I move amendment No. 15:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert the following new sub-section :—
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as precluding the use by the Minister of traps for the capture of fish for the purpose of artificial propagation.
This amendment is for practically the same purpose as the last amendment, and that is that the Minister should be at liberty to use traps for the capture of fish for scientific purposes.
I have no amendment down to this section, but I should like to raise two or three points in connection with it. First of all, I should like to hear the Minister on the question of the rates the boards are to lose as a result of restriction. I think that the different boards all over the country, wherever there are fresh water nets, are going to suffer heavily. I understood the Minister to say, on the Second Reading, that the increase of fish will compensate the boards eventually for the losses they may sustain by way of rates, but none the less these boards will have to carry the loss of rates until such time as what I might call the new Fishery Bill fish come up the river ready to be caught. In the Killarney district, for instance, that is going to amount to about £1,206. You have the same thing in the case of Waterville and also in the case of Lismore and in connection with the Boyne. In the case of the Boyne, I think they lose about £300. I cannot remember what it would be in the case of Waterville, but I think that the Lismore fresh water nets are rated fairly heavily. The Minister also said that, to some extent, these rates would be made up by the additional salmon licences. In our district, £252 means an addition of 126 salmon licences per annum immediately, and I think he would be a very great optimist who thinks that he will get that number of salmon licences at the present time. I understand that in the Blackwater they have been reduced be very nearly 100. That is that point. Then, again, on the matter of compensation to employees, which I also raised at some length on the Second Reading, I should like to hear a little more definitely from the Minister on the question of whether he will consider arbitration in connection with these special cases.
I think it will be recollected that I made the point that a man is put on the dole, so to speak, with 52 weeks' wages. That is what it amounts to. Men who have been earning very considerable amounts of money during their lives are put on the dole, and I think that is a very unfortunate thing. Since I raised this question about our nets in the South, I have had representations from the Boyne, and I believe Deputy Walsh tried to bring a deputation up about this matter some little time ago, but the Minister was extremely busy at the time and the deputation was refused. In that case, you have some 30 families concerned in connection with the use of nets in fresh water and I suppose a considerable number of the men concerned have wives and families. They all threatened to come up and see me, but I told them that they would have to follow me down to Kerry, and so they did not come. Now, if you add up all these people all over the country who are going to be affected by completely abolishing the freshwater nets—about which I still have an open mind, although my opinion is somewhat different from what it was—you are going to have very considerable disturbance in various ways. First of all, you will have these men and their families put on the dole with 52 weeks' wages, and then there will be a considerable loss by the State in the shape of income-tax, as well as very heavy compensation that will be paid to the net owners. In addition to that, the boards will be losing their rates. On second thoughts, which are very often the best, I think it would be wiser, seeing that the various districts vary so much, to alter this section and give the Minister power to restrict rather than to abolish entirely. From the point of view of the Minister for Finance, for instance, I am sure that the Minister for Finance would be delighted if he were to come to him and say: " Look here; instead of paying this compensation, I am going to reduce them by one day a week or, say, two days a week, so as to allow more fish to go up, and you will only have one-sixth of that compensation to pay and there will not be so many unfortunate fishermen to be compensated and to be left looking around in a rather discontented way." I think that you would possibly achieve the object of the Bill in exactly the same way, that is, there would be more fish for the anglers and there would be more fish for the anglers and there would be more fish for spawning and, finally, the State, when they took over the several fisheries, would be able to pay a handsome profit. All those things, I think, on second thoughts, might, possibly, lead to less disturbance.
I had thought that you might limit the number of fish by providing that the fish would always be sent to one single fish buyer, that, possibly, that might be the way of doing it. I think now that, possibly, limitation of the number of days fishing over a season, probably, and over an average would really be the best way. I raise this point because I do think that you are going to experience very considerable expense and disturbance to achieve an object which possibly you might achieve in other ways.
I have been told, and I do not think there is any reason why I should not repeat it, that two, if not three, fishery commissions have reported that fresh water nets should be abolished. But those fishery commissions were told to examine the means by which fisheries could be improved ; they were not told to take into consideration disturbance and financial problems as to cost and so on. Those questions were left to be examined later. I am now putting up this particular point upon which the various fishery commissions did not report.
I have been asked to raise the question of the Boyne net fishermen. I do not know much about the position. I got a memorandum to-day and, with the permission of the Committee, I will read what has been sent to me :—
For the following reasons that portion of the River Boyne between Oldbridge and Rosnaree should be exempted from the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 and Part V of the Act:—
1. The fresh water net fishing on the river dates back to the 12th century as can be proved from records. If it had been detrimental to the fishing in the river the fishing would long since have ceased to exist;
2. As evidence that the netting and trapping of fish has not been harmful to this river it can be cited that according to the reports received from the Fishery Board's Inspector there were never more fish in the river than during the present season ;
3. The river along the stretch named is not suited for anything as the fish do not rest in it. The earliest point at where they rest is Slane Bridge ;
4. If by the abolition of the nest and traps any benefits did accrue they would be enjoyed only by the few privileged people in the upper reaches of the river who owned the fishing rights there and would not benefit the general body of anglers ;
5. At the present time the stretch of river above Rosnaree is well stocked with fish, but no fish are being caught by anglers, as the fish will not take on this river from towards the end of May until the end of the season ;
6. At least three different types of fish arrive in the river during the season, viz., (a) the early spring fish ; (b) from mid-March until the end of May ; (c) from end of May until end of July ;
As to (a): These are the type which are caught by anglers, but can only be caught by them above Rosnaree ;
As to (b) and (c): Very few of these are caught by anglers, as, by the time they get up to the angling portion of the river, the water is usually too low, and the fish will not " take ";
7. Approximately, 30 men are employed in the net and trap fishing on the portion of the river named. These men are mainly dependent for their livelihood on the fishing;
8. Almost all the fish caught on this stretch of river are exported to England. The annual value of this runs into thousands of pounds. This will be lost to the country.
I got that memorandum to-day and I put it to the Minister, if he thinks there is anything in it, that something should be done, and that he should consider the matter before the Report Stage.
Before the Minister replies, there are two questions I would like to ask him. Is it possible, or is it intended, that Section 35 should be put into effect at once, or is it possible that it may be delayed for some time? The second question is in regard to sub-section (3). I do not know very much about fishing, or about these fisheries, but it does seem as though, under sub-section (3), it would be possible for the Minister to virtually exclude an area or part of a river from the main effect of Section 35 by bye-laws. I would like the Minister to deal with that because, if it is true that he has that power under sub-section (3), then in these local cases, like the Boyne, where there seems to be a definite problem, where a great many people are earning their livelihood by fishing, and where there is an export trade, representations could be made to the Minister to have particular areas excluded. Assuming that the Minister was satisfied, the problem might be met in that way.
Arising out of the Chairman's remarks, I made a rough plan of how I would have dealt with this without legal trouble. I would leave the section as it stands except for the following alterations :—On the top of page 21, I would strike out the words " other than salmon, trout or eels " in line 2. Under sub-section (4) (a) the Minister may by certificate authorise, subject to such conditions as he shall specify, the use of nets for the purposes of catching or attempting to catch any salmon or trout for the purpose of artificial propagation. After the word " of " I would put in the word " sale ". It would then read " for the purpose of sale or artificial propagation ". In sub-section (5), which deals with the question of compensation, in line 27, I would take out the word " ceases " and put in the words " is modified ". In line 28, " such cesser " would become " such modification ". Then he would only pay one-sixth or one-fourth according to the amount that was stopped. In sub-section (6) I should take out the word " ceases " twice and put in the word " modification " twice. Finally, when we come to the compensation of employees, in sub-section (6) (d), it would be " that his employment has been curtailed ", instead of " terminated ".
As can be imagined, that is only a rough idea, but I think that the section could be altered more easily than people think.
With regard to the question raised by the Chairman, I did state that I intended to give one season's notice. That would mean that this section would not come into operation until 1941. In other words, the net fishing would be allowed to continue until 1940, and after that the sub-section would come into operation.
As mentioned here, I think it is probably the one question where we find unanimity amongst the various commissions that sat. They have all reported that, in their opinion, netting in fresh waters should be completely stopped. I cannot say I agree with the statement read out by Senator Counihan that netting in fresh waters is not detrimental to the fisheries. It has been held by all these commissions that the biggest barrier to the development of our fisheries is netting in fresh water. It has been thought by those commissions and by others that it does conceivably more harm than netting in tidal waters. That is why the recommendation was made by all of them. I think that it is one provision in this Bill where we can claim to have had practically all opinion behind us—any opinion that was offered about fisheries.
There will be loss of employment, naturally, and we are providing for compensation. I think I can claim that it is the most generous compensation that has been put into any Act so far, where it has been stated that there was interference with employmnt. I think the usual compensation is about 13 weeks. Here we give 52 weeks, but it must be remembered that these men do not work the whole year. Therefore, I think the compensation that is provided in this Bill would amount to practically two years' earnings. That compensation is very good. If there is an improvement of the fisheries as a result of this Bill, there will naturally be more angling, and in that way an increase in employment for gillies and others who will be getting incidental employment as a result of the coming of anglers to the river.
With regard to another point raised by Senator The McGillycuddy, it is true, I think, that the increased revenue from angling will not come immediately because as the Senator has pointed out, the increase in salmon in the river would not result for, say, five years. We could not expect as a result of this particular Bill an increase in income from salmon licences, so that there will be an interim which we must get over somehow or other. That brings me to an undertaking which was given by my predecessor, Mr. Fionán Lynch, in bringing in the 1925 Bill. He gave an undertaking at that time that he would try as far as possible not to have the rates increased on ratepayers in the fishery districts, that is, on the fishery ratepayers. Before that Act came in, the rate charged was the same as the county rate, with an addition of 10 per cent. for the fishery, and a change was made then : it was made a fishery rate paid direct to the conservators, and, as far as I can remember from reading it, the Minister at that time gave an undertaking that he would try to come to the aid of the board of conservators if the rate should exceed what they had been paying up to that time. I think I am quite prepared to honour that undertaking if we find in any particular district that, as a result of this Bill, the ratepayers in a fishery district will be paying more than the county rate plus 10 per cent. If there is any excess over that, and a case is made to the Department, we will consider it carefully, and I think we will be able to meet it during this intervening period until the good results will come when we may expect to get a bigger income from salmon licences and in that way hope to get some reduction of the rate again. I would have to resist very strongly both in the Seanad and perhaps later in the Dáil—any change in this principle of abolishing fresh water nets.
The Minister has satisfied me on the first point, but I am not really happy about the second point, because I feel that there will be considerable disturbance of people whose families for generations have been accustomed to fishing. The Minister did not answer my question about the terms of reference of the fishery commissions. Were they asked, as regards each particular district where there was fresh water netting : " What will be the result as regards the disturbance of labour, and what will be the result as regards rates, of the complete abolition of fresh water fisheries; and can one by restriction arrive at the same result ?" If they had been asked those questions, I think they possibly would have reported quite differently. Take two cases—take Killarney lakes, where they get 2,000 fish in the fresh water nets. Some of them are caught at once : some of them are there for a fortnight and are not such saleable fish. Then take the Boyne—seven miles above the tidal portion you will find there is fish caught; they are just as saleable as the others and they cannot do very much harm except in the quantities taken.
I know that the Minister will resist this, and I am just placing the argument on record. Every single district varies so much, that it would seemstrange to abolish with a stroke of the pen, districts where a little help is obtained from angling. Political problems, war problems and slumps make a lot of difference to the people. By so many days fishing a definite income might accrue to the country.
When Senator The McGillycuddy refers to political matters, may I say that I had considerable pressure brought to bear on me. Various arguments were put up to me, and I think I approached the Minister on a couple of occasions on behalf of fresh water fishermen; but I am convinced that the Minister's attitude is right in this connection, much as I would like to please a lot of people whom I have known for a number of years, and to whom in some cases I am under a compliment. The position, as far as I can see, is that the Minister has gone a certain way to meet popular appeal in this connection in so far as he has dealt with snap nets and drag nets. In other countries the tendency has been in the other direction, and it was abolished, I think, in England and Scotland in 1903.
With regard to disemployment which would result as a consequence of this legislation, the advantages in other directions would, in effect, justify that disemployment. Taking this Bill in conjunction with other Bills—as we must really take it—in conjunction with the Tourist Development Bill, I believe that as a result of the elimination of the snap nets, more anglers will be on the rivers, and because of that, further employment will be given in hotels and in various other ways in which it would not be given at present.
As to whether snap nets are going to do damage on the fresh waters, I think, as Senator The McGillycuddy points out, that it is scarcely fair to class all rivers alike. If you take it on the average, the complaint of the snap net fishermen here and elsewhere was that, for some inexplicable reason, fisheries were not half as good as in the old days. The general complaint everywhere is, I believe, that the snap nets have done very considerable damage over a period of years, though a lot of people refused to believe that it was because of the snap nets that the fish were scarcer than ever before. Senator The McGillycuddy has suggested that " second thoughts are best ", but I would say perhaps that " first impressions are always safer ".
People tell me they used to grow five times as much wheat.
Could the Minister say what is the meaning of sub-section (3) ? It seems to give power to deal with a particular area.
Yes. As a matter of fact, sub-section (4) does provide for netting under certain circumstances, for instance, for scientific purposes. It was necessary to take power to deal with pike and other coarse fish.
Senator The McGillycuddy asked regarding the terms of reference of the fishery commissions. I do not know if it is necessary to read them, but their terms were very general. In these cases we rely on the good sense of the members of the commission themselves to take all relevant considerations into account in drawing up their report, and they do that. In making their report they did give consideration to the displacement of men and so on if the recommendations were carried out.
The word " vicinity " appears to be a little vague. We know of nets near our river, but very close to it, and there does not seem to be any provision for search in suspected cases. There is a second point. I think the section should be varied to allow of a permit to keep a net in approved circumstances. I know one case where an individual of the highest probity has a trammel net for fishing in the sea. He keeps it in his house. There is no other place for keeping it and the house is within 30 yards of a fresh-water weir, and I think he should be allowed to have a permit for that net. Under the section, a Gárda can come and prosecute him at any time.
Does the final paragraph not cover that case? It says:—
. . . . it shall be a good defence to such charge for such person to prove that he is the holder of a licence to use such net in such tidal waters and that such net is intended for use in such tidal waters.
I think that would cover it and that any sensible district justice would accept it. With regard to the other point, existing legislation does enable a bailiff to apply for a warrant to search.
On this section, there is one point which I have already mentioned to the Department. Some alteration is wanted in sub-section (c), because it appears that if there is only one net, the Minister must grant a licence. I know a case above one of the several fisheries, which the Minister is going to take over, in which there is a net still in tidal water and it only means that more fish will be caught in that net. I think it requires examination.
That point was brought to my notice to-day. I will look into it.
