Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1952

Vol. 130 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Sea Fisheries Bill, 1952 — Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 13.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are being taken together.

We are pressing amendment No. 13 fundamentally as a protection for the Parliamentary Secretary himself. I have no doubt in my mind but that the best interests of this board will be served by a broad membership as distinct from a Civil Service membership. I do not say that in any spirit of reflection on the permanent Civil Service but rather with the idea of getting the best general picture of a situation in which you must have interests represented on the board as distinct from a purely Civil Service representation.

I wish to put it on record that I am genuinely afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, or whoever sets up this board, is going to nominate officials out of hand. That is something that we urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary should not happen. We have deliberately framed this amendment after consideration in this Party. We feel that the Bill, in general, goes far enough in the enlargement of State control without allowing the board to become constituted solely of officials or former officials.

I cannot see any real objection by the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to this amendment. It is an amendment which must commend itself to them, as it leaves the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister a wider choice, which must inevitably afford an opening for a better type of board. I seriously urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that he should recollect his own views when he was a Deputy and try, so far as he can, in conformity with Government policy, to exclude too much of the Department's mind from the board. I suggest that, to extend the activities of civil servants on the board, virtually as an adjunct of the fishing section, would defeat the best purposes of the Bill and the best interests of the board itself. We urge that it is definitely in the interests of the fishermen and of the fishing industry that the board should not have more Civil Service members than two. We shall not object if the Minister is anxious to have power to nominate one of these as chairman, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to take steps to ensure that this board should have a broader constitution than that of civil servants alone. I urge this view in a very serious and earnest way. I feel quite honestly that the hope of any really good work by this board will be based on a personnel drawn from all sections of the fishing industry and with due knowledge of the fishing industry. If we have a number of members of the board, without what one might call the Civil Service or official approach to their problems, I think you will get a board with more vision, more initiative and one that is very much more likely to be of lasting benefit to the fishing industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary has met the amendments to this Bill in, if I might use the term, a very decent way. He has accepted very many of them. We have discussed these amendments from a non-Party point of view, but I regret very much that I must press him to accept this amendment.

When I put down amendment No. 14, I did so with the intention of trying to elicit the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary as to the possible composition of the board. Having listened to his reply to the speeches in favour of the amendment before the adjournment, it seems to me to be all the more necessary to get a clear decision as to what we have in mind. One of his criticisms of the various speeches made is that he did not think he should be asked to base the composition of the board on representative lines. Nobody is suggesting that. As a matter of fact what we are trying to do is to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary making it absolutely a matter of a representative basis, in so far as the representation is going to be confined almost exclusively to civil servants. He speaks of the need to have persons on the board who have experience of administration rather than practical experience of the fishing industry. That is a clear indication of the way in which his mind is working. He speaks also of having persons readily available for weekly meetings. Again what type of person is more likely to be readily available than the civil servant who has merely to cross from one side of the street to another to attend a meeting? So that when it is suggested in the amendment that the personnel of the board should not contain more than two civil servants it is not this side of the House that is seeking to lay down rigid lines of a representative character. It is rather the Parliamentary Secretary who is definitely attempting to constitute the board along very narrow lines.

He also pointed out that there should be a protection against the danger of developing the delegation of powers to any great extent. My main objection to the possible composition of the board, in so far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, is based on the fact that there is a complete delegation of powers because we have found from experience—and in saying this no reflection is intended on the personnel of the board who are civil servants—that although there are civil servants sitting on the board it is the Minister himself who makes the decision. Not alone is there one system of delegation, but there is a duplicate system in the sense that first of all, it passes from the present committee to the fisheries section and from the fisheries section back to the Minister in the Department of Agriculture, so much so, that it is not an unfair description to say that in many instances the members of the committee are almost afraid to scratch themselves without asking the Minister's consent. In regard to the most petty matters, the decision has to come from the Minister.

Now, if that is what the Parliamentary Secretary wants, why not abolish the board altogether and let him exercise the powers under the Bill through one of his senior officials who will be directly responsible to him? But is there any sense in establishing what we are to regard as an independent board and expect the members of it to carry out the exceptionally onerous and difficult task of placing the fishing industry on its feet, with an assurance of a proper standard of livelihood for the men engaged in it and the provision of a proper supply of fish to the public, and then find that this independent board is in fact to be run possibly by a group of men who are not masters of their own decisions because of their official and professional positions and who must in effect wait, with a certain amount of uncertainty and temerity, until word comes from the Minister as to whether they shall move or stand still? If that is the viewpoint we have as to the way in which the board is going to operate, then, as I have said, it would be far better to scrap the board altogether and deal directly with the Minister.

The other argument, as to the value of having members on the board who have practical experience of catching fish and of the distribution of fish, and as to whether or not there is any value in having on it a man who is able to handle a net and say what type of engine should be put into a boat of a particular size, is, of course, a lot of poppycock. It is quite clear that what we are seeking here is a balanced board. Nobody doubts for a moment that one or two civil servants on the board with their knowledge and experience of administration, their ability to weigh up the pros and cons of the reports coming before them and of measuring all that against the practical knowledge and experience of members directly engaged in one or other branch of the industry, would make for a valuable type of board from which we could hope to get the results.

The amendment is put forward against the overloading of the board. Even its terms allow for a type of board which could readily meet the needs of the Parliamentary Secretary, and one which, at the same time, would not give rise to what is well known, from past experience, to be one of the weaknesses of these boards. I feel that on this matter the Parliamentary Secretary, as he has already done in the case of other amendments, should re-examine the position, and see if there is any point of view to be conceded in so far as it is put forward from this side of the House. He has already met us on a number of amendments in a practical and conciliatory manner. This amendment is a more important one than any we have dealt with so far, because if we do not get this particular matter settled the whole purpose for which we are passing the Bill will be frustrated, and we will be leaving an ineffective set of machinery to tackle the problem.

I was arguing this case more or less in an academic sort of way when the amendment was moved. I was trying to indicate, from the point of view of theory, that what was sought to be achieved by the amendment might not, in fact, be achieved. I want to say now that there is nothing further from my mind than to allow the operations of this board to be dominated by any narrow Civil Service attitude. I do feel, however, that the choice of the person who is to select the people to be members ought not to be cramped, and that he ought to be allowed the widest possible choice in finding people who really are suitable for the job. If that man should happen to be a civil servant, or a retired civil servant, or to be in any other capacity removed from fishing, and if in my opinion he would be a good man to direct the administration of the fishing industry, I feel that I ought to have the power to test out such a man. After all, the period of membership is only two years. I think that offers sufficient scope to correct a bad appointment. Nothing would please me better than if I were in a position to get the entire membership outside the Civil Service, but, unfortunately, it is not easy to man a board of this sort entirely of people who are, shall I say, engaged in the fishing industry.

We do not want that.

Will you want more than two or three civil servants on the board?

There is this consideration which I mentioned before: that I want to be in a position to have a quorum readily available for frequent meetings.

In other words, a Dublin monopoly.

No. For instance, if we say there is a member from Donegal, a member from the middle west and one from the south, it is obvious that you will not get weekly attendances from these three. In any event their presence on the board would be sufficient, even if their attendances were infrequent, to check any undersirable tendencies of an important kind. What we do want to ensure is that the day-to-day executive matters will not be neglected simply because a quorum of members cannot be found. That is a practical difficulty.

If you have two civil servants and two representatives in Dublin you will have a quorum.

Even if we were to compromise and agree that the Parliamentary Secretary could have up to three civil servants, would not that meet the situation so that he would have a quorum? There would still be scope to get the other people.

I want to assure Deputies that it is not the desire, as Deputy Larkin seems to suggest, to have a majority on the board of people who are likely to hearken to a ministerial whip.

I am not suggesting that.

That is not the purpose.

We know that if the Parliamentary Secretary was honest with himself he would prefer to have fewer civil servants than two.

If I could get a board of non-civil servants I myself would prefer that.

The amendment, as drafted, is limited to two civil servants. If you extend that number to three, then I think the position would seem to be that there is no real difference of opinion between us. I think it would overcome the question of a quorum if we made the number three. That would ensure that, at least, three non-civil servants would be members of the board.

As I have said, there is no difference in priniciple between me and those who object to what is proposed. I do not want to have my hands tied to the making of selections on a representative capacity basis. I thought that if the field were left open I would have a wider choice in picking people by reason of their personal merits.

If we limit the Parliamentary Secretary to three civil servants we do not in any way narrow the scope from which he can get the board but we ensure that there will not be more than three civil servants on it.

I am making this remark and I hope I shall be forgiven for making it—that the fewer civil servants there are on it the more scope I will have.

That is what we want to give you.

I am not looking for power to put "pals" on it.

We do not believe you are.

We have got on very well so far on the Committee Stage; we have not had to divide up to the present and we will not divide on this.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary either accept the amendment or undertake between this and the Report Stage to bring in an amendment on the same lines?

If the Opposition would agree, I would be prepared to bind myself, so long as I am in the position of advising the Minister, that I would not have more than three civil servants, but I do not think that that ought to bind whoever will be in this position after me.

There is something more than the Parliamentary Secretary's personal position in this. The difficulty is that we have a practice which is becoming fairly universal in regard to the boards of semi-State bodies. We set up an independent board and, presumably, give it the powers laid down by statute, and yet the Minister is there still effectively, if not in person, like Hamlet's ghost. With all due respect to civil servants, many of whom are amongst the most competent men in the country, and I have always defended them in every respect, it would be too much to expect civil servants to exercise, not merely the same independence of mind, but the same determination to reach decisions and have effect given to them as a member of a board who is completely removed from the official atmosphere. After all, no matter what Department a civil servant is working in, he has to have a certain degree of respect for Ministers. He cannot go throwing his weight around like the rest of us. One of the results is that there is a very ordinary human inclination to make sure that the man on top will approve of what is going to be done before a person commits himself to a decision. Being a civil servant, he is more directly answerable for what he does on a board than the independent member from the point of view of the principle involved.

Therefore, I think that there should be either an agreement on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this matter on the Report Stage on the lines indicated by Deputy Collins or that we should seek to have the matter settled now. While we can accept the Parliamentary Secretary's personal undertaking, we have been told by him on many occasions, and by other Deputies in his Party, that undertakings of that personal kind, while fully accepted in regard to individuals, are not of any value when dealing with legislation. Political life is full of changes, and it might be only a short time until the Parliamentary Secretary will be over here and somebody else over there who would not place the same value on the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage limiting him to three civil servants?

Yes, I will. I have no strong objection to it.

That is all we want.

I will repeat my amendment on the Report Stage to keep the matter open.

I will bring in an amendment to have only three civil servants on it.

The chairman may be a civil servant. There is no objection to that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.

I move amendment No. 15:—

In paragraph 7, to insert the following new sub-paragraphs before sub-paragraph (1):—

(1) Every person who immediately before the date of commencement of this Act was an officer or servant of the Irish Sea Fisheries Association, Limited, shall as from such date become an officer of the board.

(2) Where a person, under the provisions of the preceding sub-paragraph becomes an officer or servant of the board, his service as an officer or servant of Irish Sea Fisheries Association shall be regarded as continuous service with the board in respect of the office or position held by him; the salary grade in which he has been placed; and the calculation of service for the purpose of determining any allowance payable to him under any superannuation scheme established by the board under the provisions of Section 17.

Only the first part of the amendment is in order. The final portion beginning with the words "the salary grade in which he has been placed" is not in order.

That is acceptable to me because the first portion is what I am mainly concerned with. So far as the first portion is concerned, the purpose is to secure for the officers and servants of the existing board the same consideration and protection as we are providing in Section 27 for the property of the board. In many Acts passed through this House it has been a common feature, when we are dealing with bodies which have an existing staff, that it is accepted on all sides of the House that the existing staff has certain rights which should be protected, and that where the functions of a board are being transferred to a new body, whether there is merely a change of name or a change in functions, the position of the existing staff should not be overlooked; that they should be regarded as being automatically taken over by the new body without in any way prejudicing or weakening any claims they might have in respect of their employment, their status, or their rights in regard to salary, superannuation, etc. It is a remarkable fact that in a Bill like this where we are devoting more than a page to securing that nothing untoward shall happen with regard to the property or the moneys of the board or in respect of the contracts to which they are a party, we have completely forgotten the human element.

I am not clear as to why this was overlooked. I take it for granted that the intention is that the existing staff will be taken over, but the employees of the board are entitled to have an assurance, not from the Minister or from the board, but from the House which is responsible for making the statutory changes, that their position is not being overlooked, and that in the legislation they are given the statutory assurance to which they are entitled. Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary has an explanation as to why this matter has not been covered, because in other Acts we have been careful to do it.

If there is any reason why it has not been put in, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise I must press him to put in this elementary safeguard. So far as the other portion of the amendment is concerned, that flows automatically from the assurance which would be given to members of the staff if the amendment now standing in my name was accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary.

I support Deputy Larkin's amendment because it is of the utmost importance that the livelihood of the people employed in this particular department of industry should be guaranteed to be taken over when the new board is set up. That is only justice and it probably only requires an assurance from the Minister that that will be done. But we would like to see an assurance given in this House that the people who will be directly concerned by the formation of this board will be guaranteed continuity of service. Unless such an assurance is given in the Dail we will, in the interest of these people, feel ourselves compelled to force this amendment.

I have no hesitation in accepting the amendment. It was not thought necessary to put in a provision such as is contained in the amendment, but I suggest to the Deputy that there should be a change in the wording and that he should repeat the expression "officer and servant" where he uses the word "officer" secondly. Subject to that alteration I accept the amendment.

Subject to that alteration I will accept what the Deputy says. There was never any intention of making an attempt to do otherwise than suggested.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

I suppose it is best to alter it on the Report Stage or in the Seanad.

Our difficulty is that there are a number of amendments to come from this side. Subject to the Parlimentary Secretary agreeing to it, we would be more in favour of fitting him in and of undertaking to give the Report Stage on Tuesday, once we could be sure that the amendments were here in the minimum amount of time.

If the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with it in the Seanad I would be prepared to let him have it.

I would rather if it could be dealt with in the Dáil if I could be sure it could be dealt with this week.

If we gave you the Report Stage on Tuesday would you be prepared to have the amendments ready for us on Friday evening in Roneo type?

I could have them ready by then.

If so, we will give you the Report Stage on Friday, also the remaining stages.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 16:—

In paragraph 7, to add the following new sub-paragraphs after sub-paragraph (4):—

"(4) The board may, if it so thinks fit, for the purpose of the appointment of a person to fill a situation in the service of the board request the Local Appointments Commissioners to recommend to it a person for appointment to such situation, and the commissioners on receiving such request shall select and recommend under and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926), to the board a person for appointment to such a situation and shall, if they so think proper, select and recommend to the board two or more persons for such appointment, and the board on receiving from the commissioners such recommendation shall appoint to such situation the person so recommended by the commissioners or, where more than one person is so recommended, such one of the persons so recommended as the board thinks proper.

(5) The board shall pay to the Local Appointments Commissioners out of the funds at its disposal such expenses in respect of the selection and recommendation by the commissioners under this paragraph of persons to fill situations in the service of the board as shall be fixed by agreement between the board and the commissioners with the consent of the Minister for Finance or, in default of such agreement, by the Minister for Finance.

(6) Every sum received by the Local Appointments Commissioners under sub-paragraph (5), shall be deemed for the purposes of paragraph (b), of sub-section (2), of Section 12, of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, to be a fee paid to the commissioners under that Act."

The amendment is accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us an explanation of the Schedule?

Perhaps Deputy Larkin would explain. I did not intend to cut him short.

I am quite satisfied with the amendment. My purpose in referring to the paragraph as a whole is because I had an earlier amendment down in regard to superannuation which was ruled out of order. I hope the Chair will bear with me if I transgress. Paragraph 7 deals specifically with the question of the payment of officers and servants of the board. In sub-paragraph (3), the board is given power to pay their officers and servants such remuneration and allowances as the board shall permit. My submission, in so far as conditions of employment are concerned, which include both remuneration and allowances, is that one of the most important of those factors that go to make up general conditions of employment is superannuation. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the question of a superannuation scheme for the staff of the existing committee has been a particularly burning one for a very long period. In the Tourist Bill which is at present before the House there is a provision for a superannuation scheme which I copied exactly in submitting my amendment.

It seems to me to be most peculiar that there is not a similar provision in this Bill. In so far as the Parliamentary Secretary has agreed to submit an amendment on the Report Stage to deal with the question of the continued service, might I ask him to consider the possibility, even at this late stage, of including in this Bill similar provisions to those included in the Tourist Bill about a superannuation scheme? I think it is only fair that those officers who have given very good and loyal service should be given what one would expect from an ordinary employer. This merely calls upon the board to submit proposals to the Minister for his sanction. This is a very urgent matter. It is one which, I think, the present committee agreed should be continued. It would be lamentable if we allowed this Bill to go through without making such provision.

I do not know whether Deputy Larkin is aware that the committee of the Sea Fisheries Association did, in fact, commission an actuary to examine this problem of finding a suitable scheme. It is hoped that a scheme will eventuate from the efforts of the actuary. I am sure Deputy Larkin must realise that, even if I could accept this amendment of his, which was ruled out of order by the Chair, it would not give any guarantee that a scheme would, in fact, be forthcoming.

I have got to have some faith in this country.

It would place an obligation on the board to make an effort to fight a claim, but there is no guarantee of success.

It would make it stronger.

I suppose it would give more moral backing to it. I feel that the prospect of getting a scheme is not in any way vitiated by the fact of the Chair not accepting this particular amendment. In any event, the position I am in is that this is of such an important character that unless it had, in fact, been considered by the Government I could not commit the Government to it in this way. However, I have not the decision to make because of the ruling of the Chair. I want to assure Deputy Larkin that I have the utmost sympathy with the intention he has in mind in relation to this amendment. If the actuary can produce a scheme, in so far as I can assist in having such a scheme brought into effect, I shall do so. In fact, I have recommended such a scheme myself in speeches from both sides of the House on the annual Estimates for Fisheries, and I fully approve of such a scheme.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 17:—

In paragraph 1, to delete clauses (b) and (c) and substitute the following:—

(b) one representative of the retail fish trade,

(c) one representative of the wholesale fresh fish trade, and

(d) two representatives of the distributive fish trade, other than the retail fish trade and the wholesale fresh fish trade.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the purpose of this?

This amendment has been submitted as a result of conversations which took place in the fisheries branch with the representatives of the wholesale trade. The wholesalers who deal in fresh fish felt that they were a separate category of persons in the fish industry, and that they should have been specifically provided for in representation on the committee. We felt that by reducing the representation of the retail trade to one, we were not doing them a great injustice—that one representative will be effectively able to safeguard the interests of the retailers on this committee. On many occasions representatives of the wholesalers will be on their side and, very possibly, on other occasions representatives of the fishermen will be with them. Then there are the undefined categories of persons who would be entitled to two members—curers, canners, and various people of that sort who are undefined, and who represent a very large interest in the industry. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. Collins

It is really breaking down (b) into two categories.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:—

In paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (1), to delete clause (b) and substitute the following:—

(b) four other persons appointed by the Minister after consulation with the board, of whom one shall be a member of the retail fish trade, one of the wholesale fresh fish trade and two shall be members of the distributive fish trade, other than the retail fish trade and the wholesale fresh fish trade.

This is consequential on amendment No. 17.

Amendment agreed to.
The following Government amendments were agreed to:—
19. In paragraph 2, before sub-paragraph (6), to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
(6) Where a vacancy occurs in the membership of the provisional committee the Minister may appoint a person to fill the vacancy.
20. In paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (1), before "Association" to insert "Committee of the."
21. In paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (1), to delete clause (c) and substitute the following:—
(c) a register of persons carrying on business in the wholesale fresh fish trade.
(d) a register of persons carrying on business in the distributive fish trade, other than the retail fish trade and the wholesale fresh fish trade.
22. In paragraph 8, to delete clause (e) of sub-paragraph (2).
23. In paragraph 8 to delete sub-paragraph (3) and substitute the following:—
(3) The electorate for the several elections of the trade representatives referred to in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph I shall consist of the persons entered in the appropriate register under paragraph 7.

I move amendment No. 24:—

In paragraph 8, before sub-paragraph (4) to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—

(4) Where there is a failure to elect a representative under sub-paragraph (2) or sub-paragraph (3) the Minister may appoint any individual to be the representative.

Mr. Collins

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state the reason for this amendment?

In the event of failure to elect a representative under sub-paragraph (2), that is the fishermen, or sub-paragraph (3) which is the distributive trade, the Minister may appoint an individual to be the representative. I do not wish to attempt to conjure up any situation which might produce failure to provide a representative but in case it might happen, it was thought advisable that somebody should be in position to fill the vacancy.

Mr. Collins

It is permissive rather than anything else?

Amendment agreed to.
The following Government amendments were agreed to.
25. In paragraph 8, to delete sub-paragraph (5) and to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
(5) (a) The polling for the election to be held in any year shall be completed at least seven days before the date for which the annual general meeting of that year is convened.
(b) The members of the committee for the time being in office shall hold office until the declaration of the result of the election at the annual general meeting, whereupon the persons so elected shall take up office.
26. In paragraph 12, to insert before sub-paragraph (4) a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 24 or in this Schedule, a member shall not be entitled to be present or represented at a meeting of the committee or of the association or to be reckoned for the purpose of a quorum or to be a member of an electorate under paragraph 8 whilst any sum due and payable by him in respect of entrance fee or subscription remains unpaid.

On paragraph 7, sub-section (5), might I say that I believe that there should be a right of appeal from the decision of the board to an impartial tribunal such as a court, either circuit or district? I think it is only reasonable that some safeguard should be included there.

In the second Schedule?

Yes. Paragraph 7, sub-section (5). If a person is dissatisfied with the decision of the committee he may appeal to the board to decide the question and the decision of the board would be final. I feel it is important that, if a person has a grievance and having appealed to the board, feels that his grievance has not been remedied, a further right of appeal should be established. In fact, I am a firm believer in the fact that a person has a right to appeal to a court where he has a grievance and I feel that should be enshrined in all legislation as far as possible.

If the Deputy would try to visualise the question that may arise for decision, I think he would have second thoughts on referring the matter to a court. Assuming that somebody applies for membership to the association and says he is a fisherman and that the fishermen's representatives on the committee say that he is not a fisherman and the board decides on the representations of the fishermen's representatives, that this man has no right or title to be registered as a fisherman, he can take the case further to the board.

It seems to me that the board would be in a better position to assess the value of the committee's decision in the matter than would a court. I think you might get a very warped type of decision from a court of justice in a matter of that sort. It is unlikely that if a man has a genuine claim to be registered as a fisherman the fishermen's representatives will not see that. They will be the first to see it, and if they turn it down you may be sure that his claim is a very flimsy one.

The same would apply to a man wanting to be registered as a retailer. If the retailers' representatives decided he was not a retailer of fish, and the matter goes further to the board, the board making all the necessary inquiries, there is very little danger of an injustice being done to the applicant. I am convinced that a court of an justice would not be the most competent body to do justice in the matter. I do not think that the Deputy need have any fears in that regard.

Mr. Collins

I would just like to make this clear in case the Deputy would have any fears. If there was something of a serious nature, such as an expulsion or a case in which a person felt he had a genuine grievance, the fact that no appeal is listed in the Act would not prevent the ordinary machinery of law from coming into being on his behalf, if he wanted to take such an action for declaration.

I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says, but in a question where a man has the right to earn his living—and that is the fundamental right we have—and that is the right I am trying to protect for fishermen——

That right would not be affected by this.

Mr. Collins

He would still have the right of appeal to a court. If there is a decision taken against him that concerns natural justice he can go for a declaration that they have acted improperly or he can go for mandamus to direct them to do otherwise.

I am quite satisfied with that. Might I continue on paragraph 8 in regard to the system of listing different counties? As to the method by which representatives are selected from different areas, paragraph 8, sub-section (2) (i) reads:—

"Electoral Division A, comprising the Counties of Dublin, Louth, Meath, Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow; and (ii) Electoral Division B, comprising the Counties of Cork, Kerry and Limerick."

I would suggest in all fairness that Waterford and Wexford should be included with Cork, Kerry and Limerick because they have in actual fact very rarely succeeded in getting a representative chosen because of the particular group they are in. I would suggest if the Minister would regroup the counties so as to include Wexford and Waterford in B Division——

Do you want Waterford in the group?

I want Waterford and Wexford in the Cork, Kerry and Limerick division.

Mr. Collins

They would have less chance of representation there.

It does not matter. There are practically no fishing boats there and it is not such a wild suggestion at all. The practical people in Waterford are very keenly interested in being put into that group.

Possibly from a geographical point of view Waterford should be with the B Division, but if you were to do that, it would mean that you would not have as fair a distribution of the membership as between those two divisions, the A Division on the east coast, and the B Division on the south. At the present time I think the total membership in the A Division is 821 and on the south it is 1,100 odd, that is the area comprising Cork, Kerry and Limerick. If you put in Waterford, not to mention Wexford, the membership in the B Division would be something in the region of 1,600 and it would be down to the 600 mark in the eastern division.

It will be down to the 600 mark in the eastern division so that you would not have a fair distribution, having regard to the fact that it is on the figures of members that these electoral arrangements were first made. I do not know what practical advantages are being lost to the Wexford and Waterford men by the present arrangement of the areas. The Deputy can see that the present arrangement gives you a better distribution.

Having drawn the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the matter I am satisfied, if the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that it is equitable, to leave it at that.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

It is agreed that we take it on Friday morning. We will not hold up the Parliamentary Secretary when we get the amendments.

Next week is the last sitting week.

We can see the amendments to-morrow. We will not hold up the Parliamentary Secretary on Friday. We are anxious to get the Bill through to the Seanad before we adjourn. I think we might get it through quicker that way as I understand the Seanad will adjourn to-night.

Report Stage fixed for Friday, March 28th.

Barr
Roinn