I move:—
That the Seanad calls the attention of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries to the remarks, as reported in the public Press, made by the Chairman of the Inland Fisheries Commission at its meeting on the 31st ultimo and asks the Minister to take suitable notice of the matter.
The motion I put before the House is somewhat different from the motion which we have just been discussing. It is worded in quite a different manner but, in many ways, it is much more serious that the last motion. I regret to have to move it. I do not expect very much from it. No doubt, the Minister will stand for the appointment which has been made and explain the situation to us. The facts are as follows:
A short time ago, a Commission was appointed by the Minister for Lands and Fisheries. The terms of reference of that Commission were (1) to enquire into the salmon fisheries and fresh water fisheries of the Free State; (2) to investigate the modes of tenure and the laws relating to control and preservation; (3) to recommend such steps as may be necessary or desirable to promote their development and increase their national utility. Commissions of this kind have, as a rule, in the past, been constituted in the majority of persons who—shall I say— have supported the general policy of the Government or, at any rate, have shown an interest in the policy of the Government in office. In the constitution of this particular Commission, there is patently no departure from precedent. To the credit of past Governments, it can be said that, as a rule, invitations to sit have been extended to persons who held views opposite to theirs. I think that that was a wise provision, because some of those persons who held views which were contrary to the policy of the Government in power were convinced, after hearing the evidence brought before the Commission, and joined in the majority report. We also had the benefit of minority reports which showed another point of view. In this particular case, no such invitations were issued. The Administration have seen fit—unfortunately, I say—to appoint to the chairmanship of a Commission of immense importance a gentleman who was intimately associated with one of the most important fishery actions of recent times. Had he remained silent and contented himself with hearing evidence and making his report in consultation with his colleagues, this fact might have escaped public notice. But, at the first public sitting of the Commission, the Chairman addressed those present and is reported to have said, inter alia—
"Personally, he thought the fishery code was framed in the interest of the landlord class and, while the land had been wrested from them, the fisheries remained in their hands. The Commission before making up their minds as to nationalisation or modified State control or otherwise would consider this aspect of the question."
Further, he dealt with the question of the Erne decision which, though he had knowledge of it, had not come before the Commission in any form. He said:
"They had been informed by a responsible official of the Fishery Department that, as a result of this enquiry, it was hoped to get an order defining the mouth of the Abbey River, which runs into the Erne estuary and which never had its mouth defined before. An order defining the mouth of a river automatically gave effect to a hoary old Victorian statute which would keep the public from fishing within half-a-mile of either side of, or seawards from, the defined mouth.
Lastly, he is reported to have said:—
"He hoped that after their interim report, native Irish fishermen would be fishing in waters hitherto protected by a private company under Government control."
Those are the three things I am taking exception to in the statement made by the Chairman of the Commission. These statements were made before a single word of evidence had been given by interested parties before this Commission. I submit that the chairman of a public commission of this nature is very much in the same position as a judge. Were any of our judges to preface the pleadings to be brought before them in a manner similar to that adopted by Mr. Commissioner Gallagher, the confidence which, I am proud to say, exists in regard to the probity and impartiality of our courts of justice would be irreparably shaken. There can be no doubt that the future proceedings of this Commission will, as a result of these utterances of the Chairman, be suspect in the minds of the general public and that the eventual findings will be widely questioned.
In regard to the first extract of the Chairman's address, I submit that the statement that the land had been wrested from the landlord class, but that the fisheries remained in their hands, contains an inference as to the Chairman's attitude of mind which cannot be misinterpreted. Secondly, as regards the defined mouths of the rivers, there is a certain inference by the Chairman—that there will be variations in the defined mouths of a great many rivers, with consequent dislocation—before any evidence by the public has been adduced. Finally, he expresses the hope that after their interim report, native Irish fishermen will be fishing in the waters hitherto protected by a private company under Government control. That, I submit, makes assurance doubly sure of what his idea will be regardless of the evidence. If ever a case has been deliberately and openly prejudged, it is the evidence which will be given in the present instance.
I put down this motion in order to allow of discussion and to draw attention to what may lead to a travesty of justice. Incidentally, I cannot help referring to the calculated words "native Irish fishermen." I think that these are words definitely calculated to perpetuate the divisions and dissensions among the people of this country. There are many national heroes of the past and the present whose names would have had more of a foreign twang than mine or that of Seán O Cátháin. Yet, there would have been no question in a bailiff's mind as to whether they had a right to fish or not. Personally, I resent and condemn the constant references made on the public platforms to the nationality of the President of the Executive Council. After all, he happens to be the first Minister of the State and I think that, in dealing with personalities of that kind, there must, at any rate, be a certain courtesy. This type of thing is really the product of the lowest petty politician and is only calculated to appeal to people of the lowest standard of education. It is calculated to drive people apart rather than to bring them together.
In this particular case, I have not consulted anybody, nor am I put up to speak by any Board of Fisheries or any organisation like that. I have already given my evidence before that Commission and, in giving that evidence, I have slated both the net owners and the rod fishermen. I have given evidence to show how, in my opinion, the fisheries can be improved. I have no axe to grind in the matter. Although I am a net owner and a fisherman as well, I run both these concerns at what amounts always to a yearly loss, and I run them simply to keep in continuous employment certain men—all of them men whom Mr. Gallagher would describe as "native Irish fishermen." I continue them in employment so that they can maintain their families, which otherwise they would be barely able to do. I ask the House to consider this motion. It is not a motion I want to press in any way, but the House can do sufficient to have general notice taken of what I consider very undesirable views on the part of a chairman of a commission of this nature.
