Sea Fisheries Bill, 1930—Committee Stage.
The Dáil went into Committee.
SECTION 1.
In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Lands and Fisheries;
the expression "the Society" means the society registered under the Industrial and Providential Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, under the name or title of "the Sea Fisheries Association of Saorstát Eireann, Limited";
the word "sea-fishing" means fishing in waters other than inland waters, but does not include fishing for salmon;
the expression "sea-fishing boat" includes any vessel used for sea-fishing;
the word "fish" includes "shellfish";
the expression "fresh fish" means fish which has not been salted, smoked, cured, or otherwise artificially preserved, but includes fish which has been preserved solely by refrigeration and also includes shellfish which has been cooked by boiling;
the word "fish-slab" means a shelf, slab or table used for the display of fish offered or kept for sale; the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act.
I move:
In line 25, to delete the words "but does not include fishing for salmon."
This Bill does not bring within its scope salmon fisheries in the sea around the Irish coast, and we are not satisfied that the reason given by the Minister for excluding these fisheries is adequate. Up to the present his Department have not given loans for nets to these salmon fishermen, on the ground that there was a danger that if they were given nets they might be seized for a contravention of the fishery bye-laws. That, in my opinion, is not a sufficient reason. There are a very large number of fishermen engaged in the tidal waters as well as in the sea, and the industry that is represented by these workers is of great value to the country. It is worth a great deal of money, and there is no reason why they should not be included in the first section of this Bill. Some of them are very poor people, and salmon-fishing is practically the only means of existence they have. I think the Minister should, at least, give himself discretion, if an opportunity should present itself in the future, of excluding these poor fishermen and giving them a chance to benefit under this new Association.
The definition as it stands follows a similar definition in the rules of the Association, page 2, M. The omission of the words will not in fact have any immediate effect as far as the operations of the Bill are concerned. It affects in the Bill only clause 2 and clause 3. Under clause 2, we hand over certain assets to the Sea Fisheries Association. In fact, I have no such assets in connection with salmon gear that I can hand over, so, as far as the Bill is concerned, the amendment has no effect there. The Sea Fisheries Board is also mentioned in clause 3, which provides certain penalties where the Association makes loans of boats or gear for specific purposes. As far as the Bill is concerned, therefore, the amendment really would have no effect.
In order to extend the scope of the Association's operations so as to bring in salmon fishermen in the sea, it would be necessary to change the rules of the Association at a general meeting. I mentioned previously the difficulty to which Deputy Derrig alluded. That was before the minds of the directors apparently that they might have made a loan for the provision of boats or gear for salmon drift net fishing and that they would find through a breach of the fishery law the gear seized by the authorities for perhaps very little debt. Their only remedy then would be to sue the particular fisherman who had borrowed. In many cases, he would be a very poor man. At the same time, if there were any widespread desire on the part of salmon fishermen for facilities of the kind and if the Committee of the Association saw that that particular thing could be got over it is conceivable that the rules of the Association could be changed.
I might say, as far as I read the rules, that this only affects the question of the provision of boats and gear, there is nothing in the rules to prevent the bringing in of salmon to the co-operative marketing scheme. As far as I am personally concerned, I have an absolutely open mind in the matter. If the Deputy thinks it will be any good—and perhaps it would in the sense that it would give freedom to the Association if they wanted to extend—I will accept it.
I would be very glad if the Minister would impress upon the Association the advisability of so amending their rules. I am aware of certain difficulties that have arisen. I cannot see that there is anything substantial in the point as to the danger of seizure of nets which might not apply in the case of other fishermen. It is a matter, at any rate, which ought to be clearly, I think, within the discretion of the Associaton, and I hope we may now take it that the Minister will represent to the Association the advisability of so amending their rules.
Representations will be no use. Their rules can only be changed at a general meeting of the Association, which must be held, in the first instance, within twelve months of registration and the change must be proposed by a member of the Association. I do not think I will be qualified to be a member of the Association.
If this amendment is accepted the effect of it will be that at least one argument will be removed when the question comes before the Association. At least, it effects this: if the Association only consider it advisable, it will give them an opportunity of bringing them in. If they do not bring them in, giving the opportunity here will not do a bit of harm to the fishermen. They are a class of fishermen who really fall between two sets of fishermen. I know that around the coast of Waterford the drift net fishermen find that their interests are not the same as, for instance, the interests of the herring fishermen. Things done on behalf of the herring fishermen are objected to by the drift net men, who also find themselves in conflict with the interests of the rod men on the river, and those who own charters on the river. I think, at least, we should make it as easy as possible for the Association to give them the opportunity of becoming members.
I would like also to urge on the Minister that this class of fishermen should be included, as in Galway there is a considerable volume-of opinion as to the development of drift net fishing, which, in the past, was allowed, and which, by a bye-law, was prevented in 1913. The Minister has already got representations upon the matter and he must be aware at this stage that there would be a considerable number of fishermen involved in this particular class of fishery. I would urge on the Minister that if the drift net fishermen were brought into-this it would help them considerably.
That raises a different point.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section I, as amended, agreed to.
Question proposed: That Section 2 stand part of the Bill.
Will the Minister give the House any information as to the property or assets which he proposes to vest in this Society?
Any boats, gear, stores, barrels, salt and so on that happen to be in the hands of the Department.
What would the value of the entire property be?
I would not be able to say off-hand.
Section 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3.
Where the Society has supplied to any member thereof or has repaired or renovated for any such member any sea-fishing boat or any equipment or appliance, for a sea-fishing boat or any fishing nets and a contract has been entered into between the Society and such member whereby such member agrees with the Society to pay to the Society in a particular manner specified in such contract the cost of such supply or repair or renovation and such member does any act, whether of commission or omission, which is a contravention of such agreement, such member shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, where such member is a body corporate, in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, where such member is an individual, in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.
I move amendment 2:
In line 27, to delete all words after the word "thereof" to the end of the section and substitute therefor the following: "in the case of a first offence to a fine of £5 in addition to the amount of debt or damages due by him and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine of £10 in addition to the amount of such debt or damage, such fine together with such debt or damage to be enforceable by all means by which a judgment may be enforced."
This section imposes a new penalty on fishermen who may receive loans from this Association and who may not be in a position to meet their obligations when the time for payment comes. In the case of a first offence, the section imposes a fine not exceeding £20 and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding £50, or, at the discretion of the Court, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. It is quite a long time ago since the law which imposed the penalty of imprisonment on rich debtors was abolished, and it seems to me that the Minister is on very weak ground when he seeks to alter the basis of the civil law to enable the offence which I have mentioned to be made a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment. The provisions of this section will affect a very poor section of the community, while the rich debtors can, under the present law, get off scot free. The Minister will, no doubt, say that since State moneys are involved it is up to him to see that all possible safeguards are inserted to secure that that money will be collected. He may be justified in saying that there is a tradition that Government debts are oftentimes looked upon in a different way from private debts, that it is harder to collect them and that the people who get these loans have not the same sense of responsibility as they would have in the case of private creditors. Nevertheless, I think it discloses a fatal weakness in the whole treatment of the problem when the Minister cannot treat the fishermen on the basis that they will deal with him in good faith, that they will try to meet him, and that they will realise he is doing what he can to help them. Instead of adopting that course, he seeks to impose heavy penalties. He may say that this provision will, in fact, be a dead letter and that the penalty of imprisonment will not be imposed. As I said on Second Reading, if the directors pass this power by they will be creating a very bad precedent. On the other hand, if it is enforced the work of the Association will become quite impossible because it will be bearing an intolerable odium in the opinion of these people.
The amendment which I propose meets the position of the Minister fairly enough. It recognises his difficulty. For a first offence, it imposes a fine of £5, in addition to the amount of debt or damage due by the defaulter, and for a second or subsequent offence a fine of £10 in addition to the amount of debt or damage. The fine, in addition to the debt or damage, is to be enforceable by all the means by which a judgment may be enforced at present —that is, by the ordinary court procedure. There is no reason why these defaulters should be put on a different basis from, for example, the Land Commission defaulters, who go before the court and have their cases argued according to the ordinary civil procedure. The Minister is trying to make this a criminal offence. In that, I think, he is very unwise and it is not going to have the desired effect. I would ask him to meet my amendment or to accept it, if at all possible.
As regards another class of debts under the Fishery Acts, a considerable contrast exists in respect of the fines imposed on trawlers and those imposed by conservators on people who poach in the rivers. I only mention that to show that if in these cases we have very large fines the contrast may be still further intensified between the ordinary fishermen who contravene the law and the rich people who can well afford to pay the fines, but who are let off with fines of about £5. That amount has been imposed in some instances on trawlers which poached within the three-mile limit. I support this amendment.
The first difficulty in connection with this section, as Deputy Derrig pointed out, is that it places the people affected in the position of criminals. It treats this as a criminal offence, which is altogether repugnant to public policy. This is in the nature of post-war legislation. Immediately after the war certain types of legislation were necessary as temporary remedies and very severe penalties were provided for. There is one blot still on the Statute Book—the Enforcement of Orders Act—by which, even under the present law, a person can be put into jail where the District Justice is satisfied that the defendant has means and will not pay the debt. I think that Deputy Derrig's amendment is extremely moderate, because it does not interfere with the ordinary law— the power which exists to put people into jail where the District Justice is satisfied that they have the means to pay and will not pay. That Act, I hope, will be removed in due course, because it is part of post-war legislation and should not be on the Statute Book. No man should be liable to be put into jail for a mere breach of a civil contract. It is atrocious that that should be so.
I think that this amendment would be very bad for the future of the Association. I shall not use any of the arguments that Deputy Derrig prophesied I would use. I shall not refer to the fact that there should be any discrimination where State moneys are involved as against cases where no State moneys are involved. The position is that we are taking, through the agency of the Sea Fisheries Association, a very revolutionary step. That step is designed to give the fisherman an opportunity of becoming the owner of his own boat on terms of repayment which are equitably adjusted to the circumstances of the industry. In doing this, we are putting the greatest trust in the general body of fishermen. I have no doubt that the result will be quite fruitful, that our trust in the men will be justified, and that this proposal will have very beneficial effects on the industry as a whole. But it would be absurd to close our eyes to the obvious dangers. It is not by any action on the part of the general body of fishermen, or on the part of any general body, but rather by the derelictions of a few that any beneficial measure may be brought to the ground. We must provide effectively against those dangers which can be easily foreseen. There is no question involved as regards the poor fisherman who is not able to meet his obligations. He is not involved under Section 3 at all. The Association will have plenty of power under its rules to deal with him. Section 3 refers only to the case of a fisherman who has obtained a boat or gear from the Association and who wilfully does something in the way of evading his obligations to hand over his catch or something of that kind which is, in fact, dishonest. That is the person to whom the section applies. One or two such cases might not matter. But if two or three adopted such a course and it be gan to grow the end would inevitably be that the whole scheme for the supply of boats and gear would be imperilled.
One could easily imagine this thing starting in a certain area. One or two persons, instead of bringing their fish and selling through the Association's agent, selling perhaps at a higher price to somebody else, and not paying back their share, that is to say the share that would be normally deducted by the Association's agent for the Association. Such men would, in fact, be attempting to swindle the Association. You can quite see how that would spread and how the loyalty of the other fishermen would be sapped. The fishermen would know that this thing was going on. The result would be that, perhaps, the men who were loyal to the Association, seeing this thing going on would be brought into such a frame of mind that their loyalty might be undermined. One can easily see how that could happen. I think it is very important that any danger of this thing happening should be dealt with and dealt with severely. As a matter of fact, I cannot imagine how any member of a fishermen's Association, anxious for the welfare of the Association, and anxious that the Association should go ahead could object to a provision of this kind. I think the honest fisherman would like to see his Association going ahead. Remember it is his own Association and it is his interest that the Association should be able to bring a prosecution to stop a thing of this kind. Remember further that the fishermen themselves will have in a great measure control over this Association. It will be their own Association that will bring this prosecution and they will bring it in order to safeguard the general body of fishermen from the black sheep who may be amongst them.
It must further be borne in mind that these are maximum penalties, and that it will be for the District Justice to exercise his judgment in the imposition of any penalties within the maxima. It is however provided in a section of the Bill that before any prosecution is taken it must be taken through the Minister for Fisheries. The Association under their rules, as I have already pointed out, will have plenty of scope for dealing with the ordinary pleas of non-ability to pay. But in all cases. of this kind I think the Association should have these further powers to deal with the wrong ones that may be in any particular area. I think the section as it stands is necessary to deal with those aggravated cases to which I am referring and I ask the House not to accept the amendment.
I venture to think that if the Minister wishes to persuade this House that dishonesty or fraud or swindling on the part of any individual who comes within the ambit of this Bill should be punished, that he will have a very easy task. Of course, the Minister has to deal with a situation that is to a large extent novel. I presume the whole scheme of this Bill is to some extent novel. The intention of this Bill, so far as one can gather from reading the Bill, or from any statement that has been made, is so admirable that one has to be very careful lest one might say something which might sound as if one desired to impede the Minister either in fostering this fishing industry or in dealing with some new difficulties or removing some impediment that he foresees in the way of this scheme. Although one may hesitate for these reasons, one is, I think, quite justified in protesting against what seems to be the imposition not merely of a money penalty, but imprisonment for the breach of a civil contract.
The Minister has harped so much upon black sheep, upon the dishonest fishermen, and so on, that one would think from his language that he really contemplates somebody overstepping the existing criminal law. If that is what the Minister has in view, the law is elastic enough and far-reaching enough to deal with the offence. According to the Bill, that is not what the Minister has in view. The marginal note of the Bill is, of course, important, its importance one could not exaggerate. This marginal note reads: "Breach of certain contracts by members of the Society." That would seem to indicate what the Minister is aiming at. I do suggest to you, and I do urge upon the House that we are long past the day when imprisonment even for debt can be defended with any hope of convincing the majority. But to try to establish a new doctrine that a mere breach of a civil contract which may not even involve liability for the payment of money, is to be introduced into this State, is perhaps something that is repugnant to the sense and the conscience of a great many citizens of this State.
Granting that there is a breach of contract, why should a novel remedy be introduced? If there is to be this breach of contract and punishment by imprisonment, why should not the same apply to a contract in the matter of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, or as my collegue, Deputy Derrig, said, of the Land Commission, or of any other public department? Not even confining it to a public department, but bringing in local boards, why should not a man be sent to jail for a breach of any contract?
I think this distinction between an individual and the Corporation is not very easily understood except for one reason, of course, that a corporation is not a body that one can very well lodge in jail. But it does seem unjust that if an individual takes this loan or owns a boat he can be sent to prison for breaking his contract, whereas if that individual went through the formality of forming himself into a one-man company and should commit this offence through his corporation he would have absolute immunity from imprisonment. I submit to the House that such an illustration as that lends force to what has been urged by Deputy Derrig, that apart from the fundamental argument against this section, that there is this argument, that it might lead to discrimination as between the rich and poor. The rich man having this section in view will avoid the carrying on of his business individually. He might, under the procedure that exists, turn himself into a body corporate and thereby safeguard himself against these severe penalties. I venture to think that the House will not be impressed by the arguments of the Minister that the District Justice will be a buffer between the unfortunate fishermen and the jailer. The District Justice must, of course, administer the law, but if a breach of contract, a breach of the Act by omission or commission, is proved, the District Justice, however large and charitable his heart may be, must exercise his discretion judicially, and if a breach of contract is proved it is difficult to see how he could refuse judgment or a warrant to send the contractor to prison.
I meant to convey that, and I thought I had said it. My suggestion is that the discretion vested in a District Justice is not something equivalent to the right to be capricious. That is a mere judicial discretion. In the exercise of that discretion he must not be guided entirely by the promptings of his own heart. Once the conditions laid down by the statute are fulfilled and proved to the satisfaction of the District Justice, he is a mere judicial machine. That discretion must be exercised on those judicial principles. He cannot resist the request for the remedy which is given by the statute. It is also suggested that in some way which I have not quite apprehended the directors or committee of the society may be a safeguard.
The directors of the society are occupying a position which, if not strictly fiduciary, nearly approaches the fiduciary position. If those directors are satisfied that a fisherman has broken his contract they, as directors in the discharge of their fiduciary functions, are bound to put the machinery in force and are bound by all the means at their disposal to press the District Justice to exercise the powers given there for the protection of the property of the society. It is unavoidable, and if they do not do it they are guilty of a grave offence, an offence which, I suggest, would be far more worthy of punishment by imprisonment than a breach of contract by an unfortunate man who borrowed money for a boat.
It is candidly suggested that, after this Bill has been passed, a director of a society knows that somebody has done an act or has omitted to do an act which brings him within the section, yet that director deliberately omits to do his duty and put the section into force. I repeat that a director who would be capable of doing that would be far more worthy of prison. The big argument against that, the argument upon which I rely, is that to introduce any measure which provides, as this provides in clear terms, that the mere breach of a civil contract is to involve a person in a money penalty, and not merely a money penalty but liability to imprisonment for a term, is something so new and startling and so out of tune with ideas in this country and, indeed, in the civilised world generally, that this House should hesitate long before it lends sanction to it.
May I suggest to the Minister that it is an extremely bad way to start a new movement for fishery development by assuming that the fishermen are a particularly bad lot and that you have to pass special laws and subject them to certain punishment that would be outlandish in the case of any other set of producers in order effectively to deal with them? I suggest that is not going to get the confidence of the fishermen. It must be plain to the Minister that the fishermen resent this proposal very much. I do not think it is even yet realised how extraordinary is the proposal. Let us say a fishing boat is in Buncrana Bay and the men get an offer to sell their fish in Derry. It is said much better prices prevail in Derry than can be obtained by the auctioneer at Buncrana. The auctioneers' prices are known and the fishermen decide to take advantage, with no evil intent, of the opportunity of selling in Derry. As the Minister himself stated, the fishermen may get a better price in Derry than in Buncrana. Yet that breach of the regulations may involve the fishermen in imprisonment. A fisherman may intend to pay his full instalments and meet all the requirements of the Society with regard to his catch, but simply for a technical offence in sending them for sale to Derry rather than Buncrana he will be liable to imprisonment. I suggest that is altogether too ridiculous.
If the Minister insists on maintaining that provision in the Bill, we, on this side, will have to vote against every stage of the Bill from this forward. We could not agree to a Bill with this particular provision in it going through. As has been stated, there would be an equal claim for enforcing this provision against people who defaulted in regard to rates or land annuities. As a matter of fact, there would be a much bigger case, because when a man defaults with his rates his neighbours have to pay. Here a fisherman can be imprisoned though he does not cause harm to the extent of a penny. He may, in fact, benefit his society by getting a higher price for his fish. That is not to say that discipline must not be maintained. No society could be maintained without discipline, but there are plenty of other ways in which it can be maintained. There are, for instance, rights of excluding a member from a society —depriving him of membership. The right of fining him is there, too. Such a proposal as that he should be imprisoned, or that the liability for imprisonment should be even theoretically available for such an offence, seems, to my mind, to be the most extraordinary proposal that we have ever had in the Dáil.
I am quite in sympathy with the Minister in regard to this measure, but I am altogether out of sympathy with the penal clauses. If the Minister will alter the Bill so as to delete the penal clauses I would find myself in thorough agreement with him, but otherwise I will be compelled to vote against this section. I thoroughly disagree with the penal clauses.
There is no use in creating an unreal atmosphere about this clause, and that is the attempt that is being made. One would imagine it was going to be an absolute certainty that any defaulting fisherman was going to be sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Deputy Geoghegan referred to the fact that the District Justice must administer the law as it is. Quite so. There is nothing in the section to prevent the District Justice from imposing any penalty, even less than the money fines mentioned in the section. The Deputy said this was an entirely new principle, and he referred to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. If the Deputy, who is a lawyer, read the Agricultural Credit Act, he would find that there is such a provision in that Act. He would find the following in Section 22:
(1) Any person who for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person or any body of persons corporate or unincorporate a loan or advance of money from the Corporation wilfully makes whether verbally or in writing a statement which is to his knowledge false or misleading shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable on conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or in the case of an individual and at the discretion of the court to penal servitude for three years or imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every person who, having obtained a loan or advance of money from the Corporation on the terms that such money shall be applied by him for a specified purpose, fails to apply such money for such purpose shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or in the case of an individual and at the discretion of the court to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months.
The Agricultural Credit Corporation therefore does, in fact, provide such a remedy. I do not believe that that discretion, has ever been exercised by any District Justice, and I believe that it would be only an extremely rare case in which it would be exercised by him, but I believe that it is right that it should be there. There is no use in pretending, as Deputies Moore and Geoghegan pretended, that I said that this was distrust of the general body of fishermen. I said that the whole scheme was a sign of the greatest trust in the general body of fishermen. It is to protect the general body of fishermen against persons who would injure their association that this provision is inserted. I say that it is because of my trust in the general body of fishermen that I want to protect them from persons who might abuse the benefits given under the Bill and given by the association. I strongly hold that this provision should be retained. I almost felt for a, while that we were back there to a situation in which we were inserting in a Bill minimum penalties. One would imagine that these were minimum penalties and that the District Justice had to impose them without discretion. That is not the case. Deputy Geoghegan has already pointed out, though he tried to mislead the House afterwards, that the District Justice has discretion to do what he considers right. It would only be in the most aggravated cases that he would exercise full discretion and impose a penalty of imprisonment.
Let there not be any confusion of thought in regard to this matter. If any words of mine were unhappy or inapt I wish to correct and make them plain. I thought that I had made it plain that I was not suggesting for one moment that crime should not be punished by a money penalty, by imprisonment, or by penal servitude if necessary. On the contrary, in the opening words of my speech I said that what the Minister had referred to would seem to be offences with which the existing criminal law, common law, or statute law dealing with crime would embrace. The protest which I make, a protest which I think has come from other quarters of this House, is not against the punishment of crime by a penalty, be it imprisonment or anything else, but against the introduction of what we say is a novel principle, namely, the punishment of a breach of civil contract by sending a man to jail. That is merely the resurrection of a 16th, 17th, or 18th century practice whereby debtors were sent to jail because they would not pay their debts. Under the clause, as it stands, as soon as one finds that a breach of contract has been committed there is cause to send to jail. To compare that with enactments dealing with the obtaining of money by false pretences, or with the wilful misstatement made to obtain money by fraudulent means, is, to put it mildly, not helping this House in the consideration of the clause.
Or in the failure to apply such money for such purposes as it was granted.
Views may differ in this House on such a question. To me, at any rate, there is nothing very repulsive in the idea of punishing a person who obtains money on the representation that it is to be used for a particular purpose and then applying it to some other purpose. If a statute enabled him to get money by making certain representation, if he falsely and wilfully makes a false statement, and if he gets money and applies it to something else, speaking for myself, I can see nothing very terrible in the thought of sending him to jail or to penal servitude. To me there is a wide Atlantic between a case such as the Minister indicates and a breach of civil contract, which is what this clause deals with. I challenge the Minister to produce any precedent, in any 20th century statute at all events, for the punishment by imprisonment for a mere breach of contract, without even any restriction as to the nature of the breach. The Minister then proceeds to stress the portion of the clause under which jurisdiction is given to the District Justice, and one would think from what the Minister has just said that this is a provision, so wholly unnecessary and inapplicable to any set of facts ever likely to arise, it will never be put into force. That, I think, was fairly the tenor of the Minister's observations, that one could hardly fancy a case in which the directors will think it necessary to invoke the jurisdiction or where the District Justice will think it right to exercise it. If that is so, why encumber the Bill with such words?
If they are unnecessary let them go. If what the Minister seeks to deal with is fraud, or obtaining money by false pretences or any other form of crime, why not leave it to the ordinary law of the land?
On amendment 2, as I find it here, I will be obliged to put the question that the words proposed to be deleted stand. If that question were decided in the affirmative, so that the words were allowed to stand, it would not then be possible to move amendment 3. The debate has proceeded altogether on the question of whether or not the words of the section which deal with imprisonment should be retained, and it is the form of amendment 3 which really gets that question decided. That is, the Deputy should move to delete the words "where such member is a body corporate," and secondly, to delete all after the word "pounds."
I took that as being consequential on the other amendment.
No, there are two separate points. One is whether there should or should not be imprisonment; the other is the amount of the fine.
Could we not find common agreement if the Minister would consider the withdrawal of this penal clause?
The Ceann Comhairle is dealing with his own particular end. There are two questions— the question of the amount of the fine and the question as to whether there should or should not be imprisonment. I can put separate questions on them if Deputy Derrig desires.
Yes, that would be the better way.
I shall, therefore, put the question that the words "where such member is a body corporate" stand. If they do stand the question as to whether there should be imprisonment will then be decided.
Yes, as far as this amendment is concerned.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
Question put: That the words proposed to be deleted stand.
The Committee divided. Tá, 63; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl, Deputies Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
I have another amendment, which proposes to alter the amount to be fixed as penalties in the case of offences under this section. I ask the House to accept an amendment from me, that in the case of a first offence the fine should be £5 and in the case of a second or subsequent offence £10. The section as it stands imposes a fine for the first offence not exceeding £20, and for a second or subsequent offence not exceeding £50. When we consider the circumstances of the people in the poor areas in the West of Ireland it is ridiculous to have £50 as the limit of a fine in one case and £20 in the other. I suggest that £5 and £10 will be reasonable enough. The Minister has stated that he wants to safeguard the Association. The Association, in fact, has only come into existence. It is not organised through the country, and the bulk of the fishermen who may be affected have not had an opportunity of stating their opinion on the matter. Neither has the Fishery Association had an opportunity of deciding whether in fact these penal clauses and heavy fines would be necessary or not. I hold they will not. If they are, I suggest that the fines the Minister has mentioned are out of all proportion to the circumstances of these people and that £5 and £10 would be adequate. If a boat is given, for example, obviously the value of the boat could not possibly be met by a fine of £5 or £10, but in that case you will have a whole Society and you can take action against the individuals in the particular society which got the loan. I do not think the single individual will have a very heavy responsibility, but rather that the aim will be to develop the thing in the way of a co-operative society. Therefore I suggest that a fine of £5 or £10 would be sufficient.
The Minister has already drawn a distinction between a corporation and an individual. I am only concerned with the individual. If we think it right to lower the fine in the case of the individual we ought to do so. We can deal afterwards with the special case of the corporation. But, as the section stands, it is altogether too general: "Any act of commission or omission in contravention of the agreement." These poor people will not be well versed in legal phraseology and, as Deputy Moore pointed out, it may be that the particular offence with which they are charged will not alone not be a fraudulent one for which they would be amenable under the criminal law but, in fact, they may be doing something which would be of benefit to the society. They can actually be charged and have heavy fines imposed upon them for selling fish at a higher price than the Association could get for it. They may be doing themselves a benefit and doing the fishing industry a benefit, but still it is possible to have them up for a contravention of the agreement. I submit that we have not that in the case of the creamery organisation and in other cases that have been cited here, and we should be very careful not to discourage the fishermen by imposing very heavy penalties. I therefore ask the Minister, now that he has safeguarded himself by maintaining the principle that imprisonment is to be there as a deterrent, to accept a reduction in the amount suggested as fines.
I have very little to add to what I said in dealing with the section. It is all nonsense to say that a person is going to do benefit to the Association by evading his obligations to the Association. The person in contemplation is the person who sells his fish elsewhere, even at a higher price, if he refuses to hand over the proper proportion to the Association for the repayment of the loan for boat and gear that he got. I do not see how a person is going to benefit the Association if he refuses to act up to the conditions laid down in the granting of these loans. I think that person is going very soon to disrupt the Association, if he were followed in that respect on any wide scale.
As to Deputy Derrig's point, that a body corporate might have a very big loan from the Association that £5 or £10 as a fine would meet. He seemed to say that there would be very little individual borrowing from the Association for big amounts, that it would be co-operative societies. That is not my contemplation of the thing at all. My idea is that a person down in Dingle or over in Galway who is a member of the Association is going to become the owner of his own boat through borrowing from the Association and repaying out of his catches. He is going to be the proprietor of his own boat and gear I hope, and I know very well that the loans in some cases that the individuals will be getting from the Association will run into a couple of hundred pounds even in the early stages. Even the installation of an engine in a fishing boat will run into several hundred pounds. That will be one of the first things they will be dealing with. In a few years I should say, individuals will get through the Association, boats and gear value for £500, according as the Association is progressing and as the individual is making his name with the Association for repayment of loans already given. The small penalties mentioned would not meet the cases at all. In fact if there is anything that would drive a District Justice into imposing imprisonment instead of a fine, it is having the fine so small, because where a man borrows £l00 from the Association and evades his obligation and the District Justice cannot impose a fine of more than £5 or £10 the District Justice, if he were to administer the law strictly, would feel that he would have to exercise a further discretion.
I think the Minister has twice referred to the opposition to certain provisions in this section. He said it is the intention, of the new society to enable fishermen to purchase boats. Is there not also a big class of fishermen, possibly a bigger class, who will continue hiring their boats and who will not contract for the purchase of the boats at all?
No. The word "hirer" used in the Bill means really that no matter how poor the fisherman is, the amount that is deducted from the weekly catch will be in repayment of the loan. It is not merely that he is applying for the hire and never becomes the proprietor of the particular implement. The amount that he repays is repaying the Association for the particular gear given, and when he has paid whatever it costs and the interest thereon, he becomes the sole proprietor.
Is it not the intention that there will be a class of fishermen who will continue to hire their boats without any intention of becoming the sole proprietors of those boats? Is it not the case that there may be a class of fishermen who have no intention of purchasing their boats outright and who will continue to be hirers in perpetuity from the Association? I understood such a class was contemplated.
I do not know how that could occur, because in fact they would be paying their money week by week out of the cash from their catches as repayment for the loan, so that in spite of themselves they would become proprietors.
Amendment put and negatived.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
As this section now makes provision for imprisonment, we are opposed to it. Besides that, the Minister asks the House to agree with him in imposing penalties when we have no knowledge whatever of the type of contract to be made. We have no idea whatever from the Minister of what the contract is likely to be, for which any member committing an act, whether of commission or omission, which is a contravention of the agreement, will be liable to suffer the penalty of imprisonment. It seems to me that that phrase, added to the power to imprison, which the section contains, gives very great power to the directors to pursue an unfortunate defaulter, and there is practically no discretion in the matter. As Deputy Geoghegan pointed out, the directors are going to carry out the Minister's behest. They will be his children, as he will have a majority on the board, and if they are going to carry out the work they will naturally have to do their best to have imposed penalties under this section which the law confers upon them.
We think these penalties are quite unnecessary and are apt to have a very damping effect on the whole project. And as we have no information as to the offences for which these people could be sent to prison, we propose to vote against this section. In doing that we want to make it quite clear, as already emphasised from these benches, that as far as the commission of actual crime is concerned, or so far as provision against fraud is concerned, we are quite willing that the full penalty which the criminal law affords should be put in force, but, as has been pointed out, the offence is simply a breach of a civil contract, and the Minister made no substantial case to persuade this House that these fishermen should have these penalties of imprisonment inflicted upon them when other sections of the community who are debtors and defaulters to the State or local authorities or other associations can get off scot free and are absolutely immune from the threat of imprisonment.
I think it desirable to make this further remark, that these penalties will place the working of the Association within very rigid limits. It will give no freedom of action to the fisherman who belongs to the Society, no matter what the circumstances that arise. Let him dare to use his judgment with regard to the particular circumstances that arise, he will find himself faced with the possibility anyhow that he may not only be fined, but sent to prison. In fishing there will inevitably always be occasions when the fisherman has no means of communicating with headquarters or with the general manager of the Society, and has to decide upon some action to meet particular circumstances. Will it be to the advantage of the Society if he sees before him a possibility that if he deflects in any way from the rules of the Society, even though without any ill intention, even though he may think it to be to the advantage of the Society—will it help the work of the Society if that man sees before him the possibility in such circumstances that he is going to be heavily fined, and even possibly sent to prison, if the law is administered as set down here? No. I think the Minister should, before the next stage, reconsider this section. He will find that it is not going to help the work of the Society, that it is not going to give the fishermen confidence that they are being treated on the same lines as the men producing wealth in other walks of life are. It would be altogether an advantage if he showed more confidence in them than is evinced in this particular section.
Deputy Moore harps back again to the pretended lack of confidence and tries to emphasise the fact that there is some differentiation between the treatment of the fisherman and everybody else. As I quoted from the Agricultural Credit Corporation Act, there are penal provisions in that Act for certain offences, and one of these offences at, least is a breach of civil contract, that is failure to apply money for the purpose for which it was received.
That is not a breach of civil contract, it is a misapplication of money.
I beg to differ. It is a breach of civil contract. One would imagine that the Directors of this Association were going to spend their time looking out for occasions when they could come down like a ton of bricks on the fishermen. If a fisherman finds himself in a situation where he cannot conveniently come into the port where the agent of the Association is working and if that is explained to the Association ordinary reasonable men will not prosecute in such a case.
One must at least give them credit for having ordinary intelligence. We must assume that the Committee of the Association at any time, now or in the future, will be such a body as will exercise ordinary intelligence in dealing with the application of this clause. I hold to the same opinion just as strongly as I did at the start this evening. I have had conversations with the members of the Association on this particular clause and individual members of the directorate told me that they were very keen on having this provision inserted. I am still as convinced as when I came in this evening that this clause is entirely necessary.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and Peadar Doyle; Níl, Deputies Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) The Minister may grant a licence (in this Part of this Act referred to as a fish sales licence) to sell by auction fresh fish or to act as agent for the sale by wholesale of fresh fish or to do both those things to any person who—
(a) applies in the prescribed form and manner to the Minister for such licence, and
(b) satisfies the Minister that he is a fit and proper person to held a fish sales licence, and
(c) is not an undischarged bankrupt, and
(d) is not employed, engaged or otherwise concerned in the sea-fishing industry.
I move:
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (d).
I want to find out what exactly is the object of clause (d) in this section. It says that an agent to be appointed "is not employed, engaged or otherwise concerned in the sea-fishing industry." It seems to me it will be almost impossible to carry that into law. The Minister has, however, stated that this part of the Bill may not be put into operation until the Sea Fisheries Association demands it. I would like to know from the Minister what exactly is the object of the clause—what does it seek to safeguard?
I consider it extremely important that the person who is going to act as auctioneer should be entirely independent. No one can fairly discharge the responsibilities of an auctioneer if he is otherwise interested, say, as buyer or seller of the commodity he is dealing with. You can imagine a fish curer in a particular area auctioning the fish as they come in on the boats. He will have, perhaps, a man representing his own firm there. Will he not be inclined to give him the short knock? It will be to his own interest if his own man buys at the lowest price. This is an obvious precaution which should be taken to safeguard the rights of the fishermen. As I say, it would be perhaps more applicable here than to the minor seaports. I would not, for instance, think it necessary at all to put it into force in the case of a minor seaport, where a man was an auctioneer in a small way and was a fish dealer, unless the Association found something was happening there which was to the detriment of their members. Normally it would apply chiefly to markets to provide that the salesmen there would not have any other interests and would not he inclined to knock down fish at a price which would benefit themselves and their own relation to the industry.
On the last day when we were discussing this matter the Minister was not very definite whether the Association would take over all surplus fish. Some of the fishermen see this position: that whereas at present the auctioneer is in the habit of purchasing the whole of the surplus left when the auction is over, there would be no guarantee now that that surplus would be purchased at all. The new auctioneer is not to be a fish merchant, is not to be in any way connected with the disposal of the fish otherwise than by auction. Can the Minister say now whether the Society would be prepared in all cases to take over the surplus which is left after the auction ceased? Further, will it be illegal for a fish dealer to purchase a lot of fish and proceed to auction it amongst people who would hawk it through the country?
No. I cannot say what the Association may do in any given circumstances in the future, but I should think that the directors would not be fit to occupy that position if they left an unsold glut of herrings, mackerel, or any other fish, in any place where their agent was operating. If their members brought in fish and if the Association did not deal with it, then there would be something very seriously wrong. Rule 4 gives them very wide scope as regards this matter; they can cure the fish themselves or handle them or deal with them in any way they think fit. This question of salesmen applies only to the auction that takes place when the boats arrive in the harbour. What happens after the fish has been auctioned is another matter. The person who buys in a wholesale way can, of course, sell afterwards at his discretion. This provision does not affect him.
In view of the Minister's assurance that this provision will not be put into operation over the whole area and will only be put into operation at the request of the Association, I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
What is the meaning of the phrase "by law" in this section? Does it refer to the existing fees that auctioneers pay for their licences? The section provides that such fee shall be paid as may be required "by law." Does that refer to the fees that auctioneers pay at present for licences?
This would obviously be a separate fee.
There will be a separate fish sales licence provided for in the Finance Bill.
The fee is not yet fixed?
There is one other matter that I wish to refer to. I presume that auctioneers will be appointed only at Saorstát ports. Is it contemplated that no circumstances will arise in which fish taken by members of the Association will be allowed to go, for instance, to Northern Ireland ports? A member of the Association must, in all circumstances, apparently, sell his fish through one of the Association's auctioneers. I have already referred to the possibility of fishermen hearing of better prices prevailing, say, at Ardglass than prevail at Saorstát ports. Ardglass is a Northern Ireland port. Will it be possible for the fishermen to sell their fish at such ports since they cannot be sold there by an auctioneer licensed by the Association?
There is no such restriction. The Association will have an agent acting for them at particular ports. If there were a number of their members fishing in Yarmouth or Lowestoft, as is quite conceivable in the future, in the case of members with a bigger type of boat, the Association would appoint an agent at that port.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to carry on in any premises the business of selling fresh fish by retail unless such premises comply with the following conditions (in this Act referred to as the conditions of suitability and cleanliness), that is to say:—
(a) such premises and the equipment, fittings and appliances therein are in a state of cleanliness, and
(b) there is available on such premises such adequate supply of good and wholesome water as may be reasonably necessary, and
(c) such premises are provided with a fish-slab, and
(d) every shelf, slab or table used as a fish-slab or for cutting, skinning, or filleting fish is so situated and fitted as to exclude all contamination, and
(e) such premises are provided with a refrigerator so situated and fitted as to exclude all contamination.
I move amendment No. 5, which reads:—
In sub-section (1), lines 9 to 11, to delete paragraph (d).
These proposals in Part IV of the Bill which deal with the regulation of retail fish shops are rather difficult. It seems to me, in the first place, that it is the business of the public health authorities to look after these matters. The particular section on which I now want information from the Minister is this:—paragraph (d) reads:—"every shelf, slab or table used as a fish slab or for cutting, skinning, or filleting fish is so situated and fitted as to exclude all contamination." The words "to exclude all contamination" occur in various parts of this Bill. I would like to know what exactly the Minister demands under that heading. It seems to me it is a phrase that is rather vague. A lot will depend on the inspectors whom the Minister appoints under this part of the Bill. The inspector can take a very reasonable view, or if he wants to carry that phrase "to exclude all contamination" to its logical conclusion, he may insist on hygienic safeguards that would be altogether beyond the possibilities of fish dealers to provide. I just want to know before we pass this section what exactly is sought in the way of excluding contamination?
There is nothing very wonderful about this sub-section. It means that the fish shall not be exhibited or handled or dealt with carelessly, that it should rather be exhibited on a slab. This is a reasonable provision. It is to see that the fish will mot come in contact with anything that might deteriorate it. What is required is the observance of the ordinary hygienic conditions that any reputable shopkeeper would exercise when dealing with the sale of perishable food. There is nothing mysterious about the words at all. They convey the ordinary meaning and that is that the Act must be administered in a sensible manner, and I cannot foresee any great hardship at all.
Amendment No. 5 by leave withdrawn
I move amendment No. 6 which reads:—
In sub-section (1), lines 12, 13, to delete paragraph (e).
This sub-section (e) which I wish to have taken out is more definite than the preceding one. It states that "such premises are provided with a refrigerator so situated and fitted as to exclude all contamination." I notice that the Minister wants to change the word "refrigerator" to "container." It is very largely a question of what people can afford.
I have a communication here, a copy of which has been sent to the Minister. from traders in the Cork market, in which they point out that in the first place a refrigerator would be too expensive and costly for them, and (2) there would not be any real advantage from the point of view of attractiveness to the customer, that the customer would have an idea that the fish was cold-stored for a much longer period than in fact it had been in cold storage; furthermore, that the amount of fish required by any trader on any given day can be estimated by him to within a stone or two, and that each evening the small surplus is iced in a stone box and disposed of on the following day. In that way they point out that the expenditure on this refrigerator would be out of proportion to its value to the trade. Then there is another objection. They say that as they are only weekly tenants of the Cork Corporation, the installation of a refrigerator would cost a considerable amount of money, from which the tenants would not benefit. When the lease expires, these, being fixtures, would become the property of the Cork Corporation. I merely quote that to show that we are not going on the ground of the word "refrigerator" or that there is something in it which puts it absolutely beyond the bounds of possibility to provide. We think the fish traders throughout the country will have a strong objection and that it would be economically impossible for them, however much they desire it. I think we can take it that those already in the business of fish selling are aware that they can get higher prices if they instal a refrigerator than they could get if they had not done so. That others have not done so and have gone ahead with their business simply proves that they are not in a position to supply the capital to provide this. I think the proper solution would be to lend the money so as to enable these men to instal these refrigerators. However, I will be glad to know what the Minister's alternative is.
I received a somewhat similar communication to that read by Deputy Derrig. I do know that the majority of the Cork fish traders, who are installed in the Grand Parade market, would be quite satisfied with the change proposed by the Minister, namely, the insertion of the word "container" instead of the word "refrigerator." As has been pointed out by Deputy Derrig, the installation of a refrigerator is rather an expensive item and would press heavily on those traders. The Deputy also mentioned that the majority of those traders are tenants of the Cork Corporation and that the refrigerator is of necessity a fixture. We all know that fixtures cannot be removed if the tenant is shifting. For that reason a number of those tenants could not be expected to undertake that expense. However, if the word "container" is substituted for the word "refrigerator" the case is met satisfactorily. That will mean little or no change to the methods hitherto adopted by fish traders. That will mean placing the fish in boxes of ice. I think the Minister had that in mind when he suggested the word "container."
I agree it is a term which would require to be more fully explained. A container may mean anything. It may mean a box without any ice in it, or it may mean cold storage of some sort. As I translate the term, it simply means that the custom which has obtained, namely, that of placing the fish in a box of ice will be the practice, and that will meet the case as far as the majority of traders in Cork City are concerned.
As I pointed out on a former occasion, the word "refrigerator" is not a very happy word, inas-much as it has no very definite meaning, and rather applies to an expensive plant for cold storage. I was looking for a word to deal with the situation, and this was the word suggested to me, and I put that word in originally. We meant something that would keep the fish in a cool temperature. I propose to substitute the word "container." Deputy Anthony says he would like to know what I mean by "container." I understand that an ordinary wooden box, with zinc lining slightly removed from the wood so that ice can be put in between when there is warm weather, would be quite sufficient to meet the case, and that could he got for a trifling cost. It is a moveable type of article, and that meets the difficulty with regard to the Grand Parade market in Cork, where, if they instal a refrigerator, it would become a fixture and would ultimately become the property of the Corporation. This is a moveable article which they can take home with them if they wish, whatever may be the procedure there. I think the insertion of the word "container" meets the case.
Would the Minister think of introducing a definition of the word "container" in Section 1? In transport matters the word "container" has come to have a special meaning, and it is a very different article from what the Minister describes. It is a recent introduction and has a very definite meaning.
I would not like to confine myself to a strict definition of the word "container." If you provide a distinct definition in the Act everyone will have to provide what is there described. If you merely leave in the word "container" without any definition, any substitute may do just as well as the particular article I have described.
I think Deputy Moore should leave well enough alone.
Amendment 6, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 7:
In sub-section (1) (e), page 5, line 12, to delete the word "refrigerator" and substitute the word "container."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to offer or have for sale in any premises any fresh fish unless at the time at which such fish is so offered or had for sale all the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(a) all fresh fish on such premises which is offered or intended for sale and is displayed for sale is so displayed either by being so hung up as to be removed from all sources of contamination or is set out on a fishslab so situated and fitted as to exclude all contamination, and
(b) all fresh fish on such premises which is offered or intended for sale and is not displayed for sale is kept in a refrigerator which is so situated and fitted as to exclude all contamination and is maintained at a proper temperature, and
(c) there are not at any time on any day in such premises any offals removed from fish on any previous day.
I beg to move amendment 8:
In sub-section (1), page 5, line 22, to insert after the word "premises" the words "in which the business of selling fresh fish by retail is carried on."
This is to meet a point made by some Deputy on the Second Reading. He mentioned that a hawker might be out selling fish during the morning and would then go home to his dinner and have the fish in the house for a period. He might then come within the terms of the Act. In order to ensure that that will not be so, this amendment is introduced. The marginal note says "Conditions of sale of fish in retail shops." I want to insert after the word "premises" the words "in which the business of selling fresh fish by retail is carried on." That will remove any possibility of bringing in hawkers who may have fish in their houses during the dinner hour.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 9:
In sub-section (1) (b), page 5, to delete all words from and including the word "refrigerator" line 33 to the end of the paragraph and substitute the following: "container which is used exclusively for the storage of fresh fish and is so situated and fitted as to exclude all contamination, and"
This amendment is really consequential on amendment 7, substituting the word "container" for "refrigerator."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 10 not moved.
I move amendment 11:
In sub-section (1), lines 36-37, to delete paragraph (c).
On the Second Reading Deputy Moore asked the Minister how could it be determined that the offals were from the previous day.
They would speak for themselves.
In a fish-shop it is possible that if they were working up to midnight on a particular night the offals might not be 24 hours old, and then the matter would not come within the scope of this clause. I merely ask the Minister to make better provision in this particular respect.
I do not think I can see any objection to this provision. The Deputy mentions that the offals might have been there only from the night before. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect that when the shop is open the offals should be all cleared away.
How is the inspector to know? Does it not give rise to a number of vexatious prosecutions?
The onus will be on the inspector to prove that the offals are from the day before. If he cannot prove that, his case fails, and he will probably get into trouble.
Then he will have to be there before the shop opens.
I think fish offals from the day before would be very easily distinguished.
Amendment put and negatived.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 14 to 19, inclusive, and the Title, agreed to.
If there is no grave objection I would like to have the final stages of this Bill taken to-morrow.
I would like to know if the Minister will reconsider Section 3. We are very strongly against the imprisonment clause. So long as it is in the Bill I am afraid we will have to vote against it. I do not believe it is any safeguard eventually for the Association in its contracts. I think it would be better to withdraw this until the Association decide that they want such a penal clause. It will be time enough then to insert it. The Minister is simply anticipating the worst. It has been reiterated from these benches that the Minister is in danger, in his pessimism, of throwing a damper not alone on those who would like to see the Association going ahead, but also on those for whose benefit it has been founded and for whose welfare it is going to work. Once it gets out that there is a definite provision that unless they uphold in every jot and tittle the agreement with the Association, they will be liable to imprisonment, I fear it is going to do a lot of harm. I would like the Minister to reconsider the matter.
Perhaps the Minister could arrange to supply us with copies of the Bill, as amended in Committee, if doing so would not be inconvenient.
I am afraid it would not be possible. The only amendments are the deletion in the definition section of salmon in connection with sea fishing and the changing of the word "refrigerator" to "container." If the Deputy inquired at the office they could inform him when it would be possible to get copies. I am afraid I would not be able to get a copy of the Bill, as amended, before the morning.
In the event of defaulters being prosecuted for non-fulfilment of their agreements, I presume their gear would be confiscated by the Association?
Could not these questions be answered to-morrow?
I simply threw out the suggestion that the confiscation of the gear as a punishment for the crime should be sufficient.
In all probability if they took the extreme step of confiscating the gear they would hardly prosecute.
To my mind, confiscation of the gear is sufficient and imprisonment is a fatal flaw.
The Dáil went out of Committee. Bill reported.
Report Stage ordered to be taken on Thursday, 11th December.
