not nearly as many employed there now, but I know from what I saw at Lough Corrib, in Galway, that the people who have the monopoly of the fisheries down there are making a very good thing out of it, and are able to employ men. Senator Love told us that the returns of the export of fish from Ireland to Billingsgate show that the majority of the fish from this country are sent from Galway. I oppose the suggestion of the Minister which has now been moved by Senator Brown.
I also oppose the suggestion that there should be any compromise. The Minister talked of the great length of the net used in open sea fishing, but we must remember that a 130 yards net used in an estuary is more effective than a 1,500 yards net in the open sea. I do not think it is fair to collect revenue for the protection of inland fisheries at the expense of the poorer classes of fishermen. The licence duty paid amounts to 2½ per cent. of the total takings, which is excessive on people like that.
If the Deputy saw the figures submitted in the Dáil for a catch in Tirconaill he would know that the licence duty proposed here and in the amendment is far below 2½ per cent.
Deputy Johnson made that statement in the Dáil and it was not corrected.
Amendment put. On a show of hands there voted—Tá: 12; Níl, 12.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
What about making it £3 and leaving it there?
That is leaving it exactly as the law stands at present. I have increased the duty on the draft nets, and I will meet that probably by reducing the drift nets.
Amendment proposing to substitute £3 instead of £2, as in the schedule, put and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
