I move:
New section. Before Section 3 to insert a new section, as follows:—
3.—Where the Society has supplied to any member thereof or has repaired or renovated for any such member any sea-fishing boat or any equipment or appliance for a sea-fishing boat or any fishing nets and a contract has been entered into between the Society and such member whereby such member agrees with the Society to pay to the Society in a particular manner specified in such contract the cost of such supply or repair or renovation and such member does any act, whether of commission or omission, which is a contravention of such agreement, such member shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall (without prejudice to any civil proceedings in respect of such act) be liable on summary conviction thereof in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding sixty pounds.
Should the Bill which we are considering to-day become law, a new and untried scheme will be brought into operation in connection with the development of sea fisheries in Ireland. I think the House will agree that this scheme should be given every opportunity of becoming a success. There is an enormous field for development in respect of our sea fisheries, and we should make a practical attempt to put this scheme into operation and to secure a reasonable success. The procedure in the past in respect of advances made to fishermen has been that the applicant for an advance had to have two solvent securities, and in some cases it was necessary for him, where there were any doubts about the solvency of the securities, to make a deposit as well. At present some of the energies of the Department of Lands and Fisheries are dissipated in trying to recover from the securities the amount of advances made, particularly in the years of the Great War. Their activities, to a great degree, are devoted to that work. That is a singularly unhappy position. The securities are going to suffer.
There is the further result that an applicant who seeks a loan for the purchase of a boat or gear can get nobody to go security for him. Thus stalemate has been reached. Those defaulters have brought the securities into trouble and have inflicted hardships on would-be applicants for advances. That should not be the position. As a consequence the whole industry has suffered. The scheme that has been in operation up to the present stands condemned by its results. It has been tried and found wanting, and it is up to the officials of the Department to formulate a scheme that would be a success.
Under this Bill the Fisheries Association is to provide boats, tackle, and other paraphernalia without security. For five years it may make advances for boats and equipment without any deposit whatsoever. It is to be hoped that everyone interested in this question will see that there is a workable scheme and one which may prove a boon to the fishermen. The Association is taking a greater risk than has heretofore been taken. If it is taking a greater risk I think it is only logical that there should be greater safeguards. The purpose of my amendment is to safeguard the Association. Section 3 in the original Bill was removed by a majority vote of the Special Committee. I think I am safe in saying that the attitude of the Special Committee was not so much one of opposition to the Bill as a desire on the part of the mover of the amendment—Senator Johnson—and other members of the Committee, that before passing this Bill, including this amendment, the House should be fully aware of the import of the amendment and its implication. I am satisfied that the House will make itself aware of the due import of the amendment and will have no hesitation whatsoever in passing it. It can be argued, and it may be admitted, that the Association has its ordinary civil rights in regard to breach of contract.
Damages can only be recovered through a civil action which at very best could only be regarded as trivial. There will probably be provision made for damages in Rule 13 under the contract for co-operative marketing, which every member has to sign. These damages will have direct relation to the quantity of fish wrongly dealt with. There would be obvious difficulty in proving the quantity so dealt with. If the Association had nothing but its civil rights to rely on, it is unlikely that it would function to anything like the extent to which those interested in the fishing industry would like, and I am afraid the whole scheme would prove a failure, and this attempt to provide a real solution would be abortive.
In regard to the penalties, if they are to have any effect they must be adequate to meet the position. If this scheme is successful it is more than likely that advances will be made up to several hundred pounds to individual members of the Society for the purchase of boats and gear. If amounts to such an extent as that are advanced for the purchase of boats and gear and other equipment, and if those who are lucky enough to secure such advances from the Association gravely violated their contracts, it is fit and proper that any punishment which can be inflicted should be inflicted; otherwise there will be no deterrent on wrongdoers, and some deterrent is absolutely essential. On first examination the penalties may appear somewhat large, but I would like to point out that the penalties mentioned in my amendment are maximum penalties, not likely to be usually inflicted. Generally speaking, the penalties will only be inflicted at the discretion of the District Justice, and he is likely to take a considerable number of factors into account when fixing the amount. It is not to be assumed that a prosecution will ordinarily follow the detection of any violation of the contract.
The Board which will operate has been selected from men associated with the fishing industry, men actually interested in it or men who bring a certain experience and business capacity to bear upon such matters as will concern the Association. They are likely to make a valuable contribution to the working of this Association. It is extremely unlikely that these men will take any part in instituting prosecutions unnecessarily or too often. It is unlikely that they will adopt a course which would incure the suspicion of the fishermen or that they will be likely to do anything which would turn the people whom this measure is intended to serve against the Association. It is extremely unlikely that the members of the Board will do any such thing. It must be remembered that no proceedings against any defaulter can be instituted unless the permission of the Minister is sought and secured. There is a double safeguard in that respect, and the House may rest assured that no prosecution will be embarked upon unnecessarily.
This scheme is experimental; it is new and untried and, if successful, it is going to prove of inestimable value to the fisherfolk. Under the old scheme the fishermen had to provide two sureties when seeking an advance. They had to make a half-yearly contribution in respect of the repayment of any advance. It did not matter whether the seasons were good or bad; in the worst of seasons the borrowers were called upon to make their half-yearly repayments. In bad seasons that was certainly a hardship on the fishermen. Under the new scheme the potential borrower is relieved in respect of all these matters. Relief in particularly bad years will be of inestimable value to the fisherman. There is, no doubt, a danger under this scheme that borrowers may dispose of the whole or part of their catches to persons other than the agents of the Association at the local port or at some other port, or even outside Saorstát Eireann. There may be a very definite inducement offered to borrowers to dispose of portion of their catches in some such fashion. If a slip is once made and if some borrowers are able to evade their responsibilities and get away with it, then, likely enough, others will follow.
This amendment is intended, not so much as a punishment, but as a deterrent on those who may be disposed to violate their contracts and evade their responsibilities and obligations. I think the House will agree that is necessary. A new departure is being made. According to the Minister, the members of the Board are most anxious that this section should be re-inserted. They consider it vital to a degree to the success of the scheme. If there is a likelihood of carrying this scheme through successfully, I do not think the House will deny the powers which should be given to the Minister and to the Board. The amendment is reasonable enough. There will be no undue hardship on anybody. Those who seek to evade their obligations will be punished, and, I think, no one will have any great sympathy with them.
The development of the sea fisheries around Ireland is a big question, and we should not hesitate over trivial matters. Inasmuch as we feel it is essential to the success of the scheme that this section should be re-inserted, I do not think that the House will hesitate in having that done. I hope the House will give every facility to those who will be responsible for making this scheme a success. In view of what I have said, I am sure that Senators will have no hesitation in having this amendment adopted and the new section inserted in the Bill. The Special Committee responsible for its deletion objected to it merely for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to its full import and implications. I am sure the House will fully realise all this and will have no hesitation in inserting this new section.
