Fisheries Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

This Bill consists of six Parts. I should like to say just a few words on each Part by way of explanation. Part I is entitled "Preliminary and General" and does not call for any comment, because it is self-explanatory. Part II contains amendments and extensions of the Fisheries Acts, 1842 to 1937. The intention is that, having thus filled up many of the gaps which experience has shown to exist in these existing statutes, there shall be put in hands, as soon as may be practicable after the enactment of this present Bill, a consolidating measure to embrace all the essential features of these fishery statutes, extending back for almost one hundred years. I might mention that the last consolidating Act was passed in 1842. Most of the amendments or extensions contained in this Part II of the Bill are so obviously improvements needed in the existing code that they call for no special comment by me, but I shall, of course, be very pleased to deal with any questions which Senators see fit to raise upon them. Again, those sections which may be said to break new ground have been so much discussed in the public Press that it is probable that anything I might say would add little to the Seanad's knowledge of them. For instance, Section 9, which deals with the licence duty to be imposed on brown trout rods, in certain circumstances, now stands in a form considerably modified from the terms of the provision as first drafted; and I think all concerned are agreed that the various viewpoints of the public have been fairly met.

First of all, on Section 12 I gave an undertaking to the Dáil that the increased rates of licence duty laid down for draft nets and drift nets shall not be enforced earlier than 1944. The reason for that is obvious. Fishermen fishing with nets would naturally derive a certain advantage from certain provisions of the Bill but that advantage will not be felt for four or five years. For instance, we propose to cut out netting in fresh water in Section 35. Then, under Section 37 we propose to limit the number of nets that will be allowed to fish in tidal waters. If, as a result of these restrictions, the number of salmon should increase in the river, that increase would not be felt or would not benefit the fishermen for four or five years. Hence the proposal to postpone the increase in the case of net fisheries until 1944.

Another section which introduces a new principle is Section 14, under which voting power will be given to those who are paying a fishery rate. Although perhaps not new in principle, I think everybody interested in the welfare of our inland fisheries will concede that Section 27 (which provides that the close season for salmon and trout angling shall, as a minimum, commence on the 13th October) and Section 39 (which prohibits the capture or sale of trout between the 1st of January and the 14th of February) will be welcomed as much needed extensions of the present close season arrangements. Section 29 has been designed to meet the case of fishing weirs. The Act of 1863, which was passed to deal with weirs, provided for a gap but through some oversight, whether drafting or otherwise, I do not know, no provision was made for a weir that might be erected subsequent to the passing of the Act. That is provided for in Section 29. I should say that the section was amended in the Dáil so as to give a person, on whom notice is served under the section, an opportunity of appealing to the Circuit Court if he feels that the administration has acted hastily or unfairly. Section 30 is intended to provide reasonable facilities for the ascent of fish to the upper waters. This was also expanded in the Committee Stage in the Dáil so as to afford fair protection to mill owners. In the same way, they have an appeal if they feel that they have a grievance under the section.

With regard to Part III, there is nothing more than a consolidation of the Acts passed in the last five or six years dealing principally with the estuary of the River Erne. These Acts were passed as a result of the decision in the Erne case to deal with the fishery there and they are being reenacted in this Bill. It is also provided in this Bill that the licence duty in these cases will be taken by instalments. That has been in operation on an experimental basis for the last two years. I do not know if Senators are all aware that in the case of the River Erne there is a £40 licence fee charged. As Senators know, the usual licence fee is £4. It was considered on account of the very valuable fishery in the River Erne, and also because it was necessary to make up an income for the conservators of that area for protection, that, in the first place, netsmen could afford to pay a licence fee of £40 and that in the second place the conservators would require the money in order to maintain the protection of the fishery. These are enacted in Part III.

Part IV provides a means of ensuring that the Minister shall acquire an indefeasible title to those fisheries which will be, in due course, taken over by this State. There will be considerable sums of public money disbursed by way of compensation in respect of these fisheries. It will be noted that the operation of the section is dependent upon the making of the order referred to in sub-section (1) (b). Coming to Part V of this Bill, I may say that it has been sub-divided into six chapters. I think it better to take the whole of the 30 sections together, so as to give you an idea of how the scheme will work. As I mentioned when debating this measure in the Dáil, all that is contemplated is a business transaction undertaken by the State in the interests of the State.

It is provided, as far as we possibly can, by legislation, that a fair price will be paid to the present owners of those fisheries, and at the same time we are making provision that the State will get good value for its money, in other words, that the State will not be compelled to pay too much. So that we should not do injustice either to the present owners or to the taxpayers of the country.

There is provided in the Bill a transition period prior to the actual vesting of a fishery in the Minister, during which the present holder will continue to operate the fishery subject to the right of the Minister to acquire, whether by means of statutory returns or from the reports of specially appointed supervisors, all necessary information as to the operation routine of these fisheries so that the Minister may be in a position, at the close of the transition period, to carry on the business as a going concern. It seems hardly necessary for me to remind the Seanad of the necessity to transfer these fisheries, owing to a rather unfortunate position that has arisen in at least some of the fisheries concerned. There is a conflict of opinion between local residents and the owners of these fisheries as to whether the ownership of estuarine fisheries is compatible with the principles of a modern democratic State. No purpose would be served by going into the merits or demerits of this dispute. In saying that, however, I do not want it to be taken that I am in any way seeking to defend the action of local persons who took the law into their own hands, but the fact remains that as between the persistent acts of trespass upon those fisheries and the continued law proceedings by the holders to prove their title a great waste has resulted, and these fisheries have suffered very severely. The only remedy that I can see to deal with that state of affairs is to have the fisheries acquired by the State as State property and to have them operated in the future for the benefit of the general taxpayer.

It will be noted that the scheme is planned to work for fishery districts. A fishery district is the district that is presided over by a board of conservators, consisting territorially of the watersheds of all the rivers that drain into the sea between two given points on the coast. There are twenty-three fishery districts in the country. The first step will be that an order will be made in respect of a fishery district nominating a day as the appointed day from which will begin the transition period for every "transferable fishery" within that district. The whole district will be dealt with at the same time. The normal transition period will be ten years, but this can be shortened at the option of the Minister or at the option of the owner, if the owner so requests. A provision has been made in the Bill to have the term of ten years extended, in special circumstances, if that should prove necessary for any reason.

The sections which provide for supervision of the fishery by an authorised person on behalf of the Minister— Section 60—and for the carrying out of an engineering survey—Section 61—are very important. They are very long sections, but I think they are very simple to read and self-explanatory. Section 62, which provides for the furnishing of statutory returns to the Minister, is also simple and in no way complicated. Section 64, read in conjunction with sub-section (2) of section 58, provides adequate protection for the owner of exclusive angling rights included in, or contiguous to, a transferable fishery. If the owner of a fishery which is being taken over has certain angling rights that owner has a right to have these angling rights reserved to him. If, however, he does not express a desire to have these angling rights retained, then they will be taken over with the tidal fishery or the weirs, as the case may be, of course, on a compensatory basis.

The provisions with regard to the formal vesting and registration of title in fisheries are laid down clearly in Sections 65 and 66, and the conditions for the payment of compensation to those, respectively, from whom fisheries are taken over and those who may find themselves adversely affected as employees on such properties, are set forth in detail at Sections 67 and 68. Again, I do not think it necessary to go into any detail because these Sections are very clearly drafted and cannot create any confusion in anybody's mind.

Sections 69 and 70 are merely consequential to the process of transfer provided for in this part of the Bill.

Sections 71 and 72, covered by Chapter III of this part of the Bill, have been inserted to enable the Minister to take over, on terms mutually acceptable between the parties, fisheries that are now held by the Land Commission or by the Board of Works, and wherever these Departments, the Land Commission or the Board of Works, may think it advisable that a fishery should be handed over to the fishery authority created under this Bill.

Chapter IV also consists of only two sections which deal with the acquisition of, and the payment of compensation for, lands or premises, etc., which the Minister may find it necessary to acquire for the purposes of working or protecting a transferable fishery which has become vested in him.

Chapter V comprises the 12 sections from 75 to 86, inclusive, and contains all the provisions deemed necessary with regard to the operation of vested fisheries by the Minister. There is included the power for the leasing of such a fishery by the Minister, although it is not intended that that power should be used except where it is absolutely necessary. Still, it is as well, perhaps, that the power should be there. All the provisions of this chapter are self-explanatory and it would be impossible, I think, to explain them more lucidly than they have been set down by the draftsman.

In the case of the supplementary provisions contained in the nine sections, 87 to 95, comprised in Chapter VI the provisions seem to have been very clearly set forth in the Bill, and there is no need, I think, to offer any comment on them. There was, however, a question which arose in the Dáil and which appeared to agitate the minds of members of the Dáil very much, and it may be well to forestall any anxiety there may be among Senators. There was a question on Section 95, sub-section (2), regarding the word "may." Section 95 says that the Minister may pay the equivalent of the ordinary fishery rate. It appears to be an established practice—I do not know when or where it may have grown up—that you cannot compel a Department of Government to pay the rate that is due to a local authority, but in practice they always do it. The same will apply here.

I now come to Part VI of this Bill, that is, the seven sections from 96 to 102, inclusive. Section 96 is designed to provide facilities for research into the life history of salmon and trout, cur present knowledge of which is very limited as compared with the actual and potential value of these fish as a national asset. In order to carry out this scientific research satisfactorily the experts on fisheries hold that you must have absolute control over the ownership of the river and over the management of the river. I am also informed that there are very few rivers in this country that would be suitable for the purpose. It might not necessarily involve the complete ownership of the upper reaches of the river, but it would at least involve the necessity of getting a short lease of the ownership of those upper reaches. This project of scientific research was strongly advocated by earlier commissions. A commission that sat somewhere about 30 years ago laid great stress on this question, and at that time I believe the Department had made some progress as a result of the report of that commission with regard to the preparations that were necessary, but they were held up at the time because it had not got the statutory authority in regard to the necessary funds, and the matter had to be dropped at that time. It is to surmount that legal difficulty and to make it at least legal for funds to be paid over for this purpose that the section is put in.

The Inland Fisheries Commission, which reported in 1935, adopted the suggestions made to them in evidence by an official witness as to the need for bringing up to date the procedure laid down in the earlier statutes for dealing with fishery offences; and, as a result, Sections 98 to 102 give effect to the Commission's recommendations on such points as "form of conviction", "form of dismissal", "appeals from District Court", "how offences may be tried out", etc.

The only thing now remaining is the Schedule to the Bill, and it is well to explain the various points in that section, as it would be a work of great labour for any Senator to look up all these various sections himself. The words which are being repealed in Section 78 of the Fisheries Act, 1842, are no longer needed in view of the terms of Section 23 of the present Bill, which consolidates the various provisions scattered throughout the various Acts, on the subject of illegal instruments or devices. Section 80 of the same Act is being repealed because its terms are now merged in principle in Section 26 of the Bill. Sections 101 and 102 of the said Act concern, respectively, appeals in the old style to Quarter Sessions and the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the former Lord Lieutenant.

We now come to the Fisheries Act, 1850, five sections of which are being repealed. Section 40 deals with the matter of spears and otters, etc. These are now covered by Section 23 of the Bill, and Sections 50 to 53, inclusive, deal with the "form of conviction", etc., all of which is fully covered by the final five sections of the present Bill. Then we have the Salmon Acts (Amendment) Act, 1863, and the somewhat similar Act of 1870, both repealed in toto, the reason being that the provisions of these statutes are being reenacted in modern terms by Section 41 of the present Bill.

The next item in the Schedule is the repeal of the entire statute known as the Fisheries (Dynamite) Act, 1877, the provisions of which are being reenacted in principle by Section 26 of this Bill. Then we come to the Oyster Cultivation (Ireland) Act, 1884; and the repeals in this case apply to the provisions regarding the approval of certain orders by the former Lord Lieutenant, and the appeal to the same authority against certain orders, etc.

The repeal of Sections 5 and 6 of the Fisheries Act, 1924, is explained by the fact that the provisions of Section 5 have now been incorporated in Section 23 of the Bill, and those in Section 6 of that Act in Section 26 of the Bill.

In the case of the Fisheries Act, 1925, Section 26 is being repealed because the provisions therein with regard to the dissolution of boards of conservators is being more suitably provided for in Section 18 of the Bill, and Section 35 is being repealed for the reason that its provisions are included in principle in Section 23 of the Bill. Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the said Act is being repealed because the procedure for prosecution is now fully covered by Section 101 of the Bill.

The repeal of Section 14 (3) of the Fisheries (Tidal Waters) Act, 1934, together with the whole of the statutes known as the Fisheries (Tidal Waters) (Amendment) Act, 1935, and the Fisheries (Tidal Waters) (Amendment) Act, 1937, respectively, is explained by the consolidation of the provisions of these measures in Part III of the present Bill. I think that covers the Schedule. I recommend the Bill for consideration of the Seanad.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I think that, in this Bill, the Minister has at any rate wisely avoided a great many of the recommendations which were made by the recent Fishery Commission, and for that reason the Bill may be a step in the right direction. However, I am afraid that it cannot achieve a great deal in the improvement of our fisheries by reason of the fact that he has also avoided the best recommendation which that commission made, that is, that Gárdaí in some form or another on the French system should be employed and put at the disposal of the boards of conservators for the purposes of protection. Our present system of bailiffs who are shifted about by the board of conservators whenever a conviction has been obtained against anybody—even against a conservator himself—is, I am afraid, a pure waste of the fishery ratepayers' money, and the sooner it is done away with the better. Until that is done I feel that we cannot expect the successes which the Minister hopes to get from this Bill.

The position in this country is quite different from that which obtains in England and Scotland, where there is a large number of proprietary fisheries with their own private bailiffs. Here we are depending on men getting £4 per season, and if one gets a conviction he is voted out. The same to a great extent applies to the clerks to the conservators.

The main provisions of the Bill deal with the introduction of trout licences and I would like to know what the income is going to be—or is expected to be—from the issue of those trout licences. One of the provisions is that a riparian owner is to pay only 6d., and a boy is to pay only 6d.; and I question whether these small amounts are worth collecting. The second point is the abolition of fresh water netting. As a net owner myself I thoroughly agree. The next point is the regulation of netting in tidal waters and in estuaries, and that depends entirely on whether there is pressure to prevent the limitation of nets. In many rivers there are too many already, and I think probably the Minister has experience of cases of that kind that we all know of. The last point is the power of acquiring fisheries in tidal waters. The reason for that is that for a considerable number of years in certain rivers there have been raids by the public because they did not consider that the rights which were vested in these fisheries should be maintained.

At this stage I will only deal with some of the points which are specially important. Firstly, concerning the matter of the abolition of the fresh water nets, I do not think that it is generally realised that the taking of these nets means a very definite loss to the remaining ratepayers and to the board of conservators. It means an automatic increase in the official rate to the remainder. In my particular district, for instance, where the present official rate is 16/—and that is not really sufficient to do the work properly—the official rate will be raised to the remainder by 7/—that is, it will come to 23/- in the £. I know that under Section 95 the Minister has stated that so far as the vested fisheries are concerned—that is, the several fisheries which he proposes to take over during the next ten years— although he is not legally bound to pay rates to make up the difference he will do so. I cannot find his having said anywhere that he will do anything for the normal fishery rate where the fresh water nets were. I believe that he argues that the increased number of fish which would be taken as a result of the taking of these nets will make up for the difference. Still I cannot agree to this contention. There is no doubt that when you take off the fresh water nets a very large number of salmon will pass through to spawn in the upper reaches. A great many more fish in time to come will go down to the sea, and the only result, both in the several fisheries and elsewhere, will be that the actual nets which are licensed to fish will take more fish. The Minister tells us that he is waiting for five years before he increases the net licence by £1. One might argue that that is going to be the estimate of the increase of fish during the five years, in which case it means that the whole difference, in our particular case, £252, will be borne by the remaining riparian owners, some of whom, small farmers, are in possession of salmon fisheries but have never let them and do not fish themselves. I think that is a point that wants careful consideration.

Then, again, there is a point, about which I am concerned, as to the rate of compensation to be paid under Sections 35 and 68 to employees. Section 35 deals with employees dismissed when the fresh water fisheries are abolished, and Section 68 with the case of several fisheries acquired by the Minister, where he takes power to dismiss and compensate men, if he so thinks fit. I am afraid I must develop this now because we cannot put down amendments later on which involve an increased expenditure. Senators will see that a particular year, to be called the appointed year, is to be taken, and it seems that a man gets four times his average weekly wage for that year during the open season, which is 28 weeks, plus a possible maximum further payment of an equal amount for another 12 years, 13 years being the maximum. The people who have been fishing on the share system are probably going to be much harder hit than anybody else. Under this arrangement, the man whose weekly wage during the 28 weeks of the open season averaged £1— I take that figure as a simple figure to explain my point—and who served for 13 years altogether, will get £52 compensation, instead of the £28 a year which possibly his father and grandfather before him had been earning. If he invests that at 3 per cent., he will get less than £2 per annum instead of the £28.

As it happens, and I do not think for one moment it has been done on purpose, this Bill is introduced at a time when conditions with regard to compensation are the very best for the Government and the very worst for the employee. If 1939 is taken as the appointed year, the average fisherman will get practically nothing. The year 1938 was bad enough, and might be regarded as the worst year ever, but, with the exception of one or two rivers, this year is very bad indeed. To show the variations in compensation, I have prepared some concrete examples which Senators can examine in the Official Reports before Committee Stage. Taking the period 1930 down to 1938, in one case, the average weekly wage amongst 24 men on one particular fishery varied from £2 10s. to £1 this year, which would give them compensation, on the basis of this year, of £52; but the average throughout that period was £1 19s., which would practically double the compensation they would get in a normal case.

There are other people who are not properly catered for in the section at all. These are the employees who work the whole year round. Even if an employee works throughout the year, he is going to get exactly the same compensation as the man who works simply during the open fishing season. I have another case. The average was £1 1s. 9d. during 1938, which gives compensation of £56 11s. but, in 1923, those same men earned at the rate of £7 6s. 3d. per week, which would give them compensation of about £380 and—and this is a very important point—during the whole period from 1923 to 1938, the average weekly wage for the 28 weeks' employment would mean compensation of £260. There is another way of putting this, to show that I am not dealing with purely local cases, that is, the figures from the London market of the exports of fish from Eire for the years 1924 to 1938. The mean over the whole of that period was 9,766 packages. In 1938, it dropped to 4,877 packages, so that if 1938 is taken as the appointed year, the fishermen who caught those fish, or such of them who come under the terms of the Bill, will get exactly 50 per cent. of what they would get if the average over that number of years was taken.

Under sub-section (5) of Section 35, you find that where an employer's net is taken, compensation is payable by the Minister and in default of agreement, an arbitrator decides what he is to get. There is no provision of that kind in the case of the employees, who, I think, should be treated on exactly the same basis as the employer and be given what I call reasonable compensation. I know that it will be argued that the figures are exactly the same as applied to acquisition in connection with the Shannon electricity scheme, but I submit that there is a very definite case for a reconsideration of this matter and for dealing with every one of these cases on its merits by an arbitrator. There is another section dealing with managers which was inserted in the Dáil and under which the most curious things arise. A manager employed for ten years at £300 gets £250 compensation. If he has 12 years' service, he immediately gets £50 more for an extra two years' work. If he is employed for five years, he gets £125 and if he is employed for 30 years, he gets only double that sum. That, however, is a minor point to which I draw the Minister's notice. As we cannot make any amendment which increases expenditure, I suggest, if I am in order, that we put forward a recommendation to the Dáil that this question should be reconsidered on the lines of the provision for compensation to employers in Section 35, sub-section (5).

There are only two more points with which I want to deal. The first is the question of the acquisition of the several fisheries. I must say I do not care for the arbitrary disturbance of private enterprise, but reason has been given and because I think the terms which are being given to the owners of the several fisheries are quite fair and reasonable I will not quarrel with the acquisition, provided that the change of ownership is really going to benefit the fisheries. A great many of us hoped that when those several fisheries were acquired there would be a better run of fish going up the river. But I see from the Bill that these fisheries are going to be worked for the benefit of the State, and I take it if they are worked for the benefit of the State—and I have experience of things being worked for the benefit of the State in a Government undertaking quite close to me—that the Minister for Finance will insist on equal returns being got from the fisheries to those which the private owner collected, that is to say if he does not insist on better returns. If that is the case there will be very few more fish going up the river, and neither anglers nor anybody else will benefit.

I had hoped that the Bill would indicate some form of advisory body which could overcome directly and quickly the difficulties with which the various fishery interests were concerned, in a sort of round table conference with the Minister, and thus save delay and the useless correspondence that goes on with the Ministry at the present time. I believe that the Minister's idea is that those various interests should form some sort of body for that purpose themselves. But that is for many reasons impossible. I hope the Minister will consider that. In any case I intend to raise it by an amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Goulding

This Bill is a very interesting measure, and on the whole I welcome it, because the inland fisheries of this country undoubtedly have been neglected for a long period of years. To a great extent in many rivers with which I am familiar this was due to the antagonism between the net fishermen in the estuaries and the rod men in the upper portion of the river. These two sections of the fishing population, instead of pulling together, have been pulling apart, and instead of treating the fisheries as a matter of mutual aid and advantage, they have, as a matter of fact, injured the fisheries by their antagonism. The men using the nets at the mouths of the rivers consider the bailiff as their most deadly enemy; because when the bailiff endeavoured to carry out his duties and to see that the law was fairly administered, they felt that he interfered with their activities, and they treated him as a person to be not only avoided but to be dispensed with, if possible. Now the Minister has met most of the objections raised to this Bill very fairly. I think it is no harm to make a few observations on some of the sections. The proposed 5/-licence on brown trout fishing has aroused much antagonism throughout the country. I am not myself opposed to it, but I can see the reason why the trout fishermen oppose it. They maintain that nothing has been done for brown trout fishing in the country, and that anything that has been done has been done by voluntary associations of fishermen, and they resent that the Government are now going to put a tax on this fishing in order to increase the number of salmon in the rivers. I do not know that I quite approve of the changes made by the Minister since the introduction of the Bill. I do not know how he can collect the sixpenny licences from the young fellows about the country. Is this licence to be paid to the Civic Guards or the conservators? Unless the collection of this licence is made very simple, I am afraid the majority of the people will not see their way to pay it at all. The question is: will it be worth the cost of collection, it is such a small sum? One is inclined to think that it would be as well to drop it altogether, or else confine the licence to 5/-.

With regard to the sixpenny licence to the riparian owners, that apparently is to be confined to these people and their men if they fish only the portion of the river on the land belonging to the riparian owner. Very often these fisheries are useless because trout fishing is not done in the deeper waters, but in the waters adjacent to the glens and in the shallow parts of the river. For that reason, giving a sixpenny licence to the riparian owner is useless. I can see the Minister's point of view. He was so anxious to meet the objection raised in the other House that he could not find any other way out of it. I am afraid, however, that it will hardly work.

Coming now to Section 12, I am glad that the Minister gave way to some extent at least on that section. Under the section it is proposed to increase the net licence to tidal fishermen by £1 in each case. That is the draft net fishermen and drift net fishermen. I am aware that the Minister, while not giving way, has promised not to enforce this provision until 1944, on the plea that by 1944 the fish will have increased so much in value that the net fishermen will more easily be able to afford to pay the increase. I do not agree with that view, because unless the number of salmon is vastly increased these men will benefit nothing. The argument used was that if the net fishing was stopped, the upper portions of the river would benefit. That is not so. It would have no effect whatsoever on the net men in the tidal waters, because the number of fish passing up will be just the same.

Section 24 is a rather drastic section. It deals with the penalties to be inflicted for being in possession of engines, nets, and so on, adjacent to fishing rivers. To me that looks rather drastic. If I happen to be living near a river and never engaged in fishing at all, an old gaff may be found around my house. That gaff may be there unknown to me, but if a Civic Guard walks into my place and finds it, there will be a conviction. I think that section is too drastic. I suggest to the Minister that it should be amended so as not to cause undue hardship on people living in the neighbourhood of these fishing streams.

Section 25 deals with the pollution of the rivers. That is very important, not alone to the fish, but what is far more important to the young fry which live on a certain class of food. That food is easily destroyed by very slight pollution. It is far more important that this food should be saved from destruction than that an odd fish, or a hundred fish, should be saved. On Section 35, the Minister was asked in the Dáil to make allowance for a certain type of fresh-water fisherman, and I should like to repeat that appeal. In the South, there is a certain type of fishermen known as snap-net fishermen. It is a primitive, old form of fishing and the men get only a very small number of fish. The effect of granting this request would be negligible but it is a part-time occupation for these people and has been so for their families for generations. I think the Minister could easily give way on that matter, as the number of men are so very few. They operate on the Suir, the Nore, the Barrow and the Slaney, but the number of fish they catch is infinitesimal. On the other hand, the fishing is a matter of the greatest importance to these men and their families. I ask the Minister to make an exception in their case.

Section 37 deals with the type of net used. I think that the length of the net to be used is a matter for the boards of conservators. The length of net used in the sea off the harbours is different from that used in the harbour mouth, and from that used further up. I am dealing with draft nets and I speak, subject to correction, but I think it is a matter for the boards of conservators. I think it would be only fair that the men fishing in the open waters off the harbour mouths should be allowed to use a longer net than the men fishing in the inner harbour. At the moment they are allowed to do that but the men concerned believe that one of the effects of this Bill would be to curtail the length of net at present in use. They feel that, if that were done, the fishing would be useless.

In Section 48 the name of "water-bailiff" is changed to "waterkeeper." That makes no difference whatsoever. It is of the utmost importance that the safeguarding of the rivers especially the spawning rivers, should be improved. The present method is useless. I advocate the patrolling of these rivers by armed men in uniform. I know that when one or two bailiffs endeavour to protect a spawning river they have no power whatsoever. They are very often met by armed men who order them off and poach the fish in spite of them. Men in uniform would have far more effect, and I should like to see some members, or some section, of the Gárda selected for this purpose. The preservation of the spawning fish is the most important consideration. I am rather sympathetic to the poacher who, when he gets the chance, kills a fish in the fishing season, but I am entirely against the man who kills fish in the spawning season. The greatest destruction done on our rivers is done in the spawning streams. I myself would advocate the more careful guarding of these streams by the erection of barriers some distance up the stream to prevent the fish reaching the head waters. I can see one danger in that. There is the possibility that if the fish are prevented reaching the head waters of the rivers they may desert the rivers altogether, but at present they are killed literally in thousands before they spawn. The destruction done in that way is enormous.

Under Section 67, fresh-water netting will be abolished immediately this Bill passes. I have in mind several fisheries owned by men who operate the fisheries with nets and weirs. When the Minister is arranging compensation for the purchase of these fisheries he will take the average income over a certain number of years. If the nets on that fishery are abolished immediately the Bill becomes an Act, it will cut off more than half the income of the fishery owner. How then is the Minister to arrive at an average income? I suppose it would be too much to suggest that the nets on these particular fisheries should be allowed to continue until the fisheries are taken over by the State, but I suggest that at least the nets on these fisheries should be allowed to operate until the end of the present fishing season.

Senator The McGillycuddy dealt with the compensation for fresh water net men. I make an appeal on behalf of the employees of the several fisheries who are to lose their employment as a result of the stopping of the net fishing. These men are to be paid on an arranged scale, but in any event they cannot get more, I think, than 13 weeks' wages. I know men who have been at this work for 40 or 50 years. Their fathers and grandfathers were at it, and their sons are at it. Not alone are they kept on for the six months of the fishing year, but many of them are kept on at other work by the owners of the fishery during the other portion of the year. When that fishery is taken over these men will lose their employment out of the fishery, and they will also lose their employment for the other portion of the year. Thirteen weeks' wages seems small compensation for men in that position. I ask the Minister to realise that these men are going to lose their livelihood absolutely, and that 13 weeks' wages for that is very inadequate compensation.

The Minister has pointed out that, although he is not bound to do so, he will, in all probability, pay the rate. Will the Minister pay the rate at present being paid by the owner who is taken over or will he pay a fixed sum? Whatever sum is paid must be at least equal to that paid by the owner if the income of the board of conservators is not to be decreased. In any event, the income at present derived from the rates is entirely inadequate to provide proper supervision for our rivers. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything further on the Bill. The Minister has already, as I say, met many of the points to which I have referred in the Bill and I hope he will bear in mind that many of the other recommendations which I have made are worth considering.

Mr. Honan

Criticism of the Bill is not my object at the moment. I am more concerned in making suggestions to the Minister. As all Senators are aware, salmon fishing and trout fishing are two different institutions altogether. Whilst the salmon fishing industry is very valuable from a monetary point of view, trout fishing is valuable only to the extent to which it provides sport and relaxation for all sections of the community. The suggestion which I am about to make to the Minister I am putting forward on behalf of the various members, I might say the entire membership, of the Anglers' Association, and they comprise practically all anglers in the State. My suggestion to the Minister is that Section 9 of the Bill should be deleted altogether. The only reference that is made to trout fishing in the Bill deals with the imposition of a tax of 5/-, a tax which, in the opinion of most experienced anglers, will never be collected. I would say that only about 25 per cent. of trout anglers will pay that tax. I would, therefore, respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should see his way to delete the provisions dealing with trout fishing altogether from the Bill, bring in a new Bill dealing with trout fishing and vest the control of trout fishing in some association such as the Anglers' Association, who have a purely amateur love of the sport in their minds without any other consideration.

There is not the slightest chance in the world that conservators could do for trout fishing what this amateur association would do. I have seen an instance in my own county, where there is a river that runs into a lake. When the fry came into the river, the river started to dry up. The members of the Anglers' Association thereupon voluntarily repaired to the river and, with tin basins and every accoutrement they could lay hands on, they collected about 5,000 fry and put them safely into the lake. These fry would otherwise have perished. If this section of the Bill becomes law the members of the Anglers' Association will lose all that interest and enthusiasm because they fear that whatever little rights they had as protectors of the fish are being taken from them. They are being ousted from these rights and they are losing their enthusiasm. It would be a great pity if that should happen, because their only object, as I have said, is to foster and preserve trout fishing as a sport. They have done very useful work in the past in a voluntary way. By voluntary subscriptions they have put down hatcheries. They have stocked rivers and lakes, and I am very doubtful if that can be done in the future by any other organisation.

Voluntary effort is always more successful and more productive of results than any other type of control, and I believe the Minister would be doing well for anglers and for the State by vesting trout fisheries in some such association. I know no association but the Anglers' Association that would be suitable for that kind of work. They have branches in almost every fishery district and their members are most enthusiastic. Instead of imposing a tax of 5/- which the State proposes to collect—and to my mind a very small percentage of that can be collected—if there was some arrangements whereby anglers in each area would voluntarily pay, say, 2/6, to the Anglers' Association—let those who can afford it voluntarily pay 5/- if they wish to do so—I am sure that the association, in return for the subscriptions, would be prepared to take responsibility and would do more in the way of providing hatcheries, cleaning rivers and promoting trout fishing generally than the conservators could ever do. I should like the Minister to consider the matter from that angle because from my association with members of the Anglers' Association I know that these are the views which they hold. If my suggestion were adopted, it would relieve conservators and the State of any responsibility in dealing with trout fishing. That responsibility I am afraid cannot be adequately discharged without the assistance of the voluntary association and those enthusiasts to whom I have referred.

Mr. Hogan

With the general principle of the Bill I am in agreement, and I do not want to detain the House by repeating what has been said, said better possibly than I could say it, by Senator Goulding with reference to the various sections with which he finds some fault. I think there is almost general agreement that the licence for trout fishing is not likely to be ever of any value. I do not think it is likely to be collected by any Department. The Government cannot put men on every stretch of river in the country. They cannot have men patrolling every river from its source to its mouth, which is practically what they would want to do in order to make this licence fee effective. Unless they are going to charge it on the rods when they buy them, I do not know of any other way in which they could possibly effect it. I do not know what is the attitude of the Anglers' Association towards it, but I know that it will inflict great hardship on the average man who goes out fishing on a Sunday evening or on his half-day and on the unemployed man who betakes himself to the river and endeavours to find a bit of sport and, probably, finds some addition to his table out of the fishing. In respect of these people, I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is to his advantage to bother with it at all; whether what he will get out of it will balance the hardship it will inflict in some cases where it might be possible to enforce it, and the difficulty the Minister's Department will have in enforcing it. I would also like to support Senator Goulding regarding the practical abolition of net fishing in fresh water after the passing of this Bill. I think it will inflict a good deal of hardship on some people.

There is one section in regard to which the Minister himself was, I think, rather slow to make anything very definite, that is a section in which I am somewhat interested— Section 95. He has continued into this Bill what I consider to be a bad principle. I remember discussing in another place, with another Minister, the effect of exempting from rates fisheries that were vested in certain bodies and the difficulties that that was causing to some local authorities. The local authority struck the rate and the rate was paid into the board of conservators. Some local authorities in counties where there are fisheries located will be hit very badly, and it is rather making an exception of these. I think the local authorities should be entitled to the rates on the fisheries just as they are entitled to the rates on any other property. I speak for one county in particular where a good many Government experiments and adventures and things of that kind are being exempted from rates. I would like to refer to the position in County Clare, where the electricity supply scheme at Ardnacrusha is exempted from rates. When this scheme was passing through the Dáil I endeavoured to secure from the Minister for Industry and Commerce some amelioration with regard to the rating on fisheries inasmuch as they were taking from the local authorities a good deal of their annual income. That, I think, is not the way to do it.

The Minister did not say definitely whether he was going to pay the rates into the board of conservators or whether they are going to be paid into the local authority. I would suggest that he should not continue the bad principle, that he should consider that the local authorities have rights, that they have responsibilities, and that if this piece of property is going to be exempt from rates there should be some compensation given to the local authority.

Those are the few matters I would like the Minister to consider—the netting in fresh water, the 5/- trout licence, and the position of local authorities in regard to the removal from them of the authority and the right to collect and use the rates on those vested fisheries or fisheries before they are vested.

Professor Johnston

I do not claim to be an expert in fisheries. In fact, I am afraid I know less than nothing about the subject except what I have learned from listening to these experts all around me making valuable contributions to this debate; but some of my constituents are enthusiastic followers of Isaac Walton, and one of them in particular read this Bill through very carefully, both in its initial form and the form which it now has. He expressed the opinion that it had been greatly improved in its passage through the other House, an opinion with which I, from casual glances at the debates of that House, also agree. But even in its present form it still retains a few slight blemishes from the point of view of the ordinary angler who is interested in the sport, and from the point of view of the angling sport as a means of attracting tourists of the right kind. I would like to draw attention to these blemishes now in case it should be necessary at a later stage to suggest amendments removing them.

Apparently, as the law now stands, it is necessary to have a salmon licence in order to fish for the kind of trout which are known as white trout. I speak subject to correction, but that is the impression I have gained from talking to people who know. If that be so, is it proposed that a person holding a simple general trout rod licence should in future be able to fish for white trout as well as for ordinary brown trout, because, in that case, it will be possible for a person with a licence costing only 5/- or less to fish for white trout, whereas under the present state of the law, it is necessary to own an expensive salmon licence in order to fish for white trout? That interpretation seems to be a natural one of the definition of trout rod licence given at the bottom of page 5. If that is the intention of the Minister, well and good, but, if not, he would do well to alter the definition on the amendment stage.

Another point is with regard to the facilities for obtaining general trout rod licences. It is desirable that tourists, especially, should be able to get these licences with the minimum of inconvenience, and certainly it is a great improvement on the original form of the Bill that the licences, when they have been obtained, are now generally valid throughout the State, but, as the matter stands, it is not clear where these trout rod licences are to be bought. If it is a question of seeking out and finding the clerk of the local board of conservators it is going to be a very troublesome operation for the casual visitor, and the chances are he will fail to find that person, whereas if you insert a provision, say, in line 30, page 7, Section 9, to the effect that such licences may be obtained at any local post office, it will be quite easy to comply with the law and no one will have any excuse for not buying a licence.

Another matter arises on Section 16 which must surely be an oversight. It concerns the representation of trout anglers on boards of conservators. As the clause is now drafted, it says: "in case the number of such trout rod licences is at least 50 per cent. of and not more than 75 per cent. of the number of such salmon rod licences, the holders of such trout rod licences may elect one of their number as a representative to sit on such board of conservators." Then it goes on to say: "in any other case, such holders may elect two of their number as representatives...". In other words, if the number is 50 per cent. or less, if, in fact, they only number two persons altogether, those two may elect themselves to sit on the board of conservators. Clearly, the intention of the clause is that if they number 75 per cent. or more they should be represented by two instead of one, but, as the thing is actually drafted, if they number 50 per cent. or less they are entitled to two representatives instead of one. The reference is pages 9 and 10, Section 16. I think those are all the points I wish to make.

With reference to the taking of fish by illegal methods, I am probably the only person in this House who has ever killed a trout using an old Yeogun with a broken-off bayonet—I assure you it was quite an accident, but it shows what can happen if you start plunging about in a river with any kind of iron instrument and a trout happens to come along that way. That happened to me in a sudden and unexpected way. Under the strict terms of the Act, I am probably liable for a year's imprisonment for that offence, but, fortunately, it took place some 40 years' ago outside the present jurisdiction of this Government.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Molaim an Bille mar iarracht le héisg na n-abhann agus na n-inbhear do chosaint agus do shíolradh agus a chur i líonmhaireacht. Is éigin iad do chosaint, óir dá mbeadh saorchead ag cách iad do mharbhadh ní fada a mhairfeadh siad. Ach dála na Seanadóirí eile a labhair annseo, tá rudaí ins an Bille seo nach dtaitneann liom. Luigheann sé barraidheacht ar an seilbh atá ag daoinibh áithride ar an iasgaireacht. Anois ní le saidhbhreas a thabhairt do dhaoinibh áithride, nó do dhaoine fá leith a chruthuigh Dia na bradáin is na bric is na heascoin agus a chuir Sé ins an fhairrge, ins na locha, agus ins na haibhne iad. Agus nuair a thug Rí éigin i Sasana—Rí Séamus, Rí Seán nó Rí Seoirse—ceart do dhuine éigin, ag bronnadh ar a leithéid seo nó ar a leithéad siúd iasgaireacent abhann no locha nó inbhear, fágann sé fuar mé, agus níl meas ná beann agam ar an tiodal sin do'n iasc. Mar sin, sílim, do réir an Bhunreacht atá againn, gur le muintir na hÉireann na héisg úd go léir. Tuigim is admhuighim nach féidir an sluagh a sgaoileadh ar na héisg. Ní féidir leigint do chách na héisg do mharbhadh óir ní mhairfeadh siad go ceann tamaill mhaith. Caithfidh riaghail a bheith ann i gcóir iasc luachmhar mar an bradán. Ba cheart an riaghal sin a bheith faoi'n Stáit a chur i ngníomh i dtreo is go mbeidh an iascaireacht ar fagháil do'n phobal.

Tá fhios againn nach bhfuil an scéal mar sin faoi láthair, agus caithfear seibh fhagháil air arís. Bheinn-se fial do'n duine a chaith a chuid airgid chun an iascaireacht a cheannach agus thabharfainn loghadh éigin dóibh. Ni bheinn ró-chúramach luach maith a thabhairt dóibh. Ní thuigim ar fad cad é atá i gceist sa scéal fé láthair nuair atá trácht ar siubhal ar "invested isacaireacht" agus "transferable iascaireacht" agus cuid mhór fo-ráite eile nach dtuigimíd. Cad í an sórt iascaireacht sin? Ba mhaith liom dá dtugadh an tAire agus an Riaghaltas fé ndeara go mba cheart gach uile iascaireacht in Éirinn do ghlacadh i seilbh an Riaghaltais, ar mhaithe leis an Stát agus ar mhaithe le muintir an Stáit. Annsin, tá a lán iascaireacht ann—cuir i gcás, iascaireacht breac, le slat agus dubhán—agus tá fhios againn nach mórán is fiú iasg gabhtar ar an dóigh sin. Níl ann ach caitheamh aimsire, agus ní dóigh liom gur cheart cáin a chur ar an gcaitheamh aimsire sin. Teastuíonn caitheamh aimsire go mór ón aos óg anois. Deirtear linn go bhfuil siad ag imtheacht as an dtír, ag tréigean na tíre agus cad é an fath nach bhfuil caitheamh aimsire do'n aos óg ann? Níl fhios agam aoibhneas níos soineannta agus níos sláinteamhla na an iascaireacht sin le slát agus dubhán le haghaidh breac. Sílim gur cheart na daoine fé'n dtuaith bheith saor—iad a leigint amach chun iascaireacht do dhéanamh le hagaidh breac gan aon cháin do chur ortha. Ní dheineann siad damáiste ar bith do'n iasg, ach maith a leanann as do lucht na tuatha.

Tá súil agam go gcoinneochamaoid na poinntí seo romhainn, agus go dtabharfaidh an tAire agus an Riaghaltas cluas ghéar dóibh agus nach mbeidh adhbhar ag duine a rádh gur ritheadh an Bille seo mar gheall ar na daoine go bhfuil airgead acu, le tuilleadh saidhbhris a thabhairt dos na daoine deagh-fhásta. Tá cuairteoirí fáin ag breacadh isteach sa tír seo le h-iascaireacht do dhéanamh. Is dúinn fhéin an iascaireacht seo agus ní dos na daoine atá ag bailiú isteach ó thíorthaibh eile. Molaim do'n Riaghaltas aire do thabhairt dos na poinntí seo.

Mr. Quirke

I wish to support the Bill, and I think that it is only right that I should congratulate the Minister on his energy in producing such a comprehensive measure, notwithstanding all the other calls on his time. Like other Senators, there are certain parts of this Bill with which I do not agree. I fully agree with Senator Hogan when he suggested that, as far as we can read from the Bill, the necessary provision has not been made for the protection of the rivers. It is quite obvious that the water-bailiffs—or waterkeepers as they are now called, I believe—cannot cope with a stretch of river, as Senator Hogan has said, going from one end to the other. I have in mind a particular river, the Suir, which is about 134 miles in the river itself and about 235 miles in tributaries. I cannot understand how three or four keepers or bailiffs can be expected to cope with that position at all.

I would like also to see wherever possible some system whereby the Guards would be brought into this business of protecting the rivers. There should be at least some connection between the two bodies so that a waterkeeper would be in a position to telephone the Guards and get them to come to his assistance if and when necessary. It has been suggested to me —and I have discussed the matter extensively with a good many people— that there should be a special force to deal with matters of the kind. If the protection is really to be a success that will have to be done. I do not believe it is possible for us to do anything about it at this stage, but I would like the Minister to consider the matter so that some such provision may be made. I believe that the Bill fills a long felt want and that it is at least a serious attempt to repair the damage which has been done over a period of 80 or 100 years. Anybody who knows anything about the fisheries of the country knows that, 80 or 100 years ago, the situation was very different from what it is to-day. If we look at the individual rivers, we find that the fishing rights at that time were worth several times, and, in various places, nine and ten times, what they are worth at present. It is quite obvious that if that position were allowed to continue, we would reach a stage, in a very short number of years, at which our fisheries would be actually valueless. We have considerable evidence from the Fisheries Commission, and from various other sources, as to what our fisheries could be worth, if properly developed, and I believe this Bill will go a long way towards bringing about that situation which every sportsman, and every businessman, for that matter, in the country must desire. The Bill will also, I believe, eliminate many legal differences. We all remember various times when the rights of individuals in respect of ownership of these fisheries were challenged, and, while I would not be prepared to go as far as Senator Cu Uladh in the matter, I believe it is for the benefit of all parties concerned that those rights should be definitely defined, and I believe they will be definitely defined as a result of this Bill.

On the question of protection, I believe it will be necessary to be more particular than ever during what one might call the transition stage. Within the next few years, a situation will arise in which people will get it into their heads that a fishery is no longer the property of So-and-so, that there is a sort of dispute as to who owns it, and they will be inclined to nip in in the hope of getting away with it. I believe that very great care should be taken to ensure that fisheries are not damaged unduly during that period. With regard to compensation, I am glad to see that the men who have been making their living by snap nets in the fresh water rivers are to be compensated, and, while some people would be inclined to make light of the living which was to be gained from that type of fishing, I believe that the people who had that right to fish with snap nets in fresh waters made a tidy living, even in bad times. It is all very well to say that as a result of their own operations, the fisheries became of less value than previously, but the position is that those men carried on, and hoped to carry on still further, and then to hand on that calling to their children. I am glad to see that they will be compensated, and I hope that they will be compensated fairly liberally.

I am thoroughly in agreement with the elimination of the fresh water nets, because I believe that the damage done by the snap nets in fresh water would, if allowed to continue, ruin our fishing industry, even for the people who are using the snap nets. With regard to the protection of the fishing industry after the snap nets have been removed, I believe that particular attention should be given to the upper reaches of the rivers. I am convinced that, even though we all agree that much damage can be done by snap nets and various other types of nets, the damage which can be done by even a pitch-fork in the upper reaches of a river at spawning time is underestimated. It is possible for a man to take out a spawning salmon with a pitch-fork, or even by throwing the salmon out on the bank with his hands, and thereby do away with thousands and thousands of fish. It is obviously impossible to cope with that under the present system of protection. I believe that should be regarded as being of very great importance. I believe that if a man makes up his mind that he is going to break the law, it is very hard to cope with him, and very difficult to watch, as other Senators have pointed out, the upper reaches of a river, the tributaries and the river itself, because it would entail much expense. I hold, however, that a good deal could be done by way of propaganda. Many people in this country are not aware of the damage they do, and I am sufficient of an optimist to believe that if attention was drawn to the damage being done by the destruction of spawning fish, many people who have been acting in that way in the past would not do so in the future.

This Bill, to my mind, is an attempt to make the resources and the wealth of the country available to the people, and I think that a certain amount of money spent on propaganda would be well spent. I feel that even the young fellows who go out, and perhaps in the excitement of the moment, destroy salmon, would not do so, if they realised the damage they were doing to the country as a whole. I believe that a sum of money should be set aside for that sort of propaganda. With regard to the board of conservators, I think it only right that credit should be given where credit is due, and I believe that many of these people have done work of a very valuable nature over a long period of years. I agree that there were considerable handicaps and that they were open to a lot of criticism because they were not, I suppose, sufficiently democratic, but with the new regulations, there will be no room for grumbling. The various sections will have the right to elect members to the board of conservators, and I believe that the result will be greater co-operation, and, because of that greater co-operation from the people interested, less inclination on the part of other people to poach the rivers and destroy the fish as in the past.

Another point which struck me was that it was a pity that this Bill, like other Bills we have had here, was not a Bill for the whole country. Again the question of Partition is being brought home forcibly to the people in this part of the country, and, I hope, to the people in the other part of the country. As anybody looking at the map will observe, we have two or more very valuable rivers which are cut across by the Border, and it is quite obvious that any advantages which will accrue from this Bill will be minimised on those rivers because of that Border. I do not propose to deal with anything of a controversial nature on this Bill, but I do say that it is a matter which should be considered and which should bring it more forcibly home to the people that it is of the greatest possible importance that the Border should be abolished. In practically every Bill we pass here, it is brought home to us that we can go so far and do a lot of good, but when we come to the Border, we find that the benefits conferred on another part of the territory are very considerably minimised there.

There is not very much more I have to say except to mention that I feel that this business of changing the name "water-bailiff" to "waterkeeper" is rather childish. We all agree that the name "bailiff" was not a very popular name in the past and neither will it be popular in the future. I believe it was suggested by the Fisheries Commission that it should be changed but when they did change the name the Ministry had a right to call it another name. For instance, "policeman" was changed to "Gárda." I do not know why we did not pick out some other name when we were changing the title "water-bailiff." Senator O'Donovan suggests that we should have called them "fishguards." However, the one important thing to my mind is the protection of the fisheries and I would ask the Minister to consider putting it up to the Government to make provision for a special squad to look after the fisheries. I will not quarrel with what he calls them, even if he were to call them the Broy Harriers.

Sir John Keane

Would the Minister indicate what is the position where a gap has been constructed in a river which is not in accordance with the Act of 1863? I certainly know of one such gap and there may be more gaps which are intended for the free passage of the fish but which are entirely ineffective. The Minister, I am sure, knows to what I am referring. Is it fair to the owner, if he is to remain in possession, to have a gap that cannot carry out effectively the provisions of the Act? Is it mandatory on the State under the Act of 1863 to make that gap? I take it that covers the whole principle involved. For some reason about which I am not quite clear one gap is entirely ineffective for the passage of the fish and entirely contrary to the provisions of the Act. Would the Minister enlighten the House on that matter?

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Goulding)

The Minister to conclude.

Dr. Ryan

I have tried to take notes of a number of points raised, and I am sure Senators will forgive me if I overlook any of these points in my reply. Senator McGillycuddy says that we should have included in this Bill provision for the protection of fisheries by the Gárda. That same point was raised by other Senators also. In introducing the Bill here I said that we hoped, if this measure went through, to have a consolidation Bill brought in going back to 1842, the last time when the fishing code was consolidated. Questions relating to the boards of conservators and protection have for the present been put aside to be dealt with when the consolidation measure is being prepared. The point is not being overlooked. As a result of the deliberations of the Fishery Commission my Department has had consultations with the Gárda authorities and I think we may hope to get from the Gárda more protection in the future. We hope to be able to remove difficulties when this consultative body comes along. In the meantime we hope to have better protection. It is quite true, as Senator Quirke says, that it is difficult to imagine how three or four water-bailiffs could look after the Suir with its long estuaries without getting help from the ordinary police force and protection, especially by the Guards. If special Guards were detailed the system would be a costly one. We have to strike as fair a balance as we can between the amount we are prepared to pay for this protection and the value of the fisheries. On the whole, however, I think a little more might be spent with advantage. Another point made by the Senator was that the question of the fresh water nets will mean a reduction in the income of the board of conservators. That is true.

I was asked how we meant to compensate the board for this great loss. Senator The McGillycuddy gave figures and I think we must accept them as being right. I did not think things would be as bad as that, but in the particular district to which the Senator belongs, the effect of the fall in freshwater nets would be drastic. We hope for a slight increase in the net drift fishing and a greater income. The great object in all this legislation is to improve our salmon rivers—to try to get more salmon into the rivers. In that way we should, especially in the district to which Senator The McGillycuddy refers, have more applications for rod licences and the income from these might easily make up the loss. If that does not materialise we will have to meet it in some other way. There are slight grants made for that purpose from time to time.

With regard to the compensation to employees, that point was also raised by a number of other speakers. Senator The McGillycuddy explained that if an employee was working as a net man for 13 weeks and if he were the principal net man he would be entitled to 52 times the weekly wage. I think the Senator has stated the case correctly but I think, taking legislation in general, the principle is that where employees have been put out of employment, the system of compensation here does not compare unfavourably with other places. I recognise that giving a man 52 weeks' compensation and saying to him that there is no opening for him in the future in the work that he has been doing for years, may be a great hardship. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the employer of the man is getting compensation. Very great compensation indeed has been given to the employers and if the employee gets more compensation the owner of the net cannot get the same compensation as he would otherwise have got. We have struck a balance between the two. It is one of those detailed points that gave most worry to the Minister and the Department when preparing the Bill. There is no point in the Bill to which more time was given than to this matter of compensation. However, I am quite prepared to look into the matter again and to see what we can do about it.

The Senator also expressed a fear that the State would be inclined to over-fish the river in the same way as the private employer would. He did suggest that the Minister for Finance is very anxious to make ends meet and that in order to get a greater income he will push the fishery authority. I do not believe that. I believe the fishery authority will induce the Minister for Finance to take the long view of the matter. The fisheries may not be a paying proposition for five or, perhaps, for ten years. The fishery authority may be able to persuade the Minister that it would be good business to allow more fish up the river so as to have more fish in the river at a later date. I am inclined to think that the Minister for Finance will adopt that view.

As to the income from brown trout licences, from what I heard from one or two Senators I take it there is some slight confusion in the matter. The Department of Fisheries will have nothing to do with the retention of this money. It will be collected and kept by the boards of conservators and it will be allocated by the board of conservators for the development of brown trout fisheries. Now, the Department has a fair amount of control over the boards of conservators as to how they spend their money and the Department will take care to see that, at least, the amount of money collected from brown trout licensees, if not more, will go towards the development of the brown trout fisheries.

We may not have struck an absolutely fair method for the compensation of managers. It is extremely difficult to get a fair scheme in a matter like that. Take schemes which have stood the test of time, life insurance, for instance. You find, if I may put it in this way, that a person who dies young does better than a person who lives a longer time because the younger person has not paid so much money. Yet, nobody complains that that is not a fair scheme. It is as fair as you can make it. Senator Goulding asked to whom the sixpenny licence fees would be payable. They will be payable by juveniles and riparian owners. If a juvenile is fishing in County Leitrim, it will not be necessary for him to write to the secretary of the board of conservators in Limerick for a licence if he wants to fish in that district. He will go there and, presumably, he will look for the bailiff or waterkeeper. If not, they will look for him. They will have books of sixpenny licences and will issue them. There is a difference in the case of salmon licences. To fish for salmon, a £2 licence is necessary. In that case, the person concerned must go to the secretary of the board of conservators or a person appointed by him and pay the fee of £2. in the other case, the juveniles and riparian owners will not be put to any trouble because they will be able to obtain the sixpenny licences from the bailiffs and waterkeepers. It appears to have been overlooked that these licences will not be necessary on all the waters. Senator Goulding and Senator MacFhionnlaoich spoke about the small streams. The board of conservators will schedule certain waters on which a brown trout licence will be necessary. As a beginning, they will schedule only the large rivers and the large lakes. On these large rivers and lakes, a 5/-licence will be necessary, save in the case of juveniles and riparian owners, whose licence will cost them 6d. Outside these waters, no licence whatever will be necessary for brown trout. There will be absolutely free fishing, as there has been up to this.

I cannot agree with Senator Goulding that the abolition of fresh water netting would not have some beneficial results. The point was made here and in the Dáil that those who fish in fresh water with nets are not doing very much harm because they do not catch many fish. That is a dangerous argument for Senators who are friendly with these men to use because they may be coming along later looking for compensation and I am sure they will be able to make a good case then as to the number of fish caught. There is no doubt that they do get a certain amount of fish, and, so far as I am technically advised on this matter, they catch fish at a very destructive stage. The type of salmon they catch would be going up to spawn, and it would make a great difference in the stocking of the rivers if they were allowed to go up instead of being caught by these nets.

Section 24 was described as rather drastic. It sets out that it is an offence to be in the possession of a net near a river or lake, and a penalty is provided. Every Minister has the experience that it is extremely difficult to get district justices to inflict a penalty in cases like that unless they are absolutely satisfied that the net was there for illegal purposes. If a person, through some oversight, has a net in some other house and he is brought to court by some other person, I am quite sure there will be no conviction unless he had that net with evil intent, which would have to be well proven. That is my experience in these matters.

The length of the drift and draft nets is not being dealt with in this Bill. The law will remain as it is. If application is made to the Minister for Fisheries for a change in the length of the net, whether by boards of conservators or by fishermen, and whether for the shortening or the lengthening of the net, a public inquiry must be held. The inspector who holds the inquiry will make his report and the Minister, acting on that report, will regulate the length of the net by bye-law. There is no change in that procedure under this Bill. As regards fresh water netting, Senator Goulding made an appeal that if I were to persist in abolishing these nets, I should, at least, give the fishermen this season. That is my intention. We shall probably have to give them next season, too. We shall have to give them at least 12 months' notice. As this season is fairly well through, and as this Bill will not become law for another month or two, I should like to give them a season's notice. That would mean that this particular provision would come into operation at the end of 1940.

With regard to the rate, whatever a private owner has to pay under the law at present will be paid by the Minister when he takes over these fisheries. There will be no departure from that. As I said when introducing the Bill, it appears to be a very old-established principle that Ministers or Departments must not be compelled to pay rates. I do not know what the reason for that is, but it runs through all our Acts. In fact, Departments pay the rate a private owner would pay if he held property under the same circumstances. Senator Honan went so far as to advocate that Section 9 should be abolished because it has the effect, as he said, of discouraging the trout anglers' associations. I do not think that that is true, but it is rather unfair if these trout anglers take up that attitude. For the last three or four years during which I have been in control of fisheries I have had applications from anglers' associations for grants and I have received deputations from them. These men, I admit, are very earnest in their work. They are anxious to improve the fisheries and they are very anxious to get State grants for their work. There is no way that an organisation can get a State earnestness by putting in some of their own money first. I do not think it very unfair to ask them to pay this licence. As a matter of fact, even with the 5/-licence, it appears to me a very cheap from of sport. I do not know if they would get sport as cheaply in any other way. If we take outdoor games or indoor games, there does not appear to be any other form of sport so cheap as that.

Senator Hogan raised the matter of the rate. The rate is struck by the conservators under the present scheme. We shall take a certain county, to give an example of how it works. If the rate the county is deprived of, as it were, or if the rate collected on the fishery in that county should exceed a penny in the £, the excess is made good to the county by my Department. There is a certain amount voted in my Department for that purpose. In other words, the county is not victimised by more than what would amount to a penny rate. If it is more, they get it from the Department. That principle was introduced in 1925.

Senator Johnston asked a question about the salmon licence. It is true that to fish for sea trout or white trout, one must have a salmon licence. There is no change being made in that. A brown trout licence will not entitle the holder to fish for sea trout or white trout. It will only entitle him to fish for brown trout. The position remains the same, as far as that goes, except that in Section 10 there is a concession being made to the sea trout enthusiast. That is, if he comes in July when sea trout are supposed to be at their best, he can get a licence for £1 instead of £2. It is held that anybody interested in salmon fishing alone will come for his licence before July. If a person is interested only in sea trout, he can get plenty of sea trout fishing from that on and he will have only to pay £1. He can fish for salmon with that licence afterwards of course. Another point raised by the Senator was whether it would be possible to make it easier for a person to get his licence. I believe that in the bigger districts like Limerick which runs from Limerick up to Leitrim—the whole Shannon comes into that district—there are agents appointed to collect those licences. I think the lists of these agents are given in the Anglers' Guide, and I believe that any person who is interested in fishing in this country cannot get on without the Anglers' Guide.

With regard to Section 16, I do not know if Senator Johnston is right in the point he raised. I must have the section read by our legal officers but I think the words "in any other case" in the sub-section, are governed by the words in the paragraph before, that is with regard to the 50 per cent. However, I shall have the matter looked into again. With regard to the points made by Senator Mac Fhionnlaoich, I must say that I agree with Senator Quirke that we cannot very well adopt the attitude that the successors of those who got the fisheries from James I should be deprived of these fisheries without due compensation. In the first place a good many of these fisheries changed hands in the meantime and for cash value. Even if they had not changed hands, and the fisheries were still in the possession of their descendants, it would be rather drastic to victimise the seventh or the eighth generation, as the case might be, for whatever doubtful morality characterised the handing over of these fisheries and refuse to pay compensation.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Sin é an rud a mhol mise—compensation.

Dr. Ryan

Seadh. We shall pay fair compensation and no more than fair compensation. As I have said already, the streams and the small rivers will continue to afford free fishing as far as brown trout are concerned. I am not sure whether Senator Quirke is right in his contention that the fisheries were worth more 70 or 80 years ago than they are now. Possibly that is true. All we can hope is to make them as valuable as they formerly were during the next 100 years. I do not think there can be any difficulty under this Bill in regard to ownership. Section 57 has this effect, that if a rate has been paid—and a rate is not paid of course unless a person claims to have a right of private ownership—for 60 years, this Bill takes that as sufficient evidence that there will be a several fishery, as far as the Minister is concerned. This Bill does not purport to create a several fishery for anybody except the Minister. It creates a several fishery for the Minister to take over and the Minister pays whatever the value may be. It is for the owner to come forward and to claim that money. I think that was the procedure observed in regard to the taking over of land. When the Land Commission took over land from a certain landlord, they sometimes had to lodge the money in court or in some other place. They had to put it aside to see who owned the money. In the same way we do not propose to pay over the money to the person who says "I own that fishery." If there is a dispute between certain parties as to who owns the fishery, that is a matter that the courts will have to decide. In the meantime, I have got the fishery and the money will be lodged pending a decision as to the ownership. We have nothing to do with the question of ownership. We are only concerned with the point that it is going to become a several fishery and that it is going to be owned by the State.

The question raised by Senator Sir John Keane was similar to a point raised by many speakers in the Dáil. As far as I can find out, there is a gap in this weir to which the Senator referred. Under this Bill of course it is not proposed to interfere with any weir that was adjudicated upon before '63 by the commissioners who sat at that time. The weir will in due course be taken over by the State and will be maintained by the State. It is thought that it is just as well not to interfere during the next few years with weirs or gaps of that kind until the State takes possession. Then the State can be as fair to itself as possible and fair also to the general development of the river by allowing salmon up. I think these were the only points raised on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, June 7th, 1939.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 31 May 1939

Fisheries Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1939