Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Fisheries.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na blíana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Iascach Mara agus Intíre, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, for salaries and expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

I should like to give an explanation as to how the item E.E. (1)—Losses, £3,694—arose. It is in connection with the service between Galway and the Aran Islands. About the year 1912 the former Congested Districts Board, with a view to facilitating communication between the Aran Islands and the mainland, advanced to the Galway Bay Steamboat Company a sum of £7,500 for the purchase of the S.S. "Dun Aengus." Repayment of the advance was to be by half yearly instalments over a period of 27 years; and on that basis, the total amount due to be paid in principal and interest would be £10,069 10s. 8d. Nothing was received from the Company since 1933; and, at that time, £6,376 0s. 2d. had been repaid, leaving £3,693 10s. 6d. outstanding.

Apart from the capital provided for the acquisition of the steamer, a subsidy of £1,100 per annum was paid to the Company and this continued up to 1926. In 1926, an investigation into the working of this scheme was made by officers of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and as a result certain rearrangements were decided upon. The Company were allowed to suspend payment of their loan instalments for the four years ending 1929 and to advance correspondingly the date for repayment of the final instalment. Subsidy at the rate of £1,000 per annum was continued until 1929. Towards the end of 1929 the Company undertook the working of a tender for the Galway Harbour Commissioners in connection with liners visiting Galway; and as the crew of the "Dun Aengus" were mainly employed on this work, the loss on the working of the Company was reduced. This enabled the subsidy to be reduced to £500 for the year 1930 and £600 for the year 1931.

In 1932, a specially heavy overhaul of the "Dun Aengus" necessitated the subsidy being increased to £1,000 for that year. The arrangement for a varying subsidy has never been regarded as satisfactory. Subsequently, the Minister for Industry and Commerce in consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture, arranged to have the balance on the loan account remitted in full and the annual subsidy fixed at a reduced amount. The reduced subsidy has been fixed at £300 per annum and will continue to be paid in respect of the years 1933 to 1939. It will continue thereafter unless the arrangement in regard to the Galway-Aran Service is terminated by six months' notice to be given either by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or by the Company, subject to the proviso that should this subsidy prove to have been insufficient to cover the aggregate loss on working in the five years, ending 31st December, 1937 or in a subsequent period of five years, the Company shall be recouped the amount by which expenditure upon necessary overhaul, beyond what is recoverable from Insurers or third parties, shall exceed £1,200.

The second item in this Supplementary Estimate to which I wish to refer, is sub-head F. (1.)—Grants to Boards of Conservators. Under Section 14 (1) of the Fisheries (Tidal Waters) Act, 1934, every board of conservators within whose district there are tidal waters to which the Act applies is entitled to a grant in each fishery year equivalent to the amount of fishery rate on the fisheries in such tidal waters that obtained on the 1st day of January, 1933. In the Ballyshannon fishery district, the amount of such rates for the standard year, as specified, in respect of the fisheries in the tidal waters was £540. As a result of the decision in what has come to be known as the "Erne Fisheries Case" no rates were received by the conservators for the tidal fishery during the fishery year 1st October, 1933, to 30th September, 1934, and, accordingly, the sum of £540 falls to be paid to the Ballyshannon Board. From the amounts now submitted by way of Supplementary Estimates namely, £3,694, plus £540, making a total of £4,234, we must deduct a sum of £3,706 representing an excess in the Appropriations in Aid of the Vote, as estimated for the current financial year. That reduces the amount required to £528, and deducting from that figure certain savings which will be effected on other sub-heads, amounting to £518 in all, leaves the net total required by way of Supplementary Estimate at £10.

Do I gather from the Minister that the £540 is for the loss of rates during the year 1933-34 and that no provision is being made for loss on rates during the current year 1934-5—the year beginning October 1st last?

Dr. Ryan

No, not so far.

Mr. Lynch

It comes in at the end of the period?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Lynch

On that point, there was a matter I mentioned several times to the Minister with regard to the provisions of section 13 of the Act of 1925. The time has now practically expired. Sub-section (6) of that Act, which sets out that the provision by which rates on valued fisheries go to the board of conservators instead of to the local authorities, expires at the end of nine years from 1st April following the coming into force of the Act of 1925. Therefore that provision ceases on the 1st April next, so that if legislation is not introduced at once, extending that provision of the 1925 Fisheries Act, we are reverting to the position in which we were before that Act was passed—that is, the local authorities will be entitled when striking their rate as they do I think in April each year, to strike rates on the locally valued fisheries.

As a matter of fact a very nice question will arise as to any outstanding rates during the current fishery year. Under the fishery laws these rates must be struck in December. Some of them may not be paid on the 31st March and then a very nice question may arise as to whether any rates outstanding on the 31st March would be payable to the conservators or whether the local authorities could not claim that any rates falling after 31st March next should come into their coffers instead of into the coffers of the conservators. That is a matter into which the Minister should make inquiries in his Department so as to ascertain what is being done about it. As far as the Galway Bay Steamboat Company is concerned that was an old standing liability which we inherited from the old Congested Districts Board. I am not sure whether the subsidy of £300 is sufficient to maintain the services to the extent that these require. I think I saw from the papers that that was supplemented at present by the Sea Fisheries Association. I am not cognisant of affairs there at present but if that £300 is supplemented by the Sea Fisheries Association this subsidy may be sufficient.

Arising out of this Vote, might I suggest to the Minister in connection with the Erne Fishing Company another way in which the money could be got? My information was that when the case was before the High Court in 1929 the Erne Fishery Company were working that fishery. I understand that since the decision of the Supreme Court was given last year no application has so far been made for a return of the working of the Erne Fisheries for the time the case was before the High Court and pending the appeal. I think the only person who can make application on that matter is the Attorney-General. If there have been any profits during those years, and if they have been lodged, the Attorney-General might let us know. If such is the case I do not see why these moneys should not be available. If there were any profits derived from 1929 to 1934, then that is the source that the Minister should tap in order to provide the rates that he is trying to make by this Vote.

Mr. Lynch

How far do the receipts from the several local fisheries meet that?

Before the Minister concludes, there is a question in connection with the general subject of several fisheries, analogous to that raised by Deputy Brady, on which I would like to have some information. The Minister for Defence said here on a previous occasion that the Government seriously considered acquiring the fishery rights in this country and making them the property of the State. We are all aware that the Erne Fishery decision created a new situation with regard to the several fisheries in this country. It is neither desirable nor permissible to comment on the decision in that case. But it seems legitimate to say this: that it seems highly desirable that the State should take some recognition of the fact that these several fisheries were occupied for a very long period by persons who believed themselves to be the proprietors of them. These fisheries were transferred from one person to another for very substantial value at different times. It is apparently true that legal appeals have accepted the view that the fundamental title to these several fisheries was unsound. I want to know would the Government consider the desirability of acquiring these several fisheries for the State and compensating the existing owners? It may be that some of them might be discovered not to belong in law to the people who believe themselves to be the owners of them at the present time. It may be that others will be found to be legally vested in these several fisheries. But grave hardships will certainly ensue if the letter of the law is to be enforced as regards the ownership of any several fishery in the country the title to which is faulty. I would be glad to know from the Government if they now propose implementing the undertaking given by the Minister for Defence in the House on a previous occasion—that is, to acquire those fisheries and legally compensate the owners, or the putative owners, as the case may be.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to the question raised by Deputy Lynch as to the expiry of the provision whereby rates go to the conservators rather than to the local bodies, that matter has not been lost sight of. But we had hoped to have a report of the commission sitting on the inland fisheries before doing anything definite or bringing in any temporary Bill to deal with the situation. I expect that we may have the report within the next few weeks. Otherwise I fear we may have to deal with that position in the very near future at any rate. As regards this other question—how far do the rates from the several local licences go to meet this bill for rates?—I have to say that it does not meet fully that amount. But it must be remembered that we were only in a position to issue those special licences when a good part of the season in the Erne Fishery district was over last year. Therefore, we could not charge as much for the special local licences as we could for a full year.

I hope in the coming year to be able to get enough to meet the full demand for the rates from the special local licences. Deputy Brady raised the question with regard to the point that the Erne Company were working on behalf of the court pending the appeal. I believe that is true, but I do not like to go into it further because it is a very delicate and complicated legal position, and I think we might leave the Attorney-General to deal with it. I am sure he will safeguard the interests of the State. If there is money due or if it can be recovered he will see to it. In answer to Deputy Dillon, I wish to say that we are in the position of awaiting the report of the Fisheries Commission so as to see what they recommend with regard to private and several fisheries, and so on, and also to see if the Government would agree with its recommendations. Personally, I think we should keep always before us the consideration that the occupiers of a number of these fisheries have been there for a long time, believing themselves to be the owners.

When we took over the land which was required perhaps under somewhat similar circumstances, we did not victimise the owner of the land by taking it from him, confiscating it without compensation. I think the same should really apply to those fisheries, and I am sure that, whatever the commission may report, they will not be unmindful of that. Whatever they may report we will keep it in mind; we will not be unjust to the present owners in any way.

Vote agreed to.
Barr
Roinn