I move :—

Section 5, sub-section (1). To delete all from the word " and " in line 57 to the end of the sub-section.

This section provides that no person employed in the sea-fishing industry shall be entitled to get a licence, unless he " satisfies the Minister that he is a fit and proper person to hold a fish sales licence, and (c) is not an undischarged bankrupt, and (d) is not employed, engaged or otherwise concerned in the sea-fishing industry." I contend that (d) is depriving the Minister of powers he should have, and I think it is unnecessary, because he has discretion to refuse a licence to any person he wishes. I think, in practice, it may damage the interests of fishermen who are selling fish by auction at a sea-fishing station. I am not so much concerned in this with selling in the wholesale market at the centres of population, but I am thinking of the position of fishermen who desire to sell fish by auction and want to choose the auctioneer. I think the conditions of the industry are such that the probabilities are that a salesman may get a fish sales licence who is not devoting his whole time to the fishing industry or to the fish selling industry, one who is only casually engaged in selling fish. The fishermen require as auctioneer a person who is thoroughly conversant with the industry's ramifications, marketing, prices, and the conditions prevailing in the market. I think, therefore, this proposal is a limiting of the Minister's powers, which may deprive fishermen of the possibility of improving their position in the matter of prices. I know, as a matter of personal experience, that it is an advantage to the fishermen to have some one acting for them as auctioneer who is thoroughly conversant with the industry, who may be engaged or concerned in the sea-fishing industry in some other way than in actually buying or selling at the station, or even selling at a market in the city. If this amendment to delete the disabling paragraph is carried, I have provided by a later amendment that a person concerned in auctioning fish shall have no interest either in the purchase or sale of fish in this country, so that the danger which the Minister has seen and wishes to guard against, namely, that a person selling fish on behalf of fishermen may have an interest in keeping down prices, is also guarded against by my subsequent amendment. I think it is unwise to absolutely prohibit a person who possibly may have some concern, even though it is a distant concern, in sea-fishing from selling fish on behalf of fishermen. That, I think, would be detrimental to the interests of the fishermen and would damage both the visiting fleets and the home fishermen.

I think the object that Senator Johnson desires to secure by his amendment is already provided for in the Bill under Section 4. Under sub-section (1) of that section the Minister is empowered, by order, to declare any specified area a district to which Part III. of the Act applies. I think that the provision in the Bill is a better way of meeting the object that Senator Johnson has in view than the amendment he has moved.

If we knew beforehand what the declared areas were that argument might be very sound, but so far as we are concerned " the Minister may, from time to time, declare any specified area " as the area, and unless he annuls the order he makes the prohibition continues.

Would the Minister indicate some of the main factors that he would bear in mind when declaring a specified area as a district to which this part of the Act would apply ?

One would be complaints made by the Fishermen's Association that the members were being adversely affected by the auctions of the salesmen. An area would not be prescribed unless there were such complaints.

That is to say, the Minister would not specify an area as a district to which the Act applied unless he got complaints and there was a reason for doing so ?

No.

I think that meets Senator Johnson's point to a great degree.

I quite understand the Minister's present intention, but I am now thinking of the Act which will be our Act and not his.

Suppose that we had the areas declared, what better position would we be in to come to a decision on this ?

I, at any rate, would be in a better position if I knew that the areas were, for instance, to be the City of Dublin and the City of Cork. I imagine that the areas are to include the fishing stations, and Howth may be within the area of Dublin. What I am anxious about is to protect the fishermen on the coast, and I am basing my argument on personal knowledge and experience of what has happened many times.

I think that the retention of this provision is entirely for the protection of the fishermen on the coast. That is the whole purpose of it. One might say that it is just possible that what may happen in Dublin may also happen at Killybegs, Dunmore, or any other centre. This refers especially to persons who consign their fish to a market at a distance. That is where the greatest danger may occur because suspicion may arise amongst consignors that they are not getting a fair do at a particular market. Of course, that may occur anywhere. It is quite conceivable, if a salesman is interested in the fishing industry apart from his activity as an auctioneer, that he would try and knock prices down.

Let me put this, which is a very common condition. A boat is owned jointly by the skipper and a brother who, let us say, is a shopkeeper. The nets are owned by the crew. The shopkeeper may be interested in the sale of fish. He is an auctioneer, but because he is part-owner as skipper of the boat he is debarred from auctioning the fish taken by that boat. His main interest is to get the highest price possible for the fish because he is getting his share of the fish catch. This provision would debar him from being allowed to sell the fish caught by that boat, even though he were interested in getting the highest price possible for the fish.

Yes, if he were in a prescribed area.

But we do not know whether, if Dublin were scheduled as an area, Howth would not be in it.

Senator Johnson seems to assume that a whole county would be scheduled as an area.

I should say that an area would be a particular market.

Rather than a whole county. If this applied to a whole county I would feel inclined to agree with Senator Johnson. I should imagine, however, that for the purposes of this Act an area would be one specified market, and that being so, I cannot see how Senator Johnson's contention can apply at all. I think that the provision in the Bill, which the Minister is in favour of, provides a more elastic and efficient machine for the purpose in view than Senator Johnson's amendment.

I suggest that the Minister is throwing a responsibility on the Oireachtas which he feels he should not take upon himself. Even under my amendment we are allowing him the right to withhold a licence from any person if he has any other reason for doing so. But the Minister's proposition in the Bill is that he wants to be deprived of the power to give a licence to a man who happens to have an interest, even a second or third-rate interest, in the sea-fishing industry. I want to leave the Minister a discretion, but he wants to be deprived of it.

I have a discretion in the sense that I need not prescribe an area.

Why does the Minister want to deprive himself of those powers ? The Minister says that he has a discretion in the sense that he need not prescribe an area, but that seems a rather roundabout method to adopt of depriving himself of those powers.

I want the thing to be perpetual—I am not thinking of myself, but of the occupant of my office for the time being—that persons concerned in the industry should be in an area where there is a complaint with regard to the operations of the salesman system, and that they should be prohibited from acting as salesmen.

Take the case put by Senator Johnson : why should a man who happens to be interested in sea-fishing be prohibited from acting as a salesman, provided his doing so is in the best interests of the fisher-folk of a particular locality and is directed towards getting the best possible price for them for their fish ?

The Minister says that he wants to be deprived of that power.

Suppose there is another group operating in that locality, and that by reason of complaints made with regard to its operations the Minister prescribes that area, why should not the man, who is interested in the fishing industry, and at the same time is acting as a salesman with the object of getting the best possible price that he can for the fish caught by the fisherfolk in that locality, be granted a licence ?

I think it is a good principle to preclude the Minister from issuing a licence to a person of that description. If he is allowed to issue a licence to a person of that description in one particular area, he will thereby be creating a precedent for the granting of licences to people in other areas, and that will be, so to speak, getting in the thin end of the wedge for a lot of those fellows to operate around the coast again.

That is not the question. The Minister subscribes to the principle by reason of the fact that under Section 4 he can get over the difficulty which Senator O'Doherty anticipates arising because, under that section, he has the power to say whether or not he will prescribe an area. I have put a case in which I think a man should not be prohibited from getting a licence to act as a salesman.

The Senator wants to secure an honest auction. The Minister says that under this Part of the Act an area will not be defined unless there is some dishonest auctioning going on there.

You will have an honest auction if you allow the men who catch the fish to sell them. Why rule them out from acting as auctioneers or deprive them of the right to sell the fish themselves ?

There is nothing to prevent a man from selling his own fish, but supposing that a fisherman comes in and is appointed an auctioneer, is he not more likely to take first the fish from his own boat while the prices are good ? Is he not more likely to dispose of his own fish before, say, there is a glut on the market and before prices begin to fall ?

But why should he be ruled out. I am going to put a case which, unfortunately, is not likely to occur now, but suppose that at Rings-end there was amongst the fishermen a man who had the required qualifications as an auctioneer, and the confidence of the fishermen there, why should he be ruled out from acting as an auctioneer under the Bill ? Would he be not more likely to give them a fair deal than any other type of auctioneer ? The present position is that such a man cannot secure a licence under the Bill.

Yes, if I happened to prescribe Ringsend as an area. If everyone was satisfied with the system as it was going on there, then it would be utterly ridiculous for the Minister to come in and prescribe that area. You can take Ringsend, where a fisherman auctions a certain amount of fish even though he is interested in the fishing business himself. Very good ; if that is so he is not going to be interfered with. If everybody is satisfied the Minister will not prescribe that as an area where a fish licence is necessary and where the conditions prescribed in Section 5 must prevail.

May I give this illustration from my personal knowledge : Fishermen, not satisfied with the price they are getting in Kinsale for herring or mackerel, agree that one of their number should go to Cork and sell on behalf of the rest. You are depriving the fishermen of the right to do that by this section. He is selling wholesale.

I do not know how you are going to provide for that.

He goes into the City of Cork on behalf of six boats and sells to wholesale people who buy on the quays at Cork. You are depriving him of doing that by this section.

The conditions were unsatisfactory at Kinsale ?

The men were not satisfied with the prices they were offered. One of them took the catch of the whole six, counted them, and sailed around to the quays at Cork, where he sold them on behalf of the rest.

I would like to know how he distinguished between the catches of each particular man.

He sold 75 mease of herring, and he knew how many mease he got from each boat.

You would not have the present position in Ringsend if something like that had been operating. The trawlers came along and the people who were interested were the auctioneers in the market. You can imagine what the Ringsend men thought when they were in opposition to the trawlers and still had not the right to sell themselves.

What exactly is the meaning of the word " area " in Section 4 ? Is the " area " the market ? As I read the Bill, it might mean not merely a certain market, but several markets.

That might be so if it were necessary. There is no actual definition of " area, " and it may be one market or three or four markets.

Supposing you make Dublin a prescribed area it would include Howth ?

I should say that in defining an area it would be defined by markets.

And the licence would be to sell in these markets.

I would like to know how you are to get round the case cited by Senator Johnson. I see the possibility of hardship there.

I wonder did that man sell as a salesman in the ordinary acceptation of the term ?

I am contemplating the licence to act as agent for the sale by wholesale of fresh fish. It is not an auction at all.

If there was an honest auction in Kinsale that would be unnecessary.

Do not make a mistake. The auction in Kinsale might be perfectly honest, but the fishermen would not be satisfied with the price, and would refuse to accept it. That is not an uncommon thing.

They can go to the Cork market, get a salesman there, and get a better price.

They do not want to employ a salesman. They want to sell direct to a curer in Cork. The man whom they sent was selling wholesale on behalf of the rest of the fishermen, and he would be deprived under this Bill of the right to do that.

I have never heard of this occurring in actual practice.

I have known it to happen at least a dozen times. I have known boats going from Dunmore East to Waterford, and I have known them to go from Kinsale to Cork not infrequently. I have heard of boats going right over to Milford, but, of course, that is out of your jurisdiction.

I would like to know what happened in these cases where they come from, say, Dunmore East to Cork. Had they an arrangement with a particular curer, or did they sell in the markets in the ordinary way ? I can conceive that happening if there was no buyer whatever in the place.

It is quite obvious that there is something to be said on both sides. It involves a big principle, but Senator Johnson states he is not interfering with the principle.

What I feel about it is that the Minister is depriving himself of a right. By doing that he may be doing an injustice to individuals, and an injury to the industry.

Whereas he can always secure an honest auction.

The section would be absolutely spoiled if this provision were not in it.

Could you not look on that as a special case, and make some provision for it ?

It also arises in sub-section (2) (c). What Senator Johnson says is that that is a sufficient embodiment of the principle, except that he would add to the very last line of (c) " in Saorstát Eireann."

If a man is engaged in the purchase or sale of fish of course he is precluded.

Clause (d) of sub-section (1) is wider considerably.

It is.

I put this against myself in the case I have mentioned. Strictly speaking, that fisherman would not be entitled to sell on behalf of his friends, not having got a licence.

If Cork were an area. It all comes back to that. You have got to have an area.

I think all the attention is secured in the later provision (c) in sub-section (2).

Would that not rule out the actual case of the person you mentioned ?

It would, probably.

It would if Cork were an area.

It would not be ruled out of (d) of sub-section (1) unless Cork were an area.

Fishermen may want to go out of the ordinary course of things. It is not always due to foul play that they are dissatisfied. They may feel that the competition is not there.

I wonder if you would postpone consideration of this matter ? We need not come to a decision on it now.

It may not be necessary to meet again. I would be quite prepared, if the Minister agrees to give consideration to it, to withdraw the amendment now and let it be discussed on the Report Stage in the Seanad.

This is the Committee Stage of the Bill, and therefore it is on the Report Stage that the Minister would tell us he has considered it, and what his consideration has led him to.

I shall try to do that.