Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are really consequential on amendment No. 4, which is the amendment designing to secure that the Board must give public notice of its intention to make a letting of a fishery. This is the amendment that was discussed with Senator Bagwell and is designed to meet the point raised by him.
Shannon Fisheries Bill, 1934—Report Stage (Resumed).
Government amendment No. 1:
Section 9, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 13-14 the words "(where applicable) to the approval and restriction mentioned in the next following sub-section" and to substitute therefor the words "to the provisions".
In Senator Bagwell's absence—I know that he is in town and that he will be here in a few minutes—I should like to say that I think he was going to suggest to the Minister that the period of a fortnight ought to be made 21 days. A great many of the local papers in this country are not published more than once a week, and if you have a fortnight as the length of time for notice to be given, it is just possible that you would have only one advertisement in the fortnight. On the other hand, if you make the period 21 days, there will be no doubt about it at all.
Even in the case of a weekly publication there would be two issues if there was a clear fortnight between the date on which it was intended to make the letting and the date of publication.
It is not altogether that, but the owner, or whoever wants to have the option of making a tender, ought to have a fortnight in which to do it.
If the House is willing to effect the amendment at this stage, I have no objection; that is, to substitute 21 days for a fortnight.
Amendment No. 1 put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
Section 9, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 18-19 the words "(where applicable) to such approval".
Amendment put and agreed to.
In view of what has been said, Senator Bagwell, I presume that you do not propose to move amendment No. 3?
I apologise to the House, Sir, for not being here when the amendment in my name was under discussion. However, the agenda was not taken in the usual order and that was why I was late. I am quite satisfied with the Government amendment No. 4 on the Order Paper, provided that 21 days is substituted for a fortnight, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 4:
Section 9. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) No demise by lease nor letting by way of licence of the whole or any part of the Shannon fisheries nor any agreement for any such demise or letting shall be made by the Board under this section unless the Board shall, at least one fortnight before making such demise, letting or agreement, have published at least once in each of two newspapers circulating in the neighbourhood of the fishery or fisheries which is or are the subject matter of such demise, letting or agreement, a notice stating the intention or desire of the Board to demise or let such fishery or fisheries and inviting offers to take such demise or letting.
The phrase "21 days" will be substituted for the words "one fortnight" in the amendment.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 5:—
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.—(Senator Johnson.)
May I suggest, Sir, that it would be better if amendment No. 6 were taken first? Amendment No. 6 is a Government amendment.
They deal with the same thing, Senator.
Yes, but if we hear what the Minister has to say first, it might be better.
Does the House agree to take amendment No. 6 first?
Agreed to take amendment No. 6 first.
Government amendment No. 6:—
New section. Before Section 15 to insert a new section as follows:—
15.—(1) Whenever a fishery or a fishing right is acquired (whether compulsorily or by agreement) by the Board under this Act, every person who proves to the satisfaction of the Board or of the arbitrator all the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) that during the whole or substantially the whole of each of the three complete open fishing seasons next before such acquisition, he was constantly and regularly employed at a weekly wage in or about the working of such fishery or the exercise of such fishing right, and
(b) that he was so employed by a person or the predecessor in title of a person entitled to receive the price or a portion of the price payable by the Board in respect of such acquisition, and
(c) that the wages received by him in respect of such employment formed the whole or a substantial part of his livelihood while he was so employed, and
(d) that his said employment related exclusively to the working of such fishery or the exercise of such fishing right, and
(e) that he was not regularly employed outside the open fishing season by the person by whom he was so employed during the open fishing season,
shall (subject to the provisions of this section) be entitled to be paid by the Board compensation in respect of his loss of employment by reason of the said acquisition of such fishery or fishing right by the Board.
(2) The compensation payable to any person under this section shall be calculated as follows, that is to say, for every complete open fishing season during which such person complied with all the conditions mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section, such person shall receive a sum equal to four times the average weekly wage received by such person in respect of such employment during the complete fishing season next before the said acquisition of the said fishery or fishing right by the Board, but subject to the overriding limitation that such compensation shall not in any case exceed fifty-two times the said average weekly wage.
(3) A person shall not be entitled to any compensation under this section in relation to the acquisition of a fishery or a fishing right by the Board where it is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that by reason of an undertaking by the Board to continue the employment of such person or for any other reason such person will suffer no loss or diminution of employment in consequence of such acquisition.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the payment of compensation in certain cases to workers employed by persons whose fishing rights have been acquired by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. There are certain points of difference between the proposal in the Government amendment and that embodied in the amendment in the name of Senator Johnson. I gather that the Senator is anxious to provide that compensation will be paid not merely in the cases of persons who lose their employment in consequence of the acquisition of fisheries under this Bill, but also that persons who have already lost their employment through the destruction of or the reduction in the value of fisheries since the 1st October, 1929— that is, such fisheries as may now be acquired by the Board under the provisions of this Bill. The objection to that is, I think, fairly clear.
The adoption of the proposal would widen the basis of compensation so much as to create considerable dangers and it would give rise to justifiable claims for compensation from other persons similarly affected. There is no logical ground upon which a case could be made for the compensation of a workman who has lost his employment on a fishery since 1929 in consequence of the operation of the Shannon scheme that could not also be made for several other classes of workers. Certain lands were flooded in connection with the construction of the scheme and it is possible that farm workers previously employed on these lands also became disemployed. Certain mills were put out of action and the workers employed there would also have a case to put forward if the Senator's proposal were accepted. Again, certain hotels specialised in catering for visitors who went to that part of the country for the fishing and their trade was reduced, with a probable reduction in the staff employed. If the principle of the amendment were to be accepted it would constitute a precedent which would have the effect of making impossible certain desirable developments that might otherwise be well worth while undertaking.
To some extent this argument I have used could also be used against the Government's proposal. The reason why we bring forward that proposal is because we contemplate that a considerable number of persons who are at present engaged or who have been engaged in connection with the Shannon fisheries will still be employed by the Electricity Supply Board on similar work and the purpose of the provision is to ensure that there will be, on the one hand, a very direct inducement to the Electricity Supply Board to employ such persons in preference to other persons and, secondly, to ensure that there will not be undue difficulty created for the Board if it is to choose from the number of such persons a lesser number to be employed in the immediate future.
The Senator also proposes that compensation should be paid to persons who have had not less than three months' employment during the previous 12 months from the owner of the fishery. I think three months would be much too short a period. The proposal in the Government amendment is that a person to be entitled to compensation must have been employed during the whole or substantially the whole of each of the three complete open fishing seasons next before the date of acquisition. The amendment proposes also that the person to be compensated must be able to show that the earnings received by him in respect of employment in the fishery formed the whole or a substantial part of his livelihood while he was so employed, and also that he was not regularly employed outside the open fishing season by the person by whom he was so employed during the open fishing season. There are certain types of cases that might arise—for instance, where a whole-time workman of an employer who acted for him in connection with his fisheries during the season and in other capacities afterwards, would probably still continue to be employed by that employer. He would not be entitled to compensation.
The basis of compensation is a sum equal to four times the average weekly wage received in respect of employment during the complete fishing season, subject to a maximum of 52 weeks' average wages. The amendment also proposes to exclude from compensation those persons who will be employed by the Electricity Supply Board in connection with the fisheries after the date of acquisition. I think the amendment goes a long way to meet the points made in Committee and especially to meet the points in regard to the basis of compensation for such persons and I would be very hesitant about extending it in any way.
I recognise that the Minister has gone some way towards meeting the cases submitted to him in my amendments, but I do not think this can be considered a very generous provision. On the point the Minister made regarding paragraph (b) of my amendment, as affecting the Castleconnell boatmen who were referred to last week, I admit the Minister has certain grounds for his arguments that the logical conclusion would be that other men who suffer by this acquisition would also be entitled to compensation. But the difference lies here, that in the cases in question there is actually a sum proposed to be paid over, whether by way of compensation or by way of the price for acquisition, to the owners of the private fisheries and the men who made their livelihoods out of these fisheries are left without compensation of any kind. As I understand it, there is no assurance given, no provision made, in the terms by which this compensation or these prices are proposed to be paid to the owners, that they shall provide something out of the fund that will become available to them for the compensation of the workmen they employed. That, I think, is a matter which should be urged upon the Minister as strongly as possible—that in justice there ought to be some provision made whereby out of the compensation to be paid to the private fishery owners some portion should be earmarked for the workmen who are really the sufferers by the loss of the fisheries.
Paragraph (a) of the amendment the Minister has put forward seems to me to be open to question on this ground, that only those who have been employed during the whole or substantially the whole of three complete open fishing seasons next before the acquisition are to come within the category of compensatable persons. One does not know how soon this acquisition will take place. The Minister said last week that the Lax weir had not been operating for the last couple of years—I forget exactly the period. Quite conceivably they might say: "We shall not operate this particular fishery that it is intended to acquire, even this year." They might postpone the acquisition for a year and evade the obligation that this particular paragraph involves. "The whole or substantially the whole of each of the three complete open fishing seasons"—that might be evaded by not employing any of these men for the whole of the present season. It would be well to have some assurance that no advantage will be taken of a fault in construction; there might well be a flaw in the interpretation of this section. I am told, for instance, that for the last year, at any rate, and probably for this year, although there is some doubt as to whether the fishing will be carried on by the Lax weir this year and whether the men who have been normally employed will be engaged for this current year, that it has been the practice for the company to engage the men in the ordinary way by the week, and then, during the season, possibly because the fishing was good, to put them on to some other form of engagement, but not employment in the ordinarily accepted sense. If that is the case this particular provision might rule out the persons concerned. I am also doubtful about the effects of paragraph (e) of the proposed new section, as to why a person who has lost nine months' work should be ruled out of compensation because he is employed for three months in another capacity by the same company. If the fishing season is a nine months' season and he is deprived of employment during that period, then, by virtue of the fact that he is employed for the other three months regularly by the company, he shall lose all compensation under this Bill. That seems to me to be a real defect. I cannot understand the reason for it, and I think that the Minister's explanation is by no means satisfactory.
The Minister has made it quite clear that he cannot consent to the proposals in my amendment. He has gone some way towards meeting the case made, but I would ask him to bear in mind, if he cannot amend the amendment that he has put forward, these doubts as to the effect of the amendment and give the House some assurance that any fault in drafting or any flaw that may be discovered at some time, will not be allowed to be taken advantage of by the Electricity Supply Board in fulfilling the obligations that the section intends should be imposed upon them.
I hope the Minister will not adopt the absolutely new method of compensation which has been suggested by Senator Johnson. Part of the compensation, the Senator says, ought to come out of the compensation that is given to the owner for his loss. When you go before an honest arbitrator he has to measure the loss of each claimant who is claiming compensation for his own loss. If an amendment, such as Senator Johnson has suggested, were made in the proposed new section introduced by the Minister, the result would be that an honest arbitrator would have to give compensation to the owner himself, plus whatever he would have to give to his own unemployed fishermen. That, I submit, is absolutely absurd, because in the end the Electricity Supply Board would have to pay both, just as they will do when this amendment is passed.
The amendment, of course, provides that the compensation to be paid to these workmen will be paid by the Electricity Supply Board apart and distinct altogether from the sum paid to the owners of the fisheries. At the same time I am aware that some fishery owners on the Shannon, whose interests were acquired when the works were being constructed, did themselves, without being under any statutory obligation to do it, provide out of their compensation for the creation of a fund to pay some compensation to their workpeople who became unemployed. I agree that if we provide that compensation is to be paid to persons of this class, then that compensation must be paid by the body that acquires the fisheries, the body that is responsible for the changed circumstances, rather than by the person from whom the fishery is acquired. The fact that the compensation is to be paid by the Electricity Supply Board rules out the possibility of evasion which Senator Johnson fears. If the Electricity Supply Board does not acquire the fisheries forthwith then, obviously, it will be in the interests of the owners of the fisheries to fish them as fully as they can this year. They stand to lose nothing by fishing them or to gain anything by failing to do so. The value that would be derived from the operation of the fisheries would be far more, I think, than any charge that might arise, even if the compensation were to be paid by the former owner of the fishery, and not by the Electricity Supply Board. The fact that it has to be paid by the Board and not by the former owner means that the former owner has no reason for not taking full advantage of the fisheries so long as he can. In any event, I can assure the Senator that it is the desire and intention of the Electricity Supply Board to acquire all these major fisheries as soon as possible, so that their programme may be put into operation without delay.
The intention of the amendment is to ensure that every person who is regularly employed on these fisheries and who loses that employment in consequence of the acquisition of the fisheries by the Board, that is, who is not re-employed by the Board, will be compensated on the basis set out. I give the Senator the assurance that, if it should prove in practice that there is any flaw in the amendment which would deprive from getting compensation any person whom we intend should get it, the necessary amending legislation will be introduced forthwith. I do not think that any such flaw will be found to arise. In any event, I think that the Electricity Supply Board will be more inclined to put a generous interpretation on its powers than the reverse in dealing with matters of this kind, because, obviously, it will be to its interest to secure and maintain the good will of everybody who has been previously associated with the operation of these fisheries.
Amendment No. 6 put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I desire to know if the Minister has anything to say on the point I raised last week in reference to certain fishermen who fish with snap nets on the Maigue. They will be prohibited, by the operation of this Act, from doing so in future. It may be said that as these are tidal waters they can claim no rights there: that they were simply exercising a public right, but at any rate, by the passing of this Act, they will be automatically deprived of any earnings they could make out of fishing there. I raised the matter last week. The Minister promised to look into the position and perhaps he will now be able to give us some information as the result of his inquiries.
I have gone into this matter and find that a couple of snap nets have been used in the tidal waters of the Maigue. The fisheries there are, of course, public fisheries, and the snap nets have been used in the exercise of that public right. The Senator is correct when he states that the operation of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will make it impossible for those who have been accustomed to engage in snap net fishing in the tidal waters of the Maigue to continue to do so. I have considered that matter and I have come to the conclusion that despite the fact it is not possible for us to delete the section which prohibits snap netting in tidal waters because of the consequences that would arise, mainly in the tidal waters of the Shannon rather than on the Maigue, at the same time we could not, of course, accept any proposal that persons should be compensated for being prevented from exercising what is a public right. That would involve the adoption of a new principle which would be most undesirable. I have considered how the particular case of the few men who are involved in this matter can be dealt with and I think we will be able to meet them all right. The maximum number of licences for drift nets which the Bill allows is, in fact, in excess of the number of drift net licences which were issued last year or the year before, and I shall ask the Minister for Agriculture to provide, when making his regulations concerning the issuing of drift net licences, that, while the first preference in the issue of these licences will be given to those who had them in the past, the second preference will be given to those men who are snap net fishing in the tidal waters of the Maigue, so that they will be able to continue that fishing.
Can the Minister promise to provide them with new nets?
I do not think they will have much difficulty in providing themselves with the necessary equipment for drift net fishing.
Question put and agreed to.
Final Stage fixed for Wednesday, 6th February.