Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Dec 1930

Vol. 14 No. 6

Sea Fisheries Bill, 1930—Second Stage (Resumed).

Colonel Moore

The most remarkable point in this Bill is that the Minister for Fisheries has adopted the method for management which was recommended to him by a Commission which sat ten years ago. These recommendations made by that Commission the Minister steadily refused to put into operation. He continually opposed them. Now, however, after all that lapse of time he reverts to these recommendations. I would just like to read a few lines from the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the resources of Ireland. That Commission was assembled about 1920. It states various considerations and then it goes on to say:—

"These considerations are the more important, as the present system has now failed at every stage and the faults of that system are clearly exposed. The capture of fish has not been encouraged; the fisherman has not been given a decent livelihood, the consumer has not been provided with regular supplies, and, in Ireland, he has not been provided in many places with a supply at all. Nor is it possible to rectify any of these faults—that is, the failure to encourage the capture of fish to give the fishermen a decent livelihood or to provide the consumer with regular supplies or any supplies by any revision or extension of the present system. Most of the faults of the present system are inherent in it and are too firmly fixed in practice."

I will not go any further with this extract, but just to point out that the argument stated there is in favour of the Bill as it now stands. That Bill is totally opposite to the whole management of the fisheries during the last ten years. For ten years the Minister has continued the same practice that was condemned in the report of the Commission of Inquiry. At the end of ten years the Minister suddenly finds that he ought all that time have carried out the recommendations in the report, and that he should have done all the things based on the recommendations of that report. There are several Senators here who were on that Commission. Most of the recommendations were due to Senator Johnson, but there are other Senators who were on the Commission and who will back up what I say. The Minister, however, preferred to continue in the old system which was condemned, and he has notoriously failed in his work. Even the "Independent" newspaper, which generally backs his Party, has condemned him again and again every year for the way in which——

Cathaoirleach

We are dealing with the Sea Fisheries Bill.

Colonel Moore

Yes, but I am going to show the Minister's whole progress during the last few years, and how necessary it is to change his policy.

Cathaoirleach

But we are trying to give you what you desire in the Second Reading of this Bill.

Colonel Moore

That Commission never reported. An independent Committee was appointed by the fishermen of Howth and other places, and that Committee did not go very far. It had no help from anybody, but it struggled along as best it could. There was a meeting held in Molesworth Hall, and the Minister asked if he could speak at it, and, of course, there was no question about that. It was agreed that he should do so.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Lynch)

I might correct that. The Senator says that I asked if I might speak at that. I did not ask. I certainly did not ask to speak at that meeting. I was asked to speak at the meeting, so that it was quite the other way.

Colonel Moore

I do not know who asked the Minister.

Mr. Lynch

I thought you were a member of the Committee?

Colonel Moore

The Minister, in the passage, came up to me and asked that he should be allowed to address the meeting.

Mr. Lynch

Of course that is not so. I never asked if I might speak at the meeting.

Cathaoirleach

That is all ancient history. It is very interesting, no doubt, but it has nothing to do with the Bill.

Colonel Moore

I am going to show the progress of the fishing business during the last few years and how necessary it is that it should be changed.

Cathaoirleach

That is not in the Bill. It has no connection with the Bill. It is entirely outside it.

Colonel Moore

I am trying to show the reasons for the Bill and the necessity for passing it, and to show how beneficial to the fishermen it would be to have a change from the old system. However, we had a meeting and the Minister made two promises. He promised he would have a Commission to investigate the matter, and he promised definitely, when he was pressed on the matter, to reduce the charges on boats and gear that had been bought by fishermen from the Department at war prices. The fishermen were then being charged a great deal too much. He gave a definite promise to do that at the meeting. The Minister made a public statement in which he said that he engaged to reduce the charges on boats and gear——

Cathaoirleach

This is rather an indictment of the Minister than a criticism of the Bill. If the Senator wishes to indict the Minister in any way he will have another opportunity of doing so. If the Senator wishes to support the Bill, or to oppose the Bill, he can do that now. I cannot allow him to go into past history unless he shows me that it intimately concerns this Bill. Otherwise I do not think I can allow the Senator to go on.

Colonel Moore

Very well. That is all right. I have little more to say in that case. There have been so many accusations against the Minister during the last ten years that probably it would be unnecessary to attack him any more. He has been charged many times——

Mr. Lynch

I certainly have.

Colonel Moore

With regard to this particular Bill, I confess I do not understand it. I do not understand the financial arrangements.

Cathaoirleach

That is quite reasonable.

Colonel Moore

There is nothing in the Bill to show how its finances would work out. I believe there was a financial resolution in the Dáil and a motion was passed arranging that certain sums would be allotted for this purpose.

As far as I can see from the Bill and from the rules of the Association, the Association is to receive from the Department certain boats, lands, money and various other things. It is not stated, however, supposing that the method is successful and that it works out well and profits are made, what is to become of the profits. If there are losses, and losses are just as likely, however well managed it may be, what will become of the losses? I agree that fishing is a very difficult business and that there are very likely to be losses. But it is quite possible that there may be profits and what is to become of them? As far as I can see, nothing is laid down. The State is paying in certain sums, probably very large sums. The Association will require large sums. They are going to manage the marketing and large sums will be required for buying and selling to people across the water. They must have large sums of money which will be provided for them by the State so far as I can see. It is provided, of course, that certain shares are to be taken. Does the Minister think that the shares which will be taken by the fishermen and other people will anything like enable them to proceed and make money? They will get small sums as subscriptions and nothing more I expect, unless I am wrong. These sums of money, I presume, will be advanced to the Association. The Commission of Inquiry in their report provided a scheme and also that these moneys should be paid back to the State; that all debts should be paid off as soon as possible, which was quite right. I am only asking for an explanation because I confess I cannot see from the Bill or from the rules how that money is to be disposed of or the debts paid off if there are debts. Some of the members of this Committee are appointed by the Minister and some by the Association. That may be quite right, but there is nothing said as to how the members of that Committee and the officials connected with it are to be paid. I do not know whether they are to be paid at all or whether they are to do the work voluntarily. It will be a pretty heavy job for them if they are doing it voluntarily. I should like the Minister to explain how the financial part of this works out. I do not see any explanation here, but he may be able to explain it.

Mr. Barrington

Strange as it may appear, I am not going to attack the Minister, although to a large extent I agree with Senator Moore that this is a Bill which is overdue, that a great deal might be done and ought to be done which we hope may be done under this Bill for the benefit of these sea fisheries. I must confess that when I read the Bill first this establishment of the Fisheries Association seemed to me rather a large order. I should like to give an instance in justification which occurred within my own experience. I quite agree with Senator Johnson that if we pass this Bill it might, with advantage to the country, be amended by retaining a certain control—the two Houses of Parliament— over the members of this Committee and this Association. It was my privilege once to be very intimately connected with the late Father Davis of Baltimore who probably did more for the sea fishing industry in Ireland than anybody else. He obtained the loan of money from the Baroness Burdett-Coutts and, single-handed, established a fisheries school at Baltimore. He got boys from all over the country and taught them the art of fishing and of boat-building and net-making. He established a fleet of fishing boats and he managed these in such a way that a reproductive fund was formed during his lifetime and, before he died, a considerable sum of money had been accumulated which was available for the purpose of developing fisheries there. One of Father Davis's favourite sayings, which I remember him repeating on many occasions when we were cruising together, was that fishermen were born not made. He used to distinguish between the fisherman-farmer and the bona fide fisherman, and he maintained that unless there was a strain of Norse blood in the district where the boy came from or in the boy himself it was impossible to make a genuine or bona fide fisherman of him. To my mind that saying of his applies equally to administrators. I think administrators are usually born not made. I am quite sure that the Minister has done the best he could in selecting the gentlemen whose names appear at the end of this pamphlet. I know some of them very well indeed, and I think nobody better could be chosen. There is one of the Deputies for Galway; Mr. Roycroft, Limerick; Mr. Murphy, who administered the affairs of Dublin so well, and a number of others. I do not think any better selection could be made of people to do this work voluntarily. But we must remember that these are all very busy men. They are not like Father Davis, who was a born administrator in this matter and could give practically all his time to it. Without in the slightest disparaging them, I still think that it would be very desirable that some amendments of the nature indicated by Senator Johnson should be inserted in the Bill. With the principle of establishing a Board, having regard to the experience at Baltimore, I am altogether in accord.

There is one other matter. I think that there is very little use in protecting and developing and endeavouring to create and foster this fishing industry if, at the same time, some steps are not taken to protect the fish from poachers. I have seen a French fishing boat tacking out of the rocky islands on the coast of Clare within a stone's throw of the shore. I is common knowledge that the Fisheries Department are not equipped with vessels capable of dealing with poachers of this sort. Unless poaching is put a stop to, I think very little of such fish asl obster, etc., which are very profitable, will remain to the native fishermen.

On the whole, I think the Bill is well conceived. I have much pleasure in supporting it, and if, under the Minister's administration, this Board acts as well as another Board which he established last year, and which to my knowledge has been doing most valuable work in connection with the kelp industry, and if this industry is as well managed as that industry has been, I am sure the scheme will be a great success, but everything depends on the management.

Mr. Comyn

I think the Minister should be greatly indebted to some of the Senators who have spoken upon this Bill, because they have brought to the consideration of it a considerable amount of knowledge. I shall not refer now especially to Senator Colonel Moore because he is sitting beside me and because it is unnecessary for me to commend what he said on this Bill. But I shall say that Senator Colonel Moore has tremendous experience upon this question of fishing and that he has spent time and money and thought upon the development of the fishing industry. I wish to refer particularly to what was said by Senator Johnson last night. I was impressed by what he told the House, perhaps because he expressed what was in my own mind. The Minister, in his opening statement, said that he did not pay any particular attention to the rules and regulations of this new society or association that is to be set up.

Mr. Lynch

I do not think I said any such thing, with all due respect.

Mr. Comyn

Well, if the Minister did not say that, he said this: That he had left it in the hands of the gentlemen whose names are at the end of those rules.

Mr. Lynch

I did not say that either.

Mr. Comyn

Very well, perhaps I am coming near the bull's eye. If the Minister did not intend to say that——

Mr. Lynch

If the Senator wishes I shall tell him exactly what I did say. What I said was this. That the rules of the Association, as the Senator has them in his hand, are practically as sent up to me by the directors. That does not mean that they were not examined in my Department and elsewhere. They were closely examined in my Department and in the Department of Finance, but I opposed strongly any interference with the rules as sent up to me because I felt that as the task was committed to the Directors I should stand over what they considered they required. But in fact they were closely examined by me and the Department.

Mr. Comyn

The Minister considers that he should stand over what this Board requires. The Minister has incurred a considerable amount of criticism in regard to the conduct of the fisheries in Ireland. He has been congratulated upon bringing forward this measure. I think it is a good measure. I believe he is congratulating himself upon getting rid of responsibilities, but I think perhaps in his eagerness to get rid of responsibilities and to throw them over on others, he has not been sufficiently careful of the interests of the public, and of the State in this matter. It is for that reason that I wished Senators to consider carefully what Senator Johnson said on the subject in the speech he delivered yesterday.

There was one matter referred to by my friend Senator Barrington. He referred to the names appended to these rules and regulations. I know two of them—the first and the last on the list. I think they will bring enthusiasm and steady, persevering industry to the service of the association. But I think Senator Barrington is misinformed when he says that some of the other members of the Board will be working voluntarily and will not have a personal interest in it. That is a matter which ought to be cleared up before this Bill is finally passed because, in my opinion, it will be possible for some of the members of this Board to contract with the Board itself under the rules and the regulations, and if it is possible for them to contract with the Board itself under the rules and regulations, then, it is possible that you may have not a friendly society but a monopoly that will control one of the great resources of this State. These rules and regulations were submitted here. We scanned them, but we have not gone fully into them. I think we have a provision there for voting by proxy and a provision that the voting shall be in proportion to the amount of shares that people hold in the society. I took up this book of rules and regulations last evening in the ante-chamber of the Seanad, and so far as I have been able to look through them in the time at my disposal I think these are two matters which are incontrovertible.

There is another question arising on this Bill. The Minister, anxious to get rid of criticism—a good deal of it perhaps unmerited criticism—purposes to transfer to this society under Section 2 certain property. Under Section 2 (1) "The Minister may from time to time by order, made with the consent of the Minister for Finance, vest in the society upon such terms and conditions as may be mentioned in such order— (a) any sea-fishing boats ..."—let them have them and welcome—"any moneys for the time being due through the Minister in respect of loans ..."—let them have them and welcome. But what else—"any land situated in Saorstát Eireann which is for the time being vested in the Minister by statute, deed, contract or otherwise ..." What land is vested in the Minister by "statute, deed, contract or otherwise?" Are the foreshores of Ireland vested in the Minister, and does he propose to transfer them to this society which may break up or become a monopoly? Does he propose to transfer to them the foreshores of Ireland? Here is sub-section 2:

"Any property vested in the society by an order made under this section shall, under and by virtue of such order and without the necessity for any other conveyance or assign ment whatsoever but subject in the case of registered sea-fishing boats to registration in the register of shipping, become and be vested in the society for all the estate, term and interest or respective estates, terms and interests for which the same were immediately before such order vested in or held by the Minister."

What are the lands that were vested in the Minister? Were they the foreshores of Ireland?

Mr. Brown

No.

Mr. Comyn

Were they the oyster fisheries? No. I have studied this question perhaps more carefully than Senator Brown and do not wish to be answered by a mere "yes" or "no." What are the lands vested in the Minister which he proposes to transfer to this society ruled by seven men? I would like to know what the lands are. Are they oyster fisheries? Are they oyster beds? Does the Minister propose to transfer them without a deed? What does he know of the litigation he lets them in for? Is he going to transfer, not oyster beds, but lawsuits, to these gentlemen? I know some people—perhaps I am one myself—who will test any grant made by the Minister to this society in respect of some of the very valuable property on the shores of this country.

Perhaps I have spoken—because I was interrupted—a little too vehemently on this question. I do not wish to speak at all vehemently on this Bill, because I agree with the principle of the Bill. It is my desire to help the Minister and the Board in endeavouring to revive the fisheries. Sea-fishing in Ireland has gone down steadily for the past sixty years. The Congested Districts Board spent great sums of money every year in endeavouring to revive or maintain the fisheries in Donegal and on the west coast. All the money they spent in all these years has not come to any permanent fruition. The Congested Districts Board took up that work with great enthusiasm and, in many cases, with great ability. They were successful in Donegal, where a practical man was engaged by them. As long as he lived the fishing in Donegal was a success. In Galway, Clare and in the southern parts the management of the work was in the hands of a theoretical man—not Father Davis— but another clergyman who knew everything about fish except the one practical thing, how to catch fish and how to cure fish. The work of the Congested Districts Board was a failure in the south of Ireland. Fishing in Ireland has been going down steadily for the past sixty years. I remember that thirty or forty years ago a fine fleet of fishing trawlers went out from Galway. In recent years I do not see a fishing trawler in Galway Bay. What do I see on the shores? I see the glass bulbs used by French lobster fishers. These bulbs are washed in by the tide, showing that the lobster fishing in the west of Ireland is in the hands of Frenchmen who come over and come inside our territorial waters.

What oyster fisheries have we now? On the south side of Galway Bay there were tremendous oyster fisheries. The best oysters in the world were produced there, and so flourishing was the trade that two of the principal hotels in this city were established by people from that area for the purpose of selling their oysters—Hynes' Restaurant and the Red Bank Restaurant. There is not an oyster to be had in the whole district now. There is tremendous property to be developed in this oyster sea-fishing. I think it is right that it should be developed by practical men, and in this committee you have a combination of practical business knowledge, education and enthusiasm. I wish this Board well. I hope and believe it will succeed. At the same time, in order to give them a fair chance to succeed you should have your Bill right.

I do not believe the Bill is right so far as it relates to the land. Let me tell my friend, Senator Brown, my view in regard to the land. You have under Article II of the Constitution vested in Saorstát Eireann all lands and waters, mines and minerals, hitherto vested in the State or any Department thereof, or held for the public use and benefit, and also all natural resources. There are great limitations to that. The Act of 1924 dealing with State Lands does not authorise any Minister to alienate State Lands. No man has that power, I am glad to say. The only power given is the power to demise the lands, or any part thereof, with the buildings thereon, but without mines and minerals, to such person by way of lease for such term not exceeding 99 years as the Minister shall think proper. That is all the Minister can do in regard to the alienation of State Lands in the Saorstát.

Cathaoirleach

The Bill only deals with lands vested in the Minister for Fisheries.

Mr. Comyn

Of course, I will submit to your ruling, but I submit I am entitled to know what lands these are.

Cathaoirleach

Quite so.

Mr. Comyn

I am stating what in my mind the lands are that could possibly be intended to be included in this measure.

Cathaoirleach

The lands are in the Minister's power.

Mr. Comyn

Under the Constitution there are no lands in the Minister's power.

Cathaoirleach

If they are not, then he cannot have the power to alienate them.

Mr. Comyn

Let us know if we are dealing with futilities or realities.

Cathaoirleach

The Bill states that "the Minister may from time to time by order made, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, vest in the society ... any land ... which is for the time being vested in the Minister."

Mr. Comyn

I think the Seanad is entitled to know whether it is dealing with a reality or not.

Cathaoirleach

Quite so.

Mr. Comyn

If it is dealing with a reality we are entitled to know what the reality is. What are these lands? Are they the foreshores of Ireland? I submit that they are not the foreshores. The foreshores of Ireland are not vested in the Minister. Are they vested in Saorstát Eireann? Perhaps Senator Brown will answer that.

Mr. Brown

They are, except such as have been conveyed to private owners by charter.

Mr. Comyn

I am glad to get that admission from Senator Brown.

Mr. Brown

It is not an admission.

Mr. Comyn

I will take it as an admission.

Mr. Brown

My friend is perfectly welcome to do that if he chooses.

Mr. Comyn

Seeing what Senator Brown's views on other matters are, I am very glad to know that it is conceded at last in every part of this House, that the foreshores of Ireland belong to Saorstát Eireann. I may tell Senator Brown that I know this subject as well as he does. I have studied it more recently than he has done, and I have a little more interest in studying it perhaps than he has. The Bill seems to me, in general outline, to be well thought out. In my opinion, it is right to put the management of the sea fisheries into the hands of practical people. There are, however, two or three omissions in the Bill. Whether these omissions are due to inadvertence or are deliberate, I do not know. There is no provision in the Bill for the proper curing of fish. Is that to be left in the hands of the Association? Is there to be any regulation regarding the proper curing of fish?

Mr. Johnson

Surely the regulation would not be in the Bill.

Mr. Comyn

We had in the Eggs Bill and the Fresh Meat Bill certain leading regulations provided. I desire to tell the House one of the causes of the failure of the fisheries during the last 50 or 60 years. It is well known that the herring is the king of fish, so far as the food of mankind is concerned. The Norwegians are the best men in the world for curing herring and other fish. A Norwegian came over here and by a certain method he extracted at one operation every portion of the blood from the fish. The Irish curers thought they knew their business better than he did. They left one little shade or drop of blood in the fish which prevented it from being properly cured. That is one of the secrets. I hope the Minister will not think that I am hostile to his measure when I give him that little piece of information with regard to the proper curing of fish.

Greater consideration should have been given in the Bill to the Irish trade in fish and to the transport of fish to the inland markets here. Somebody has said that the Irish people are not good fishermen—that it is necessary to have a drop of Viking blood to make a good fisherman. I should be inclined to agree as regards that. I am certain of this—that the Irish people are not fish eaters. The market for fish in Ireland ought to be developed, and I will tell the Minister the fate of one attempt to develop the trade in cured fish in the inland towns. The Congested Districts Board, in order to establish a local trade, sent 100 barrels of well-cured fish to 100 persons in the inland towns at 1d. a fish with a request that the person should, if possible, repeat the order. They sent out 100 barrels at a cost of £500 to 100 different people, and they only got one order. The problem before this Board is, therefore, a very serious one. They will have to develop a local trade in fish. They will also have to develop, if possible, a foreign trade in fish. They will have this difficulty to face: Our western shores are suitable for small boats, but are not suitable, to the same extent, for big boats. In my judgment, the greatest success will be found in developing the lobster and the oyster trade in Ireland as one enterprise. I hope I shall not be regarded as hostile to the Bill when I say that it requires further consideration, especially in respect of the section dealing with property. If what Senator Johnson said has been considered by the Minister, perhaps it will not be necessary for him to adjourn the further consideration of this measure. I should like to go very carefully into the Bill, and I hope it will not be rushed through this House before we know exactly where we stand.

Sir John Keane

My comment upon this Bill is in respect of its unusual character, in that there is circulated with the Bill model rules for an Association, while this House has no power whatever to amend these rules. It appears to me that the real criticism of the measure lies in the rules. I presume that whoever drafted these rules obtained legal advice upon them. There is one section which appears to be unprecedented and, I would submit, very dangerous. That is the section which binds, so far as I can see, for all time, members to market all their catches through the Association. I presume that that is in accordance with the common law, but not being a lawyer, I am unable to say anything definite on that point.

That provision appears to me to be a distinct hardship, and I think it would act as a deterrent to anybody who was thinking of joining the Association and who read the rules. If you take the parallel case of the Irish Associated Creameries, I think it throws a certain light on an obligation of that kind. There, the most that was done was to enter into contracts to market all produce through the association for a period of years. Here—and we have no power in the matter at all—the contracts are to be for all time and are entered into irrespective of what may happen the Association, whether it may get into bad ways or be improperly conducted. It would appear to me to be a form of legal servitude to bind a man for all time in this way, irrespective of what may happen to the Association. I do not know what this House can do except enter a protest against rules in that form. I suggest that it is not a desirable method of legislation to ask us to examine a Bill in relation to a document over which we have no control. I ask the Minister to deal specially with that matter in his reply.

Mr. Johnson

A member may withdraw from the society.

Mr. Lynch

Rule 10 deals with the matter.

Mr. Comyn

It is very absurd that we should have to consider these rules without time to look into them.

Miss Browne

Coming from a mara-time county, where fishing is an important industry and provides a livelihood for a great many people, I welcome this Bill. I should like to stress what Senator Barrington and Senator Comyn have said with regard to the French pirates. If some legislation is not introduced to punish these persons properly, there will be no use in our trying to improve the fishing industry. In my own county, around the great Saltee Island, one of the most valuable lobster fisheries in Ireland has been practically ruined. Not many years ago a very valuable oyster bed in Wexford Harbour was taken clean away. These people care nothing about fines. £100 is nothing to them. Drastic measures will have to be taken to deal with them.

Until these measures are taken, there will be no use in doing anything in certain parts of the country for the improvement of the fishing industry. These French pirates are coming in in sight of the shore and they have been guilty of most outrageous acts. Last year, they landed on the Great Saltee Island and added insult to injury by taking a number of the birds protected there and making a bait of them. That was discovered when one of these pirates was taken to Waterford. I saw the proof of it in the Gárda barracks at Kilmore Quay. Something will have to be done to give these pirates a long term of imprisonment or to confiscate their boats. Something drastic must be done because they will care about nothing else. My experience during the last few years concerning Kilmore Quay convinces me that the fishing will be ruined, despite everything, if these people are not dealt with drastically.

Mr. Lynch

Before I come to what I might call the amusing speeches of Senator Comyn and Senator Colonel Moore I will deal with the earlier speakers. Senator O'Doherty asked whether the provisions of this measure would apply to those who go round selling fish from carts. They do not, nor do they apply to hawkers in towns or cities. The Bill does not deal with these people. We advisedly omitted them from the Bill because in their sales they touch the poorest class of people who get fish from the carts rather cheaply. We were afraid to do anything which might raise the cost of fish to the poorer classes. The Senator was also anxious to know how the sub-section in connection with offals was going to be worked. The position is that the onus of proof will lie on the inspector. I should say that there would be no difficulty in identifying fish offals of the day before. Anyone going into a shop would easily recognise offals that were lying there for twenty-four hours.

Mr. O'Doherty

They need not be twenty-four hours. They might be there from the evening before.

Mr. Lynch

That is so. I do not think that it is any hardship to insist on a fishmonger who is selling such perishable food swilling out his shop every morning before opening. I think that that provision should be retained in the Bill. If the inspector cannot prove that the offals are there from the day before, he will lose his case and make himself ridiculous.

Mr. O'Doherty

I want to know how the inspector could satisfy himself or a court of law that there has been a breach of the Act. It seems to me that it is rather indefinable. Supposing the offal is that of fish which was sold on the previous evening at seven o'clock, how can an inspector determine that when the shop opens next morning? I may point out that if you can enforce the provision, I am in favour of it.

Mr. Lynch

If the inspector cannot prove it, then that's that.

Mr. Comyn

That is not the way to do it—by simply saying, "that's that."

Mr. Lynch

Of course it is. If he cannot prove his case he is not going to bring it. It would be ridiculous for him to act otherwise. Senator Johnson has raised a question concerning the transfer of land to the Association. For the information of the Seanad I should say that lands vested in me are lands which formerly vested in the Congested Districts Board. Lands, under the Interpretation Act, include buildings. They are mainly various stores around the coast, on islands, and in out of the way places, where we keep barrels, salt, nets, and so on, with perhaps a little land about them. These are the only lands that vest in the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and these are the only lands that can be transferred to the Association. I understand from a legal authority that these lands are not governed by the State Lands Act.

Mr. Comyn

Did not the Congested Districts Board own foreshore?

Mr. Lynch

No.

Mr. Comyn

Certainly they did.

Mr. Lynch

There are certainly no foreshores vested in me. I think that formerly they vested in the Crown, and are now vested in the Saorstát Government.

Mr. Comyn

There are a number of foreshores vested in private individuals.

Mr. Brown

Under patent.

Mr. Comyn

They were vested by user, and on the sale of the estates they went to the Congested Districts Board, then came the Minister and they contained vast properties in regard to oyster fisheries.

Mr. Lynch

There are no foreshores vested in me.

Mr. Comyn

That is why——

Cathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to reply. We cannot argue the matter further.

Mr. Lynch

The Minister in the Executive Council who is responsible for foreshores is, I think, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Senator Johnson was worried about the provision for the licensing of salesmen. I still believe, despite what he said, that it is desirable, where you have persons consigning fish to a far market—I am contemplating a big market in a city— that the person who auctions the fish should be above suspicion and should not have the slightest interest in the price of the fish. If the person who is auctioning the fish is interested, by way of being a curer or owning a retail or wholesale shop, there will be that suspicion. This portion of the Bill will only apply in specified areas. Yesterday, on Second Reading, I mentioned that I will only specify areas when I am asked to do so by the Association. It will be to the interest of the Association to see that the fish will go to the highest price. That is obvious to anybody, because the more the fishermen will get for their fish the sooner will the loans given to them be repaid to the Association. It will, therefore, always be to the interest of the Association to see that the fishermen get good prices. That provision, I admit, could not be strictly enforced in many out-of-the-way coves and harbours where fishing goes on, but it is desirable that it should prevail everywhere as far as possible.

Mr. Johnson

It would be an offence for anybody to sell who is not licensed?

Mr. Lynch

That is so. The Senator was also wondering about the principle involved in regard to authority to prosecute and in regard to making offences of certain breaches of contract by members of the Association. I think that in a case like this where the whole principle is based on placing the maximum faith in the honesty of the general body of fishermen and where the derelictions of even a very few might upset the whole Association, this provision should be retained in the Bill.

If there were a few persons in any particular area who were disposing of their fish in a way other than that in which they agreed to dispose of it, to the cognisance of other members of the Association, but not of the agent of the Association, the example, in my view, would be a very bad one and would put a great strain on the loyalty of other members, especially if they saw other people getting away with the disposal of their fish and not having deducted from the proceeds the money which should be deducted for the payment of the loans. I think it is necessary that some provision such as this should remain in the Bill—something more than the remedies which the Association will have under the rules. I still hold that the provisions in the Agricultural Credit Act are exactly similar to these. The cases are exactly similar. In the Agricultural Credit Act it is an offence for a person who gets money for a specific purpose to use it for another purpose. If a man says that he is going to dispose of his fish through the Association, if the Association is the owner of that fish, and if he disposes of it elsewhere he is stealing the property of the Association, and it is only right that it should be an offence.

Mr. Comyn

Why, if he only gets a loan from the Association?

Mr. Lynch

He is getting a loan, and there is a contract made providing for a particular way of repaying that loan. The method of repayment is that he hands over the fish to the Association. The agent will handle the money that is paid to the salesman for that fish. The fisherman will not handle it until the end of the week, when he is given the proceeds less the deduction which will be made for the repayment of the loan and interest, and for other purposes as specified in the rules.

Mr. Comyn

Supposing he had the money to pay independently?

Mr. Lynch

Then he need not come to the Association.

Mr. Comyn

I do not wish to place an impediment in the Minister's way, but this is truckling with it.

Cathaoirleach

You are not entitled to interrupt, Senator.

Mrs. Wyse-Power

There is no compulsion on the fisherman to join the Association.

Mr. Lynch

There is not in the least. A fisherman only joins the Association if it is going to be of benefit to him, of course. Every person who wants a boat or gear for the purpose of fishing will inevitably become a member of the Association because of the system of repayments. It will be of benefit to him as in fact he will not feel the repayment at all. Instead of the present system of paying in half-yearly instalments he will never see the money and will, therefore, not feel the repayment. I believe, therefore, in order to safeguard this provision, it is necessary that persons who try to evade their agreement should be punished. Senator Johnson raised a point in connection with the definition of salt fish. I think he need not have any fear in that connection as the term salt fish has a very particular trade meaning. If one went into a shop and asked for salt fish, one would not be given fish that has just been sprinkled over with salt to preserve it just as if a bit of muslin had been placed over it. I do not think the Senator need have any fear that fish such as he suggested will be eliminated by this definition.

Mr. Johnson

It would be a good defence.

Mr. Lynch

The chief contribution of Senator Colonel Moore to the debate was first of all that I discovered this report after ten years and that I had now come in with this Bill containing the proposals suggested ten years ago. After that he stated that he did not understand the Bill. I think, in the first place, that the proposals here are extremely different from the proposals of the Committee which sat at that time. I think they are different in almost every way. The Senator read a great deal from that report stating that the existing system was a failure, but he did not read out the recommendations. In fact I hold that the present scheme is entirely different from that which was then recommended. The Senator referred to a meeting held some years ago which I barely remember. It must be five years since it was held. I think it was a meeting held in the Mansion House.

Colonel Moore

No, in the Molesworth Hall.

Mr. Lynch

At any rate, I have a distinct recollection that it was a meeting—I thought it was in the Mansion House—to which I was invited by the then secretary of the Association. I went there. The Senator had something to say, if I might follow him into his irrelevancies for a moment, to the effect that I made certain promises in connection with the reduction of charges on boats.

Colonel Moore

With all respect, I was not allowed to conclude my statement on that matter.

Cathaoirleach

I think it would be better not to enter into it at all.

Mr. Lynch

I only wish to say that any promises I made are going to be fulfilled. The suggestion came from Senator Comyn that this Bill was a kind of washing of hands and an attempt to get away from my responsibility in this matter. The fact is that the whole finances of the Association will be voted by grants-in-aid. The money will have to be voted each year, and I will have to answer for the Association in the Dáil and here each year. There will be no shedding of responsibility at all. Senator Colonel Moore and Senator Comyn can get up on any platform they wish and denounce the Minister for Fisheries in the old form which they have been used to.

Mr. Comyn

With all respect I have not denounced the Minister. I said he was not responsible for all the calamities.

Mr. Lynch

Senator Moore will be as free as ever he has been to attack me in the same old way. Senator Comyn raised the question of members contracting with the Board. That is a rule which exists in every joint stock company. I will read for the Senator the memorandum of the Industrial Trust Company of Ireland.

Mr. Comyn

That is not a very good example. That has been a disastrous undertaking.

Mr. Lynch

The Senator ought to know, as a lawyer, that this is an ordinary provision in the articles of association of any company.

Mr. Comyn

Really, it is not.

Cathaoirleach

This is going altogether outside the limits of the debate.

Mr. Comyn

I merely asked a question in connection with it.

Mr. Lynch

It is in the rules of the Association.

Cathaoirleach

You are quite justified in dealing with it as it has been referred to.

Mr. Lynch

I will give this example of an existing company. You have the man referred to by Senator Barrington—Mr. Roycroft of the Limerick Steamship Company. If you prevented that man from contracting with the Association—I am sure that besides the Limerick Steamship Company he is interested in other ocean carrying companies—you would hamper the Association very seriously.

Mr. Comyn

I only asked a question.

Mr. Lynch

I just want to defend that provision in the articles of association. Certainly it would militate against the Association if they were to be prevented from contracting in any way with a big transit man like the managing director of the Limerick Steamship Company. I inferred from what Senator Comyn said that he had a grievance because he only took up the rules in the ante-room yesterday when they were circulated three weeks ago to each member of the Seanad. I was highly amused with what the Senator has been observing off the Clare coast, namely, these glass bulbs which he said were used by the French lobster fishers.

Mr. Comyn

The glass bulbs are used as floats for nets and to indicate where the lobster pots are. If the Minister does not know that he is ignorant of the elements of his business.

Mr. Lynch

I never knew them to be used in connection with lobster pots. They are used as floats for nets.

Mr. Comyn

By the French within the three mile limit. I assure the Minister now that they are also used as floats to indicate the position of the lobster pots.

Mr. Lynch

The Senator spoke a good deal about the oyster fisheries. In fact there is on the board a man whom I consider to be perhaps the best man on commercial oyster fisheries in the country, Mr. McKibbin, of Fenit. He himself does a good deal in the way of oyster culture. He has opened up a very big trade in connection with Tralee Bay oysters with London and Dublin, and on the Board naturally will give a certain amount of attention to that particular end of fishing. This Bill is not going to deal with how the particular persons down the country are going to cure fish. It is not the function of this Bill to do so. I was rather amused by the Senator talking of some Norwegian being here in connection with herring curing. I remember reading about it, but I am certain that it was mackerel and not herring. The Norwegians have given us the lead in mackerel and the Scotch have led as far as herrings are concerned.

Mr. Comyn

Whether it is herring or mackerel it is all the same. The fish were badly cured.

Mr. Lynch

Senator Sir John Keane was wondering whether members would be bound for all time. A member is only bound as long as he is indebted to the Association. If a member has cleared his debt there is no reason why he should not resign his membership. There is a provision in the rules for that. It is quite right that the Association should have a hold over him until he has paid back to the Association what he has borrowed.

Sir John Keane

Will the Minister say whether men will have to sign a contract and be roped in under the rules?

Mr. Lynch

Each individual member who is a borrower, who gets boats or gear, will sign an individual contract and it will be on that that he will be sued if he infringes the contract.

Mr. Johnson

A member of the Association, whether borrowing or not, will be supposed to sell through the Association.

Mr. Lynch

Yes. So long as he is a member of the Association he will be expected to sell through the Association. If he does not do that, one of the remedies probably will be that he will be expelled from the Association.

Colonel Moore

The Minister has not answered my question as to what happens to the gains and losses of the Association.

Mr. Lynch

I hope gains will be made. As I pointed out, the Department, as long as the Association will require it, will have to provide money each year by way of a grant-in-aid. If the Association is affluent after a few years that grant-in-aid may cease. It will be the ideal thing to hope, that the Sea Fisheries Association will become self-supporting and that this Association eventually will be largely governed by the fishermen themselves. I should say that in the case of the Association, like other co-operative societies, it will rebound to the benefit of the members if there is a profit. I do not think it will go in for accumulating money as an Association. If it can afford it, it will give the benefit back to the fishermen by way of paying a higher price for fish, providing facilities for repayment of loans, and so on. According as the Association gets on, if the fish come I should say it would be able to expand, provide better boats, and so on.

Colonel Moore

Will the Association, when they have funds, repay the loans which they have received from the State?

Mr. Lynch

I do not think so. During its primary years at any rate, it will not pay its way, and the money that is being voted is not voted in any sense as a loan, but as a grant-in-aid. Therefore there will be no obligation to repay.

Mr. Wilson

Fishermen owe a lot of money at the moment to the Board. will they not be expected to pay it back? Is not that what Colonel Moore asked?

Mr. Lynch

No. I do not think so. The amount due to the Board that it will get will be practically negligible. There is a considerable amount in arrear for fishery loans, but there is a Bill in preparation, a corollary to this Bill, which will practically wipe out these arrears.

Colonel Moore

We assume that things will get on all right. Will this Association then put in their pockets the profits that are being made? If profits are made, why should they not repay the advantage which they have received from the State?

Cathaoirleach

They were grants-in-aid and there is no necessity to repay them.

Mr. Comyn

Call them grants-in-aid if you like.

Mr. Lynch

Surely the Senator has no objection to funding the Association at the start? It is merely giving the Association a start. The Senator should not grudge a grant-in-aid for that.

Mr. Barrington

Sub-section (2) of Section 2 says: "Subject in the case of registered sea-fishing boats to registration in the register of shipping." I want to ask whether that entails compliance with Lloyds' regulations, because if it does it will be a very serious imposition on those fishing boats.

Mr. Lynch

I think it is the Merchant Shipping Act.

Mr. Barrington

It means Lloyds' register.

Mr. Johnson

There is special fishing registration.

Mr. Barrington

Even so, it is very expensive.

Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.