Special Committee Sea Fisheries Bill, 1930 díospóireacht -
Friday, 2 Jan 1931

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 or any chattels used in connection with sea-fishing which are for the time being vested in the Minister by statute, deed, contract or otherwise ;

(b) any moneys for the time being due to the Minister in respect of loans made for the purchase of sea-fishing boats or of chattels used in connection with sea-fishing and any securities held by the Minister in respect of such moneys ;

(c) any land situate in Saorstát Eireann which is for the time being vested in the Minister by statute, deed, contract, or otherwise.

* * * * * *

Mr. Johnson

I beg to move amendment 1 :—

Section 2, sub-section (1). To delete paragraph (c) and to substitute therefor the following words :—

" The Minister may also grant to the Society by way of lease for any period not exceeding ninety-nine years any land situate in Saorstát Eireann which is for the time being vested in the Minister by statute, deed, contract, or otherwise."

Paragraph (c) deals with the transfer from the Minister to the Society of any land situate in Saorstát Eireann which is for the time being vested in the Minister by statute, deed, contract, or otherwise. It seems to me that there are agricultural lands which are, or may be, vested in the Minister under the Land Act of 1923, and while it is not at all the intention of the Minister, even with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to vest in the Society any such lands, we would be making it possible under the Bill as it stands for such lands to be vested in the Society. In my view we should not make possible any such thing. Secondly, this paragraph (c) is intended to deal more particularly with buildings on lands that were transferred by the C.D. Board to the Ministry for the use of the fishery industry. No doubt it is the intention of the Minister only to vest such building lands in the Society. We have not any knowledge, except a very general knowledge, of what the lands are. As a matter of principle, it would seem to me to be undesirable in any case that land which is State property should be transferred entirely to a private organisation such as the Fisheries Association. I think it is contrary to Article 11 of the Constitution. I must assume that the Ministry is a Department of State. Article 11 says :—

All the land and waters, mines and minerals, within the territory of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) hitherto vested in the State, or any Department thereof, or held for the public use or benefit, and also all the natural resources of the same territory (including the air and all forms of potential energy) . . . shall, from and after the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, belong to the Irish Free State. . . . but the same . . . may in the public interest be from time to time granted by way of lease or licence to be worked or enjoyed under the authority and subject to the control of the Oireachtas : Provided that no such lease or licence may be made for a term exceeding ninety-nine years. . . .

I do not know what the technical meaning of the word " vested " may be, but I am assuming that it practically means handing over entirely, and it transfers the estate which the Minister has to the Society. I think that should be subject to the limitations of the State Lands Act, and the lease or licence should be for a limited period. There is no such limit in this section. It is not a sufficient answer to say that there is only £2,000 or £3,000 worth of property. So far as we are concerned, we are dealing with the principle of transferring the land which the Minister as a Department of the State possesses to a private association without any check whatever except the check of the Minister for Finance. My amendment will allow the Minister to grant to the Society lands by way of a lease for a term not exceeding ninety-nine years, which is the Constitutional provision. The amendment would still allow the Minister to do for a period of ninety-nine years what he proposes to do in the Bill, but it would not vest wholly in the Society the estate which is at present vested in the Minister.

Mr. O'Doherty

I wish to support Senator Johnson. I understand the practice in the past has been not to grant a lease for a period longer than twenty-one years where foreshore rights were concerned. Whether that is absolutely true I cannot say definitely, but that is my information. If it is true, I would even be prepared to go further than Senator Johnson, and I would limit the lease to the period associated with foreshore rights. On the broad principle I support the amendment.

Mr. O'Neill

Supposing this Society collapsed at some time—I hope it will not—will the land that has been vested in the Society revert to the State ?

Chairman

No.

Mr. O'Neill

Will it be sold for the benefit of the shareholders ?

Chairman

If a Society like this becomes unworkable for want of funds there is a method of winding it up under the Provident Societies Acts, and that involves the sale of the assets.

Mr. O'Neill

That is, all we are handing over ?

Chairman

Yes. If you limit the power of the Minister to grant a lease what would be vested in them would be the rest of the lease. That would be their property, and that could be put up for sale at the winding-up of the company.

Mr. O'Neill

I am afraid I have not made my point perfectly clear.

Chairman

As regards the point of reversion, it would revert to the State at the end of ninety-nine years.

Mr. Johnson

That is under the amendment only. Under the Bill it would not revert to the State.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Lynch)

I rather object to this amendment. These buildings are not State property in the sense referred to in Article 11, I am so advised, because of the fact that these buildings, with the land attached, were purchased by the C.D.B. out of their own funds for specific purposes. They were held by succeeding Attorney-Generals to be outside the purview of Article 11 of the Constitution and outside the operations of the State Lands Act. They are worth entirely about £3,000 ; no single building is worth more than £300. They can only be used for fishery purposes ; they are that type of property. Some of them are not in very good condition. For the purpose of any development that I anticipate, there will have to be considerable alterations made in some of them ; they will have to be better equipped and so on. The Association or anyone acquiring these premises for a period of ninety-nine years, as suggested in the amendment, would be slow to carry out any improvements in the way of the erection of buildings or otherwise ; they would feel they were limited by reason of the lease being for a period of ninety-nine years. Apart from this property, any other property that would be acquired by the Minister would not be governed in the same way. Any other property would be presumably given by the State Lands Acts, and these provisions already apply.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Would not the Minister assume that this Association, if brought into being, would be quite prepared to go on with such improvements as they would require ? Is the Minister's assumption that on the expiration of the period stated powers would not be again conferred on the Minister to make the lettings ? Inasmuch as these hereditaments are suitable for one purpose and one purpose only, would it not be logical to assume now that they are suitable for that purpose, and that it is the intention of the State to help the fishing industry, and that the Minister would again secure such powers to make an extension of the lettings—is not that the logical way of looking at the matter ?

Mr. Lynch

It might be, but the answer might be : Why not do the thing as it is proposed here in the Bill ?

Mr. O'Hanlon

I can quite understand that the Association would be out to do the best for themselves. However, if the only point is that these buildings are suited for that purpose and that certain repairs are required, and that these repairs are not going to be made to these buildings by the Association unless the Association have definitely established by law under the Bill that these properties are going to remain in their hands for an indefinite period, surely they would assume, and they might assume, that the Minister would, on the expiration of the period now mentioned, secure to them an extended period.

Mr. Lynch

We cannot speak on what the Association means, but I should say that a corporation of that kind is notoriously careful. Such a corporation would be more careful than individuals, and they would be extremely slow to enter into any big expenditure unless they were assured on this matter.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Is that the only point now—that the Minister has brought it down to the question of the repairs by the Association ? Is that point of view as to what the Association may think, the main feature in the Bill—just the question of the limited letting ?

Chairman

There is a matter that occurs to me about the Senator's amendment—that it gives him power to make a grant by way of lease. That would not prevent him, if you leave the years as they stand in the amendment, reserving a rent on the hereditaments.

Mr. Lynch

Or the term.

Chairman

In order to carry out what the Minister wants to do—that is, to hand this property to this Society without being paid anything for that at all—if you give power to make a lease he might charge a big rent.

Mr. Lynch

That is governed by this section : " 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." There might be a rent charged, whether nominal or otherwise, under the conditions laid down.

Chairman

But if you vest the land you surely could not reserve any rent out of it afterwards.

Mr. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. Johnson

The Minister makes the assumption that what he is asking for is authority to transfer to the Society these small buildings. That is his intention. But the Bill says " any land situate in Saorstát Eireann which is for the time being vested in the Minister by statute, deed, contract, or otherwise." We know nothing about these small lands and buildings. If they were stated in a schedule, or if there were any limitation, then there would not be any great difficulty. He is only dealing with small buildings and hereditaments. But there is still power given to grant to the Society any land which is at present vested in the Minister. Included in the amendment, there is given to the Minister the right to grant to the Society by way of lease even agricultural land if he wishes, if he has it.

Chairman

He has not, because they must be tenanted lands.

Mr. Foran

Is he likely to have them ?

Chairman

As transferee from the Congested Districts Board.

Mr. Johnson

Order 55 of 1927 reads as follows :—

" Every mention or reference contained in any Act of the Oireachtas passed before the coming into operation of this Order, or in any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act or under any British Statute of or to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture in relation to the Irish Land Commission and every mention or reference contained in any such Act, order, rule, or regulation which has relation to the Irish Land Commission and is required by Section 18 of the said Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, to be construed as a mention of or reference to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture shall, in so far as the same has relation to the Irish Land Commission, be construed and have effect as a mention of or reference to the Minister for Fisheries."

I think that, under the Land Act of 1923, land of various kinds may come into the possession of the Minister The Minister for Agriculture, in the course of his advocacy of that Bill, repeated time and again that any lands in the Free State could be taken by the Minister or could come into his possession. So it is possible for the Minister for Lands and Agriculture to obtain possession of agricultural land. We are asked to enact that, having got possession of such lands, he may transfer them to the Society. I want to limit the power of the Minister in that respect, and for that reason I put down the amendment.

Chairman

That is what I suggested, that we should allow him to vest any land for the time being in his possession.

Mr. Lynch

That is not necessary, because any land that would be vested in me in connection with land transfer would be vested for a particular purpose, and would, therefore, be precluded from being used for this purpose.

Chairman

Yes, it would be a breach of trust.

Mr. O'Doherty

What objection has the Minister to attaching a schedule to it ?

Mr. Lynch

It would mean beginning all over again. You would have to begin now and discuss every portion of the schedule, I presume, and afterwards you may find that some of those buildings may not be required by the Society.

Mr. O'Doherty

But such as may be required.

Mr. Lynch

Then where are you going to start your schedule ? Your Society may say that they may require some of the lands now and require some more of them later on. You would be varying your schedule.

Mr. O'Doherty

Attach the land you have in your mind at present. I do not see any great difficulty about that at all. This Bill seems to give powers to the Minister that are in excess of what he actually wants.

Chairman

Are there many of these parcels ?

Mr. Lynch

The entire number is twenty-six.

Chairman

That would make the thing perfectly clear if you are sure you have got everything you want in these twenty-six lots of hereditaments. That is the best way to do it.

Mr. Johnson

That would satisfy everybody.

Mr. Lynch

I could do it in this way—I could put a list of the property on the Table of the House.

Chairman

These lots will have to be identified at some time for the purpose of vesting, and therefore you have got to do it some time, and I think you could put it into a schedule. It would be a considerable schedule with descriptions of these twenty-six lots.

Mr. O'Doherty

Not half as long as the schedule to the Gaeltacht Housing Bill.

Mr. Lynch

Suppose we made a provision there that any such Order should be laid on the Table of the House—that is to say, where there is any transfer of any particular property ?

Chairman

And not to take effect until after it has been laid on the Table of the House—that is the usual section.

Mr. Johnson

I would prefer to have it in a schedule. It would be very much more simple.

Chairman

What the Minister suggests would enable the House to see that there was nothing being vested that was not proper to be vested.

Mr. Lynch

You could specify in paragraph (c) of (2) the lands mentioned in the schedule.

Chairman

Yes, the several lands and hereditaments mentioned in the schedule. It would be a sufficient description of your vesting order afterwards, and it would be registered in the Registry of Deeds.

Mr. Lynch

That would mean such a description as would be afterwards required for conveying.

Chairman

As would be put in the vesting order. You would have to put it in the vesting order in the end. I think that is not unreasonable. It is not going to put you to extra trouble.

Mr. O'Hanlon

It is giving the Minister everything he requires.

Mr. Lynch

Very well. I shall bring it up myself on the Report Stage.

Mr. Johnson

In that case, I shall withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 put and agreed to.