I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (1), page 26, line 37, to delete the word " their " and substitute the word " its."
This is a drafting amendment.
SECTION 44.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a board of conservators may under Section 17 (which relates to the issue of licences for the sale of salmon and trout) of the Fisheries Act, 1925 (No. 32 of 1925), issue through their clerk to any person applying for the same a licence to export salmon and trout for sale from such place or places within the district of such board as shall be specified by the applicant, and sub-section (2) of the said Section 17 and Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the said Act shall apply to every such licence in like manner as those sections apply to a licence issued under the said Section 17 for the sale of salmon and trout.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 45 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.
Question proposed : " That Section 58 stand part of the Bill."
Sir John Keane
On Part V generally, I want to raise a point. I have not had sufficient time to put in an amendment, but the Minister knows the point. It has to do with certain fisheries which, under the Bill, are transferable and on which the netting rights have been abandoned for a considerable time. There are certain fisheries in the West, on the Rivers Erriff, Bundorrha and Bunowen which, I understand, are all transferable fisheries and the Bill does not make adequate compensation for the fishery owner who has for a considerable time, in the interests of angling, abandoned the netting rights. In the case I am interested in, many years ago the predecessor of the present owner took off all the estuarine nets to the great improvement of the angling. The owners have no record of netting results, and when the arbitrator comes to assess compensation provided by the Bill on the results during the transition period, he will have nothing to go on except the angling records during the transition period, and it appears that, if the owner in this case is to qualify for compensatidon, he must at once start netting in order to build up a record on which compensation can be awarded during the transition period. I take it that the Minister is aware of the case. Would he help me in the matter so that it may not be necessary to go into it further and to bring down an amendment on the Report Stage?
Dr. Ryan
I think I know the case the Senator has in mind. This owner abandoned netting in favour of angling and, by that means, increased, in a very substantial way, the angling value of the river. Under the Bill, if he came up for compensation, the point would have to be decided as to how much the angling of the river had been increased by the abolition of netting, and he might possibly be entitled to some compensation on that basis ; but, then, he would, presumably, take back the angling from the State, which he has a right to do, and would, presumably, have to pay that compensation back for the angling rights, so that really he would get nothing out of it, except that he would retain his angling rights.
Sir John Keane
A book entry?
Dr. Ryan
As the Bill stands, I think so.
Sir John Keane
I take it that when a fishery is transferred, the State has the right to net ?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Sir John Keane
In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable for the owner to ask the State in some statutory form to forego those rights to net ? They have been abandoned for several years past and it would be very unfair to the owners, who would get no compensation, if the State were to come in and have the power at least to net.
The McGillycuddy
To carry what Senator Sir John Keane has said further, the moment the State nets, the value of the angling is reduced by the amount of fish the State takes.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think that would arise, because, if the compensation were to be made in the way I suggest, I think the State should not afterwards come along and reduce the value of those angling rights. However, I should like to look into it before the Report Stage. I do not think there is any necessity for an amendment. I think we could give an undertaking in this case.
Sir John Keane
An undertaking would not be as satisfactory as something in the Bill.
An undertaking is not worth anything unless the Minister has power to carry it out.
Sir John Keane
I should like some statutory obligation. The effect of the amendment would be that in caseswhere netting rights had been abandoned over a period of ten years, or whatever time it was, that it should not be within the power of the State when they take over the fisheries to re-impose netting afterwards. I think it would be very unfair to the owners who have given this netting up—no doubt for good reasons—to suddenly find netting rights reimposed.
The McGillycuddy
Another Minister may follow the present Minister, Dr. Ryan, who might not be so sympathetically disposed or have such a clear conscience as the present Minister.
Would not the position be that the owner had already been paid?
Sir John Keane
I have not consulted the owner. The owner might only want to ask for an assurance that the netting would not be reimposed. When I say an assurance, I mean a statutory assurance.
I cannot see that that can have any effect because the man has already been compensated.
But he has got nothing.
Sir John Keane
He has got nothing. I am assuming that the owner would be satisfied without any compensation. I ask for no compensation, only for a statutory assurance that when the State takes up the estuarine rights that no netting will be done. The owner may be satisfied with that.
Dr. Ryan
There would be compensation if there were netting potentialities to the State. I know the case the Senator has in mind. I gave some consideration to it but I have got a bit rusty on the facts of the case. The Senator had better put down an amendment.
Sir John Keane
Very well, I will do so.
I take it that will cover other cases as well as this case the Senator has in mind.
Sir John Keane
Yes, it will cover all cases where netting has been abandoned. I will have to get this done by some legal authority.
The Senator will not be able to raise it in the House unless he puts down the amendment.
Sir John Keane
If the Minister would accept the principle I could go into the amendment in consultation with his advisers, though I would not care to do that.
Dr. Ryan
I would prefer that an amendment should be put down.
Section 58 agreed to.