I think I can say on behalf of Deputy McMenamin and myself that we do not intend to move amendments Nos. 69 and 70, because the Minister meets our desires in amendment No. 69 (a).
Fisheries Bill, 1938—Committee (resumed).
Any person who uses lime, spurge, or any narcotic, irritant or poisonous substance, or any explosive, for the purpose of injury to or destruction of fish in the freshwater portion of any river or in any lake shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £25 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 12 months.
Mr. Lynch
Amendment No. 69 not moved.
I move amendment No. 69 (a):—
In page 13, lines 38 and 39, to delete the words "the freshwater portion of any river or in any lake" and substitute the words "any river, lake or estuary, whether the same be a public or a private fishery, or in any part of the sea".
This amendment is designed to extend to tidal as well as to fresh waters the provisions with regard to poisoning, etc. I think that is the object which Deputy Lynch had in view.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 70 not moved.
Section 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 27.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or any bye-law, the whole of the month of October shall, in respect of every river and fishery district, be included in and form part of the close season for angling for salmon or trout with single rod and line.
(2) No power now subsisting under any Act of altering a close season shall extend to or authorise the excluding of the month of October or any part thereof from the close season in respect of any river or fishery district for angling for salmon or trout with single rod and line.
I move amendment No. 71:—
To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(1) The period commencing on the 13th day of October and ending on the 31st day of that month shall, in respect of every river and fishery district, be included in and form part of the close season for angling for salmon or trout with single rod or line, but the foregoing provision of this sub-section shall be without prejudice to the operation of any statutory instrument made under the Fisheries Act and in force at the commencement of this section whereby the said close season includes a greater portion of the said month of October.
There were some representations with regard to the month of October, principally from Deputy Fred Crowley. He thought that it would be rather drastic to deprive fishermen or rodmen in County Kerry of the whole month of October, and this amendment is proposed as a compromise. We propose to give them up to the 12th October. There are three or four other amendments which suggest other dates, but I think that the 12th of October might be generally acceptable.
Támuid sásta.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75 and 76 not moved.
I move amendment No. 77:—
In sub-section (2), page 13, lines 49 and 50, to delete the words "month of October or any part thereof" and to substitute the words "period named in the immediately preceding sub-section."
That is consequential.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 28.
Where an offence under Section 46 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1850, has been committed in relation to any fishery, then if—
(a) such offence was committed by a person in the employment or under the control of the owner or occupier of such fishery, or
(b) such offence was committed by a person (other than such owner or occupier or a person in the employment or under the control of such owner or occupier) and was facilitated by the failure of such owner or occupier to take reasonable precautions against the commission of such offence,
such owner or occupier shall also be deemed to be guilty of such offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Mr. Lynch
On behalf of Deputy O'Neill, I move amendment No. 78:—
Before Section 28 to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1850, and/or the Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act, 1863, the weekly close season shall be between six of the clock on Saturday evening and six of the clock on Monday morning; and it shall not be lawful in the sea or any estuaries or tideways to take, kill, or fish for any salmon by any form of weir or net whatsoever between the hours herein set out.
Deputy O'Neill asked me to move this amendment on his behalf. I told him that I rather thought myself that it was a matter that might be settled by bye-law but I am not so sure about that at all. The object is to curtail the weekly close season. I do not know the case that might be made in Deputy O'Neill's area for this amendment. In other areas I suppose the fishermen could also put up a case for it but it is a case that, as regards most areas, I am perfectly certain that, if I were Minister, I would not accept. That is a rather half-hearted support of the amendment, I know, but I am carrying out my obligation by moving it and I want to make my own position in the matter clear. I think I was myself responsible for extending the weekly close season from 24 to 48 hours and I do not want to make myself appear foolish by trying to curtail it to-day.
I support the proposal contained in Deputy O'Neill's amendment. There are several fishermen in that particular area who have restrictions imposed upon them that do not exist in other areas. They fish with a rather short net of about 200 yards and when there is a turn on it, it is not possible to catch very many fish. I think in this case the Minister might extend the privilege asked for.
The 48-hour week-end close season was fixed by law and under the existing law it cannot be varied by bye-law. I think the case that would be made by Deputy O'Neill would be similar to that just made by Deputy Brasier, that the fishermen have had a bad time. They have had a bad time because the salmon are not there and the object of extending the week-end close season was to allow more salmon to come up. I think it would be a very short-sighted policy to shorten the close season. It might, perhaps, be a little better in the next year or two, but eventually it would have a bad effect.
Will the Minister not consider the fact that they are already labouring under such severe handicaps that salmon are allowed up?
That matter with regard to the length of the net is fixed by a bye-law. It is fixed having regard to the conditions in the area. The conformation of the river, etc., has to be taken into account. With regard to the weekly close season, I think we should leave it as it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 79 not moved.
I move amendment No. 80:—
At the end of the section to insert the following sub-section—
(2) Where—
(a) an offence under Section 46 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1850, has been committed in relation to any fishery by a person in the employment or under the control of the owner or occupier of such fishery; and
(b) such owner or occupier is, by virtue of the immediately preceding sub-section, charged with such offence,
it shall be a good defence for such owner or occupier to prove—
(i) in case the offence is based on failure to do any act required to be done by the said Section 46, that he used due diligence to ensure that the said act was done and that such failure was not occasioned by his directions or wilful default,
(ii) in case the offence is based on the commission of any act prohibited by the said Section 46, that he used due diligence to prevent such commission, and that the said act was done without his consent, connivance, or wilful default, and
(iii) in every case, that on being charged with the offence, he gave to the person charging him all information in his power with respect to the person who (as the case may be) failed to do any act required to be done by the said Section 46, or did any act prohibited by the said Section 46.
It was more or less agreed on the Second Reading that an amendment of this kind should be brought in so as to cover the employer.
Mr. Lynch
The amendment meets me entirely.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
(1) Whenever the Minister is satisfied that there is not in a fishing weir a free gap constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act, 1863, the Minister may cause to be served on the occupier of such fishing weir a notice requiring such occupier to construct, in accordance with the said Section 9 and within the time specified in such notice, a free gap in such fishing weir.
(2) Where a notice has been served under sub-section (1) of this section on the occupier of a fishing weir, and such occupier has not complied with the requirements of such notice, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) such occupier shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not less than fifty pounds or more than one hundred pounds,
(b) the Minister may, (whether proceedings have or have not been taken against such occupier under paragraph (a) of this sub-section) by himself, his officers or any other person enter on such fishing weir and any land adjoining such fishing weir and construct a free gap in such weir.
Mr. Lynch
On behalf of Deputy McMenamin I move amendment No. 81:—
Before Section 29, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) No person shall unless with the permission in writing of the board of conservators or their waterkeepers remove sand or gravel from any river.
(2) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
I suggest that this is really not a matter for a Bill like this.
Mr. Lynch
Perhaps it is more for the Department of Industry and Commerce.
To interfere with the owner's rights with regard to gravel is not a matter for this Bill. We can prevent him interfering with a river where he is going to interfere in any way with the fisheries. I think that is as far as we can go.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 82:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 13, to insert after the word "time" the following "(not being less than one month from the service of such notice)."
That is merely a verbal change.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Are amendments Nos. 83 and 85 covered by amendment No. 84?
Mr. Lynch
Yes. I am wondering why the Minister has not accepted my amendment to the next section. I accept the Minister's form of amendment. As a matter of fact, it is my own amendment, if one might so describe it, dressed up in a nice suit of clothes in the draftsman's office.
Amendment No. 83 not moved.
I move amendment No. 84:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) Where a notice has been served under sub-section (1) of this section on the occupier of a fishing weir, such occupier may, within one month after the service of such notice, apply to the judge of the Circuit Court within whose jurisdiction such fishing weir is situate for any order quashing such notice on the ground that there is already in such fishing weir a free gap constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act, 1863, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) such occupier shall give notice to the Minister of the application;
(b) such occupier and the Minister shall be entitled to appear on the hearing of the application and to adduce evidence;
(c) if such judge is satisfied that there is already in such fishing weir a free gap constructed in accordance with the said Section 9, he shall quash such notice and direct the Minister to pay to such occupier the costs of the occupier of and incidental to the application, and such notice shall be deemed not to have been served;
(d) if such judge is not so satisfied he shall refuse the application and direct such occupier to pay to the Minister the costs of the Minister of and incidental to the application, and may also amend such notice by extending the time specified in such notice for compliance therewith;
(e) the decision of such judge on the application shall be final and conclusive and not appealable.
If a gap is to be made in a weir, will that be done at the expense of the State or at the owner's expense?
At the owner's expense.
The only point against that is that the State has been satisfied up to the present to allow such a conformation in a weir, and it is rather hard lines that by this legislation probably an expensive operation will be thrown on the owner of a weir. I think the State should meet a thing like that.
The law may have been a bit defective, but it was always understood that the owner was supposed to keep the weir right.
The present state of affairs has existed for a very prolonged period.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 85 not moved.
I move amendment No. 86:—
In sub-section (2), page 14, line 21, to delete the word "or" and substitute the word "nor".
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 30.
(3) Where a notice has been served under either sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of this section on the occupier of a dam, and such occupier has not complied with the requirements of such notice, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) such occupier shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not less than fifty pounds or more than one hundred pounds,
(b) the Minister may (whether proceedings have or have not been taken against such occupier under paragraph (a) of this sub-section), by himself, his officers or any other person enter on such dam and any land adjoining such dam and execute on such dam the repairs specified in such notice.
(10) In this and the next following section the word "dam" means any dam, weir, sluice, wall, embankment or other artificial work constructed or placed in any river for or in connection with the sustaining of water for navigation, irrigation, water supply, water power or any other purpose whatsoever.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 87:—
To add at the end of sub-section (1) and at the end of sub-section (2) the following words: "provided, however, that such occupier may appeal against such notice to the judge of the Circuit Court for the district in which such fishery is situate, and the decision of the said Circuit Judge on the matter shall be final and not appealable.
I put amendments down practically on the same lines for Sections 29 and 30. The Minister has, I admit, met me fully on Section 29 and I want to know why he has not met me on Section 30. I think that the same case lies under Section 30 as under Section 29. There is no use in the Minister's telling me that this is merely a question of facts and facts only.
I think it is.
Mr. Lynch
The Minister, I suppose, is very innocent in matters of this kind, but I can assure him that the interpretation of the section will be a matter very much of law. For instance, if Deputy McMenamin and myself were arguing the law on that, I think the Minister would have to be pretty slick to find his facts in the confusion we could create. It is almost impossible for anyone to say in most of these cases what is law and what is fact. The law reports are full of cases, especially those which would come under Section 29, I admit, where law and fact are almost inextricably mixed. I think the Minister ought to reconsider this so as to provide some method of appeal. I am taking full cognisance of his own amendment. As a matter of fact, Deputy Dockrell, who could not be here, has asked me to move his amendment, No. 88, and that is why I want to get something from the Minister on amendment No. 87 which might ease the pressure on me, as it were, with regard to my obligation to Deputy Dockrell. If I get some assurance that the Minister will consider something in the nature of a tribunal which would go into the question of mills or dams I will be satisfied.
Deputy Dockrell has been approached by one set of people especially—the Celbridge Development Company, Ltd. —in connection with the hardship which might arise in their case. I got a memorandum from them too, but I will be candid and say that I had not time to study that as carefully as I should have if I thought I would have to move Deputy Dockrell's amendment, as I thought Deputy Dockrell would be here to move it. If the Minister would give me some assurance that he would set up some method of appeal from the decision of his engineers where they would say, for instance, that a new work had the effect of not reducing the horsepower by more than 5 per cent., I would be satisfied. That type of decision is very arbitrary, and I think there should be some method by which the owner would have some trustworthy person to whom he could appeal. When all is said and done, the only satisfactory decision in such a case is the decision of a court. As a rule, arbitration leaves everybody not quite satisfied. The decision of a court is generally accepted.
Is it not a fact that boards of conservators have the right to insist upon provision being made for the protection of fish on all such mill-races and dams? My information is that so long as the fish are protected there is no necessity to interfere with mill-race rights.
Mr. Lynch
Of course Section 30 is interfering.
It was this particular section I had in mind when I mentioned about the gaps in the dams. I think very great hardship is inflicted on owners of mills, who perhaps may be suffering enough already, by having to carry out works at their own expense which the Minister may insist upon.
I think that under this Section 30 it is really more a case of fact. I suppose on any section there might be some argument as to the interpretation of the law, but what I had in mind in this was that we would have a member of the Institute of Engineers who would carry out the inquiry. He would be the "fit and proper person" referred to in the amendment. He would carry out the inquiry and make a report to me as to whether he was satisfied that the work was not doing more injury to the mill than is laid down in this amendment. If the Deputy wished we could have some arrangement like Section 61 or, in other words, it could be referred to the President of the Institute of Engineers or a person nominated by him.
Mr. Lynch
If the Minister does that I accept.
I will bring in something like that on the Report Stage.
Mr. Lynch
In that case, whether Deputy Dockrell murders me or not, I will not move the amendment.
Amendment No. 87, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 88 not moved.
I move amendment No. 89:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) Where a notice has been served under sub-section (1) of this section on the occupier of a dam used in connection with a mill or factory and such occupier, within one month after such service, represents in writing to the Minister that compliance with such notice would adversely affect the operation of such mill or factory, the Minister shall cause a fit and proper person to inquire into and report to him upon such representation, and if that report discloses that the execution of the repairs specified in such notice would involve a reduction of more than five per cent. in the working horse power which was available to such mill or factory up to the date of the service of such notice (as measured when the level of the water at such dam is at the average level of the crest of such dam) the Minister shall withdraw such notice, but not otherwise.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.
I move amendment No. 91:—
In sub-section (10), page 15, line 55, to insert before the word "any" the words "or connected with."
Where there is a wastage of water at a mill-race, and neither the miller nor the fisheries get much benefit, it does not appear clear, as the section stands, that we can compel the owner to make things right. The amendment gives power to deal with it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 92 not moved.
Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 93:—
Before sub-section (5) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as precluding the use by the Minister of traps for the capture of fish for the purpose of artificial propagation.
This is to make sure that the Minister has power to carry on experimentation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, and Section 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to use any net for the capture of fish in the freshwater portion of any river or in any lake, unless—
(a) such net is used under and in accordance with by-laws made under this section, or
(b) such person is the holder of a certificate granted by the Minister under this section and such net is used under and in accordance with such certificate, or
(c) such net is a landing net and is used solely as auxiliary to lawful fishing with rod and line, or
(5) Where a person before the 1st day of January, 1939, was entitled to use and used in a several fishery in fresh water a net for the capture of fish, and the right of such person to use such net ceases by the operation of this section, compensation in respect of such cesser shall be paid by the Minister to such person and such compensation shall in default of agreement be fixed by an official arbitrator under and in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
I move amendment No. 94:—
In sub-section (1), page 17, before line 53 to insert the following paragraph:—
(c) such net is a snap net, or
The section makes it unlawful to use any net for the capture of fish in fresh water except with what is mentioned in sub-section (1). If the Minister is good enough to accept the amendment it will enable fishermen on the upper reaches of the Nore to benefit. There are at present fishing in this neighbourhood 35 men who, with their families, are dependent for a livelihood on salmon fishing. These men, more or less, find regular employment during the season at that work. Others depend to a considerable extent on earnings in this occupation to supplement their otherwise meagre incomes. The quantity of fish caught by snap nets is relatively small. In the three years, 1927, 1929 and 1931, each rod, on the average, caught 76 lbs. of fish, each snap net 941 lbs., each drag net 1,260 lbs., and each fixed engine 4,249 lbs. That is to say, snap nets account for only 13 per cent. of the total catch. Therefore, the injury done to fishing, if there is an injury, by snap nets is infinitesimal. There is little merit in the proposal in the Bill to prohibit it, and, accordingly, I sincerely hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
I wish to ask the Minister to give this amendment consideration. There are about 30 families on the River Suir in a similar position to those referred to by Deputy Pattison. They only fish in tidal water between sunrise and sunset. That has been their occupation for generations and they look to their children being able to carry on the industry. Anything that would deprive these people of fishing rights would be resented very much and, if the Minister cannot agree to accept this amendment, I ask him to give consideration to the case made for these men.
As I pointed out on the Second Reading every commission on inland fisheries that sat since the beginning of the century has always unanimously recommended the abolition of netting in fresh water. If we are to proceed to carry out that recommendation and abolish netting, we could not possibly have snap nets, because they form the great part of the netting in fresh waters. To accept the amendment would really mean dropping the section. I do not think that should be referred to as confiscation of rights, because they are being compensated as owners of several fisheries and owners of weirs are being compensated for any interests they may have in the business. It would be impossible to consider the total exemption of snap nets.
The Minister will take into consideration that those concerned form only a very small part of those affected. The figures I quoted show that snap nets account for only 13 per cent. of the total catch.
Are these figures for one particular river?
For the area.
I do not know if the figures ought to be stressed, because I can quite foresee, if the section goes through, and the matter comes to arbitration, that it will be more than 13 per cent. I am sure they would be able to make a case for more than 13 per cent. if they are to be compensated. I do not know what the percentage is, taking the areas all round, wherever there is netting in fresh water. It does not take place in every area. No recommendation was so unanimous by commissions right through as that dealing with the abolition of netting in fresh water and the abolition of snap nets. I think if Deputies concentrated rather on getting fair compensation it would be the best thing they could do.
Would the Minister consider exempting those who have been fishing there up to the present? They are all very poor men and the exemption would be only temporary.
It would be for a long time. I am afraid I could not agree to that.
Mr. Lynch
I have to oppose the amendment on the ground that if you are going to abolish netting in fresh waters, let it be done once and for all, and, as the Minister has met us, let us concentrate on the section where he provides compensation now for those who are engaged, the employees of persons who have nets in fresh water. I think the Deputy ought to concentrate on whatever compensation he can get for those men rather than try to enforce the continuance of netting in fresh water against every report that has been made.
I am quite sure that Deputy Lynch is aware that these poor men were not represented on the commission and had nobody to make their case.
Amendment No. 94 is as follows:—
In sub-section (1), page 17, before line 53, to insert the following paragraph:—
(c) such net is a snap net, or.
I am putting the question: That those words be therein inserted.
Question put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 95 is out of order, as I have informed the Deputy. The section provides for compensation in respect of several fisheries in fresh water and the effect of this amendment would be to extend the compensatory provision to fisheries, whether several fisheries or not, and increase the charge. Therefore, the amendment may not be moved.
Amendment No. 95 not moved.
I move amendment No. 96:—
In sub-section (5), page 18, line 39, to delete the words "such person" and substitute the words "the owner of such net."
This is an amendment to make sure that any compensation payable in respect of the abolition of the use of nets in fresh water will be received by the owner of such nets. It will be understood that the singular here includes the plural.
Yes.
Amendment No. 96 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:—
At the end of the section to insert the following new sub-section:—
(6) Where a person (in this sub-section referred to as the employer) before the 1st day of January, 1939, was entitled to use and used in a several fishery in fresh water a net for the capture of fish and the right of the employer to use such net ceases by the operation of this section, every person (in this sub-section referred to as the employee) who proves to the satisfaction of the Minister or the arbitrator appointed to fix compensation under sub-section (5) of this section in respect of such cesser all the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) that, during the whole or substantially the whole of each of the three open fishing seasons (in this sub-section referred to as the appointed seasons) next before the date of such cesser, he was constantly and regularly employed by the employer in or about the operation or protection of such net at a fixed weekly wage or at a wage calculated by reference to the value of the catch, and
(b) that the remuneration received by him in respect of such employment formed the whole or a substantial part of his livelihood while he was so employed, and
(c) that his said employment related exclusively to the operation or protection of such net, and
(d) that his employment had been terminated as the result of such cesser,
shall be entitled to be paid by the Minister, in respect of his loss of employment during the open fishing season, compensation of an amount calculated as follows, that is to say:—
(i) for each of the appointed seasons, a sum (in this sub-section referred to as the appointed sum) equal to four times the average weekly amount received by such person in respect of such employment during the third of the appointed seasons, and
(ii) for each open fishing season (if any) previous to the appointed seasons during which all the following conditions were complied with in respect of the employee, that is to say:—
(I) that during the whole or substantially the whole of such season, he was constantly and regularly employed by the employer in or about the operation or protection of such net at a fixed weekly wage or at a wage calculated by reference to the value of the catch, and
(II) that the remuneration received by him in respect of such employment formed the whole or a substantial part of his livelihood while he was so employed, and
(III) that his said employment related exclusively to the operation or protection of such net,
a sum equal to the appointed sum,
but subject to the overriding limitation that the amount of such compensation shall not in any case exceed 13 times the appointed sum.
This is the point we have just referred to providing for the employees.
This meets the point I raised on the Second Reading.
Amendment No. 97 agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 98, standing in the name of Deputy William J. Broderick:—
At the end of sub-section (1) to add a new paragraph as follows:
(e) fix in respect of nets legally used for fishing in such fishery during the standard year the length of net to be used which length shall be as the Minister thinks proper and according to the requirements of the area.
As Deputy Broderick had to go away last night, he asked me to move this amendment. It is in connection with the matter raised by, I think, Deputy Brasier as to extending the length of the nets. In my own opinion, that is a matter for a by-law rather than for legislation, and I take it that if a case could be made in the area concerned, after public inquiry in the ordinary way, something might be done in that direction by a by-law, but I really think—perhaps I am wrong—that it must be a matter for a by-law.
In this particular case it is a long-standing grievance of the fishermen, and it unquestionably must be apparent to the Minister that if fishermen were limited to a length of 200 yards, the amount of fish available for these men would be very small. I suggest that this is a matter for legislation or for some interference by the Minister in order to get justice for these men. Naturally where you have men of a certain type on a board of conservators and who dominate the board, they are merciless in their attitude to the net fishermen, and it is in this particular direction that the fishermen find their hardest grievances. The Minister must be aware that, even out in the open sea, where they are near an estuary, it would be impossible, under those conditions, for these men to make a living.
I should like to say that Deputy Broderick spoke to me about this matter last night and told me that he could not be here to-day. I explained the position to him last night and perhaps I might explain it now to Deputy Brasier. This is really a matter for a by-law. We do not fix in any of the Acts what the length of a net may be in any area. That is fixed by by-law, as Deputy Lynch said, after an inquiry. An inquiry could be held to see if a reasonable case could be put up, but I suggest that it would be a new principle entirely to have the length of the net dealt with in an Act of Parliament.
Amendment No. 98, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 37 and 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to buy, sell, expose for sale or have in his possession for sale any trout during the months of January and February in any year.
(2) If any person buys, sells, exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale any trout in contravention of this section, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not less than two pounds nor more than twenty-five pounds, together with a further fine not exceeding two pounds for each trout so bought, sold, exposed for sale or found in his possession.
I think amendments Nos. 99, 100, 101 and 102 all depend on amendment No. 100.
As far as I can see, they are all met.
Amendment No. 99 not moved.
I move amendment No. 100:—
In sub-section (1), page 21, to delete all from the word "buy" in line 20 to the end of the sub-section and to substitute the following:
"take, kill, destroy, buy, sell, expose for sale or have in his possession any trout during the period commencing on the 1st day of January and ending on the 14th day of February in any year."
Taking these together, they extend the prohibition from merely buying, selling, or exposing for sale to taking, killing and destroying, and the season is also affected.
Amendment No. 100 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.
I move amendment No. 103:—
In sub-section (2), page 21, line 23, to insert after the word "person" the words "takes, kills, destroys."
Amendment No. 103 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 104:—
In sub-section (2), line 24, to delete the words "for sale."
Amendment No. 104 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 105:—
In sub-section (2), line 28, to insert after the word "so" the words "taken, killed, destroyed."
Amendment No. 105 agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 40, 41, 42 and 43 agreed to.
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.
(4) It shall be the duty of every holder of a licence or of a renewal of licence for the export of salmon or trout for sale issued by virtue of this section to keep or cause to be kept in every of the premises specified in such licence a register in the prescribed form of all exportations of salmon or trout for sale from such premises and, within three hours after every such exportation, to enter in such register the prescribed particulars (which shall not include the price paid to such holder for any salmon or trout exported by him) of such exportation and of the person to whom the same was made.
I move amendment No. 106:—
In sub-section (1), line 35, page 22, to delete the word "may" and to substitute the word "shall".
I raised this matter on the Second Reading. I cannot see why you should have the word "may" in one case and the word "shall" in the other. In sub-section (2) it says that an application may be made to a district justice and that the justice, on being satisfied that such person is a fit and proper person, shall grant a certificate, whereas in the other case the word used is "may". Now, when the particular person who is looking for this licence has gone to all the trouble that he has to go to in order to get this certificate from the district justice, including the cost of getting a solicitor to appear for him and say what a grand fellow he is, he produces that certificate to the board of conservators and, according to this, they may grant him a licence. If you impose an obligation in the one case you ought to impose it in the other. I see one difficulty and that is that probably the Minister has in mind some limitation of the principle, but I think that if a man thinks it worth his while to go to the trouble of getting a certificate from the district justice, it ought to be automatic that the conservators should be compelled to grant this licence.
Well, this is really a matter of legal wording, but first of all I should like to say that this section follows the corresponding section of the 1925 Act, Section 17. The word "may" means "shall"; but the issue of the licence being conditional upon the prior fulfilment by the applicant of the specified conditions, the use of the word "may" is correct in drafting practice. That is the legal wording to which I have referred. However, the Deputy should also look up Section 17 of the Act of 1925, and he will see that practically the same words are used there. He has probably forgotten that, but I am quite sure that at the time he was quite aware of that legal point I have just quoted. I am quite sure that in 14 years' time I will not remember it either.
Amendment No. 106, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 107:—
In sub-section (4), page 23, lines 6 and 7, to delete all words in brackets after the word "particulars." line 5, down to the word "of," line 7.
A duty is placed on every holder of an export licence for the export of salmon and trout to enter certain prescribed particulars relating to the transactions carried on in his premises in a book kept for the purpose, but it is specifically stated in the sub-section that he shall not be required to keep a record of the price received for the salmon and trout exported. The object of the amendment is to delete the words in parentheses which exempt the exporter from keeping this record of prices. It is not clear why there should be this prohibition against the keeping of a record of the price received by the exporter for the salmon or trout. Under our amendment, we make it possible for the exporter to do so when the need arises. It is difficult to know why the words are in the section at all.
As I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, a good deal of what appears in it is really re-enacting, if you like, previous legislation. Most of what appears here would be found, I think, in Section 22 of the 1925 Act, and I should say that, as far as getting particulars is concerned, the old section has worked satisfactorily. I should also point out that it will be open to the Minister to get the particulars which the Deputy refers to. The words in parentheses will not prevent him from getting the particulars if he wants them. It will be open to the Minister, under the section as it is and without any amendment, to include or exclude the getting of the prescribed particulars at his discretion. The amendment, if carried, would not have any great effect. The section of the old Act dealing with this has, as I have said, worked satisfactorily. While that is so, I would not be inclined to make any change and, therefore, I would ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
There is no obligation on the exporter to keep a record of the price that he pays. As a matter of fact, he is precluded from doing so by the operation of the words in parentheses. While it may be within the competence of the Minister to ask for the particulars, what is the position going to be if the particulars are not kept? I do not see the point of the Minister's objection. If he accepted the amendment he would certainly have the power to get the particulars.
It all depends on whether the Minister wants the particulars or not. Even by deleting these words, the Minister can still look for the particulars, so that it makes absolutely no difference whether the amendment is carried or not. It is really a question of leaving things as they are.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 108 not moved.
Section 44 agreed to.
Section 45 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 54.
(1) Where a board of conservators are authorised by order of the Minister under the Act of 1934 to issue special local licences to use, in particular tidal waters to which the said Act applies situate in their fishery district, any particular kind of engine, net, instrument or device for the taking of salmon or trout...
I move amendment No. 109:—
In sub-section (1), page 25, line 51, to delete the word "are" and substitute the word "is"; and in line 54, to delete the word "their" and substitute the word "its."
This amendment simply proposes to make two verbal changes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 55 and 56 agreed to.
SECTION 57.
(1) Where—
(a) a fishery in the tidal waters or part of the tidal waters of any river or estuary was, for not less than 60 years ending on the 31st day of December, 1932, included as a rateable hereditament in the Valuation List prepared pursuant to the Valuation Acts, and
then, unless it has been judicially determined before the 1st day of January, 1939, by a court of competent jurisdiction...
I move amendment No. 110:—
In sub-section (1), page 27, line 25, to insert before the word "not" the words "a period of."
This amendment simply proposes a verbal change.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 111:—
In sub-section (1) (a), page 27, line 25, to delete the word "sixty" and to substitute therefor the word "forty."
This deals with a point that I made on Second Reading. I am not pressing the amendment. I am simply bringing it forward for the Minister's consideration. A rigid adherence to the 60 years might be on the long side. I think I mentioned on the Second Reading that our Valuation Act of 1850 did not really become effective until 1865, or about 74 years ago. It is well-known that some of these cases were under judicial consideration for a considerable time subsequent to 1863, and it may be that for the next 20 years some of those fisheries did not come in for the purposes of the Valuation Acts. If the Minister says that he has gone into the matter and thinks that "60" is reasonable, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy is correct in stating that he raised this point on the Second Reading, and said that he thought there might be some difficulty, because the results of the appeals taken from the Rates Special Commissioners between 1864 and 1868 were not announced until early in the "70's" and that, therefore, we might not have the full 60 years to go back to. I have ascertained since from the Valuation Office that these fixed engines or other hereditaments, which were the subject of appeals at that time, were not removed from the valuation lists, and the Valuation Office has assured me that it has no difficulty whatever in going back 60 years in all cases.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 112:—
In sub-section (1), page 27, line 36, to delete the word "has" and substitute the word "had."
This is merely a verbal amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 113:—
At the end of sub-section (2), to add the following words: "and the production of the said certificate in any proceedings before a district justice shall be conclusive evidence of the title of the rated occupier to the fishery so included, and the jurisdiction of the district justice shall not be questioned in any matter concerning the said title."
This is an amendment in which I am rather interested, not that I have any particular case in mind at all but on the general principle and with a view, if possible, to stopping now once and for all this raiding on these proprietary fisheries. The Minister will remember that on the Second Reading I was particularly anxious, in view of the fact that the State is expending a great deal of money in purchasing out these fisheries that, between now and the time when they are taken over, these fisheries would not be subject to raids which might destroy the property for which we are paying. It does not look like that, perhaps, on paper but raids on these fisheries would really have that effect. The difficulty created for the proprietors is this, that even when the footiest case comes before the district justice, a case that could be disposed of by a fine of 5/- or 10/-, the solicitor for the defendant who has been encroaching on a private fishery raises the question of jurisdiction. That, immediately, takes it out of the hands of the district justice because he has no jurisdiction on title cases and then we have something on the lines of the Erne Fishery case. I am not prepared to stand over the drafting of this amendment. I am not a draftsman but I think if there was some provision put in by which the production of the certificate from the Valuation Office, that this had been a rated hereditament for 60 years, would give you an indefeasible right to title just as when it comes to the taking over of the fishery. I do not see why the production of that certificate would not stop the question of title being raised before the district justice. When that certificate is produced the case would be brought within the purview of the district justice. The amendment would have to be dressed somewhat by the Parliamentary draftsman. Probably the Minister will look into that and see whether something should not be done towards helping to stop these raidings. Something on those lines would be the surest way to stop the raiding of these fisheries. It is entirely in the interests of the State that the raidings should stop so that we would get some return for the money that we are paying for these fisheries—something that would be worth the price paid.
I remember the Deputy on the Second Reading made the point that he would like to know what we intended doing in order to stop these raidings. I had assumed that when people realised that these fisheries are becoming State property the raids would cease. If the raids do not stop, then we will have to take drastic measures to stop whatever raiding there may be. I want Deputies to realise that in the Bill we are doing nothing to fix the ownership on any particular person. What we are trying to do is to fix whether the fishery is a several fishery or not. We are fixing that it is a several fishery by the proof that rates have been paid for the several fishery for 60 years. I think we are probably in the same position as the Land Commission when taking over an estate. They take over the estate but sometimes they are not sure as to who the owner is.
Mr. Lynch
I hope the Minister will not be as long finding out the ownership of the fishery as the Land Commission has been in the case of the ownership of the lands.
When there is a dispute as to the ownership of the lands, there is a way of dealing with it. The money is lodged. In the same way now if we find there is a several fishery and a dispute as to the ownership, then the determination of the ownership is another matter.
Mr. Lynch
If I were sure that the raiding would stop I would be satisfied.
We will stop that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 57, as amended, agreed to.
Section 58 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 59 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lynch
I put down no amendment on that. No amendment is necessary. I merely reiterate that I want the Minister to get some engineer trained before Mr. Hassard is out of action. If you do not train engineers now you will have no one later on to make those investigations for you and the result will be that they will not be finished in the life-time of any of us. This is a particularly technical job. There is only one man in Ireland who really knows the job well. He knows all about these weirs inside out and he knows what is wanted. I merely am raising the matter so as to impress on the Minister the need to get the Minister for Finance to agree to the taking on of half-a-dozen young engineers and having them trained to this work.
I would not be optimistic enough to ask the Minister for Finance to give us half-a-dozen engineers. The Deputy may not be aware that we have an assistant engineer there for the last couple of years and we are trying to get more.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 60 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lynch
I had a note here that the person should show some authority for the right to come in and take possession.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 61, 62, 63 and 64 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 65 stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Lynch
I have a note here about the definition of "owner." Can the Minister tell me if there is a definition of "owner"?
No. I do not think so. I would like to look into that matter again.
Mr. Lynch
It struck me that it was not worth putting down an amendment about. I am satisfied the Minister will look into it.
All right; but we are not dealing with ownership.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 66 agreed to.
SECTION 67.
(2) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to the fixing of the compensation under this section in respect of a transferable fishery vested in the Minister by the operation of an ordinary vesting order, that is to say:—
(a) the arbitrator shall have regard primarily to the profits of such fishery during the transition period;
(b) such arbitrator may take into account (in addition to evidence submitted by other persons) any evidence submitted by the owner or occupier of the fishery of—
(i) the profits of such fishery before the commencement of the transition period, or
(ii) exceptional meteorological conditions or other conditions affecting the average catch during the transition period, or
(iii) the extent to which the owner or occupier has been permitted peaceful occupation during the transition period, or
(iv) any circumstances antecedent to the transition period which may have affected the earning power of the fishery during the transition period;
(c) such arbitrator may take into account any depreciation of such fishery during the transition period or of the structures or buildings used in connection therewith and described in the record survey of such fishery in so far as the same may be due to causes other than fair wear and tear.
I move amendment No. 114:—
In sub-section (2), page 35, line 1, to delete the word "may" and substitute the words "shall also."
Some of the owners had rather a fear where the fisheries had been interfered with by raiding and so on that that would not be given as much prominence in the mind of the arbitrator as the taking over. This amendment will make all things equal.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Lynch
There are two amendments in the names of Deputy Dockrell and myself. They are amendments Nos. 114a and 114b:—
In sub-section (2) (b) (iii), lines 10 and 11, to delete the words "during the transition period."
At the end of Section (2) (b) to add a sub-paragraph as follows:—
(v) expenses incurred by the owner in court proceedings to establish his title where the Attorney-General was a party to such proceedings.
The amendments were handed in late, but I am not ruling on that.
Mr. Lynch
Deputy Dockrell asked me to move these.
That is all right; it is a matter for the Deputy.
Mr. Lynch
In all probability, the question of order would arise on the next amendment, No. 114b.
The next one is out of order.
Mr. Lynch
Then this is quite a useful amendment. I feel that the next amendment would impose a contingent charge on public funds. The idea behind this amendment, No. 114a, is that the arbitrator should not find himself excluded from taking into consideration matters prior to the transition period, for instance, a concentrated series of raids over a number of years. I hold no brief for any of these fellows, and there are some of them whom most of us would be very glad to get rid of, but I have, at the same time, a sense of natural justice, and that any calculation should be based on a premises, using the word in the logical sense, which might not be fair is repugnant to me. Apart from the transition period merely, one has to take into consideration, especially in a matter like fisheries, the resultant effects during the transition period of prior raiding. The Minister agreed with me last night with regard to what Deputy McMenamin tried to make a joke of, biological nets. We were, of course, not speaking of biological nets—that was ridiculous—but there is a biological fact about fisheries, that raiding to-day will only have its real, serious effect in from four to five years' time. Therefore, if you confine the arbitrator's jurisdiction to the mere transition period and if the case is dealt with in four years—it will not be dealt with under three years—the raiding that had gone on immediately prior to the transition period might have a very serious effect on the turnover of that man during that period. That is really the point behind this amendment, so far as I can see. To tell the truth, I did not have any time to look into it.
I think the point is very well covered. As drafted, we try to cover what happens during the transition period. I do not think the amendment is necessary at all because sub-section (4) will take everything into account in the way of interference with a fishery before the transition period.
Mr. Lynch
The Minister's statement is quite valuable from that point of view because the arbitration is not a court, and one can quote a Minister's remarks, whereas you cannot do so in a court.
I think the point is well covered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 114b not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 67 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lynch
The Minister knows very well that many of these men have been heavily mulcted, and if the Minister will say that there is nothing in it which will exclude the arbitrator from taking a matter of that kind into consideration, I am satisfied. Some of these men were mulcted in extraordinary costs merely because of the intervention of the Attorney-General, and, again, I think it is a matter of justice, that when we are winding up these people and taking away their property, we should give consideration to such a matter where very heavy costs have been involved. Apart altogether from the Erne fisheries, there are others in which costs ran into very many thousands of pounds in their efforts, time and time again, to establish title. I should like the Minister to say that there is nothing to preclude the arbitrator from taking a matter of that kind into consideration when working under the 1919 Act, under which the arbitrator acts in nearly all these cases. I must say this, that so far as I know, and I know something of it, the decisions of the arbitrator appointed to carry out assessments of compensation in connection with the Electricity Supply Acts—and I presume it will be the same person in this case—have been received with complete satisfaction, and I have no doubt in my own mind that there will be no quarrel subsequently by owners of fisheries with the compensation he will fix; but it would be useful if the Minister would say that the matter mentioned in the amendment would not be excluded from the purview of the arbitrator when going into the question of compensation to these proprietors.
It is a very difficult matter to interpret a section like this from an angle I had not thought of before. It appears to me that the arbitrators must take into account the profits earned during the transition period and, consequently, under the amendment I have inserted, equally the profits made before the transition period. That, however, is qualified to the extent that if anything prevented a man from making profits, either during or before the transition period, in the way of interference with his fishery, it would naturally be taken into account by the arbitrator. I think that as the section is drafted, that is as far as the arbitrator would go. I have been looking at the Acquisition of Land (Compensation) Act, 1919. There are rules laid down there, but I do not think there is anything that would cover this point.
Mr. Lynch
I think there are new rules laid down under the Electricity Acts and there probably would have to be new rules again under this measure.
We may perhaps refer to this again on Report Stage. I should like to look into it.
Question put and agreed to.
With regard to the next amendment, No. 115, I do not propose to move it because, on reconsideration, I find that it needs elaborating.
Amendment No. 115 not moved.
Sections 68 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 73.
I move amendment No. 116:—
Before sub-section (4), to insert the following new sub-section:—
(4) Where the Minister proposes to acquire (either compulsorily or by agreement) any land or premises held or occupied by a local authority or any body corporate for the purposes of any railway, tramway, dock, canal, water, gas, electricity or other public undertaking, or to acquire or terminate, restrict or otherwise interfere with (either compulsorily or by agreement) any easement, way-leave or other right whatsoever existing over or in respect of any such land or premises, he shall before so doing consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
This is a provision that should have gone into the Bill as drafted. It provides that where we interfere with railways or any other public utility, there should be consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 73, as amended, agreed to.
Section 74 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 75 stand part of the Bill."
I should like the Minister to say if he proposes to consider the suggestion made by the Inland Fisheries Commission with a view to operating a few experimental hatcheries. I understand that his Department, while not having expressed any views on the matter, are not averse from having an experiment of this kind carried out with a view to the scientific stocking of rivers and studying the habits of fish. There is no amendment down with this object but, perhaps, the Minister would indicate that he will consider the proposal as outlined in the Report of the Fisheries Commission.
The commission which sat in 1934 gave a lot of thought to the question raised by Deputy Bartley. They recommended a very elaborate and, perhaps, Utopian scheme in respect of the salmon going up river and for improving the fisheries generally. After hearing the advice of the Department, I was frankly afraid to adopt the scheme in toto, but I think we should give it a trial. I should be very anxious to see the scheme tried on one or two of the rivers when we take them over. We shall give the recommendation of the commission a trial under the most favourable circumstances. In that way, we shall endeavour to find out whether their recommendations were sound or not. I hope they will be justified because they would hold out great promise for the improvement of our fisheries. I have no reason to doubt what they say, but I did not like to try it out completely.
Mr. Lynch
You are going to educate the commission post hoc.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 76 to 79 agreed to.
SECTION 80.
(1) If, in the opinion of the Minister, it is in the public interest that a vested fishery or part of a vested fishery should be granted by way of lease to any person, the Minister may, in accordance with this section, demise such fishery or such part of such fishery to such person by way of lease for such term as the Minister shall think proper.
I move amendment No. 117:—
In sub-section (1), page 40, line 33, after the word "term" to insert the words "not exceeding twenty years".
If leases were given for long periods, it might have very unpleasant reactions. We have experience in the South of long leases having been given. The people who got the leases were prolific in their promises at first but, when the leases were granted, we found great difficulty in getting them to carry out the promises made. A lease for a term of 20 years should be sufficient.
I accept the amendment.
Mr. Lynch
I agree with the amendment but is it the intention to lease?
It is not the intention to lease generally.
Mr. Lynch
What I am afraid of is that we might find ourselves, after this Bill and the Tourist Bill are law, without a bit of free fishing anywhere. There is the danger that you might not be able to go near any stream without having to pay a fine to somebody or other.
Is the Minister satisfied with the phrasing of the amendment?
Yes. We accept it as it is.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 80, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 81 to 94 agreed to.
SECTION 95.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, in respect of each vested fishery, as on and from the payment day next following the date of vesting, pay in any fishery year to the board of conservators for the fishery district in which such fishery is situate in lieu of fishery rate a half-yearly sum calculated as a moiety of the fishery rate for the current fishery year on the poor law valuation existing at the date when the fishery rate is made.
Mr. Lynch
On behalf of Deputy McMenamin, I move amendment No. 118:
In sub-section (2), line 21, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall."
This amendment is, I think, worth while. I take it for granted that the Minister will, when it comes to the point, pay the amount of the rate for which he will be normally liable, but I can see nothing against making the provision obligatory. It will ease the minds of people who may be disturbed. I do not think that the Minister can read me a legal argument, as he did before, on "may" and "shall.""May" does not mean "shall" in every case.
It does not mean "shall" in this case. I am standing for a well-established administrative principle in this case. The Minister for Finance does pay the equivalent of the rate on public buildings but it is always laid down that he "may" do so. He could not possibly avoid payment.
"May" and "shall" have the same force in this case because the provision is governed by the next sentence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 95 to 100 agreed to.
SECTION 101.
I move amendment No. 119:—
To add at the end of the section the following sub-section:—
(2) An offence under the Fisheries Acts or this Act may be brought before and heard and disposed of by a justice of the District Court irrespective of the place in which the person alleged to have committed such offence resides or in which such offence is alleged to have been committed.
This amendment is to meet a case where fish are taken illegally, say, in Donegal and sold in Dublin. It would be most inconvenient to try one of the offenders in Donegal and the other in Dublin. It would be much better to try both at the same place and at the same time. We may not, of course, always do that. If it were a small offence, a person in Donegal would be tried there and a person in Dublin would be tried here. In certain cases where it is a rather serious offence it would be better to have them all tried in the same place and at the same time.
Mr. Lynch
I quite agree with that, but would the Minister give some undertaking in this direction? If an offence is committed in Dublin, through selling fish caught in Donegal, the Dublin persons should be brought to Donegal rather than bring the Donegal persons to Dublin. One might inflict very considerable hardship on some poor unfortunate devil. I may have taken the Minister up wrongly, but I do not think so. The amendment provides that the offence may be disposed of "irrespective of the place in which the person alleged to have committed such offence resides or in which such offence is alleged to have been committed." That means that if an offence is committed in Donegal it could be tried in court in Killorglin, County Kerry. That is reductio ad absurdum, but I think it is within the province of the Minister to act in that manner and it could be made impossible for a defendant to defend one of these cases. Perhaps the Minister would look into it further.
If there is any fear of that, we will make it right.
Amendment No. 119 agreed to.
Section 101, as amended, agreed to.
Section 102 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
The following amendments in the name of the Minister were agreed to:—
120. To insert in the third column opposite the reference to the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1842, before the figures "101" the figures "80."
121. To insert after the reference to the Salmon Acts (Amendment) Act, 1870, the following:—
|
40 & 41 Vic. c. 65. |
The Fisheries (Dynamite) Act, 1877. |
The whole Act. |
122. In the third column opposite the reference to the Fisheries Act, 1924, to delete the word and figure "Section 5" and substitute the words and figures "Sections 5 and 6."
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, May 17th.