Special Committee Fisheries Bill, 1938 díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Jun 1939

SECTION 20.

The McGillycuddy

I move amendment No. 10:—

Before Section 21 to insert a new section as follows:—

Where a person has been duly elected to the office of Clerk and/or inspector to a board of conservators, such election shall be deemed to be permanent and shall terminate only by order of the Minister, after dueinquiry as provided for in Section 17 of this Act.

The principle contained in this amendment has already been raised on the Bill. The Minister then said he would consider including the matter in a consolidating Bill but I gathered that the consolidating Bill will be a most difficult measure and, with the best intentions, will probably take two or three years to produce. I have said that the principal failure in this Bill has been in connection with insufficient catering for protection. The whole success of our efforts will depend on whether we can really improve the present system of protection which is, in many cases, an absolute and complete farce. I do not know that the Committee are quite clear as to what happens at the present time. The clerk is elected by the votes of conservators who represent various interests—the anglers, the estuary men and others. If, during the triennial period, he, by the exercise of special energy, obtains a large number of convictions, there is tremendous canvassing and the result is that the clerk no longer holds office. I hold no brief for anybody but I think it is a great pity to wait for a consolidating Bill in order to give permanency to, at any rate, an inspector who has got to go out at night with the Guards and bailiffs to catch these people. The conservators are protected by the power of dismissal under Section 17. If they find that a man who has been made permanent is inefficient, they can apply for an inquiry, state their case and the Minister can summarily dismiss him from his post. I should like to see this matter dealt with in the Bill.

Dr. Ryan

The Senator has, undoubtedly, made a good case for his amendment, and there is a good deal in what he says regarding the present system of election of clerks, inspectors, and even bailiffs. They are elected by the boards of conservators who, in turn, are elected by the people whom these officers are to look after. There is an undesirable circle there. If a man does his duty seriously, he runs a risk but the question is a very big one which must be dealt with in all its aspects. I do not think that we could deal with it in a simple sub-section like this because we should have to consider the different boards and how they stand. There are, for instance, the older clerks who, perhaps, should be retired. This is a matter which should be dealt with comprehensively. We did hope to deal with the general reorganisation of the boards of conservators, their staffs and powers in the consolidating measure which we propose to introduce. I do not think that that Bill will take as long as the Senator fears. It is a matter, in the first instance, of getting the present statutes consolidated up-to-date. That can be done by lawyers without any instructions from the Department. We have our minds made up, to a certain extent, in the Department as to what should be done with the boards of conservators.

The McGillycuddy

Would the Minister meet me in this way: would he leave it optional with the boards of conservators to make the post of inspector permanent if they so desire, with his sanction? You have, of course, the case of the older clerks who, I realise, are quite efficient in their particular office, but it is the fellow who has got to catch the estuary poachers on Saturdays and Sundays whom I have in mind.

On Saturdays and Sundays they fish as regular as the clock. The moment the clerk gets the conviction, they have so many votes that they can work the board, and he is off. That happened the last time. They have watchers, and when the inspector goes down they row out to the sea until he is gone. He could make some plan to catch these fellows. Every Saturday and Sunday as regular as clockwork they go out to fish.

Dr. Ryan

There is another point of difficulty too. We have, as the Senator is aware, adopted the principle in this country of appointment through the Civil Service Commissioners wherever permanent appointments are to be made. I think that if we are going to have very many appointments, we would probably have to keep in line—and I personally would be inclined to keep in line—with the legislation forlocal authorities and have some sort of Appointments Commissioners' procedure.

The McGillycuddy

These were not treated as permanent appointments hitherto.

Dr. Ryan

No, they were temporary appointments. The Minister had to sanction the appointment, but I am sure the Senator is aware that although the Minister had that power of sanctioning, he had not all the discretion that might appear to be on his side. They had a great deal of discretion. I think it would be a pity to insert an amendment like this dealing with such a big principle without dealing with all the different issues that arise out of it at the same time.

Chairman

If the Senator were to put down his amendment again for the Report Stage, the Minister could give it further consideration and make some definite statement on the Report Stage.

The McGillycuddy

From what the Minister has said, I think there is no use in my putting it any further. There would be no use in my raising it again because I would get exactly the same answer. There is one other point on which I should like information. Is it in the Minister's mind to provide in the consolidating Bill that after each election of conservators an application will be made to the Appointments Commissioners to appoint a clerk ?

Dr. Ryan

Oh, no. We shall adopt the principle of permanent appointments in the consolidating measure, after a few years.

Mr. Goulding

The idea would be, then, that the existing officials would pass out and that you would proceed to an election ?

Dr. Ryan

Unless they pass some sort of a test. They are eligible for appointment by the Appointments Commissioners.

Mr. Quirke

It strikes me that something should be done, because if Senator The McGillycuddy's idea were put into effect, you would have the same canvassing to have the various people who at present occupy these positions made permanent, and there would be no elimination of people who, in the opinion of the conservators, were useless. The ideal situation would be that they should be all made permanent, but that it should be taken for granted that they would have to pass some examination for fitness, even physical fitness, which in my opinion is as important as any other qualification. I think the big difficulty at present in the protection of fisheries is that some of the people who are engaged in the work are either mentally or physically unfit for the job.

Dr. Ryan

Or both.

Mr. Quirke

Then, it is hopeless altogether. I think the point raised by Senator The McGillycuddy, which is very reasonable, will have to be covered by supplying some means of rapid transport to the water keepers. It is a joke to see old men standing on the bank and expecting them to protect not alone the river but the territorial waters outside.

Chairman

I would like to see the Minister looking into the matter between now and the Report Stage. It may be that he can do nothing under this Bill, but perhaps he would find it possible to link this Bill up with some other measure, so that the appointments could be made permanent in future.

Dr. Ryan

The present clerks would naturally have the right to go before the Appointments Commissioners, and if they satisfy the commissioners they are the best persons for the job, they would be appointed.

Mr. Goulding

Would that not mean a form of election again immediately? If these men were to go before the Appointments Commissioners, other men would also have the right to go before the commissioners.

Mr. Quirke

The man on the job, if he were suitable, would have the advantage from the point of view of experience.

The McGillycuddy

He has got to be a local man. He has got to know the area. That limits the choice of theAppointments Commissioners very much.

Mr. Goulding

But if the man already acting has been unsuitable, apart from local knowledge?

Mr. Quirke

Then he could be got rid of.

The McGillycuddy

I would make another suggestion to the Minister, that he varies the section so as to give himself power before the consolidating Bill is passed—which is going to be a long time from now—on the application of the board to make an appointment permanent. Would he consider trying to draft something like that ?

Dr. Ryan

I should not like to have that power. If the Senator were in my place, he would realise that the pressure that would be brought to bear on the Minister would make it almost an impossibility in some of these cases.

The McGillycuddy

He could refer a particular case always to the Appointments Board. If he were a suitable person, pressure would not matter.

Mr. Quirke

It would also hold in the case of an unsuitable person.

The McGillycuddy

But he could be covered by the Appointments Board. The application would go to the Minister and he could consider it and decide whether he would sent it on to the Appointments Board. They could examine the application and say "Yes" or "No". We should not then have to wait another two years before any of the appointments are made permanent.

Dr. Ryan

The only permanent body that is there at present is the Civil Service Commissioners. I think in a case like that they would say: " Is this man fit?" They would take only age, health, and character into account.

Sir John Keane

Some of these people have been a long time there.

Dr. Ryan

Some of them have been there a lifetime.

Sir John Keane

They have practically a vested interest and they would be looking for some sort of pension if they were retired.

Dr. Ryan

As a matter of fact, difficulty has arisen only in two cases since I came into office where there was a change.

Chairman

We shall take it that the amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. If the Senator wishes he can bring it forward on the Report Stage again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed : " That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."

The McGillycuddy

On the question of protection of fisheries generally, which is the heading of Section 23, I said on Second Reading that I considered adequate protection of rivers all the time essential to the success of the Bill. I was glad that Senator Quirke supported my contention and to hear that the Minister was trying to arrange further co-operation between the Fishery Ministry and the Civic Guards. I gather that the difficulty in this case is the question of expense. Every Gárda costs about £200, and that cramps the style a good deal. In our district, for instance, our rates would only run to about four, but, at all events, I would rather have four or five efficient Gárdaí as substitutes for the fishery guards and water-keepers in the country. It was worked at one time in the Waterville district and it was most satisfactory.

I wish the Minister would try to examine the possibility of forming three or four really well-trained Gárda squads and dividing the expenses of these Gárda squads amongst all the different fishery boards in the national interest. For £1,200, for three months in the year, you would get 24 efficient Guards. They could spend a week in one place, a fortnight in another place and so on, and they would very quickly end abuses, with the assistance of the inspectors. I am quite satisfied that it would make for an enormous change in the outlook of people who are taking salmon in the spawning season.

Senator Quirke said that propaganda would go some way to do that. Personally, I do not think it would. You see there are several things which make you take salmon. Some may argue that, when they are taking it, they are taking crumbs from the rich man's table. You have people in the mountains who have never tasted fresh fish. They take salmon and they salt it. I remember on one occasion digging out 35 from under a manure heap. Lastly, it is looked upon as incredibly good sport to go out in the middle of the night with a spear to take fish. You know that you have the Guards watching you on one side and the bailiffs on the other. With the approach of either you hop it with your fish under your arm. I know that it took my father all his time to prevent me doing it when I was a boy. In my opinion nothing will really help to put a stop to this except something on the lines that I have indicated here.

Dr. Ryan

These are all points that we would naturally deal with in a consolidation Bill. I am afraid that the cost under the Senator's suggestion would be fairly high. Reference has been made to the salaries and upkeep of the Guards, but there is nothing to meet the cost of travelling expenses. It might not be easy for the commissioner to make arrangements to assign 24 Guards to this duty for three months of the year. The question would arise: What is he going to do with them for the other nine months? That, however, might not prove to be a big difficulty, because the Guards have to get their annual holidays, and there might be some way of arranging for this duty. We can have further discussions with the commissioner with regard to the Guards. Speaking subject to correction, I do not think that much legislation would be necessary to enable us to send Guards into a particular district at a particular time. As a matter of fact, we have already done that on a few occasions in districts where poaching was very well organised and where you had more or less intimidation practised in the case of the ordinary bailiffs. On a few occasions, as I have said, we did send armed Guards into such districts, and I may say that their going there had a good effect. We could do that again if it were found absolutely necessary to do so.

The McGillycuddy

I take it that the conservators would bear the cost of transport. The pay of the Guards would be found out of the £50. They would find that by a reduction to half of these £4 bailiffs who on most rivers are not doing anything. I am sure Senator Goulding will agree that also is the case in the County Waterford. You have the same position on the top of the Boyne. What you really want is to have the fear of God put into those poachers, and it is only the uniformed men who will ever do that.

Dr. Ryan

We have, of course, frequent discussions with the commissioner on this point, and we may be able to make better progress on this in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

The McGillycuddy

I move amendment No. 11:—

Before Section 24 to insert a new section as follows:—

It shall not be lawful for any person to take or kill any trout which is less than seven inches in length.

This, also, was raised in the Dáil Nobody seemed to know what the size of a trout should be. We made some experiments at different times and found that a trout which only weighs 3¼ ounces on the average measures 8 3/8; inches, so that a 7-inch trout is a small trout. On Loch Leven the thole pins in the boats measure seven inches. If there is any doubt about the size of a trout, the boatman measures it and if it is found to be under the seven inches he pitches it overboard. It is useless for anybody to argue that the boards of conservators set their own limit. There is only one board that I know of that has made any rule about the taking of trout and that is the Cork Board. Perhaps Senator Goulding would be able to tell us about the County Waterford. In the case of these trout fishing competitions, the competitors take everything in order to make weight. In those circumstances it is no good collectingmoney from licences to restock the lakes and rivers while these tiny trout continue to be taken in that way. It is not really interfering with the liberty of the subject if we fix the irreducible minimum at seven inches, and leave it to the conservators, if they like, to make it bigger still.

Mr. Goulding

The only objection I see to this is, that the trout which are caught in the mountain streams are much smaller than those caught in the larger lakes. If the minimum is fixed arbitrarily at seven inches, then the people in the mountain districts can hardly fish at all for trout in the mountain streams.

The McGillycuddy

Even in the case of the mountain streams is it not a pity to take a trout if it weighs under a quarter of a pound?

Mr. Goulding

In Lismore they have a by-law under which trout up to five inches can be taken.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to size, I think that what Senator. The McGillycuddy has said about Loch Leven is quite correct. As to the size of trout, I am sure we all have had experience, if not on the rivers, certainly in the restaurant, because sometimes you get a plump trout and at other times a thin one. I am sure it is correct to say that a trout will not always give you an exact return, taking length for weight. I can imagine that mountain trout are sometimes more than six inches in length. In any case, this is a matter that could be dealt with under a by-law: Under the present law the Minister has the power to hold a public inquiry in any district, and after that has been held to make a by-law regulating the size of the trout. I suggest that we had better leave this as it is.

Chairman

In practice, is a public inquiry ever held ?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. Up to this we have been rather unfortunate with regard to staff in the Department of Fisheries. I may say that we are building up a young staff there now and hope to do some of these things in the near future.

The McGillycuddy

Could not this be done mostly by correspondence between the Department and the various boards of fishery conservators? In that way could not a by-law be made laying down the size for each district?

Dr. Ryan

According to law you must hold a public inquiry before, making the by-law. I imagine that an inquiry amounts almost to a formality in some cases, but still it must be held.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 24 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.