I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I want to make a simple statement of fact in introducing this measure. I claim that, in introducing this, I am giving expression to the feeling of the majority of the landholders in the country and of the people generally that the landholders should be entitled to let or use the fisheries attached to their own lands. Heretofore these fisheries have been vested in and reserved to the Land Commission or to the landlord. The position to-day is that a man whose lands adjoin a valuable fishery has no say whatever in the vesting of that fishery and no right to fish in the waters adjoining his land. The same applies to sporting rights.
The case is sometimes made against a measure of this kind that if one gives back these rights to the farmers the fisheries will deteriorate. I describe that as a rather insidious type of propaganda. It is said that there will be no proper protection. My answer to that is that there is no proper protection at the moment. Irrespective of whether there are conservators or fishery boards protecting the fisheries, the riparian owners poach the waters. I claim that they are quite right in doing so because the vested interests who hold these fisheries reside for the most part outside this State. Why should a farmer whose lands adjoin these fisheries regard those fisheries as alien property? Why should he be a party to their protection when they represent a right that was taken away from him throughout the years.
The Land Commission have let and sublet these fisheries to vested interests. In this Bill I propose that these interests be bought out at a fair price and the fishery rights and sporting rights revested in the riparian owner by way of additional annuity consolidated with the annuity already attaching to his holding. In that way we shall not do anything detrimental to any interest. We shall simply restore to the farmers a particular right to which they are entitled with the least possible loss to those who now enjoy such rights and who utilise these fisheries for their own benefit. I suggest that to safeguard against exorbitant claims being made for compensation a tribunal, such as that suggested in Section 2, could decide as between the interested parties. In order to make it possible for the Government to meet our demands I would suggest that what has been done in previous legislation should be done here. Particular areas could be taken over at different periods. That is the answer to the Department of Finance, or any other Department, which might claim that this was too costly an undertaking and that the compensation to be paid would be incommensurate with any benefits which might accrue.
The strongest argument put forward by the trout angling associations and other interests is that the farmer might be selfish and might develop his own particular stretch or river or lake to the detriment of other interests above or below him. I can cite a case in point to prove the inaccuracy of that suggestion. The river Laune in County Kerry drains into the lake of Killarney. A landowner there took legal action and was given the particular fishery. He sublet that to hotel proprietors in Killarney. This hotel uses the fishery for the purpose of attracting tourists. When the fishery was awarded to him it was in a sadly deteriorated condition because it had been consistently poached. It is now a valuable asset, because of development, both to himself and to the nation. I could quote a number of such cases. That is a complete answer to those who say that if these fisheries are handed back they will immediately deteriorate.
Another point put forward against handing them back to the farmers is that they would charge exorbitant rates to those who wished to use them. Why depict the farmers as selfish and dishonest people? They are the backbone of the nation. The inhabitants of our towns and cities all came from farming stock. The best of our race has come from the land. That is an answer to that type of propaganda. I do not approach this measure from any political angle. This is a Bill that should have been introduced years ago. I appeal to the Minister to let this go to a free vote of the House.
In regard to sporting rights there is ample machinery in the Land Commission for the purpose of vesting such rights. I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to one particular aspect. On the Ventry estate in County Kerry the sporting rights are still in the hands of outsiders.
They were never handed over to the farmers or even to the Land Commission. I have been informed that in previous legislation the Land Commission have ample powers to deal with that matter. That is why I am including it—in order to clarify the position and to see that such powers can be utilised to deal with estates. Perhaps there are others throughout the country.
On the question of vested interests, let me say that I realise that the said vested interests could mean the Land Commission as well as people from outside the country. We have State property. Take, for instance, the State property in the Bourne Vincent Estate. In connection with the lower reaches of that estate, the riparian owners agitated some years ago to lease these fisheries from the Board of Works. At that period they were advertised. Once again the vested interests were in a position to pay a pretty enhanced price for them and the local farmers could not compete with them. That is another type of fishery to which I am referring as well as to the stretches of river and lake shore fisheries. I want to make it quite clear to Deputies who may have points against this measure that where trout angling associations and other interests have developed their own stretches on rivers and proved from their own industry that these are an asset to the nation, this Bill will not interfere with that interest at all. There is no mention of it. There are certain areas where these trout angling associations have made purchases, in some cases from the riparian owners and in other cases from the Land Commission. We are not out to hinder the development of fishing. We are paying the way for real development. No matter what may be said about riparian owners and farmers, whilst farmers stand on the bank of a river and look at a man from South Africa or from some other country fishing on his lands and order him off his own lands you will have no development. You cannot have it.
Take the trout angling associations. I am informed that a man with a £2 licence dare not go into that stretch of river which is leased by the vested interests. As a contrast, would he not have a better chance in dealing with the local farmer and the local riparian owner to lease a stretch of river and get permission to fish on it for a week or a month or whatever the period may be? These are the fundamental points which I am putting forward.
I hope the Bill will be favourably received and that it will be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered.
