I move:—
In lines 14 and 20 to delete the word "eleven" and substitute in each case the word "fourteen."
The effect of the amendment is to provide that the provision made in Section 13 of the Fisheries Act, 1925, shall be continued for a further period of five years instead of the two years provided for in the Bill. The Minister said last night that he was satisfied that two years would be sufficient because he intends to introduce some far-reaching legislation in regard to inland fisheries within 12 months. I do not think that is a quite sufficient reason for limiting this period to two years. This provision in the 1925 Act is designed to have the rates on valued fisheries allocated to boards of conservators of fisheries instead of to the local authorities. That is the main source of finance of boards of conservators which enables them to pay bailiffs for guarding of rivers. It would be a very bad thing if boards of conservators felt that they could not look forward for a considerable period ahead when making provision in their estimates, and I think a period of two years is far too short from that point of view.
With regard to the introduction of legislation which the Minister fore-shadowed and which he promised within 12 months, we are at the disadvantage that we have not yet seen the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission. We merely saw a small abstract from the report published in the papers some months ago. I do not know whether that abstract was correct or not; I do not think it was actually published as official. I do not think that the abstract as published excited any particular desire throughout the country that legislation on these lines should be introduced. If anything, I think the contrary was the case. If that abstract produced anything, I think it produced rather a storm amongst certain groups of people, at any rate, who were afraid that legislation along the lines indicated might be introduced. The Minister in reply to me last night said that he would not say whether the legislation he intends to introduce is to be along those lines or not. At any rate, the legislation is being introduced following on the report, so we must take it that at least some of the recommendations of the Commission will be embodied in the legislation.
As I say, I cannot find any fault with that because I have not the report at hand. None of us can discuss the report until we get it into our hands. I do stress, however, that the provision in this Bill should extend for a period considerably more than two years; and I think a further five years, during which the rates on valued fisheries would go to boards of conservators instead of local authorities, is a reasonable request to make. Not only have I in mind the fear that may be in the minds of boards of conservators, but I have also in mind the attitude of local authorities. Some local authorities may be enticed to look forward to a period in a couple of years' time when these rates, which at present go to boards of conservators, will be coming back into their funds. I think it would be well, therefore, that the Minister should give himself plenty of margin beyond what he takes in the Bill. That is why I put down the suggestion of a further period of five years.
