Before the Bill is read a Second Time, I wish to draw attention to one or two matters which I hope the Minister will see his way to have rectified. Judging from various sections, it appears to be a measure intended to facilitate the vesting of land. A good many of its provisions are useful. I notice that each section is apparently framed in view of cases which have actually occurred. For instance, Section 3 provides for fishing rights appurtenant to holdings, and fisheries on rivers passing through or by land are deemed to be appurtenant to the holding if the fishing right is vested in the tenant or his superior landlord. That is intended to meet a case which occurred on the River Louth, where the fishery in part of that river was held not to be appurtenant to the holding adjoining the river. I mention that matter for the purpose of suggesting that every section of this Bill is framed with a view to meeting difficulties in cases that have arisen. Therefore, I am most anxious to know why Section 5, sub-section (1) is framed in the terms in which it is.
Let me read it:—
(1) Where a fishery or fishing right is vested (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in the Land Commission under Section 45 of the Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923), as amended by this Act and another fishery or fishing right (hereinafter referred to as the ancillary fishery or fishing right) which is not so vested is, in the opinion of the Land Commission, necessary for the proper user and enjoyment of the first-mentioned fishery or fishing right, the Land Commission may purchase such ancillary fishery or fishing right for such price, payable in four and one-half per cent. land bonds of equal nominal value, as shall be agreed upon between the Land Commission and the owner of such ancillary fishery or fishing right.
Suppose that a considerable stretch of fishery is vested in the Land Commission and there is part of that fishery adjoining a stream vested in a private owner, it is called in this section an ancillary fishery. I wish to know why is not that ancillary fishery placed in the same position as a tenant or landlord. The Land Commission are asking for public money to buy out ancillary fishermen at their own price. If a case has arisen calling for that section I would like to know what the case is. I would also like to know why the ancillary fisherman is getting his own price, because these are the words of the section:
The Land Commission may purchase such ancillary fishery or fishing right for such price, payable in four and one-half per cent. land bonds of equal nominal value, as shall be agreed upon between the Land Commission and the owner of such ancillary fishery or fishing right.