When the discussion was interrupted at 7 o'clock last evening I was referring to the fact that it was obvious from the penalties set out in Section 7 (2) that the minimum local special licence duty would be £17. I pointed out further that while I had no fault to find with that provision, I doubted whether it would be very pleasant news for those who thought they would be able to fish these waters, merely on payment of the ordinary licence that they paid in the past. I said I had no fault to find with the provision, because those persons who will fish in these very valuable waters will have privileges as against other citizens in the State. The right to fish in these waters was one for all the people in the State, and not for any particular fishermen who happen to live in the locality. Further, I said it would be necessary that high special local licence duties should be charged if money was to be provided in place of the losses that the boards of conservators would suffer. In a sense these remarks are irrelevant on a section which deals with penalties. When dealing with Section 4, special local licences, I said I thought I would postpone my remarks in order to calculate what special local licences would amount to. I did a sum by dividing 50 by 3 in order to discover what the minimum local licence would be. The Minister might consider whether £17 would not be too high in the case of some fisheries that might come into this category in the future. In the case of the Erne and Ownee Fisheries, any man who gets the privileges of fishing in these several fishery areas will have very good value for £20, £25 or £30 licences. But that might not be so in the case of many similar several fisheries which will eventually come under the Bill, as is provided for, say, by the abandonment by the owners under clause (b) or by a subsequent judicial decision. There may be cases where the fisheries are not very valuable, where a minimum of £17 will have the effect of completely stopping netting in the area. That might not be entirely undesirable. It is a matter the Minister might consider. I have no objection whatever to having those licences at a high figure. It is the one hope of stopping over-netting, apart altogether from the question of the privilege these men are getting, and the question of supplying the conservators with funds to carry on their work.
In Committee on Finance. - Fisheries (Tidal Waters) Bill, 1934—Committee (Resumed).
Mr. Lynch
I think the Deputy has not drawn the proper deduction from the sub-section in coming to the conclusion that the special local licence would be at least £17. If he reads Section 7 (2) he will see these words:
....the Minister has authorised the issue of special local licences to use in such tidal waters an engine, net, instrument or device for the taking of salmon or trout of the kind so used by such person, a fine not exceeding three times the appropriate special local licence duty in respect of such special local licences or, in any other case, a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
The words "in any other case" mean where a special local licence is not prescribed. Some people may not think it worth while to take out a special local licence for rod fishing. Where no special licence is issued the fine would be £50. That has no relation to what the local licence would be. The special licence will be calculated by the Department trying to get the necessary income. If the conservators say that their income is short by £600, and if we calculate that there will be 12 votes, in order to get the £600—which might be too high—we will try, if it is possible, to get the income to make the necessary contribution to the conservators. The sum will vary on different rivers. On the River Erne £17 would probably be altogether too low for a special licence, but on the River Ownee there might be justification for something more. As the Deputy mentioned, there are rivers that may possibly be surrendered, because they are of no value, and the special local licence might perhaps be only the same as the ordinary licence, or a few shillings more. It might not be possible to get any more. I think the circumstances of each case will have to be taken into account. Our aim will be to try to get what the conservators require to carry on.
Mr. Lynch
I thought there was an interesting innovation being tried when I read clause (a) of this section:
(1) The Minister may by order make regulations in relation to all or any of the following matters, that is to say—
(a) the times and the places at which holders of special local licences may fish under such licences respectively.
Presumably this applies generally.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Mr. Lynch
I thought at first it was an attempt where there would be a huge number of licences to divide them into fishing groups. It would be almost impossible to do so, but it would obviate the desire contemplated in the next clause dealing with the keeping of order among holders of special local licences.
Dr. Ryan
The idea is that if a big number of people hold licences, say, 24 or 30 votes, and that all want to go there at the same time, we can take power to say: "No; you must take your turn."
Mr. Lynch
Are you taking that power?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Mr. Lynch
In that case my first reading of the section was right.
Mr. Lynch
This section means that for the purpose of voting a draft net licence of £4 10s. stands.
Dr. Ryan
It is the very same as if it was an ordinary licence.
Mr. Lynch
In connection with this section, does the Minister contemplate having a profit for the State?
Dr. Ryan
No; I think, in fact, it will be more or less of a loss.
Mr. Lynch
Then I desire to repeat what I said previously, that there is a public right secured, not for the benefit of local persons who will have the future advantage of it, but for the public as a whole. As Deputy Costello pointed out on the Second Reading when speaking on Article 11 of the Constitution, these fishery rights in tidal waters once they are taken from the former proprietors, or alleged proprietors, should belong to the State. At any rate, there seems to be no reason why the State should suffer a loss in future working. The Minister should take his courage in his hands and insist on getting such a remedy from the persons who will enjoy the privilege of fishing there, as will certainly cover the cost. I should say that he should make a little over the cost for ordinary persons through the country who will not gain anything from this right, but which was won for them as well as for the persons fishing there.
Dr. Ryan
We have no objection to the prospect of making a profit. Perhaps I should have explained that I had in mind only this year. In a full working year it will pay.
Mr. Lynch
At the end of sub-section (1) Section 14, you referred to Section 13 of the Fisheries Act, 1925. I should like to remind the Minister of what I said on the Second Reading with regard to that section. I looked up the Act of 1925 and I find that it is dated the 11th July, 1925. Therefore, if my calculation is right, that provision of having the rates on valued fisheries go out to boards of conservators instead of to the local authorities, expires in October next. This Bill is calculated not to expire until December 1935. Accordingly, I think that up to October next the Minister ought to run through a short piece of legislation extending the life of that section. I can assure the Minister that when it was first introduced it was the intention of the then Government that that should be continued for a decade. I forget why the nine year period rather than the ten year period was insisted upon but I think it should be made either a permanent feature of our legislation or be extended for a further ten years.
Dr. Ryan
I quite agree with what the Deputy has said. I did not think we were so near the point of expiry, but as the Deputy has suggested it I will have the matter looked into.
Mr. Lynch
With regard to this section, something may come of this, but it seems to me to be rather the wrong way of going about getting an arrangement. It seems to be leaving things very much to chance until the board of conservators here happen to get in touch with the Board of Conservators across the Border in order that they may make an arrangement with the consent of the Minister here by which those spawning beds across the Border may be protected. It seems to me to be a very casual way of dealing with a very serious matter because I am sure that it would be worth something like £100,000 five or six years ago or even now. If it were worth £49,000 in 1869 I imagine it would be worth that figure in 1926 or, for that matter, to-day. That is a very considerable asset to the State and nothing should be left to chance in the way of protecting that asset. It is an asset that can be destroyed very easily or almost destroyed if the spawning fish in the supply streams across the Border, towards the source of the Erne, are not protected. The way it strikes me is this. There are really four groups immediately concerned in this matter. On this side of the Border there is the Minister himself, who, representing the State, is now in fact the proprietor of the fisheries, or at any rate represents the public right, and there is also the local board of conservators. Those two form the groups on this side of the Border. On the other side of the Border there would be, I think, the Enniskillen Board and Mr. Moore and whoever is with him in the properietorship of the remainder of the river from the Border upwards. I suggest that some arrangement could be made by which a conference could be held between those four groups. Why I mention Mr. Moore is that it was not alone the Board of Conservators in Enniskillen or Letterkenny who paid for protection in the past but Mr. Moore himself, in his own interest, and apart from his rates, which were very considerable, amounting to £600 or £700, expended very large sums in employing private bailiffs to look after the fisheries, especially during the spaning season.
There are, therefore, four parties to this, and I think that some arrangement might be made to have a conference between those four groups. I think it is rather casual to leave the provision in the way it is left under Section 16 and, while it may turn out all right, I think that the Minister ought to consider something in the nature of bringing about such a conference in order to see how the thing could be worked out. Possibly an arbitrator might be agreed upon between the parties in order to decide what arrangements could be made by which the upper reaches of the river would be protected for the benefit of the lower reaches.
Dr. Ryan
There may be a good deal in what the Deputy says, but this provision is designed to give authority to the local board of conservators to make payments out of their funds for the purpose of such arrangement. As the matter stands at present, neither the Minister nor the local conservators have authority to pay out of their funds for this purpose and this clause was required to enable them to do so. As a matter of fact, the Ballyshannon and Enniskillen Board, naturally, work in close co-operation with the local board. However, if there is any difficulty, I think that the Deputy's suggestion should be adopted.