Vol. 153 No. 11
I move:—
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £20,500 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid, and for a payment in respect of compensation.
As a result of a Supreme Court judgment of 1933 the Moore family who had up till then enjoyed the exclusive right of fishing in the estuary of the River Erne were ousted from ownership and the fishery became a public fishery. The fishery had been purchased in good faith by the Moores' predecessors in 1869 under a Landed Estates Court Conveyance and the fishery had been worked as a several fishery without interference until the incidents which led to the Supreme Court case occurred. The Supreme Court decision settled finally, of course, the legal position but the aspect of equity remained and the Government at the time decided that in the circumstances of the case it would be only fair to compensate the owners for the loss of the property to which they thought they had a perfectly good title. It was not, however, considered feasible at the time to assess a definite value for the fishery pending some experience of the payment of compensation claims which would arise under the implementation of certain sections of the Fisheries Act, 1939, which dealt with the abolition of freshwater netting and the acquisition of transferable fisheries. As the dispossessed fishery owners had suffered grievous financial loss it was decided to ameliorate their position by making payments on account of the compensation which it had been decided to allow them. Accordingly, Supplementary Estimates were passed by the Dáil on three occasions making provision for and approving of such payments, viz., 24th May, 1939, £25,000; 9th July, 1941, £6,000 and 12th June, 1946, £6,000. To the latter payment was added the sum of £1,500 as a contribution towards the cost sustained by claimants in the Supreme Court appeal.
Part V of the Fisheries Act, 1939, has not yet been brought into operation but the settlement of compensation claims in respect of the abolition of freshwater netting has been almost completed and much experience gained in the assessment of compensation for the abolition of fishing rights. When this case was reopened some time ago it was considered that it could be brought to finality. Negotiations with the representatives of the quondam fishery owners were started and it was agreed with them that the capital value of the tidal fishery in 1933 was some £44,000. While interest is not normally paid on ex gratia compensation it is felt that owing to the long period of time which has elapsed since the fishery was lost to the Moores allowance in respect of interest would be conceded in this particular case. As already indicated, £37,000 has been paid by way of payments on account. The balance of capital moneys to be paid now is, accordingly, £7,000. It is proposed to allow interest at the rate of 3 per cent. calculated having regard to the dates of payments of the sums already advanced and covering a period ending in a month or so when it is expected the payment can be made. The total sum now proposed to be paid to close the case is £20,500 and this amount covers all allowance in respect of interest, loss of profits and all other expenses.
The payment of £20,500 will bring the total amount paid to the one-time owners for the loss of their fishery in the estuary of the River Erne to £57,500 plus the separate payment of £1,500 made as a contribution towards the costs of the Supreme Court appeal. This amount is considered a very fair and reasonable one in final settlement of the case.
This matter was brought to my notice in a very preliminary way only. I did not have available to me anything like what the Parliamentary Secretary had available in the way of figures and amounts but it was clear to the people who approached the Fishery Branch at the time that the case, which was fully prepared and submitted, would be considered as sympathetically as circumstances warranted. I take it that in any event the decision is in line generally with the consequences flowing from the litigation which has changed these fisheries from private to public ownership. I do not think there is any further comment I wish to make on it.
