Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jan 1935

Vol. 19 No. 13

Shannon Fisheries Bill, 1934—Report Stage.

Mr. Bagwell

I move amendment No. 1:

Section 9, sub-section (1). After the word "proper" in line 20 to add the words:—

"Provided always that before exercising such power of demise or letting the Board shall give to each of the following persons, that is to say:—

(1) the owner or owners from whom the Board has acquired any fishery or fisheries or fishing right or fishing rights;

(2) the person or persons (if any) who at the date at which the Board acquired such fishery or fisheries or fishing right or fishing rights was or were the lessee or lessees or tenant or tenants thereof; and

(3) the person or persons (if any) other than such owner or lessee or tenant who at the time when the Board is about to exercise such power of demise or letting is in occupation of the bank of the river opposite or from which the said fishery or fisheries or fishing right or fishing rights can be enjoyed;

a notice in writing stating the nature and particulars of the proposed demise or letting, and the last day on which tenders for the acceptance of the proposed demise or letting will be received by the Board."

I move this amendment in lieu of the second amendment which I moved on the Committee Stage, as I saw that that amendment did not really meet the case. The amendment is intended to ensure that any person who may have had an interest in the amenities of any fishing which is acquired compulsorily by the Board shall have a fair opportunity of reacquiring such fishing by bidding for it in the ordinary commercial way. This amendment does not purport to give any particular advantage to anybody. The fishing is in the market and the Board will very probably get the best bid they can. This is only to ensure that those who have been connected with any particular fishing beforehand shall have an opportunity of resuming those amenities if they think fit to pay for them what is necessary.

As to No. (1), obviously the prior owner is a person who should have an opportunity of resuming the amenity. As to No. (2), the person who was a tenant of such fishery might have been the tenant for many years and might have really a greater interest in the amenities of it and the sentimental side of it than the owner. As to No. (3), such a person obviously should be considered. He will not have the fishing beforehand, but he lives there and is obviously a party whose interests ought reasonably to be considered and he ought to be given a fair opportunity. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment, which does not in any way curtail the rights of the Board to get the best offer they can in an open market. This is just to ensure that those people who have association with such fisheries should have a fair opportunity of bidding for a fishery.

Dr. Gogarty

I second the amendment.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I am in some difficulty in respect of this amendment. Senator Bagwell's original amendment on the Committee Stage was one of those which I undertook to consider with a view to seeing whether it was possible to adopt them in any form which would meet the intentions of their movers. I arranged to have an amendment prepared which I thought would go some way to meet Senator Bagwell's point and also the idea of Senator Johnson, as expressed in his amendment, No. 2 on the Order Paper, to-day. These amendments were not completed until yesterday and, consequently, they were not available for consideration to-day. It might be possible to arrange to deal with these other amendments upon the Order Paper to-day, then adjourn the Report Stage, and on the next day on which the Seanad is to meet consider the two amendments which will be brought forward to meet the points raised. I should say, for the information of Senator Bagwell, that the amendment I would have made would be one requiring the Electricity Supply Board to give adequate notice by publication in the newspapers circulating in the locality of its intention and desire to make a letting of any fishery in the district. I think Senator Bagwell's amendment that notice in writing should be sent to certain parties would be undesirable inasmuch as the failure to give this notice to any of the parties might invalidate the subsequent letting. That would be an undesirable position. I think it would meet Senator Bagwell's point and protect the interests of the parties who have a concern in these fisheries if publication, a reasonable time in advance of the date on which the Board proposes to make the letting, is made in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality. If, therefore, the Seanad would postpone this amendment now and have the Report Stage on a subsequent date, adjourning the consideration of the matter to-day, I could arrange to have an amendment prepared which would meet the Senator's point.

Mr. Bagwell

I leave myself entirely in the Minister's hands. I think the amendment the Minister has outlined to the House will probably meet the case, for though it does not directly ensure that those concerned will see those notices, still if they are particularly interested they can very easily, if not on the spot, depute someone to look after the matter for them. I am quite satisfied to leave my amendment to stand over.

Cathaoirleach

Then it is agreed that the amendment stands over.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment No. 2:—

Section 14, sub-section (4). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) In any case where a fishery or fishing right is being acquired by the Board, either by agreement or compulsorily, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say: compensation shall be payable by the Board to every person—

(a) who, for a period of not less than three months during the twelve months immediately preceding the date of acquisition, was employed by the owner of the property which is being acquired; or

(b) who, for a period of not less than three months in each of any three consecutive years since the 1st day of October, 1929, was employed by the owner of the property which is being acquired and was deprived of such employment by reason of injury to the fishery or fishing right in respect of which a price or compensation is being paid;

and whose earnings from such employment during that period formed the whole or a substantial part of the livelihood of such person. The amount of the compensation to be paid under this sub-section shall be such sum as, in the case of a property which is being acquired compulsorily, the arbitrator, or, in the case of a property which is being acquired by agreement, the Minister (or a person nominated by him), shall consider reasonable having regard to the loss of livelihood suffered by the aforesaid employed person in consequence of the acquisition of such fishery or fishery right by the Board, regard being had also to the likelihood of such person being continued in the employment of the Board.

This proposed new section is an alternative to the sub-section I had on the last Order Paper. This alternative arises from an observation that was made by the Minister regarding the Lax Weir, saying that there had been, in fact, for the last year or two, no fishing; so that my original proposal would automatically have ruled out some of the very men I had in mind. Consequently, I put forward an alternative which was intended to cover the men who had been employed by such organisation before the failure of that part of the fishing. I understand the Minister has drafted an alternative proposal which may be acceptable. But I want to deal with the matter in a little broader way. I assume that this will be dealt with in the same way as the last amendment—that is to say, it will be finally deferred until next week. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the position of people who have been deprived of their employment by reason of the fact that where certain fishing rights have been given up, certain compensation has either been given or is about to be given. Even these two amendments of mine would not cover all such persons. I think it is essential or it is certainly desirable that such persons should be included in any amendment that is going to be inserted in the Bill. At the last meeting of the Seanad the Minister made a statement to the following effect: "The fisheries between Parteen Villa and Killaloe have been acquired. They will be transferred to the Electricity Supply Board when this Bill will be enacted." I cannot understand that. I cannot understand their being acquired and not being put into possession of the Board. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us on that, because it seems to me it would affect the language that should be incorporated in such an amendment. If these fisheries have been acquired by somebody and not transferred to the Electricity Supply Board, then the question of acquisition, which is the phrase used in these amendments, would have a doubtful meaning. I want to include, if possible, the right of the men who have been for years employed as boatmen. That is to say, the persons who have lost their employment. The persons who own the right of fishing in and about Castleconnell and some other parts of the river have quite clearly and demonstrably lost an income by virtue of the failure of the fishery in a particular portion. As I understand it, compensation has either been paid or is agreed to be paid to these. So far again as I understand it, there has been no provision made that part of such compensation should go to the men who have really lost their employment. No provision has yet been made to recompense such men in any way.

I happened across an important authority on such matters in a discussion on a similar subject in 1930. That authority said:—

"The attitude of the Minister towards the Killaloe fishermen seems to be altogether unjustifiable. He talks about a general principle and says they have no special right, because anybody may come in and fish where they are fishing. The real fact is that there are 20 or 30 people who have been fishing there, and they have followed this particular occupation as their source of livelihood. Now, by public action, this livelihood is going to be taken away. It is by the action of this State that is being done. Whatever general principles may be adduced in favour of neglecting them, the fact is that these 20 or 30 individuals are now going to be deprived of their livelihood on the River Shannon by State action. I do not know whether this Bill is such that we could propose to it an amendment dealing with compensation."

Now, that was a statement made by Deputy de Valera on the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1930. It was made on the 5th June, 1930 (Volume 35 and column 585 of the Official Debates). It applies not only to the men who were immediately under discussion, but applies with treble force to the men who were for years employed on these fisheries by the lessees of the fishing rights. By the failure of that fishery in that particular locality, these men who own the rights apparently get compensation or are likely to get compensation, but no provision has yet been made for recompensing the men who lost their employment.

I hope that the Minister in any amendment that he will introduce or agree to will not exclude men of that character. It seems to me that the very Bill under which this discussion took place covered an analogous case in that of men who were employed for wages in electricity undertakings which were being closed down by the action of the Board. They were compensated and were entitled to compensation under the 1930 Act. It seems to me there is a perfect analogy but, apart from any verbal analogy, the case in equity and justice is impregnable. I think there can be no answer whatever to the case that these men have made, and I hope will continue to make, if their claim for compensation, or at least for a share of the compensation that is to be paid to the owners, is not met. That share should be provided for in making any assessment of compensation. I think, a Chathaoirligh, that the discussion on this cannot come to a conclusion to-day, that it will be postponed until next week.

Cathaoirleach

I think that is right.

Mr. Johnson

It is as well, however, that the matter should be raised at this stage so that the Minister will have an opportunity to deal with it.

Mr. Comyn

I am glad that the Minister has considered, and is still considering, the recommendations made last week on behalf of the workmen employed in these various fisheries. Compensation has been given to owners of fisheries which were injured. That was under the Acts of 1925 and 1927. It is now proposed to give compensation to the owners of fisheries which are to be acquired and the Minister is, I think very properly, considering the question of giving reasonable compensation to the workmen who will be put out of employment by reason of the acquisition of the fisheries. When I say reasonable compensation, of course I mean compensation having regard to the fact that probably they will be re-employed and may get work elsewhere. There is then a class of men who seem to be left out of the general plan, namely, workmen employed by the owners of fisheries whose fisheries have been injured as the result of operations carried on under the Acts of 1925 and 1927. The owners of the fisheries are to get compensation for the injury, and some men have been put out of employment—not very many, I suppose; I do not know how many—but the logic of the situation would seem to be that if workmen employed on fisheries that are to be acquired are to receive compensation, then workmen who are thrown out of employment by reason of the operations that injured the fisheries ought to receive reasonable compensation. Of course I only mention that matter for the consideration of the Minister in the open House here. I do not want to approach the Minister privately or by way of deputation; I am putting it forward here for the consideration of the Minister. I think that is practically what Senator Johnson has proposed, but I think I would go further in saying that it is quite possible to do this by the insertion of a few words in any new amendment which the Minister may consider it right to introduce.

Mr. Lemass

As I explained, it is my intention to have moved an amendment which will provide compensation on a certain basis for any workmen who may become disemployed in consequence of the acquisition of a Shannon fishery by the Electricity Supply Board and in cases where such workmen had a certain continuity of employment in the Shannon fishing industry. I gather that what Senator Johnson wants to achieve, however, is that not merely will these people be compensated but also any person who may have lost his employment during the past eight or nine years in consequence of damage done to a Shannon fishery by the construction of the Shannon hydro-electric works. That is something to which I could not possibly agree. The Shannon Electricity Act of 1925 provided for the payment of compensation to persons whose fisheries were damaged and the payment of compensation to other persons whose fisheries were acquired in connection with the construction of the works. It would be, I think, entirely impracticable to go back now to every one of these cases for the purpose of compensating, regardless of present circumstances, any worker who may have become disemployed in consequence of the operation of that Act.

Cathaoirleach

I think the amendment does not deal with such a case.

Mr. Lemass

The Senator's amendment proposes to go back to the 1st October, 1929.

Cathaoirleach

But the fishery must have been acquired by the Board: "In any case where a fishery or fishing right is being acquired." That is the gravamen of the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

Quite, but the proposal is that wherever a fishery has been damaged and compensation is payable to the owner of the fishery in consequence, instead of paying compensation for that damage, the fishery will be acquired. I gathered from Senator Johnson that he wants to provide in any such case that not merely will the workers who may become disemployed by the acquisition of the fisheries be compensated, but also any worker who may have become disemployed in consequence of damage to the fishery since 1929. The proposal which I would put forward would be to compensate workers who become disemployed in consequence of the operation of this Bill. I do not think it is possible for us to go back and endeavour to repair now whatever consequences the earlier enactments of the Oireachtas may have had. Whatever Senators may think of the wisdom of the earlier enactments and the effect of them, they were put into operation and various consequences followed. It is not, I think, now wise to go back because if we were to do so we would open a very wide field indeed and appear to give a basis for claims for compensation to many people whose interests were adversely affected by the construction or the operation of the Shannon scheme other than workers employed in the fisheries. Persons who suffered in some cases severe consequential damage from the operation or the construction of the scheme were not given the right to compensation under the earlier Acts. We are proposing now that where workers become disemployed in consequence of the operation of this Bill, that is the acquisition of fisheries by the Electricity Supply Board, compensation will be paid if the circumstances justify it. I make that qualification because the fact is that a very large number of the workers who were employed on the fisheries are casual workers in every sense. Their ordinary avocations and ordinary sources of income are not the work they get on the fisheries. They work on these fisheries only for a short period in each year. The cases in which the income derived from that work would constitute the main source of livelihood of the individual would not be many. In the case of the Lax Weir, for example, the procedure was that, apart from a small permanent staff, when seasonal operations required a considerable addition, casual workers were recruited through the Labour Exchange. The workers employed in any one year might never have been employed before on that work and might never be employed again. I do not think that casual workers of that type could substantiate a claim to compensation because the weir on which they did get that occasional work has been acquired by another body. Where a worker was employed with any degree of regularity, where the income he got from that work was an important part of his means of livelihood, then compensation would be payable on a fixed basis if his employment should terminate. Compensation would not be payable if the worker merely transferred from one employer to another and became an employee of the Electricity Supply Board. Perhaps we can leave the discussion of that matter over until the amendment I have prepared is before Senators, when they will be able to see what it is intended to provide for.

I should like to clarify one point raised by Senator Johnson. He referred to fisheries acquired in connection with the construction of the works and not yet transferred to the Electricity Supply Board. These fisheries are, for the most part, of no value now. The Senator will remember that the construction of the electricity supply works on the Shannon was not undertaken by the Electricity Supply Board but by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He acquired the property and constructed the works and, only when construction was completed, were they handed over to the Electricity Supply Board. The fisheries which were destroyed in consequence of flooding by the damming up of the waters have remained the property of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. They were not transferred to the Electricity Supply Board and they will not be transferred until this Bill shall have become law and that particular section can be put into operation.

Mr. Johnson

Acquisition will not cover these.

Mr. Lemass

They have already been acquired. They had to be acquired before the works could be constructed. They have been acquired for about ten years. The fishermen concerning whom the President was speaking in 1930— the Senator quoted his remarks—were, however, in an entirely different class from any fishermen we have been discussing in relation to the operation of this Bill. These fishermen were not employed by anybody. They were people who occasionally supplemented their income by exercising a public right of fishing in the waters around Killaloe. There was a certain stretch of water there upon which there was a public right of fishing, and these people availed of that right and, no doubt, derived a certain income from their activities. They had, however, no claim to compensation, because the right which they were no longer able to exercise, the fisheries having been destroyed, was a public right—a right which anybody here could exercise just as well as they did. In fact, quite a number of the people concerned in that matter had other sources of income of various kinds.

Mr. Johnson

The employed men's case is a stronger one, I agree.

Mr. Lemass

As regards the men employed by the owners of fisheries, there are, I think, very few in respect of whom any real hardship resulted, inasmuch as they were found other employment as bailiffs, or in some other way in connection with the river, or were compensated by the owners from whom the fisheries had been acquired. The case for which we are proposing to provide now is the clearly defined case in which people who had certain regularity of employment in this class of work, that employment representing a main source of their income in the course of the year, were deprived of that employment in consequence of the new conditions on the Shannon. I do not think we should extend the scope of the compensation proposals to include others than such persons.

Further consideration of the amendment postponed.

Amendment No. 3 postponed.

Amendment No. 4 (Government Amendment):

New section. Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—

18.—(1) The Minister for Agriculture may, if he thinks fit, at any time by order authorise the Board, for the purpose of acquiring statistical information and the purpose of carrying out scientific investigations or for either of those purposes, to close, at such times, during such periods, and in such manner as he may specify in such order, the free gap in any specified weir in the waters of the Shannon fisheries.

(2) Whenever the Minister for Agriculture by order under this section authorises the Board to close the free gap in any weir in the waters of the Shannon fisheries, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) notwithstanding anything contained in the Fisheries Acts, 1842 to 1925, it shall be lawful for the Board to close such free gap under and in accordance with such order;

(b) Section 10 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1845 shall not apply in respect of any obstruction placed in such free gap by the Board under and in accordance with such order.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Connolly)

I move the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

In accordance with Section 9 of the Fisheries Act, 1863, every weir owner must maintain a free gap to allow a share of the fish to go up the river. The Electricity Supply Board have represented the necessity for the temporary closing of the free gap if they are to have any means of counting the salmon which pass up the river and also for the purpose of scientific research. Hitherto, there has been no means of ascertaining the number of salmon in the river, all existing statistics relating to catches. The Department of Agriculture are in agreement with the principle of this amendment which, it will be observed, provides that the Minister for Agriculture will determine where and for what period the free gap will be closed. Our information is that this method of scientific investigation has been utilised on a large scale elsewhere, particularly in Alaska and British Columbia, where the salmon fisheries are a very valuable industry. The second part of the amendment is necessary as one of the provisions of the Fisheries Act, 1863, enabled a police inspector or, now, a member of the Gárda, to remove any obstruction in the free gap. The whole purpose of the amendment is to enable the salmon fishing industry in the Shannon to be put upon a scientific basis and to facilitate the ascertaining of information necessary to do that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment No. 5:—

Section 22. To add at the end of the section the words "provided that this section shall not apply for a period of three years after the passing of this Act to any person or the successors in title of a person who during the period of twelve months preceding the passing of this Act has lawfully exercised a right of fishing with a snap net in such tidal waters."

This amendment relates to Section 22, which prohibits fishing with a snap net in the tidal waters. Section 21 restricts the number of licences to fish with nets in the tidal waters in the future to the number of persons or bodies that have been fishing for the last year or two years. Under other provisions of the Bill, the Abbey fishermen are being deprived of their right to fish in the fresh waters and are to receive compensation for their property and for loss of employment. By virtue of Section 21, they will not be allowed to fish in the tidal waters with snap nets and, of course, they will not be allowed to fish with any other kind of nets because the number of licences is to be restricted.

Now the position of the Abbey fishermen, as I understand it, is, at present, as it was for many years past, that they have a right to fish in the fresh water of the Shannon; but they had also the additional public right of fishing in tidal waters in the Shannon estuary. Portion of their earnings has come from the exercise of the right to fish in the tidal waters with snap nets. What is proposed to be done by this Bill is: Where the right of fishing in fresh water is taken away they have a right to compensation for the loss of that right and certain earnings as workmen. But they are to be deprived also of the right to fish in the tidal waters with snap nets and any other kind of net. We are, thereby, depriving these fishermen of certain rights, which, it seems to me, they have exercised along with the rest of the public, by not including them in the number in Section 21 of licences that may be issued. So that part of their earnings is taken away for which they get no compensation at all. There is no compensation for being deprived of the right of snap-net fishing in tidal waters. I think that is quite unfair, and some provision should be made to allow these men compensation for the loss of their livelihood so far as these tidal waters are concerned. They should get an equivalent to their loss. Whether snap-net fishing is a desirable thing or not is not a matter upon which I am speaking now, but I am suggesting that a three-year period should pass before prohibition becomes effective in the case of people who have been fishing with snap nets in the last twelve months.

Another matter has been brought to my notice which I think is worthy of consideration but has not yet been mentioned publicly, as far as I know. There are a number of poor men fishing the Maigue river with snap nets and I think this Bill will deprive these men of their rights.

Mr. Lemass

Not in tidal waters.

Mr. Johnson

Though not in tidal waters, I think they are definitely prohibited.

Mr. Lemass

Not if they have been lawfully exercising that right of fishing in the past.

Mr. Johnson

If that assumes that they are not going to be acquired it only shows how difficult it is to understand the sections of this Bill unless we understand more clearly what is to be the general policy of the Board. If fishermen in the Maigue and other waters are to be allowed to continue to fish with snap nets then the Minister is right. But if snap-net fishing is so disastrous in other parts of the Shannon, I cannot understand how it is found to be unobjectionable in the Maigue. These are matters no doubt that the Minister will take into account. If there are fishermen fishing for a long time, who are to be deprived of their rights, something certainly should be done on their behalf.

Mr. Lemass

The whole answer to Senator Johnson's two points is this. First, the Abbey fishermen have no rights of fishing in tidal waters independent of the public rights; and, secondly, it would be obviously useless, even worse than useless, to spend large sums of money and go to great trouble to acquire the private rights of fishing in fresh waters, if we were to allow an unrestricted amount of fishing in the tidal waters. It is not that snap net fishing in tidal waters is going to be disastrous. What would be disastrous to the whole idea and policy contemplated by this Bill would be an increase in the number of nets in the tidal estuary consequent upon the acquisition under this measure of the privately-owned fisheries. The Senator raised this point in Committee. He made some reference to the Lax Weir, and intimated that there had been some dispute between the Lax Weir and the Abbey fishermen concerning certain rights of fishing with nets in portion of the tidal waters. The Lax Weir fishery is a several fishery which is exclusive of public rights created by title recognised by the courts. It stretches along portion of the river from a little distance above Limerick Town, in tidal waters. The Abbey fishery is another stretch of the river above the Lax Weir, and there is between the two a very small stretch of the river, not more than 100 yards, along which a public right to fish exists, and where the Abbey fishermen have been fishing occasionally with snap nets in the exercise of that public right. I cannot find that it is possible for either the Lax Weir Company or the Abbey fishery to put forward any sustainable claim to the ownership of that fishery. It is a public fishery. The operation of this section is not directed against the Abbey men in any sense. The whole purpose of this section is to ensure that the amount of net fishing in the tidal waters will not increase in consequence of the acquisition of other fisheries.

Mr. Johnson

I understand the Abbey fishermen have fished and do fish in the estuary below the Lax Weir, which is a several fishery.

Mr. Lemass

No licence to fish in the estuary with snap nets was issued since 1927. That is why the proposal here is to issue no more licences for snap net fishing. The number of licences for drift nets and draft nets will enable those who had them in the past year to get them again, but will not permit an increase. It would be reasonable to expect after the Abbey fisheries are acquired that the people who exercised the right to fish there would probably take out licences for net fishing in tidal waters, and you would have just as much fishing going on, if not a lot more than ever went on before, with the result that all the measures that had been taken to improve the value of the fisheries and to protect them would have been nullified by that increase in net fishing. That is the basis of the Bill —to restrict the amount of net fishing to the same number of licences as has been issued in recent years. The Abbey fishermen have a right of fishing with snap nets in fresh waters. That right is exercised by them only, and can only be taken from them on payment of compensation for depriving them of such rights.

Mr. Johnson

In fresh waters?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, fresh waters. If they have fished in tidal waters, they have done so in the exercise of a public right and, obviously, it is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide to what extent a public right is to be interfered with; but if we do interfere with it we cannot provide for compensation.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Report Stage adjourned until next Wednesday.