Does not this section give complete power to the Minister? The Parliamentary Secretary said on the last occasion that there was preservation of private enterprise in this. On the face of this section the Minister can make regulations. The Minister must consult the board. The board are nominees of the Minister and the Minister consults them. The association or its committee are representatives of the various interests, including the fishermen. He need not consult them at all. Perhaps it may be the only remedy but it is complete ministerial control, is it not?
Sea Fisheries Bill, 1952—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I think the Senator is quite right but, if he would try to visualise the type of purpose for which this section has been put into the Bill, I think it would not cause him very much apprehension. The provision in relation to the landing and sale of sea fish and for the storage, handling, transport, processing and treating of sea fish is designed to ensure that the fish will be put before the public in as hygienic a condition as possible. It is for the purpose of ensuring that the public will get a good article and that good food will not be destroyed by bad handling and to remove other causes of complaint which we come up against from time to time. I do not think that the Senator need be unduly worried that this power will be used for the purpose of harrying anybody who is engaged either in the distribution of fish or in the catching of fish.
It is not so much that I am under any apprehension and that I doubt the bona fides of the drafters of the Bill or that I doubt that the officials, whoever they may be, or the Minister, whoever he may be, will do their best in the matter but that I want to emphasise that it means that we have lost confidence entirely in the people that catch fish, in the people that transport fish and in the people that retail fish because we are handing over all the regulations in these matters to the Minister who need not consult any representative of any interest at all. It may be, as I said on the Second Stage, that the situation has become so desperate that this is the only remedy but, quite clearly, it is a very drastic remedy. It is the taking of all power to the Minister without making it compulsory on him to consult anybody. The Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure, has the best possible intentions. One wonders whether it will result in a supply of fish in proper condition being available in a regular way, as it is not now. I hope it will but I think it should be emphasised that here in this section the most complete and unqualified control is taken of the whole industry from beginning to end. That is the only thing I have to say about it.
It would seem under sub-section (2) that it is intended to consult the association. There is a rather peculiar phrase used —"unless in his opinion it is impracticable to do so". I do not know what it means. Does it mean that the Minister would have to sign a statement to the effect that it was impracticable or does it mean that he would do nothing at all about it? If it means that the Minister, on the advice of his officials, would have to sign a statement that it was impracticable to consult, I would not be inclined to quarrel about it, because it is quite obvious that he would not do so unless he was satisfied that it was impracticable. If, on the other hand, it is only intended to mean that he need not consult unless he likes, I think it is a rather bad phrase.
With regard to Senator Hayes's further remarks on the universality of the powers, I think that they are somewhat equivalent to the powers that are operated in respect of other foods. You have, for instance, the Food and Drugs Act, which was designed to produce some of the results that are visualised in this section. I imagine that in its operation this section will, in fact, run along parallel lines with what is provided for in the Food and Drugs Act. In any event, I think that the Senator will agree that there are frequent complaints about the manner in which fish is handled and, as regards the term "the landing of fish", if the Senator has observed the way in which fish is very often thrown into the hold of a boat, he will see exactly what we are aiming at. Fish is very often walked upon by members of the crew. That is the type of thing that we hope to eliminate by regulations made under this section.
With regard to what Senator Douglas has said in reference to the phrase put into sub-section (2), about the practicability or otherwise of consulting the association, I should like to say that if the words "in the opinion of the Minister" were not included, it would be tantamount to making it mandatory on the Minister to consult the association before, in fact, he could make a regulation. The association, I take it, will be a large body and if the Minister, in the promulgation of a regulation the making of which was urgent, had to wait until he called the association together to consult them, very possibly serious and irreparable damage would be done. If the words "in the opinion of the Minister" were not included, he would have no alternative but to wait until he had consulted the association.
It does not seem to me that the words "in the opinion of the Minister" add anything to the section because it is either practicable or it is not. In the case which the Parliamentary Secretary mentions, where there is no time and the matter is urgent, it is not practicable. It seems to me that this phrase "impracticable in the opinion of the Minister" is a very peculiar phrase. He must consult the board, whether it is practicable or not in the strict reading of the phrase, and it seems to me to be overdoing it to put in the words "in the opinion of the Minister." I gather from this that the association will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion about the regulations so far as general regulations are concerned such as those under the Food and Drugs Act, but occasionally it may be necessary to have a special regulation made to deal with abnormal circumstances and that it is to cover such an eventuality that this phrase was inserted. Generally the association should be consulted in regard to the regulations and, as I read the Act, that was the intention.
It is the intention that the advice of the association, which is being set up as an advisory body, will be sought on all occasions on which it is possible to do so. The exceptions which we have in mind are those which I have outlined, cases in which it would not be possible to have consultations where the making of the regulation was a matter of urgency. As a matter of fact, sub-section (2) was not in the original Bill but was put in at the request of some members of the Opposition in the Dáil. Section 8 had only sub-section (1) in it when the Bill was introduced. Consultation will take place on every occasion on which it is possible after the new body, which will be representative of fishermen and the trade, will be set up but it was thought that it might lead to serious difficulties if it were made absolutely mandatory to have that consultation before the regulations could in fact be made.
There is just one matter to which I should like to refer, in connection with the fish meal plants. In the debate on the last day, so far as I remember the Parliamentary Secretary said it was the intention to set up similar plants later on, if and when it was proved that the existing plant was a success. In to-day's paper——
I am afraid that is not in order on this section.
I thought it was, dealing with the use of fish.
No. The question of fish meal does not arise on this section.
I thought it might arise out of the reference to the treatment of sea fish.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
What is the particular significance of the reference to 35 feet in this section? That was not in the previous Bill. It is proposed that nobody can use a vessel exceeding 35 feet in length "except under and in accordance with a licence under this section". It involves the fisherman in what you might call red tape.
40 feet was the minimum length in the 1950 Bill. The reason why the minimum length is now being stated to be 35 feet is that it refers to the standard boat that was issued by the association when it was founded. It was thought desirable that all the boats issued by the association should be subject to a licence and be on the register kept by the board.
Supposing a person has a boat longer than 35 feet, why must he get a licence? What harm is it?
Is the Senator objecting to licensing generally?
I cannot understand why, if a man has a boat 40 feet in length, if it is a good boat for the purpose of fishing, he must get a licence. What benefit is going to accrue to the inshore fisherman because of that? I wonder what the significance is. I have ample experience over the years of the fact that, once the Civil Service get hold of something, they want to streamline it. Everything must be in accordance with a fixed plan. It may be that theoretically there is some justification for providing that a licence must be obtained for boats over 35 feet but what is the practical effect of saying that a person having a boat of 40 feet must apply for a licence?
I may not be able to give the Senator an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which this licensing power will be of use but let me take one instance in any event which may perhaps demonstrate to him why it is being provided, quite apart from the fact that it was in the 1950 Bill. I am not putting that forward at all as a reason for its inclusion. There has been a good deal of talk about inshore fishermen.
It seems to me that most of the representations which I have had on behalf of inshore fishermen had in mind the whole-time man who operates a boat, say, in the region of 40 feet— from 35 to 50 feet or thereabouts. Since I took over these duties, the complaint that I have been up against, mostly, has been with regard to what they call poaching, mainly on the west coast. That complaint has been made to me by people who are not whole-time fishermen. They are part-time fishermen and farmers, people who operate a boat for the catching of lobsters in the season on some part of the coast, who do a bit of salmon fishing and long line fishing and who, when that disappears and when the herrings come inshore do a little bit of herring fishing. Now, that type of man is complaining that he is being crushed out by the new boat that is being issued by the association, the 50 foot boat. These boats have been pointed out to me by men who have been deprived of their livelihood through their operations. These men have said to me "You equip that man with a boat; you give him a boat big enough to go out and fish where he was not able to fish formerly." They say to me "The men with these big boats are scraping up the bays and the inlets where we used to do our long line fishing." We have no power, at present to protect the type of man now who is being crushed out, but under these licensing regulations we will be able to issue a licence and attach conditions to it which will preserve that man's livelihood.
I think that case alone justifies the inclusion of these powers. I want again to assure the Seanad that these licensing regulations are not going to be used to impose unjustifiable restrictions on any fisherman but in any particular district where you have a considerable number of fishermen whose livelihood had been interfered with we feel that the attaching of conditions of this sort to the licence for a period of one year or two years may solve the problem. It may be necessary, say, to protect a bay that has been overfished. Take Dingle Bay as an example.
I was there last week.
If Dingle Bay has been over-fished, then, everyone, I think, will agree that it ought to get a rest for a year or two. You cannot give it a rest now. But, under these licensing conditions, we will be able to insist that these boats will not fish Dingle Bay in respect of the year in which the licence is issued. We can ensure that it will not be fished until we are satisfied that it has had an opportunity to rehabilitate itself. As soon as we are satisfied on that point, that condition can be removed from the licence. In any event, the condition will not be put into any licence until there has been the fullest consultation with the local interests. That is being done to give effect to the advice which we have got from all the fishermen. When you ask an individual: "Why do you not carry out our advice?" the reply you get is: "Why should I do it when my neighbour will not do it? If you compel my neighbour to do it I also will be prepared to abide by the regulation that is made." It is obvious, therefore, that there must be some force of law behind it. I think it should be obvious from what I have said that there is justification for taking these powers.
I think that Senator Hayes's question on simple arithmetic reveals something that is far from simple as regards policy. I accept, of course, what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but I think there is more to it than that. Conversations which I have been having recently on this Bill tend to substantiate what I think on this. The effect of these regulations, I believe, will be to keep any free fisherman off the seas if he wants to fish in a boat of more than 35 feet in length. I am afraid that they may be used for that purpose. What the Parliamentary Secretary has said, to a great extent, is that he wants to maintain certain primitive methods of fishing. That is what it comes to.
If we are going to put our fishing industry on a right basis, we cannot simply pass regulations to protect the primitive fisherman. That is what I took from what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I think it must be admitted, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary might reasonably admit it, that this is going to be used to exclude certain people from fishing in large boats if the board wish to exclude them from fishing in those large boats. Now, I am not thinking of anyone in particular, but I do not like that kind of legislation. Why should not a man buy a large boat and fish anywhere he likes around the seas of Ireland, bring in his fish and sell it at a fair price to us without having to get a licence in this way? This is a restriction on free enterprise or else I am very much mistaken.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary satisfy me that this section will not be used to crush out some independent, free-minded, enterprising individual who wants to own a large boat to catch fish and sell the fish at the lowest price regardless of any board or any Government? Now, that is the kind of person that I often like to see working in this country, and that is the kind of person which that Socialism, referred to in previous debates, tends to crush out. Frankly, I am uneasy that this Bill may be used to check that free and independent kind of work. The fishing industry has been based on a spirit of sturdy independence in the past, and I am afraid that we will lose that spirit of sturdy independence unless we are very careful. Perhaps I have been misled in my conversations, and perhaps I am being foolish, but I would like to have a reassurance on these points.
I did not intend speaking until I heard what Senator Stanford had to say on this section. I suggest that the answer to the points made by Senator Stanford is the condition in which we find the fishing industry to-day. The answer to the Senator is that free enterprise has failed us. That is my view. We are an island country, and yet we have no fish. We do not get fish. The purpose, I take it, of this Bill is to ensure that fish will be made available to the people in the future. None of us like regulations, and particularly Government regulations. I feel that, in this case, it is necessary to ensure in this island country that fish will be made available for the people in the future. There must, I suppose, be some kind of licence to ensure that we will get fish. I take it that any man who has a fishing boat less than 35 feet in length will be exempt from the obligation of getting a licence. I may say that I had a rather hair-raising experience in Connemara some years ago when I went out fishing with five or six friends. I can tell the House that I did not feel too happy until I got back again. I take it that no attempt is being made under this Bill to interfere with fishing, and that boats of less than 35 feet in length will not require a licence. I should like, however, to have an assurance on this point. Will fishermen who use boats of less than 35 feet in length be governed by the regulations which the Minister may make with regard to the landing, the sale, the storage, the handling and the transport of fish?
Táimid measctha, is dóigh liom, beagán idir céill "inshore fishermen" idir lucht currach agus bád oscailte agus trálaéirí—35 troigh agus faoina bhun sin agus ós a chionn sin. Is eól domsa iascairí a dhéanas trálaéireacht ar bhád leath-chéad troigh agus is cinnte, dar leo sin, gur "inshore fishermen" iad. Sa cheantar céanna tá lucht naomhóg agus bád rámha agus dar leo sin—agus táid cinnte de—siad sin na "inshore fishermen". Is dóigh liom gur ceart an léiriúchan sin a dhéanamh nó gur ceart go ndéanfaí riail éigin a léireodh dúinn é.
A thrí nó a ceathair de laethe ó shoin fuair mé páipéar ó dhaoine a thugann "Inshore Fishermen's Association" orthu féin. Táid in aghaidh an Bhille; táid in aimhreas go millfidh sé iad. Ní abrann siad cé acu lucht trálaéireachta iad nó lucht dorú agus dubhán. B'fhéidir go dtabharfadh an Rúnaí Parlaiminte léiriú beag dúinn ar an scéal seo.
In Alt 9, fó-alt (5) den Bhille, deir sé:—
"A licence may be granted subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit, including restrictions on sea-fishing either generally or in regard to methods of sea-fishing in particular places and as to disposal of the catches and the Minister may from time to time vary any conditions or impose new conditions."
Rud an-tábachtach é an cheist atá á phlé againn. Deir an Rúnaí Parlaiminte linn gur bé an fáth atá leis ná chun rialacha a dhéanamh i leith cuan ar bith nó banc iascaigh ar bith nó ball iascaigh ar bith chun cineál áirithe iascaigh a chosc nó a cheadú san áit sin. Is air sin atá an cheist eile seo— an difríocht idir "inshore fishermen" agus iascairí nach "inshore fishermen" iad—ag braith. Agus b'fhéidir go bhfaighimis léiriú beag air sin. Bhí rialacha mar sin ann cheana. Tá mé cinnte gur eolach don Rúnaí Parlaiminte go bhfuil cuanta áirithe ann agus nach bhfuil sé ceadmhach ach ar feadh tréimhsí gearra, trálaéireacht a dheánamh iontu—i mBágh Fhíonáin taobh thiar de Bhaile an Sceilg agus i gCuan Árt na Caithne taobh thiar den Daingean. Ní ceadmhach trálaéireacht a dhéanamh—nó níor cheadmhach le mo linnse—iontu ach ar feadh sé seachtaine nó dhá mhí sa bhliain. Ní heol domsa an bhfuil an riail sin ann fós ach bhí an riail sin ann chun trálaéireachta a chosc ar mhaithe le lucht na mbád oscailte, lucht na gcurrach agus na naomhóg. Dá blirí sin ní rud nua an ní i bhfo-alt 5.
Thagair an Rúnaí Parlaiminte do rud a thabharfadh cumhacht, b'fhéidir, cosc a chur le cineál áirithe iascaigh i mBágh an Daingin. Níl an t-eolas baileach go leor agam-sa chun tuairim a thabhairt an gá nó nach gá é sin anois. An bhfuil sé ar aigne an Rúnaí Pharlaiminte, nuair a bheadh an cosc sin ar bháid 35' agus os a chionn, is é sin trálaéirí, thiar i mBágh an Daingin, go gcaithfeadh siad imeacht leo go háit eile ar an gcósta le trálaéireacht a dhéanamh agus slí bheatha a bhaint amach? Is ceist an-tábhachtach í sin agus ba mhaith linn fios a bheith againn go bhfuil machnamh déanta ar thortha cosctha nó riail a dheánamh den tsaghas sin in áit mar Bhágh an Daingin a bhfuil cuig báid ar fhichid ann nó i nDairbhre is i gCathair Saidhbhín a bhfuil sé nó seacht gcinn eile de bháid ann. An bhfuil pictiúir in aigne an Rúnaí Pharlaiminte cad a tharlóidh don deich bád ar fhichid sin má bhíonn cosc ar thrálaéireacht i mBágh an Daingin ar feadh bliana nó ar feadh dhá bhliain? Is ceist í atá ag cur beagán imní orm féin. Maidir le ceadúcháin—
An bhféadfadh an Seanadóir innsint dúinn an raibh sé furast an riail a chur i bhfeidhm i dtaobh áiteacha áirithe nach ligfí do thrálaérí a bheith iontu? Bheadh an Seanadóir ábalta é sin a rá.
Is cuimhin liom féin go mbíodh achrann agus troid uair fhánach ann agus ní deintí trálaéreacht ins na haiteacha sin ach dhá lá nó trí, nó dhá oíche nó trí gach bliain agus imeacht leo as ansan. Is cuimhneach liom go ndeachaigh báid bheaga iascaigh amach— tá sé seo deich mblian fichead nó dachad bliain ó shoin—leis na trálaéirí a chosc agus bhíodh sé ina throid fhuilteach acu. Thugadís iarracht ar na trálaéirí a chosc chun a gceart a chosaint d'ainneoin an dlí agus cearta na dtrálaéirí. Thuig iascairí na naomhóg gur leo féin na cuanta beaga agus nár cheart do na trálaéirí teacht isteach agus an áit a scríobadh, ach sin sean-scéal.
Bhí mé ag léamh leabhair tamall ó shoin a cuireadh amach ins na blianta seachtód den chéad seo caite i dtaobh iascaireachta ansúd i mBágh an Daingin agus bhí an clampar céanna ann faoi theacht na trálaéireachta i mBágh an Daingin. Bhí lucht na naomhóg go mór ina n-aghaidh agus bhíodar ag achrann agus ag troid ag cosaint a gceart féin.
Theip ar lucht na mbád mbeag?
Theip ar lucht na mbád mbeag i mBágh an Daingin, ach lucht na mbád mbeag agus na naomhóg i mBágh Fhíonáin laistiar de Bhaile an Sceilg agus i gCuan Árt na Caithne chosnaíodar iad féin—le láimh láidir dar ndóigh nó d'éirigh na trálaéirí as an iarracht. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Rúnaí Parlaiminte an bhfuil an riail nó an dlí sin fós i bhfeidhm, is é sin, cosc na trálaéireachta ins na háiteacha adúrt. An cur leis sin an rud nua seo?
Maidir leis an gceist sin uile is ábhar imní domsa cad a tharlóidh má cuirtear cosc ar thrálaéireacht maidir le cuan áirithe. Cad a tharlóidh do na trálaéirí atá ag braith ar an gcuan sin? Tá siad i mBágh an Daingin agus bíonn siad in Inbhear Scéine uaireannta— cuan Neidíneach. An mbeidh orthu dul go cuanta Chontae Chorcaighe nó go Béal na Sionainne agus na cuanta thart ansin, go Gaillimh nó go Dún na nGall?
Ceist atá agam ar an Rúnaí Parlaiminte: an bhfuil socair ina aigne cad a tharlóidh má coisctear trálaéireacht i mBágh an Daingin agus deich dtrálaéir fichead a bheith ar cosc agus a bheith orthu dul ag iarriadh ait éigin eile.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any definite assurance regarding the policy which will be adopted concerning the conditions attached to licences? I accept the case he made regarding the necessity for licences in certain circumstances to protect particular bays and parts of fishing grounds around the shores. It is quite conceivable that for these reasons it is necessary to have some power to prevent over-fishing but, generally speaking, giving the Minister power to attach conditions or to vary the conditions attached to a licence is bad. It will mean a lot of trouble to the Minister himself. I should like to get an assurance on this section, if I can, that so far as particular areas are concerned where a similar type of boat is used the licences to be issued will be in some kind of common form and that the situation will not be allowed to arise where one licence holder will get a licence with practically no conditions or no onerous conditions attached and a neighbouring licence holder may find himself fenced in with all sorts of conditions.
I do not think it is likely that that situation will arise, but it is possible that it can arise under the Bill as it is framed. It is quite conceivable that half a dozen licence holders will get licences which will enable them to have the fullest freedom of the seas in their fishing ventures and that the seventh holder will find himself considerably restricted. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that, so far as particular areas are concerned, if a similar type of boat is being used he does not propose to have any variation in the form of licences issued or the conditions attached to these licences. I do concede that if, in a particular area or district, different types of boats are used, it may be necessary to vary the licence according to the type of boat, but as long as the same type of boat is being used the Parliamentary Secretary should give a definite assurance that he does not propose varying the licences.
Is léir ón méid cainte a chualamar inniú, ó Sheanadóirí, go bhfuil géar-ghá leis an alt seo mar ghléas cosanta ar na hiascairí cois trá. Sin é bun agus barr na ceiste seo, is dóigh liom: ar cheart smacht a bheith ag an Aire nó ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte ar an méid bád a bheidh ag íascaireacht in aon áit? Is dóigh liom, nuair a raghaidh ceist an cheadúnais chun cinn, go mbeidh an pictiúir ar fad maidir le hiascaireacht timpeall chósta na tíre ós comhair an Rúnaí Parlaiminte agus os comhair na Roinne a bhfuil sé i gceannas air.
Deineadh tagairt d'iascaireacht i mBágh an Daingin Ní rabhas ann le déanaí, fé mar a bhí an Seanadóir Ó hAodha, ach do léas cuntas sa pháipéar cúpla lá ó shoin maidir le cruinniú a bhí acu. Gealamise dhíbh go bhfuil iascairí na háite sin ina ndúiseacht maidir le forálacha an Bhille seo, agus bé ceann des na moltaí a chuireadar chun cinn ná gur cheart féachaint chuige ná tabharfaí ceadúnas d'aon bhád mór chun íascaireacht a dhéanamh go dtí go mbeidh ceartanna na n-iascairí beaga bainte amach Sin ceann des na moltaí a tháinig uatha.
Ba mhaith liom cur leis sin agus a rá gur báid 24 troigh a bhí i gceist—nár cheart a leithéidí sin a bheith ag iascaireacht.
Báid 24 troigh a bhí i gceist acu, ach tá ceist anois i dtaobh an féidir trálaéireacht a dhéanamh leis na báid sin, nó an féidir trálaéireacht a dhéanamh i mbáid níos lú ná sin. Fé mar adúrt i dtosach, is dóigh liom go bhfuil gá leis an Alt seo chun an chosaint cheart a thabhairt do na hiascairí cois trá. Mura mbeadh an tAlt seo ann, mura mbeadh an chumhacht seo ag an Rúnaí Parlauminte, ní fheicim conas d'fhéadfadh sé smacht a choimeád ar an gceist ar fad. Ní fhéadfadh sé é a dhéanamh.
Cad mar gheall ar na heachtrannaigh?
Ceist faoi leith is ea í sin agus dá bhfeadfaimis teacht le chéile chun seift éigin a chur ar bun chun cosc a chur ar na trálaéirí a thagann timpeall ár gcosta ó na tíortha lasmuigh, ba mhór ar fad an rud é.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether sub-section (3) will preclude an Irishman or woman resident in the Six Counties from joining in the company or sharing a boat?
I am not prepared to answer that. It is too difficult a question for me.
Is it intended that it should?
My own personal opinion?
No. This is a Bill which we are asked to pass and it is fair to ask what I have asked, whether it is intended, although I do not wish to press the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to what the courts might decide. Can we have a special definition in relation to this category of persons? I think this is a point of some importance and that we should ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is intended.
This section can probably be classified as the most important section in the Bill as far as those engaged in the fishing industry are concerned. Senator Stanford questioned the Parliamentary Secretary on the matter of private enterprise. However, I feel, while we should all be prepared and are all prepared to encourage private enterprise of every kind, we must not let our enthusiasm in that direction run away with what should be our interest in that section of our people who have kept the fishing industry going in this country. As far as I can gather from this section, what it merely does is to enable the Minister to make certain regulations to ensure that that section of the people who have engaged in fishing for generations, who have not at present and probably never will have sufficient money to purchase a large boat and who are prepared to go along in the old traditional method, will have a certain amount of protection as against the person who will get assistance from private enterprise or from the State.
Senator Stanford referred to private enterprise. My regret and, I am sure, the regret of the majority in this House and of the country in general is that private enterprise is not sufficiently encouraged with regard to this industry. One thing which we should not lose sight of is that the majority of those engaged in the fishing industry are so engaged as a result of encouragement and assistance of one kind or another given by the State. Surely we should exert ourselves in every way to ensure that those people who have been engaged in the fishing industry all down through the years will be protected. If we make available through the board set up under this Bill large boats we should be in a position to attach to these boats one condition—that they would go as far afield as it would be possible for them to go and leave to the smaller type of boat the fishing ground to which they naturally can claim to have a just right. I welcome this section.
Both Senator Colgan and Senator Hawkins have commented on what I said. I listened with great interest to what they said but I think both of them have missed what I was trying to point out. Senator Colgan said that the need was to provide for fish and that private enterprise had failed. If that is so, why should we make it quite clear that the lid of the coffin will be slapped down and nailed down on private enterprise in this Bill? If it has failed, if it is paralysed—because that is what this Bill may do to certain enterprising people who want to fish the seas in large boats of their own, who want to get fish for themselves and sell it for themselves without Government inter ference—if it is no good, if the methods used are economically unsound, if it has nothing to contribute to the country, why should we bother about it at all? These State boats will drive these people off the sea in a few months. How can they compete? Why do we need a weapon for screwing down the coffin lid on them? If the boats and the crews provided by the board are more efficient and produce better results, they will drive these other people off the sea in a year. If the other people can get good fish, sell them at a reasonable price where and how they please, why are they to be restricted by this section and particularly by sub-section (6)? Why can there not be free competition with this State organisation? This is the very evil of socialism that we do not like. We have seen it before in this country and I am sure we are going to see it often again unless we face it clearly here and now. We have seen buses put off the roads in the interests of the big State-sponsored body, Córas Iompair Éireann, and so on; we have seen other private enterprises simply put off the road, off the sea or off the land in the interest of State-sponsored organisations.
I want to refer to what the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Second Stage debate on the 2nd April, as reported in column 1128, Volume 40, of the Official Debates:—
"It is a very difficult problem and the viewpoints expressed both in the Dáil and the Seanad were as opposite as the poles. No matter what direction you took to devise something for the fishing industry you found yourself bumping up against some interest straight away. The only thing you can do, in face of that situation, is to bump against as few interests as you possibly can and with the least possible violence."
I say "no" to that and "no" again. This Bill should not be a question of steering between this interest and that interest, to cause the least shock or the least harm to them. It should be a question of what is best for fishing and fishers in this country and for the traders and for the consumers, in terms of justice, in terms of economics, not in terms of causing the least offence to this interest or that interest. I feel the Parliamentary Secretary and those supporting the Bill in general have been too gentle with certain interests and that they are being too hard on other interests.
The Parliamentary Secretary said this licensing might be necessary to keep people, say, from fishing Dingle Bay. It is a very roundabout way of facing any problem. Why does he not give himself power in this Bill to prohibit fishing of any kind in any particular area if necessary? This is a very devious way of getting at that. If that is a major problem it should be faced in the Bill openly. Why does he not prevent the under 35 feet boats from fishing in a certain section? It may be necessary; he will have no power under this Bill. I suggest he ought to have a definite clause saying in certain cases fishing of any kind may be prohibited in certain areas. I suggest that this is a very roundabout way of trying to solve the problem.
I entirely agree with Senator Hawkins as a professor of Greek but not as a Senator of this country. As a professor of Greek I love the old ways of fishing, the quaint old methods of luring the fish out of its hole and dangling various kinds of bait in front of it. I have studied some lines in the Odyssey where there are five different theories about the most attractive methods of luring fish from its retreat. As a professor of Greek I am interested in primitive fishing, in old folklore tales about fishing and the methods that the fishermen used, but as a Senator of this country I am not. I am interested in the best and most efficient and most economic way of catching fish and I believe that that should be the concern of this Bill. It is very interesting to know that the language is maintained well and eloquently by fishermen. I know that they can be eloquent indeed in almost any language on certain occasions. No one will argue against that. But is that not utter foolishness in a Bill of this kind? This Bill is a matter of economics and justice — not of folklore and primitive traditions. Therefore, if the only reason for this clause is that it preserves certain primitive kinds of fishing, I think it is a very bad clause.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why sub-section (7) is so worded? I have examined it for a long time and the only conclusion I can come to is that it is worded in this way to prevent the sharing of the ownership of a fishing boat, at any rate in particular circumstances. The sub-section reads:—
"A licence for a vessel shall be valid only if and so long as no person, other than a person named in the licence or his legal personal representative, is the owner, charterer or hirer of the vessel."
It would seem, possibly, to anyone other than a parliamentary draftsman, that the section should be worded: "A licence for a vessel shall be valid only so long as the person named in the licence or his legal personal representative is the owner, charterer or hirer of the vessel." Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain why the sub-section is worded in the negative rather than in the positive? I cannot see any reason for it, other than the desire to preclude the possibility of sharing the ownership of the vessel. It is possible that there is some other explanation and, if there is, I should like to hear it.
I have always heard fishermen say—particularly inshore fishermen—that they wanted bigger boats. We have been hearing that for over 40 years. They wanted engines and bigger boats. Now, when they get bigger boats, it appears that they want a special licence. I am not an expert on fishing but I should like to be able to understand why that is so. Further, how it is proposed to enforce the conditions of a licence as set out in sub-section (5), which leads as follows:—
"A licence may be granted subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit, including restrictions on sea fishing either generally or in regard to methods of sea fishing in particular places and as to disposal of the catches and the Minister may from time to time vary any condition or impose new conditions."
Obviously, we cannot enforce any conditions on trawlers from foreign places. Fishermen say that it is the foreign trawlers, trawling generally outside the ordinary three-mile limit, which have prevented inshore fishermen from making the very fine living they once made. How are we going to enforce on our own boats the particular conditions attached to the granting of a licence? I am very anxious that the rights of the people who have small boats shall be preserved, in so far as they have rights. Long ago, instead of talking about their rights, they said they wanted bigger boats. I think my friend, an tSeanadóir Ó Siocfhradha, knows that as well as I do. I spent many a long night listening to fishermen talking in Irish and the subject of their conversation was the fact that they wanted bigger boats. Now, in 1952, with a Bill which has the goodwill and interest of everybody and which is presented by an Irish Government, you have to make an effort to prevent Irish citizens from having bigger boats, and, presumably, landing more fish and making more money, in order to preserve the people who have smaller boats. While I have great sympathy with them, like Senator Professor Stanford, for reasons which I am afraid are linguistic rather than economic, I wonder whether, in fact, you can do anything about them: whether the man who is only half a fisherman and half a farmer can, in fact, be preserved and, if so, whether he can be preserved by the system of giving licences and endeavouring to wrap up everybody in the business in more red tape and licences and of having more people endeavouring to enforce regulations. I should like to think that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Department could be successful in it. Perhaps, when he is concluding, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what effective steps it is thought can be taken in order to enforce the conditions in the licences.
Senator Professor Hayes has reminded me of a point. Is it not true to say that the Parliamentary Secretary or the board will have a certain control over the distribution of these boats, whether they be over 35 feet in length or under 35 feet, because the question of a grant for the boat will always arise, conditional, of course, upon the putting down of a deposit by the would-be fisherman or fishermen as the case might be? Therefore, it appears to me that there will be control not alone over the distribution of boats over 35 feet in length but also of boats under 35 feet in length because of that very condition.
Ba mhaith liom cur le rud amháin agus, arís, isé an cheist céanna í—an idirdhealú idir an duine ar a dtugtar "inshore fisherman" agus na daoine atá anois imithe ar fad le trálaéireacht. Is ansin is dóigh liom atá an deacracht. Ó thosnaigh tráléireacht ins na cuanta san Iarthar agus sa Deisceart, tá saghas mí-thuiscint nó eascairdeas idir lucht na mbád oscailte, lucht dorugha agus dubhán agus línte cromtha ar amháin agus lucht na dtrál ar an dtaobh eile.
Nuair a bhí an Seanadóir Ó hAodha ag caint ar an gceist sin, dúirt sé go fírinneach gurb é an mian a bhí ag na hiascairí cois trá báid níos mó agus níos cumhachtaí a bheith acu. An chuid acu a bhí ag baint le báid oscailte agus báid maide rámha chuaigh siad ag iascaireacht i gcuid mhaith cuan. An chuid acu a chuaigh ar trálaéireacht agus a dhein an trálaéireacht ins na bancanna ina mbíd na bád oscailte cheana, tháinig eascairdeas idir iad seo agus lucht na sean a bhí ag coinneáil na hiascaireachta sin. Iad san go raibh trálaéirí beaga acu, suas go dtí 50 troigh, ar fud an chósta sin, deireann siad fós gur "inshore fishermen" iad féin.
Is é an ní atá in aigne an Rúnaí, measaim, ná cosaint a dhéanamh ar chearta lucht na mbád beag, na gcurrach, na naomhóg agus na mbád cámha, ar thaobh amháin agus lucht na dtrálaéir 35/50 troigh, ar an dtaobh eile. Measaim gur gá an idirdhealú sin a dhéanamh agus b'fhéidir cosaint a dhéanamh ar chuid de chearta na mbád oscailte. Tá an chumhacht aige cosc a chur le trálaéireacht go ceann cúig nó ocht mblian, faoin dlí atá ann cheana. Sin í an cheist a bhí ann. Is ceist eile í maidir leis na trálaéirí ó Shasana agus ón Spáinn a thagann isteach agus a dheineann fuadach ar an iasc. Is é an rud atá i gceist ná an bhfuil an Rúnaí ag machnamh ar chearta lucht na mbád oscailte in aghaidh cearta lucht na dtrál? Measaim féin go bhfuil, mar tá an chumacht sa rud seo aige. Ach sin é an ní atá ag tuitim amach i gcás iascairí an chósta ar fad, go bhfuiltear ag dul ina dhiaidh, go cinnte, le báid mhóra, agus ag éirí go cinnte agus go dearfa as iascaireacht le báid rámha agus báid oscailte.
B'fhéidir gur gá in áiteanna cosaint a thabhairt don naomhóig agus do na báid oscailte. Tá an chumhacht sin ag an Aire in Alt 5 agus is féidir leis é sin a dhéanamh i gcuanta ar nós Cuan an Daingin, agus Chuan Bhaile na Sceilg.
Is dóigh liom go bhfuil cuimhneach ar an rud sin ag an Aire mar gheall ar an riail gur g ceadúnas d'fháil do bhád de mhéid áirithe. Ceapaim go bhfuil mí-thuiscint ann. Deireann an Seanadóir go bhfuil cosc ar dhaoine tionscail phríobháideacha a chur ar bun. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon ghá leis an imní sin. Éinne go bhfuil sprid ann tionscal príobháideach a chur ar bun ní chuirfidh an gá atá ann le ceadúnas d'fháil stop leis. Níl ach foirm le líonadh, agus ní stopfaidh sé sin é ó thionscal príobháideach a chur ar bun.
D'iarr an Seanadóir Ó Siocfhradha cad is "inshoreman" ann? Sin ceist a bhfuil tábhacht leis de bharr na ndíospóireachtaí ar an mBille seo sa Dáil agus sa tSeanad. Ní dóigh liom gur féidir liomsa é a mhíniú nó a dheimhhiú go cinnte.
Rud amháin a thuit amach de bharr an easaontais atá idir an dá chineál bheaga—is é sin an fear atá ina fheirmeoir chomh maith le bheith ina iascaire, ar an taobh amháin, agus lucht na mbád oscailte, mar thug an Seanadóir Ó Siocfhradha orthu, ar an dtaobh eile, an fear atá ag brath ar fad ar an iascaireacht le haghaidh a shlí maireachtana. Sin é an dá chineál a d'fhás le linn fás an Chomhlachais Iascaigh Mhara, le 20 bliain anuas.
Rinneadh an chuid is mó den chaint in aghaidh an Bhille seo sa Dáil ar son an fhir atá ina iascaire lán-aimsireach. Tá an feirmeoir-iascaire ann—fear a bhíonn ag dul amach leis na doruithe fada agus a bhíonn ag plé le hiascaireacht an scadáin agus mar sin de nuair a bhíonn an saosúr ann; agus ar an dtaobh eile ar fad den scéal tá lucht na dtrálaéir mara. Níl i lucht na dtrálaéir mara ach dream amháin anseo i mBaile Átha Cliath. Támuid ag iarraidh an dream beag atá i gceist ag an Seanadóir Ó Siocfhradha a chosaint le coinníoll a chur isteach ins na ceadunaisí seo agus támuid ag iarraidh na háiteacha comhgarach don gcladach a fhágáil acu sin agus acu sin amháin, agus na daoine a bhfuil báid mhóra tugtha dhóibh ag an gComhlachas lascaigh Mhara ar nós na báid 50 troigh, iad a chur amach go dtí áiteacha atá níos faide ón gcladach, ar aon chaoi, agus nach bhfuil ró-fhada amach dóibh — áiteacha nach bhfuil contúirteach, mar níl muid ag iarraidh iad a chur sa chontúirt. Feictear dúinn, ós rud é go bhfuil an Stát sásta an méid sin airgid a chaitheamh ar bháid, suim chomh mór le £6,000, agus é a thabhairt d'aon fhear amháin, gur chóir go mbeadh an fear sin ábalta a chion féin a sholáthar agus ní ceart go dtabharfaí báid mhóra d'fhear agus ligint dó a bheith ag scríobadh na gcuan in aghaidh na bhfear nach bhfuil acu ach an sean-deis. Dúirt Seanadóirí eile nuair a mhíníos é sin go rabhmar ag cur bac ar "private enterprise" ins an mBille seo. A mhalairt ar fad atámuid ag déanamh. Tá cead ag gach duine sa tír seo, a bhfuil an t-airgead aige agus a bhfuil an fonn air, dul amach ag iascaireacht. Nílimid ag cur in aghaidh na ndaoine seo. Faoin mBille a bhí ann dhá bhliain ó shoin, bhítheas ag iarraidh stop a chur leo ach támuid ag tabhairt cead dóibh sin dul amach ag trálaéireacht ar an fharraige mhóir.
I think a fair amount of misconception still exists in relation to the proposals in this Bill and diametrically opposite views have been expressed with relation to what the Bill proposes to do. On the one hand, I have been asked to ensure that in the operation of this section dealing with licences the small man in the small boat, who is a farmer as well as a fisherman, will be protected. On the other hand we have Senators, like Senator Professor Stanford and Senator Professor Hayes, expressing the viewpoint that in operating under these conditions we are clamping down on private enterprise.
As it happens I did not say a word about private enterprise — not one word. Senator Professor Stanford and I are two different people dealing with two different viewpoints.
I admit the Senator did not mention the words "private enterprise" but he did point out that in his experience inshore fishermen have been continuously asking for larger boats.
That is right.
And I gathered from the Senator's remarks that the conditions attaching to licences were in fact deliberately designed to protect an out-moded type of fishing.
I do not want to be finicky but I did not say that either. I was very careful in what I did say. What I want to know is, what kind of condition will attach to these licences and how does the Parliamentary Secretary propose to enforce the conditions and does he believe that he can, in fact, enforce regulations so as to protect the man who goes fishing in an open boat worked with a pair of oars? I think Senator Professor Stanford while thinking of that man is also thinking of the man in the smaller boat under 35 feet operated by sail.
I took the trouble of writing down verbatim a few of the words the Senator used. Subject to correction, here are the words I wrote down: "Why now preserve the smaller boats?." Those are the words actually used by the Senator.
I do not think so.
In the course of time other causes may arise to justify the insertion of this clause in the Bill but the purpose I have mentioned is the one that occurs most readily to my mind at the moment. It does two things: it prevents the use of costly boats of the 50-foot type being used close to the shore and the consequent overloading of the market with unsaleable fish, such as small whiting. The landings of unsaleable whiting have gone up considerably since the size of the motor boat supplied by the association was increased. The purpose of increasing the size of the boat from the standard 35-foot to the 50-foot boat which has been issued during the past two years was to enable the fishermen to get away from the inlets, go further out to sea, land a better class of fish and land it more regularly.
I have been told by some of these men operating these larger boats that they do not go any further out than they did in the smaller boats. When I asked them what advantage the larger boat was to them, remembering that it cost them more and that the repayments are bigger, they said they could go out faster and get in faster; they have, of course, more efficient equipment and they can get all they want in a shorter time; they, therefore, do not spend so much time at sea. When I pointed out to them that they were doing more damage to their neighbour who has not got that type of boat because they were more dangerous competitors they admitted that they had not adverted to that aspect of the matter. Their neighbour who has not been given such an efficient type of boat has a very real and genuine grievance and we are now seeking to meet that grievance in this section.
How will the man with the larger boat be made go out further? I agree that he should be made. The trouble is how will we make him.
Speaking for the board, I think I can say that they will not make any regulations or attach any conditions unless such regulations and conditions are generally recognised by the fishermen in a particular locality as being desirable and, in fact, expressing their own wishes. The fishermen themselves have already pointed out various regulations that should be made for their own welfare. They say these must be given the force of law and they must be imposed on all the fishermen in the area as otherwise there would be no use in a few people making a sacrifice while their neighbours carry on as they have been doing in the past.
One type of problem that has been raised relates to the size of the mesh. Some fishermen would say that the mesh ought to be increased so that immature fish will not be caught in such large quantities. That seems to be fairly obvious and it is a matter that could be dealt with through the medium of conditions attaching to the licences in particular areas.
With regard to Senator Colgan's point as to how one will manage in relation to boats under 35 feet, these boats will not be licensed and therefore we will attach no regulations to them. If, however, the problem becomes serious we shall have to adopt the procedure at present available; that is to have a by-law after an inquiry. It may be objected that one might have continued that arrangement and, as a general solution for all these problems, make by-laws as and when required but that machinery is too slow and too cumbersome. A by-law, for instance, can be appealed to the High Court and it would have no force until the appeal was heard. I think the other is a more appropriate way of dealing with the matter: by having all the circumstances in a particular area examined and having discovered what the concensus of opinion is one can then incorporate certain conditions in the licences; if, in the actual working out, these conditions are found to be wrong they can be easily remedied because they have a duration of only one year. That gives one a quick and handy method of dealing with problems as against the cumbersome method of by-laws. We do not think, however, that it is necessary to start regulating boats under the 35-foot limit but if any area requires some prohibition in the exploitation of a bay the by-law system is then available to us in order to deal with the problem.
Senator O'Higgins asked why sub-section (7) is worded as it is. I do not think I would be able to give the Senator a satisfactory reply on that point except to say that apparently the Parliamentary draftsman decided that this was the best form of words to achieve the purpose envisaged in the sub-section.
What is the purpose?
It is a most unusual wording.
It appears in other Acts of Parliament in other countries as well.
What is the purpose?
It will prevent licences from being hawked and that sort of thing. If, for instance, a licensee cannot operate his boat his successor will have to come along for a licence for himself just as one has to obtain a new licence in the transfer of a motor insurance policy for instance.
Dúirt an Seanadóir Ághas rud éigin go raibh fonn orm féin a rá nuair a bheinn ag tabhairt freagra—go mbeidh, faoin mBille seo, cead ag gach duine dul amach agus dul ag iascaireacht. Ní bheidh bac ná stop ná cosc ar aon duine faoin mBille seo, má tá fonn air bád a fháil agus dul amach. Más Éireannach é, gheobhfaidh sé ceadúnas faoin mBille seo. Sin freagra ar an rud a dúirt an Seanadóir Stanford, go bhfuilimíd ag iarraidh sean-nós atá caite agus nach bhfuil maitheas ann a chosaint in aghaidh daoine eile. Táimid ag iarraidh an sean-rud a chosaint ach nílímid ag iarraidh é a chosaint in aghaidh daoine a bhfuil nósanna agus modhanna nuaaimseartha acu.
Senator O'Higgins mentioned another important matter. He hoped conditions attaching to licences would not be made to attach to them in any discriminatory way. For example, he mentioned that certain conditions might attach to the licences in respect of a certain number of boats and different conditions of a more favourable kind might attach to other boats fishing in the same area. I want to assure the Senator that nothing like that will happen and that the purpose of having this power to make these conditions is the one I have mentioned; generally, for the protection of the fishing in a particular area or for the protection of a class of fishermen who have not themselves been able to avail of the facilities for getting bigger boats and who want to follow their own method of fishing.
It will not be out of place to say, in reply to the charges that were made that we are clamping down on private enterprise, that I want to give a categorical denial of that. We are not preventing anybody who wishes to engage in sea fishing from doing it. The only bar that we put in the Bill is that he must be an Irish citizen.
That brings me to the question raised by Senator Douglas arising out of sub-section (3). He asked me is it the intention to licence an applicant from the Six Counties. That raises such a difficult Constitutional question that I prefer to avoid dealing with it. If Senator Douglas makes the case that he cannot form an opinion as to whether this is a good or a bad Bill until he gets an answer to that question, I am afraid that I cannot help him in the matter. It is a question that I would prefer not to attempt to deal with.
D'fhiafraigh an Seanadóir Ó Siocfhradha díom, nuair cuirfear coinníollacha i bhfeidhm ag cur cosc ar iascaireacht in áit áirithe, an mbeidh ansin ar na daoine a coiscfear dul go dtí áiteacha eile? Sin é an toradh a bheas air. Má chuirimid cosc ar iascaireacht i gcuan amháin, caithfidh siad dul go háiteacha eile. Is lena aghaidh sin a déanfar na rialacha sin—iad a chur amach ó áiteacha áirithe agus dul go háiteacha eile. Ní dóigh liom go gcuirfidh sin aon chruatan orthu nuair chaithfidh gach iascaire eile dá gcomharsain an rud céana a dhéanamh. Níl aon difríocht ann idir na comharsain.
Maidir leis sin, luaigh an Rúnaí Parlaiminte Bágh an Daingin.
Mar shampla.
Mar shampla. Tá suas le 30 trálaéir i mBágh an Daingin. An é atá i gceist go gcuirfear cosc le hiascaireacht laistigh de chuid áirithe de Bhágh an Daingin agus go bhféadfaidh siad dul ansin go dtí cuid eile den Bhágh go dti an Sceilg, na Furies agus lasmuigh den Tiaracht, nó an é atá i gceist go ndúnfaí an áit ar fad, ón Sceilg go dtí an Tiaracht, agus ná beadh cead ag trálaéirí bheith san áit sin in aon chor agus go gcaithfidh siad dul ó bhaile ar fad, dul go Tír Chonail nó Gaillimh nó cuan ar bith eile? Insan Daingean agus in Uíbh Ráthach is daoine iad, lucht na trálaéireachta a théann amach ar maidin agus a fhilleann abhaile tráthnóna. Níl an nós ach ag beagán acu fanúint ó bhaile ar feadh míosa nó dá mhí nó leath-bliana. An é an toradh a bheas ar an rud sin go gcaithfidh an nós eile tosnú, is é sin, dul ó bhaile ar feadh tréimhse fada, má cuirtear cosc ar iascaireacht i mBágh an Daingin uile? Sin pictiúir ba mhaith liom bheith in aigne an Rúnaí Pharlaiminte.
Ba mhaith liom an méid seo a rádh: is ar éigin a déanfar aon riail den chineál sin murab é mian formhór na niascairí féin é. Sílim gur leor é sin mar fhreagra. Más rud é go mbeidh formhór na niascairí i bhfábhar riail den tsórt sin bhféidir é a chur i ngníomh, ar mhaithe le hiascairí agus leis an iascaireacht. Mura bhfuil formhór na niascairí ag glacadh leis, ní bacfar leis.
On sub-section (3) (a), I do not think it is fair for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that this is a Constitutional matter. It is not a Constitutional matter at all. I cannot give examples at the moment but, as far as my recollection serves me, we have passed Acts here which have specifically excluded Six-County people, and others which did not. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary can say what the intention of the Department is with regard to the word "Irish citizen", how they will interpret it, because what will arise first is the Department's interpretation which the Parliamentary Secretary, I think, should be able to give. There may be legal flaws in the matter afterwards to be tested by the courts but the matter will arise in the Department, presumably, and presumably it has been considered and a decision reached. The Parliamentary Secretary can only say by way of answer that that is what he intends sub-section (3) (a) to mean. That is all he was asked. I do suggest to him that it is not a Constitutional question in any sense or even a legal question. It is a question simply of what the Department means by this when drafting the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not reassured me and I do not think he has really tried — why I am not quite sure. He has given two reasons why these licences are necessary. One was that it was to prevent fishing in some region like Dingle Bay when it was in the interests of the fisheries in general to preserve fishing there for a while. I would like to ask him one specific question on that point. Would he please tell me do the by-laws not already give him sufficient power to do that? He rather implied that they gave sufficient power in respect of boats under 35 feet but that they had not given sufficient power over the larger boats.
The second reason he gave was that if these large boats were allowed to come in and fish around the shores freely, it might put the small, part-time fisherman out of employment. I am sorry Senator Quirke is leaving the House, because I am going to use an analogy which would appeal to him. Would he, as Senator, as distinct from his other honourable activities, agree with a piece of legislation aimed at keeping motor cars out of certain parts of the country in favour of horses and traps? Would that be good legislation? Would it be advisable? It seems to me to be the very same thing if, in the interests of the more primitive methods of fishing, we are going to prevent larger boats from operating. We might as well close certain parts of the country to the motor car and the aeroplane. I do think that in this Bill we are standing against economic progress. The House may want to do that but is it in the best interests of the country? The Parliamentary Secretary has been saying that certain interests are involved but can we not get a proper view as to whether the preservation of obsolete methods of fishing is a good thing or not?
I should like to get a definite answer to two questions: first, whether the by-laws do not already give power to restrict fishing within certain areas, and, secondly, whether the Parliamentary Secretary thinks it is in the best interests of the country to preserve these obsolete methods of fishing? He has said that we are not preventing private enterprise but my question is, will they not prevent private enterprise once they get these powers? I am not satisfied that we should give power to the Government now to put any enterprising fisherman, who wants to fish freely in a boat over 35 feet long, off the sea with a stroke of the pen and that is what we are doing. Why should it be necessary? It is no argument to say, as Senator Colgan has said, that we want more fish. If we want more fish, let there be free competition between this State-sponsored organisation and the enterprising individual. But, as I see it, we are nailing down the coffin on such people in many ways. The Parliamentary Secretary has not reassured me, and I do think that we are simply introducing one of the evils of Socialism without facing it absolutely candidly. I am afraid one result of this Bill may partly be to subsidise out of our pockets obsolete methods. Very well; let us give it generously and face that fact out of sentiment, out of an interest in ancient customs, but do not let us think we are doing it to help people who want to sell and buy fish in this country. I hope I shall get answers from the Parliamentary Secretary to the two questions which I have addressed to him.
I would say that Senator Stanford's suggestion that this section is an attempt to curtail private enterprise is entirely incorrect.
Why is the section necessary? Will the Senator tell me why it is necessary?
The Senator speaks on behalf of those who would be anxious to engage in the fishing industry on a private enterprise basis.
Question.
He is also anxious about the consumer and that fish should be delivered to the market as quickly and as cheaply as possible. There is another very important angle to this Bill, the fishing industry as operated by fishermen. It is not correct to refer to the persons I have in mind as being part-fishermen and part-farmers. We have fishing villages up and down the country where there has been a tradition amongst the various families to engage in the fishing industry. We are, and we ought to be, quite satisfied that they can put on the market good fresh fish and that they can make a living in so doing whether they are supported entirely by private enterprise or from State sources. It is necessary, however, to provide that those who are supplied with machinery and with the power to go further afield, will be compelled to do so and that they will not be permitted to scrape, as it were, what is there at the bottom of the pool for the inshore fishermen. The Senator referred at the outset to the importance of a supply of fishermen. Where better can he get such fishermen than from districts in which the family tradition has been to engage in fishing? If by a stroke of the pen, as Senator Stanford suggests, we are curtailing the activities of persons who were never engaged in the fishing industry and who have no tradition of fishing, but who may be induced to enter the industry on a commercial basis they must find fishermen somewhere — from the very source which you are going to remove if the Parliamentary Secretary does not insist on the acceptance of this section as it stands. It is all very well to talk about obsolete methods but there is an old saying that it is a good thing not to throw out dirty water until you have clean water in.
I would ask the Senator to think over that carefully.
Senator Stanford suggests that it would be better to compensate these people and that we are curtailing the development of the fishing industry by this section. He suggests that there are people whom this section might prevent from engaging in the fishing industry from the private enterprise angle. There is nothing to prevent them. As a matter of fact the purpose of this Bill is to encourage the fishing industry on the one hand and to ensure for the consuming public of this country a supply of fish in proper condition. The more people therefore you have engaged in the industry the better chance you have of attaining these objectives. Before we drive out people who are engaged in the industry let those people on whose behalf the Senator speaks come in and build up according to the methods provided for in this Bill, the trade which is there waiting for them.
I shall not delay the House further on this point but we still do not seem to be quite clear. There is a great deal of confused thinking. There are three classes of people we have to keep in mind. There is, first, the small inshore fisherman who wants to keep to the old ways. Secondly, there are the more enterprising local fishermen who want to be provided with modern equipment by the State and to adopt more modern ways — I should like to make it clear that I have no special people in mind in speaking on this point; I am speaking purely on the Bill — and thirdly, there are those people who may want — say a Dublin citizen or a Cork citizen who is tired of sitting in his office, who has some money and would like to get on the seas — to buy a big 40 foot boat. That citizen collects his crew and he goes fishing. He is a successful fisherman and he sells the fish, making a nice little profit on it for himself. He is doing good for the country in that way. Why should he now have to go and get a licence before he can have his boat or sell the fish? Why not leave him alone? If his methods are uneconomic he will drop out through economic causes. But why should we crush him out? Why not ignore him? Give the local fishermen all they want in the way of good boats, good gear and good nets. If you drive the other man out by State supported competition that is fair enough. A really good man may be able to stand up to it, but I do not like to see the coffin lid clamped down on him through this Bill, and I have not heard any decent reason why it should be.
I have been told that there is one firm in Dublin which has been too efficient in a sense. It has been catching fish and marketing it all under the one organisation. Most of us, I think, know the firm that I am talking about. I do not think that we should have any objection to that kind of activity. It seems to me that if they are enterprising fishing people they should be left alone. The way to deal with that is to give other people the opportunity of doing the same thing with as efficient gear. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary again, why the coffin lid is being closed down on this enterprising citizen of Cork or Dublin who wishes to go to sea in a big boat to catch fish and to sell it?
When I was leaving the House a little while ago I was called back by Senator Stanford when he was speaking. I thought that I was being called back to defend the policy of sending horses and carts to sea. The Senator was asking the question, whether I would prohibit the use of motor cars in favour of the use of horses and carts.
I think Senator Quirke misunderstood me. I asked whether he would prohibit the use of motor cars in favour of the horse and car in certain parts of the country. I know, of course, that the Senator has a great love for horses.
I am sorry if I misrepresented the Senator. I did not do it deliberately. I thought that was what he said. I was really walking back into the House when the Senator was speaking. As a matter of fact, if I had my way I would be in favour of preventing the use of motor cars where horse transport could be used economically and suitably. Senators know that I have on numerous occasions defended the policy of the use of the horse as against the use of tractors. Now, I would not suggest that tractors should be entirely eliminated from our economy.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator is now getting very far away from the Bill.
I would, however, be in favour of maintaining a nucleus which, in case of necessity, would provide us with a basis for a horse transport organisation that would enable us to carry on our economy in a time of total war.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator should deal with the Fisheries Bill which is now before the House.
I am a little bit suspicious as to whether Senator Stanford has not been reading the wrong Bill, especially when he speaks about this Bill doing away with private enterprise. I am afraid he must have read the wrong Bill, probably the one that was produced by the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy James Dillon. If that is the Bill the Senator has in mind, then he should know that an attempt was being made in it to do away with private enterprise. That Bill had, I believe, a good deal to do with bringing about the change of Government.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have already told the Senator that the Bill before the House is the Sea Fisheries Bill, 1952.
If Senator Stanford looks at this Bill I think he will see that no attempt whatever is being made to interfere with private enterprise. In fact, I think the contrary is the case, and that this is the attitude which is running right through it.
It is full of private red herrings.
There is no provision in it dealing with boats under 35 feet in length. The owners of these boats do not even have to apply for a licence. In fact, there is no limit as to the size of boats which may be used. Under Section 14 of the previous Bill, which never became law, a limit at 80 feet was fixed. If a boat was over 80 feet in length, that section provided that it could not go to sea. That, to my mind, was undue interference with private enterprise. I believe that matter is adequately dealt with in this Bill. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is nothing to stop anybody going to sea in any kind of a boat. Under it, too, encouragement is being provided for every kind of fisherman.
On the contrary, there is everything to stop that. The Minister can refuse a licence and can make the owners sell their fish on some desert island in the South Seas if he wishes. That is what is in the Bill.
I do not know if Senator Stanford is serious about his objection——
He is serious all right.
——to this section, because there is nothing novel about having to seek a licence to carry on a certain line of activity in this country. The net question for us to decide to-day is whether we are to allow the indiscriminate use of boats off our coasts, or whether we are prepared to give sufficient power and authority to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the board so to regulate the fishing industry around our coasts as to make sure that the inshore fishermen will be able to continue their means of livelihood, and at the same time try to provide for the people of the country a regular supply of fish.
Now, as regards this question of licences. Senator Stanford mentioned motor cars. He said, for instance, that there was no attempt being made to prevent motor cars plying for hire on the roads. The fact, however, is that motor cars have to be licensed and insured, and that motorists, or would-be motorists, have to take out a licence and an insurance policy. Can anybody say that that is interference with private enterprise?
Would the Senator look at sub-section (6)?
We will have a look at it.
The last two lines.
Is this it:—
"(b) any person being owner, charterer or hirer of the vessel...?"
Is that it?
Lines 14 and 15.
"any person being owner, charterer or hirer of the vessel, or if such person is a body corporate, any member thereof or the master of the vessel is directly engaged in either the wholesale or retail sale of fresh fish."
I do not see what is in that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Lines 14 and 15 have been mentioned by Senator Professor Stanford.
"the catches of the vessel shall be delivered for sale to the board or disposed of according to the directions of the board."
Are those the lines to which the Senator refers?
Yes.
That appears to me to have nothing to do with the question of the issue of licences.
Would the Senator read them? That is the whole point of the licences. They can control the disposal of the fish that is caught.
Is it not necessary for the proper organisation of the fishing industry for somebody to have control over it? Nothing can succeed in this life unless there is some controlling authority over it.
If one owned a motor car and if part of the terms of the licence decreed that the owner should deliver his friends or his passengers to a certain point at a certain time and in a certain way, we might begin to think that the State was interfering with our liberties in the use of motor cars more than it should. That is what this amounts to. The man with this boat must dispose of his catch in a certain way as the board may tell him. If the Senator can point out a similar position in the licensing laws for motor cars, I will certainly withdraw what I have said.
I certainly can. There are different kinds of conditions attached to the issue of licences for motors. There is the hackney licence and the private licence.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are not dealing with that matter.
We are not dealing with that matter to-day. This is only an analogy.
I shall not speak on this clause again. If the hackney driver was told that he could only bring passengers to certain places at certain times and in certain ways, then I would say there is something similar but as far as I know a hackney driver in Dublin——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is another matter.
I have spoken my last words on this section.
The motorist in question would not be dealing with perishable goods.
I think it is unfair for Senator Stanford to take these two particular lines and argue on the lines of the licensing of motor cars, etc. I think he will agree that, although this is an island, the people cannot get fish to eat. That is the plain position, particularly in the cities. There are days—days of a fast and abstinence— upon which they want fish and they cannot get it. The purpose of this section is — I think Senators will agree with me in this — that the catches of fish will be so distributed by the board or whoever is responsible throughout the country that there will be a fair distribution of the fish. The present position in the cities is that it is almost impossible to get fish. The purpose of this section — I believe it to be a very necessary section — is to ensure that the fish that is caught will be distributed in the best way possible so that the greatest number of people will get fish and that there will not be in some places a surplus of fish which may have to be destroyed and put back in the sea and none at all in other places.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
One wonders whether all the verbiage in this section is necessary and whether paragraph (u) would not do the whole thing. However, that is not the Parliamentary Secretary's fault. Sub-section (3) of Section 15, states:—
"The board may, with the consent of the Minister, make rules with respect to the exercise of their functions under this section."
I expect the board will make their rules after they have been consulted.
Yes.
Then will there be no transition period with regard to the taking over of the functions of the Sea Fisheries Association?
It is hoped that the dissolution of the association and the existence of the board will take place at the same time.
In the absence of rules, will not that mean a period in which there will be no rules at all? What provision will be made then for the exercise of the powers of the Sea Fisheries Association?
I imagine that the rules of procedure that were in existence and observed by the committee of the Sea Fisheries Association will be sufficient for the interim period. There are no difficulties anticipated in that respect.
Maidir le dualgaisí an Bhoird seo, ba mhaith liom a fháil amach an ceann de na dualgaisí seo a bheas ar an mBord ná socrú a dhéanamh i dtaobh cad é an méid airgid a bheas ar na hiascairí a chur síos chan bád a cheannach. Roimhe seo, nuair a bhí an Comhlachas Iascaigh Mhara i réim, is dóigh liom go raibh ar an Aire a bhí ann ansin cruinniú den choiste a ghlaoch sara bhféadfadh sé aon athrú a dhéanamh i dtaobh ceist an airgid síos. An bhfuil an ceart agam sa mhéid sin? An é an Bord a dhéanfaidh a anois?
Deir foroinn (f) de roinn 15: "to carry on or engage in sea fishing" agus foroinn (i): "to undertake exploratory and experimental work with a view to the provision of new and improved types of sea fishing boats, engines and equipment generally for the sea fishing industry." An é atá i gceist maidir le fo-roinn (f), tuilleadh eolais a chur ar fáil chun iascairí óga a theagasc i dtaobh conas iascairí níos oilte a dhéanamh díobh agus chun an t-eolas is gá a chur ar fáil dóibh agus na slite is nua agus is éifeachtaí a thabhairt chun gnó na hiascaireachta a chur chun cinn? An ndéanfaidh an Bord an rud a dhein Mr. Green 60 nó 70 bliain ó shoin, agus an t-eolas san a chur ar fáil do ghnó na hiascaireachta? B'fhéidir go neosadh an Rúnaí Parlaiminte dhúinn cad tá á bheartú maidir leis na rudaí atá i bhfo-roinn (f) agus (i). Ba mhaith an ní beagán eolais a thabhairt dúinn mar gheall air sin.
On the section, in today's paper there was an article dealing with the manufacture of fish meal. It was stated that a plant was already practically built and would soon be put in operation in Killybegs. It went on to state that the machinery was of German manufacture or at least was purchased in Germany. I should like to know why it was purchased in Germany — not that I have anything whatever against Germany. I do not say that they do not produce very good machinery in Germany, but it strikes me that in a matter of this kind there are other countries more famous, if you like to use the word, from the point of view of the fishing industry than Germany is or has been. Whenever I think of an industry of this kind, my mind naturally runs to Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and countries of that kind. From what I know of them I believe that they are really the best countries to provide machinery of the type necessary for the manufacture of fish meal or the extraction of fish oil from fish. I know of one particular industry in Denmark which is run by private enterprise. It either owns or rents about 20 boats and fishes largely for herring. The herring is manufactured into fish meal and fish oil is extracted from that fish in that particular plant. I should like to make sure that the best type of machinery is got and that no effort will be lost sight of to ensure that the best possible type of industry is set up.
I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply that the German machinery is the best, but I should like to know who makes the decision in a case of that kind. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that where it is intended to set up an industry of the magnitude which this industry is likely to be it would be wise to send representatives of his Department or representatives of the new board to the various countries which are known to be in this industry and to have been in it for a considerable time. It is a pretty well known fact that the countries I have named are prominently associated with that industry. Of course a person can learn a lot from books. I am sure that most of us have read books about fishing in Alaska and in Russia. I am not suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary should go to Russia. In fact, I would suggest that some members of the Opposition, who are keenly interested in the fishing industry, might usefully go to Russia and be in a position to deal with the matter, as soon as it comes up for discussion.
It is of the utmost importance that personal contact should be made by people who are in a position to judge these industries in the countries where they are already in operation. The same thing would apply to refrigeration. I believe that the establishment of proper refrigeration is of the utmost possible importance in connection with the industry. Every possible effort should be made to ensure that there is no slip up, and that the best equipment will be got and made available. I should like to know by what method the machinery is being purchased and who makes the decision in regard to it.
Mar fhreagra ar an Seanadóir Ó Siocfhradha, maidir le (f), ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil sé de rún ag an Roinn Iascaigh dhá bhád a chur amach i dtosach; báid triallacha a bheas iontu agus san ám gcéanna beidh said ag iascach ar nós báid ar bith eile. Beidh siad ag dul i bhfad níos faide amach chun na farraige. Beidh dream óg nach raibh ag iascach cheana mar fhoireann iontu agus múinfear modhanna nua iascaigh dóibh ag fir a bhfuil an stuaim iontu. Ar ndóighe, ní báid teagaisc a bheas iontu ach báid le hiasc a sholáthar, ach san am gcéanna beidh siad ag tabhairt teagaisc do na hógánaigh a bheas mar fhoireann iontu.
Maidir le (i) ní meastar, faoi láthair, go mbeidh an Bord seo ag deánamh aon obair mar sin, obair thaighde. Teastaíonn an obair sin a dheánamh, ceart go leor, mar níl sé dá dhéanamh sa tír seo, agus is dóigh liom gurb í an tír seo an t-aon tír amháin in Iarthar na hEorpa nach bhfuil an obair sin ar siúl inti. Is mithid é a dhéanamh ach níl dáta beartaithe fós faoin rud sin, ach le cúnamh Dé tiocfaidh an cheist sin faoi bhráid an Bhoird go luath.
D'fhiafraigh an Seanadóir Ó Ciosáin faoi cheist seo an airgid síos ar bhád nuair a déantar iarratas. Is é an Bord a shocrós é sin, le cead an Aire, agus caithfidh an tAire é fhéin dul i gcomhairle leis an Aire Airgeadais. Beidh na trí údaráis pairteach: an Bord, an tAire Talmhaíochta agus an tAire Airgeadais. Tá súil agam go nglacfaidh an tAire Airgeadais le moladh an Bhoird agus tá mé lán-mhuiníneach go mbeidh an Roinn Airgeadais rud éigin níos boige ná bhíodar go nuige seo.
Is maith é sin.
On the question of the fish meal, all I can say to Senator Quirke is that the committee of the Sea Fisheries Association placed the order for the plant with a firm in Germany which is recognised as being one of the foremost, if not the foremost, firm in the making of such plant. The plant is to be used as an experimental plant in the manufacture of fish meal and it is hoped that private enterprise will come along if the results of its operation show that progress can be made in this country in the manufacture of fish meal. Up to the present it has not been found possible to get private people to engage in the manufacture of fish meal from edible fish, one of the main reasons being that there was no guarantee of supplies. In fact, we have not enough fish for human consumption and we are importing fresh fish every week. In those circumstances, it is obvious that the amount of fish offal available would be very small for such an undertaking. It is hoped to supply the raw material for fish meal as a result of the operation of the larger boats. That is the second string to the fiddle after supplying the consumer demand for fish.
Question put and agreed to.
Remaining sections put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."
I think it is general knowledge that a reputable body of citizens known as Muinntir na Mara are perturbed about the composition of the Board. I do not know very much about this though only the other day one person interested was speaking to me about it. I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary reassure us that they have not a genuine grievance on this point? I think they agreed it was a concession that only three of the board should be members of the Civil Service. I hasten to add that I am not one of those who think that civil servants are necessarily only breaks or interference in boards of this kind, but the feeling of Muinntir na Mara was that there should be a definite undertaking that the actual fishermen would be represented on the board. I know the answer is that the board will meet too often for that — I think the Parliamentary Secretary said it would meet, on an average, once a week — but could the Parliamentary Secretary reassure us on that point? Some members of Muinntir na Mara are perhaps not over-enthusiastic and over-eloquent in pleading their cause but they are a reputable body and if the Parliamentary Secretary would say a word or two on that some of us would welcome it.
I am glad that Senator Stanford has drawn our attention to the circular sent out by Muinntir na Mara and I think it is the greatest possible tribute that could be paid to the Parliamentary Secretary to say that nobody produced an amendment to this particular Bill in the House. The members of that association are, I am quite sure, doing a useful job in the best way they know how, but surely there are 20, 30, 40 or 50 Senators who, if they were approached in time, would have introduced an amendment, drafted by those people, who are, I suppose, people who know a lot about the Bill. They do not seem to be very serious and, as I say, if I were the Parliamentary Secretary I would accept it as a wonderful tribute from the people in the know as far as fisheries are concerned.
I am very puzzled with Senator Stanford's representations in this point. He made a very strong case that we were hampering private enterprise. He pointed out that we were interfering with people who were prepared to go out and catch the fish and to maintain a regular supply of fish in variety. With that viewpoint of catching that regular supply and getting it in variety I, personally, and as Parliamentary Secretary, am in sympathy, and I think we are setting about doing that here. But I had representations from the body whom the Senator mentioned, Muinntir na Mara, making recommendations directly opposed to that policy and calculated, if they were accepted, to prevent its being achieved. They asked that Section 14 of the 1950 Bill, which limited the size of boats which might be licensed, should be incorporated in this Bill. May I take it that Senator Stanford is now recommending the viewpoint of Muinntir na Mara to me?
No, Sir. I am merely inquiring if the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that their complaints are ill-founded.
I am thoroughly satisfied. I have two main objectives in this Bill. The first is — I make no apology to any interest in the fishing industry for putting it number one — to get an adequate supply of fish at a reasonable price for the people in this country who want to eat fish. If we can do that I think we will achieve number two, and that is to make the fishing industry a worthwhile industry for those at present engaged in it, and a great many others who are not at present in it. Muinntir na Mara cannot see the Bill in that light, and all I can say in the circumstances is that they will have to wait and see, as I am prepared to wait and see, that they are wrong and that this Bill is the right approach to it.
I cannot see the virtue in the argument that you should proceed to secure the best return for a declining number of fishermen, for a declining landing of fish, and that is the gist of what I am being asked to do by certain interests, including Muinntir na Mara. The number of people engaged whole-time in the industry, as has always been the case in times of peace, is steadily declining. The landings of fish are steadily declining since the fishing fleets of Western Europe started fishing again with the advent of peace.
We can get all the fish we want by buying it in England. We think that is not the wisest thing to do, that we should be dependent on an outside source for fish particularly in view of the fact that we are nearer or as near to the fishing grounds as most of the other nations who exploit them. If we are, in fact, to preserve the demand for fish in the country, I think it is necessary that that demand should be supplied, and if the board, operating boats of a larger kind than have been heretofore in use, can supply the demand, and therefore preserve the taste for fish in the country, I think by that very fact they are doing a very solid job of work for the small man who can only supply irregularly.
The position, of course, is as I indicated on the Second Stage, that in peace-time the problems with regard to the fishing industry are very great. Supplies of fish are not so easily available inshore because of the heavy fishing carried on by the trawler fleets out in the deep. A market is not available in England because English fleets are able to supply the full home demand. Therefore, because of these very difficult circumstances, it was necessary for the State to intervene in the way we now propose. The State did intervene in 1931, and the Sea Fisheries Association was then set up. The only answer I have to the charge of Socialism founded on this Bill is that in 1931 the same type of Socialism was brought to bear on the question and it did some very definite good to the inshore fishermen; it prevented the industry from disappearing entirely. What is now proposed is, in fact, a further development of the work begun by the Sea Fisheries Association. It is a peculiar thing that the people who were established by the Sea Fisheries Association, who were kept in the business by the association and given a steady livelihood, should now be the first to prevent any further developments and the giving of employment to others who have not yet engaged in the fishing industry. We feel that that is a selfish attitude which, in the long run, will injure the people who adopt it as well as doing immediate damage to the development of the industry for the benefit of the consumer. I do not know whether I have answered Senator Standford's viewpoint to his satisfaction. In any event, I want to assure him that the people who are raising objections in Muinntir na Mara will, in the end, recognise that we are serving their interests in this Bill as well as the interests of the consumer of fish.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
This Schedule makes provision for the setting up of an association consisting of certain representatives from those engaged in the fishing industry in general. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 makes provision for the payment of a subscription fee. The entrance fee shall be 1/- for a sea fisherman and, for any other person, 5/-. Sub-section (3) says that each person shall pay an annual subscription of 5/-, which shall become due and payable on 1st July. In my view, one of the greatest flaws in the Sea Fisheries Association was the system of election and the system of paying the annual subscription fee. As I understand it, there was no specified date for the paying of the subscription, or if there was a specified date it happened, from time to time, as will always be the case if there is not some regulation governing it, that the subscriptions were paid on election day. In other words, the various candidates interested in becoming members, first found out the names of the paid-up subscribers. Having been supplied with a list of this kind, they set about paying the subscription fee for other members who were not paid-up, thereby becoming eligible to have a vote for the election of the committee. I would like to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the date fixed for the paying of the subscriptions will be the 1st July. Sub-section (4) of Section 12 runs as follows:—
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 23 or in this Schedule, a member shall not be entitled to be present or represented at a meeting of the committee or of the association or to be reckoned for the purpose of a quorum or to be a member of an electorate under paragraph 8 whilst any sum due and payable by him in respect of entrance fee or subscription remains unpaid."
If a subscription falls due on 1st July what period is allowed for payment, or will it be possible that the same old system will operate where payments were made on the date of the election of officers for the committee? In my view, if that system is allowed to operate, it will have a very detrimental effect, as had the system which was in operation in relation to the Sea Fisheries Association.
It would be better if the date on which the payments fall due were fixed and then state a time-limit. It should not be possible for persons interested in becoming elected to the various boards or committees to be able to ascertain first of all who have paid up or who have not paid up, or for a group of persons to expend, for one reason or another, a certain sum of money in having outstanding subscriptions paid up in order to put forward their own particular interests. I feel we should take every step to guard against anything like that occurring again.
I just want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can give the House some idea as to the rules or regulations he proposes to prescribe for the conduct of the election visualised in this Schedule? Is there an objection to stipulating at this stage what the manner of the election will be? Secondly, am I right in assuming that the rules for the conduct of the election will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas? Are we to assume that because the word "rule" is used here rather than the word "regulation" which was used in Section 4 the Minister cannot escape from his obligation to lay the rules before each House of the Oireachtas?
I cannot say offhand whether the obligation to lay the regulations before both Houses of the Oireachtas, in fact, includes this. I hope it does. I would be inclined to have these rules laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas the same as the regulations provided for in earlier sections of the Bill, and I will have that inquired into.
With regard to the other remarks made by Senators O'Higgins and Hawkins, I cannot say that regulations will be made governing the conduct of these elections, but I would like to assure Senator Hawkins that the anomalies to which he has referred will be borne in mind in the framing of the rules. I take it that what will happen is the voting papers will be sent out to those who are paid-up members. My own opinion is that along with sending out voting papers to paid-up members, there also ought to be issued to these members who are not fully paid-up a notice to the effect that the election is on and that they may receive voting papers not later than a certain time if, in the meantime, they pay up their fees. I feel a rule of that sort should meet the objection expressed by Senator Hawkins. Generally, the rules governing the election will be drawn up by the board.
While I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that some steps will be taken to guard against what I have referred to, there is the point that in the sending out of the ballot papers there is also a notice pointing out that the subscription falls due. If you send out a ballot paper and it is returned, and the subscription is not paid, a certain amount of confusion will arise as to whether that particular ballot paper should count or not. There is the further point that the elections will be held every three years. It is possible that quite a large section of the persons interested in this Bill might pay their subscriptions in the year of the election for the purpose of being empowered to cast a vote for a particular candidate. I should prefer if, in the making of regulations, the Minister set down definitely that the subscription falls due on the 1st July, and must be paid within a certain specified period of time rather than have a position arise where, as occurred in the past in connection with the Sea Fisheries Association—and it is because of my knowledge of that occurrence that I should like every step to be taken to guard against its recurrence in this connection — there was, as it were, a round-up of voters and of candidates to pay their subscription in order to secure their right to vote.
No ballot paper will be issued unless a member is fully paid up. Therefore, there could not be a case of a ballot paper being sent back by a member who is in arrears with his payments.
The other point which I mentioned in reply to the Senator was that in my opinion some method should be found whereby a man would get due notice that an election is on and be given time to pay his fee within a certain date so as to qualify. I think it is only fair that a man who, perhaps through an oversight, fails to pay his membership fee should be given an opportunity and a time limit within which to comply with the requirements.
Second Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.
Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration" put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I should like to make a few comments before the debate ends. My various remarks may have perplexed the Parliamentary Secretary. In fact, he said just now that my attitude puzzled him. I think that is partly because it is a case of a rather inshore parliamentarian striking out into deeper waters than usual. My object was to test, if possible, the motives behind certain clauses in the Bill. I should like to say that I am now satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary has both the knowledge and the sense of justice to see that the Bill is worked in the best interests both of the fishermen and of the consumers.
I was greatly impressed by the intimate knowledge displayed by the Parliamentary Secretary of the ways and needs of fishermen: that is what we want in a Bill of this kind. His heart is clearly in the good work intended by this Bill. Everything depends on how the Bill is worked.
My last remarks will be to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see that what I consider the more dangerous clauses in the Bill are not misused. Otherwise, I congratulate him both on the letter and the spirit of the Bill which he has put before us.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered that the Bill be returned to the Dail.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.50 p.m.sine die.