Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Apr 1939

Vol. 75 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Fisheries Bill, 1938—Committee.

Sections 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3 (1), Lines 45-46.
the expression "rod licence" means a licence which is either a salmon rod licence or a trout rod licence.

Mr. Lynch

In view of the Minister's new Section 9, I shall not move amendment No. 1.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1), page 5, to delete lines 45 and 46.

This amendment is preparatory to the amendment on Section 9.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 6.
Every licence issued under the Fisheries Acts, or this Act in respect of an engine (other than a single rod and line) used in the taking of fish shall contain on the face thereof, in the case of an engine used in a several fishery, the name of the person who is for the time being entitled to use such engine for his own benefit and, in every other case, the name and address of the person paying the licence duty on such engine.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment No. 3:—

In lines 27 and 28 to delete the words "the name of the person who is for the time being entitled to use such engine for his own benefit" and substitute therefor the words "the name of a person beneficially interested in such engine".

To be perfectly candid, as I said on the Second Stage of the Bill, I am not quite sure where I stand, either with regard to the section or with regard to my amendments. I have two amendments, one an alternative to the other. My aim in the amendments is to attempt to retain the status quo with regard to the board of conservators as far as strength goes, subject to the change that will be made by having trout rod representatives there. I do not know whether the section purports to change the status quo. If I were satisfied that the section did not change the status quo I would withdraw the amendment, otherwise I feel that my first amendment, amendment No. 3, would have some advantages. There are fisheries, I understand, which are owned by a considerable number of joint owners, and if there were some arrangement by which, at least, any one of them might be entitled to vote, I would feel that there was nothing very much for me to say. There is this, however, about the section, if it purports to change the status quo. The Minister, as guardian of the interests of the State, should look to the future and see where he himself will stand if these fisheries are taken over, and that he himself will not lose voting power in this matter. As I say, I am not quite clear as to the meaning of the section. The section is not very clear to me although I am quite sure it is perfectly clear to the Minister.

I think that the end the Deputy wishes to achieve by this amendment is already achieved by the section. I have consulted the drafts man since, and he says that as drafted the Section is intended to ensure that the engine will be used by the person in whose name the licence is taken out. There might be something to be said for bringing in an amendment on the Report Stage for the purpose of giving power of attorney. That would cover what the Deputy wishes?

Mr. Lynch

Entirely.

We can do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 4 not moved.
Section 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 7.
Where an application for a rod licence is made to the board of conservators for a fishery district such licence shall be issued—
(a) in case the applicant is the owner or occupier of a rod fishery for salmon or trout in such district, in the electoral division of such district in which such fishery is situate,
(b) in any other case—
(i) if there is only one freshwater electoral division of such district, in such freshwater electoral division, or
(ii) if there are two or more freshwater electoral divisions of such district, in such one of the said divisions as the applicant may request.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 6, line 41, to insert the word "salmon" before the word "rod," and in line 35 to delete the words "or trout."

Again, this amendment is bound up with Section 9.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 9.
9.—(1) So much of Section 21 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1848, as provides that rods used singly for taking trout shall not be subject to any licence duty under the said Act is hereby repealed and the Fisheries Acts shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
(2) The licence duty payable on a trout rod licence shall be five shillings, and such licence shall be valid only in the fishery district in which it is issued.
(3) Sections 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1848, and Section 17 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1869, shall apply to trout rod licences.

I move amendment No. 6:—

Before Section 9 to insert the following new section:—

(1) The board of conservators for each fishery district shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this section; by order declare that any rivers or lakes or portions thereof situate in such district, which such board considers should be scheduled as trout waters, shall be scheduled trout waters for the purposes of this section and may from time to time thereafter by further orders declare that any other rivers or lakes or portions thereof situate in such district, which such board considers should also be scheduled as trout waters, shall be scheduled trout waters for the said purposes, and any rivers or lakes or portions thereof in respect of which an order has been made under this sub-section shall be scheduled trout waters for the said purposes.

(2) Every order made under sub section (1) of this section shall be in such form and shall be published in such manner as the Minister may direct.

(3) Trout rod licences shall be of three kinds, namely—

(a) trout rod (general) licences,

(b) trout rod (riparian owner's) licences,

(c) trout rod (juvenile) licences.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 21 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1848, there shall be payable on—

(a) a trout rod (general) licence, a licence duty of five shillings,

(b) a trout rod (riparian owner's) licence, a licence duty of sixpence,

(c) a trout rod (juvenile) licence, a licence duty of sixpence.

(5) Any person may obtain a trout rod (general) licence and such licence shall be valid throughout the State.

(6) Any person who satisfies the board of conservators for a fishery district that he is the occupier of any land contiguous to any portion of scheduled trout waters in such district in which he is entitled to fishing rights may obtain a trout rod (riparian owner's) licence and such licence shall be valid only in the portion of such scheduled trout waters in which such fishing rights exist.

(7) Any person who satisfies the board of conservators of a fishery district that he is for the time being under the age of seventeen years may obtain from such board a trout rod (juvenile) licence, and such licence shall be valid only in such fishery district.

(8) Sections 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1848 and Section 17 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1869 shall (subject to such modifications therein as are, having regard to the preceding provisions of this section, necessary) apply to trout rod licences.

(9) It shall not be lawful for any person to fish for trout with a single rod and line in any scheduled trout waters situate in a fishery district unless—

(a) such person is the holder of a trout rod (general) licence for the time being in force, or

(b) such person is the occupier of land contiguous to the portion of such scheduled trout waters in which he is found fishing and is entitled to fishing rights in that portion and is the holder of a trout rod (riparian owner's) licence for the time being in force issued by the board of conservators for such fishery district and valid for that portion; or

(c) such person is the holder of a trout rod (juvenile) licence for the time being in force issued by such board of conservators.

(10) If any person acts in contravention of sub-section (9) of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one pound.

There is a very large number of amendments to Section 9. They range from amendment No. 7 to amendment No. 22 and there are various suggestions for dealing with this trout rod licence. I have tried, as far as possible, to meet the views expressed here on the Second Stage. First of all, the point was made that if the 5/- licence duty were to be insisted upon, it should entitle the holder of the licence to fish anywhere in the State. That is covered by this amendment. If a person gets a licence to fish for brown trout, he is quite free to fish in his own particular district or in any district in the State. The second point dealt with here is the point raised about riparian owners. As the amendment is drafted, the question of riparian owners becomes a rather minor point to which I shall refer in a few moments. We cover the riparian owner by giving him a licence for the nominal fee of 6d.

Another point raised by many speakers on the Second Reading had reference to juveniles. It was very strongly advocated by many speakers that we should not prevent young people from fishing if they wished to fish. I found it impossible on examination to exempt them completely but if they have a great desire to fish, I do not think that anybody will hold that a 6d. licence is going to be a deterrent because I am sure that if these young persons have the great desire that we were told on the Second Reading they had, they will somehow find the 6d. necessary to take out a licence.

The big exemption or exclusion that is effected by the amendment is the smaller rivers and, I suppose, the smaller lakes which will be entirely exempt from the brown trout licensing provisions. What we visualise under this amendment, if carried—and, of course if this amendment is carried it will replace Section 9—is that the board of conservators would make a schedule of the larger rivers and lakes in its own area to which it thinks the provisions of the section should apply and send them up to the Department of Fisheries. The schedule would be reviewed in the Department and, if we thought the list was not too large, it would be approved. Then to these waters only would Section 9 apply. All these smaller rivers and smaller lakes in the country where the farmer's boy, about whom we heard so much, goes out to fish for a trout would be exempt. I think that a great number of the objections that were raised to Section 9 should be removed as a result of this amendment. I should like to say also that if this amendment were agreed to, all the other amendments as far as No. 22 would fall. Whether some of the points raised in them could be raised again on the Report Stage, I do not know. That is a matter of procedure. I should like to recommend this amendment strongly to replace the present section.

I agree that the amendment goes a very long way towards meeting the objections to the present Section 9 because, so far as the operative part of the Bill is concerned, Section 9 is the kernel of it. With regard to the amendments I have put down in various forms, my purpose was to make the section as favourable as possible, so as to get public opinion to support this Bill. I was afraid that to introduce these drastic provisions for the first time— at least they would be taken as drastic by people who had not been paying any licence—might lead them to take steps to injure rivers and fisheries. I think there cannot be any substantial objection to the Minister's amendment, as far as it goes, but I should like to refer the Minister to amendment No. 18, which stands in the name of Deputy Cosgrave and myself, by which some of these people are caught. I think the Minister will agree with me that his amendment does not go far enough, because it only includes the riparian owner. I would ask the Minister on the Report Stage to add the words: "and the members of his family", that is, his sons, because the riparian owner may be an old man who does not fish, and it may be one of his sons who may go out on an evening after a flood with a fishing rod. If the Minister is going to give these people any benefit, it is the sons of the riparian owner whom he would want to benefit. In my amendment, No. 18, I include a series of other persons as follows:—

(a) where such person is an agricultural labourer or the owner or occupier of an agricultural holding the valuation of which does not exceed £10, or a member of the family of such labourer, owner or occupier, or

(b) where such person is a riparian owner or a member of the family of such owner, or

(c) where such person is employed in any capacity at a rate of remuneration not exceeding £2 per week, or

(d) where such person is not gainfully occupied and is in receipt of either unemployment assistance or home assistance, or

(e) where such person is under 18 years of age on the 1st day of January in the licensing year in which application is made, or

(f) where such person is a member of a trout angles' association the total annual income of which from subscriptions amounts to £20 or more, and of which the total expenditure on the preservation of trout fishing, the stocking of rivers and the propagation of trout amounts to at least three-quarters of such annual income.

The reason I include people who are unemployed and people drawing home assistance is because a lot of people of that kind have no form of amusement whatever. A man like that may have a large family, and perhaps on a Sunday evening, accompanied by some of his children, he would like to take a rod up the river, although he may never catch a fish. As to the 6d. trout rod (juvenile) licence for boys under the age of 17, I suggest to the Minister that on the Report Stage he should make that more definite by inserting after the words "seventeen years""on the 1st January of the licensing year", because it is too wide as it is. If a boy took out a licence on the 1st January, being under 17 years, and became 17 on the 1st February, his licence would be of no use to him. I think he should get the full year for his licence. I should also like the Minister to consider giving the 6d. licence to workmen with a small weekly income, for whom the payment of 5/- would be a very serious matter. A person like that might take two or three children up the river on a Sunday evening, and do some fishing. In 999 cases out of 1,000 such a person will not catch any fish. He really does not want to catch them; it is just a form of amusement. As to the boys under seventeen, the Minister should make it, as I suggested, 17 years on the 1st of January of the licensing year, so as to cover such a boy for the year. Other wise in thousands of cases the benefit which appears to be conferred on boys would be of no use at all. I should also like him to consider the two classes of unemployed people with regard to giving them the 6d. licence.

Mr. Lynch

With regard to this new section, so far as my amendments to the old Section 9 are concerned, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not intend to move any of them. They are all met sufficiently to my satisfaction, except perhaps one which is in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan and myself —amendment No. 17. We will probably have to put down a similar amendment on the Report Stage unless the Minister would care to say something now in relation to that matter— that the money derived from trout rod licences should be applied to restocking rivers with brown trout fry, and to protection of brown trout rivers. I entirely overlooked the point that Deputy McMenamin made. I think the Minister ought to meet the Deputy's point as to the families of riparian owners. I must say that I entirely overlooked the fact that the families are not covered in the new section, and I think the Minister might on the Report Stage enlarge that provision.

With regard to the actual wording of the Minister's new section, in sub-section (1) there is provision for scheduling trout waters, and there is provision for the fact that subsequently it may be found that there are other waters that a board of conservators should have scheduled. There is no provision, however, to enable them to withdraw from the schedule waters which they put in, say, in error. The new section reads: "and may from time to time thereafter by further orders declare that any other rivers or lakes or portions thereof, situate in such district, which such board considers should also be scheduled as trout waters, shall be scheduled..." I suggest that before the last words, "shall be scheduled," the Minister should insert "or eliminate waters which have been scheduled under a former order." I think it would be necessary to give that power, because a board might find that they scheduled waters as trout waters wrongly, and once they are scheduled, rightly or wrongly, they have to stay there. The board have no power to take waters out of the schedule, while they have power to add waters to the schedule. Apart from these two points, I think the Minister has met very fairly the general spirit of the amendments tabled to the old Section 9, and, so far as I am concerned, I entirely welcome this new section.

So far as our amendments to the section are concerned, the Minister has met our point of view, and we shall withdraw the amendments.

As I read this new section, I see that the 5/- licence is still retained, with the exception of the riparian owners and the provision for juvenile licences. The 5/- licence still remains for all other persons. In the constituency I represent the great majority of the people who enjoy this sport of trout fishing belong to the working classes, and they are not in a position to pay 5/- for a licence. On the Second Reading I opposed this, and I still oppose it, in principle. We have associations all over the country which have been doing very good work for some years. I believe that they should get recognition from the Minister and that they should be empowered to administer this in the same way as the boards of conservators have been dealing with the salmon fishing. I am opposing this 5/- licence on principle, except the Minister will include in the 6d. licences the agricultural labourers.

With regard to some of the points raised, I do not think that Deputy Daly is aware that this licence will only apply to scheduled waters, and for some years, at any rate, I think boards of conservators will only schedule very big rivers and lakes or, at least, rivers and lakes where brown trout is, what you might call a valuable asset. I do not know any large rivers that the Deputy has in mind. If there are, the section would apply. With regard to age and Deputy McMenamin's point, I will have that looked into. As the section stands, if a person, when applying for a licence, gives the proper age, then the licence will run for a year, even though he may exceed that age during the year. We will make the position clear if it is not right at present.

The Minister will look into it?

Yes. As regards the point raised by Deputy Lynch, that we should have power to eliminate waters under the schedule. As far as I know from glancing at the section, the Deputy appears to be right. I will have the matter looked into and made right. Deputy Lynch also said that he was inclined to move at the next stage an amendment with regard to keeping a separate account to show that it was being spent on brown trout fishing. I do not think that would be advisable because, as the Deputy knows, conservators before spending the money must send up estimates every year to the Department of Fisheries, and if it is proved on examination of these estimates that the conservators are not giving a fair show to the preservation and development of brown trout, the Department will point that out, and see that money given for that purpose is fairly spent. It is better to leave it to administration. I can promise that if it is, it will be seen to. As to the classes mentioned by Deputy McMenamin, smallholders, and agricultural labourers in receipt of unemployment assistance, it would be extremely difficult to administer an Act with so many classes entitled to special privileges. We would have to go much further if we attempted to do that, and to provide in the Act machinery for proof that they were what they claimed to be, agricultural labourers or smallholders.

There would have to be proof before the licence could be given, and usually in cases of that kind if a person tried to deceive there is a fairly severe penalty. If a person is entitled to a privilege because be belongs to a certain class, and if he gets that privilege and does not belong to that particular class, there is generally a rather severe penalty for attempting such fraud. To get all the classes in would, I think, entail the drafting of many more sections, so that they could be properly identified, and so that there would be penalties if they claimed privileges fraudulently.

On the whole, I think it would be very difficult to have such classes included with those given special privileges. One thing was asked about the families of riparian owners. That was also advocated by Deputy Lynch, and would be very difficult. I admit that it may not be a great advantage to put in the clause about riparian owners. If a riparian owner happened to be an old man or an old woman, and if a son wanted a licence, he could not get it because he was not the owner. I suppose that must be examined in more detail, but I am doubtful if anything can be done. I am certainly more doubtful if anything can be done for the other classes that were mentioned. If the amendment was agreed to by the House, it would then, actually, become a section, and I suppose it would be in order to move any of the amendments on the Report Stage, having adjusted them, as it were, to the new section that would take the place of the present one.

Has the Minister considered, in connection with the difficulties he mentioned, that they would arise really in the first instance only. Once a man had a licence, the production of that licence, if the circumstances were not altered, would be almost equivalent to the production of proof that he was entitled to it. The main reason for putting down the amendment rests on the smaller remuneration of these people, and it would be worth while, particularly in the case of a Department such as this, to get the good-will of all persons in connection with it. The actual revenue to be derived from the licence is not so very considerable, but the cooperation of those persons is most desirable, and for that reason the Minister might consider the advisability of inserting this concession on the next stage.

I agree with the Deputy that it would be a great advantage to get anyone's good-will, if it was at all practicable to get it, but I am very doubtful if it could be done.

I do not think there is as much trouble in the matter as the Minister sees in it. Take the unemployed man, he is on a register and could produce an unemployment certificate. A man who gets home assistance could get a card from the county home, and a person with £10 valuation could produce a certificate of valuation. That would be conclusive proof.

There is a list in every county of those who occupy labourers' cottages, so that there would be no trouble in these cases. As Deputy Cosgrave stated the difficulty might only arise in the first instance. In the case of an unemployed man he has an unemployment card, which would be legal proof of his claim. A certificate of valuation could be produced from the county council and that would obviate any difficulty there. I do not see any trouble about that, and I only urge the amendment from the point of view of getting good will. Unemployed people have a very drab life, and Sunday is the only day on which this would apply. On that evening they could take their children for a walk along the river because they might not have the money to go to the pictures.

Amendment agreed to.

It was stated by the Minister that Deputies who offered amendments Nos. 7 to 22, inclusive, might be allowed to reintroduce them if they so desire on the Report Stage, having adapted them to the redraft of the section. That is the position.

And the old Section 9 disappears.

Section 9 negatived and deleted.

Amendments Nos. 7 to 22 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
The holder of a salmon rod licence issued in a particular fishery district shall be entitled to fish for trout in that district during the period to which such salmon rod licence applies without holding a trout rod licence issued in that district.

I move amendment No. 23:—

In page 7, line 24, to insert after the word "fish" the words "with a single rod and line," and in line 26, to delete the words "a trout rod licence issued in that district," and substitute the words "any other licence."

This is consequential to the amendment we have adopted.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
The First Schedule to the Fisheries Act, 1925 (No. 32 of 1925) is hereby amended by the insertion therein of the following rates of licence duties in lieu of the several duties mentioned at numbers 3 and 4 of the said schedule, that is to say:—

3. Draft nets or seines

£5

0

0

4. Drift nets of any length

£5

0

0

and the Fisheries Acts, 1842 to 1937, shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

There are three interdependent amendments, Nos. 24, 25 and 26, dealing with the levying of licence duty on draft and drift nets, and amendment No. 27 seeks at the same time to substitute the figure £4 for £5. They may be all discussed together and a division taken on amendment No. 24.

On this group of amendments I do not see the wisdom of this section, particularly when sea salmon fishing is at a very low ebb, and when our fishermen are in anything but good spirits with regard to their efforts. Though £1 of a difference may not be a prohibitive burden, yet it is a serious thing for these people, and if not altered will be taken as a blow struck at them.

The leader of the Opposition might formally move amendment No. 24.

I move amendment No. 24:—

In line 29, to delete the word "rates" and insert in lieu thereof the word "rate" and to delete the words "several duties" and insert in lieu thereof the word "duty."

There is an amendment by Deputy Finian Lynch proposing that this provision should not come into operation until 1944. Of course, that is putting the matter on the long finger, but somehow, when you put a thing on the long finger, and then come to put it into practice, the finger gets very short, and while to-day 1944 looks to be a considerable distance away, it comes very quickly. The point is that the deep sea fishermen, who are principally involved in this matter will think that the Minister and this House are striking a blow at them and their industry. After all, it is a very small matter. The season is very short, and there is very little money involved. I do not think it is wise to impose this additional £1 on these men who, in their efforts to earn their living, go out to sea, particularly around the Donegal coast, in small boats and curraghs, in a desperate effort to make a living. They will regard it as meaning that this House is aiming a blow at them and their industry. The £4 licence is already a very serious matter, and this additional £1 will be regarded by them as an effort to kill their industry. It may be that there may be some question of finance involved here and of some return of the money in another direction, but these fishermen will not see it in that light. They will say to themselves "We were paying more than we could afford, and now they are going to make us pay an extra £1; we have been doing badly for the last year or so, because the fish were not running in such a way as to make the industry pay, and why should we be asked to pay this extra £1?" I understand that there is a complaint that some of these nets injure the salmon, that they strike the nets and injure themselves badly, but that looks to me like an excuse to put these men out of business altogether so that what I might call the drawing-room fishermen will not be in any danger of having to go out to sea, but can set their nets at night and draw them in in the morning. I think that the Minister would be wise to drop this thing.

In putting down amendment No. 27:

In page 7, line 31, to delete the figure "5" and to substitute the figure "4",

I was prompted by the fact that for the last three or four years the salmon fishermen have had a very bad time. I am sure the Minister knows what has been occurring, especially in his own constituency; and that is that, for the last three or four years, moneys have had to be advanced to the fishermen by people to whom they might be expected to sell their fish. The season is usually very advanced before they can pay off that debt, and, if it is an especially bad season, they carry the debt over from one season to another. I would ask the Minister to leave the licence as it has been for the last three or four years. There is an outcry by the fishermen against this licence, and I think their complaints are justified. I believe that the Minister should leave the licences as they were. These men are very hard-working, and they do their best, and are often out for days without catching any salmon. For some years now, whatever may be the reason, salmon have been very scarce on the Slaney, and these men find it hard to eke out even an existence under the present circumstances, and this new impost will make it infinitely worse for them.

I support Deputy Corish's appeal. This season the salmon fishermen in my constituency have not been able to make enough to pay for their licences, much less the cost of the nets and gear, and in many cases they have given up fishing altogether and taken up some other occupation. Under such circumstances anything in the nature of an increase in the licence duty is unquestionably going to hit these very deserving and hard-working people in a way that would put them completely out of the industry. I would add my voice to the appeal of other Deputies to leave the licence stand, at any rate for the present. Both this season and last season have been very bad, and the fish have been very scarce, and as a result, more and more the fishermen are going out of that industry altogether and taking up some other occupation. If you wish to keep the young men in this industry, which is an important industry to the country, then I feel that some concession of this kind must be given.

It is a much more important thing that this class of people should be kept in the fishing industry rather than that you should encourage what Deputy McMenamin referred to as the drawing-room fishermen. I feel that there are certain restrictions laid upon these people in my constituency. For instance, at Rathcourcey they have to carry their nets to a line outside Cork Harbour. You have the same thing in other districts, where the length of the net is so restricted as to make it almost impossible to catch fish. I think that reform in that direction is also necessary.

Has the Minister given us any reason why this sum should be altered from the original sum of £4? I think that no reason has been adduced as to why these unfortunate men should be mulcted in this extra £1. There is no reason whatever for it, and no grounds have been given for it. If the fishing industry had been prosperous and the men were earning a lot of money, there might be some reason for restricting the number of boats, because that is the effect this will have. As things are, they cannot afford to pay even the £4. Originally, it was £3, and then it was raised to £4, and I believe that it should be left at £4. With regard to Kinsale, with which I am well acquainted, and the Lee, the men there for the last four or five years have been helped to exist by public subscription because of this duty going up to £4. Last year and the year before—1937-38—were two disastrous years as far as the net fishermen are concerned. As a concrete example, I know of a case in my own town where 45 men in nine boats, or an average of five men per boat, were only able to catch a total number of fish that would hardly amount to five fish per man, and that was their living for the whole year.

The season for this kind of fishing is very short, and these men had to work night and day as hard as they could to try to get that amount of fish. The season would only be about three months, or 14 or 15 weeks, and they have to try to earn enough in that 15 weeks to pay for their licences and for their gear and nets, and so on. I am sure that there is a general demand that this should be left at £4. It is very high as it is at £4, and there is no reason why it should be increased to £5. The Minister gave us no reason why it should be increased, and in view of the universal demand and the circumstances that have been related here, I hold that the duty should be left as it is. I do not think that this should be raised, on any account whatsoever beyond £4.

I desire to support the plea that has just been made. I am speaking for the Cork and Blackrock fishermen, and I may say that we have had clergymen appealing on behalf of those fishermen for the past four or five years. It has also to be remembered that they have to bear the further impost that during the period when they cannot catch fish, they get no payment at the Labour Exchange. I hope that the Minister will accede to the appeals that have been made to him.

I desire to support the proposal that no increase be made in the amount of the licence. I speak on behalf of fishermen who operate under very difficult circumstances on the Kerry coast in the Cromane area. Deputy Lynch is well aware of their position, as he also represents that area. I would like to point out to Deputy McMenamin that the fishermen in his area have no grievance compared to those in the County Kerry. I mean in this way: that during the period when Deputy Lynch was Minister for Fisheries, an anomaly was created under the 1925 Act by reason of the fact that the licence for draft net fishermen was increased. Those men in Donegal are mainly concerned with drift net fishing, the licence for which was not increased under that Act. Therefore, I submit to the Minister that, in so far as our county and the Sóuth generally are concerned, the draft net fishermen will be suffering under a double grievance if the proposed increase is persisted in.

I do not want to say anything about what happened at the time the 1925 Act went through. I am simply stating the facts and trying to make the case that if there is to be any adjustment at all, Deputy McMenamin should at least allow that those he represents have come off pretty well in the matter of the licence. I think that our people should, at least, be put on level terms with them. In conclusion, I submit to the Minister that it would be an injustice to those open coast fishermen to impose this additional burden on them.

I desire to give my support to the request which has been made to the Minister from all parts of the House not to increase the licence duty. After all, the amount involved is, from the State point of view, a small one, while it represents a very big item so far as the fishermen are concerned. The present would be a very inopportune moment to inflict this increase, because the results from salmon fishing have never been as bad as in the last two or three years. It is a very costly thing to fit out a boat for fishing. The nets alone cost approximately £40. In the area that I speak for, along the River Blackwater, the conservators' licence, if the new charge is persisted in, will be £5, while at the moment there is a Duke's licence of £10. These are two very heavy charges. I would ask the Minister not to insist on the proposal in the Bill; first, on the ground of expense, secondly that the results from fishing are so poor, and thirdly because there is a decided disposition for quite a number of men to give up salmon fishing altogether, due to the fact that they find it impossible to make a living out of it. I think this is the wrong time to impose any increase. As I have said, the additional sum this would bring into the State Exchequer would be very small indeed, while it would mean a great hardship on the fishermen.

As one interested in those draft net fishermen, I desire to support the appeal that has been made to the Minister. They complained bitterly before when the amount of the licence was increased. I do not think that the increase now proposed is justified, and I would ask him to accede to the requests made from all parts of the House.

Mr. Lynch

The debate has ranged, I am afraid, over nearly all the amendments.

As far as amendment No. 33.

Mr. Lynch

I am afraid that I find myself in the position of the young fellow whose proud mother was looking at him marching in a company and said that they were all out of step except her Johnny—because I am neither in agreement with the Minister nor with most of the speakers. I think that the draft net licence is enough at £4. With regard to the drift net men I have a proposition.

If amendments Nos. 24 to 27 were disposed of first, the question of the drift net men could then be taken.

Mr. Lynch

With regard to the draft net licence I think that the £4 is certainly sufficient. That was imposed under the 1925 Act, and I see no reason for increasing it now. I do not think the case can be made that the salmon fisheries, so far as the draft net men are concerned, have improved so much that they justify an increase now of £1. My friend, Deputy McMenamin, referred to the postponement. It does refer to the draft net men as well as to the drift net men. He must have overlooked the fact that I put it in at the tail end in case my advocacy on the other failed. I made quite a good case for it on the Second Reading, so good a case that the Minister entirely accepted it. To my amazement the Minister has not put down anything in connection with that matter to meet me. The Minister on the Second Reading accepted the fact that it would be only by 1944 that the net men would get the benefit of this present legislation: that is, that when the salmon that spawn in the next spawning season, in October and November, come back as spring fish in 1944 the net men will then benefit. That is a biological fact. The Minister's Department can confirm it. Apart, therefore, from the mere fact of putting it on the long finger, there is a biological case for the increase proposed in 1944 if the results of the present legislation show that, in fact, the fisheries have improved, and that more spring fish are coming up in that year. I think, apart from postponement, there is really no case for increasing the draft net licences. I will deal with the other point about the drift net men when we come to it.

On the draft net question, first of all I was asked if I could make any case for this increase. I think I did make a good case for it on the Second Reading. I do not know if Deputy O'Neill was here, but if he looks up the Dáil debates for the 15th March last, column 1954, he will find that I made these three points: (1) the Bill proposes to abolish fresh water netting; (2) it proposes to regulate netting in tidal waters, and to limit the number of nets used in tidal waters. If we do that, the number of salmon. that will be allowed up the river will be more, and the benefit of that will accrue to the nets men who continue in business; (3) one may say, generally speaking, that the effect of this Bill should be to improve our salmon fisheries.

Therefore the nets men should get the benefit of that. There is something in what the Deputy says. Fishermen will not get this benefit for some years. Whether it would be three years or five years will depend to a great extent on the river.

I said I was quite agreeable not to bring this section into operation until 1942. There is no amendment necessary for that, because any section of this Bill can be brought into operation by Order, and if I fail to make an Order until 1942, then the new rates would not apply. If the House would be agreeable, I would be prepared to go further—as far as Deputy Lynch asks me in this amendment—not to bring these new rates into operation until 1944. I think it is necessary that the new rates should come into operation then. The justification is that the nets men will earn more. Look at it from the point of view of the boards of conservators. Their income will be reduced; when we cut down the number of nets operating, their income will necessarily be reduced, and the board will consequently not be in the same position to look after the fisheries with this reduced income. Therefore it is only natural that we should expect those fishermen remaining to get a better living, and they should be able to pay more for their licences. I think the case is exaggerated as regards these nets men. Deputy McMenamin said that 1937 and 1938 were two bad years. We have returns for those two years, as a matter of fact. Statistics are taken every two years. They were taken last in 1937, and they will be taken again this year. In 1937, the men earned £19 for each £1 of licence duty paid. If they paid £3 licence duty, they got an average of £57. Some of them may have got more and some less. Anyway, if these drift net men got on an average £57 for the £3 licence, then asking them to pay another £2 under present circumstances is not a lot. We expect that the earnings of the men will be considerably increased after three or four years, when the improvement comes. The draft net men got £25 for every £1 in licence duty they paid. They were paying a £4 licence, so they got £92 pay licence. There are the figures for 1937. They are paying a licence duty of £4, as against what they are making, £92, for their catch. £1 more would not appear to be a lot.

The Minister is not taking into consideration that the fitting out of the boat cost £40.

I do not accept that figure.

The Minister may take it as correct.

I quite realise one can make a good case for the fishermen: that they are not having a prosperous time, and cannot afford to bear any further burdens, and so on. But there is no use in overdoing it. We ought to face the issue as it is and say where are we to get the funds for the boards of conservators. They will have to get more as a result of the fresh water netting being abandoned, and as a result of the nets being cut down in the tidal waters. Because of that we had naturally to look around and see where we could get a few more pounds. I would like to send a number of extracts I have here from a meeting of the committee of agriculture in Wexford in 1934 to Deputy Gorey. When that committee sat in 1934, a member had read the recommendations of the Fishery Commission and saw that netting was to be abolished. When somebody said the men would be compensated, one member of the committee said that the fishermen could not be compensated, because, he said, if you gave every fisherman £100 for the rest of his life it would not compensate him. Well, now, that will give an idea of what the nets men are making. Deputy W.J. Broderick made a statement. I think it was a slip. The Deputy knows the position very well. He said this was a small thing for the State. Let us keep clearly in mind that the State is not getting anything out of it. This licence money goes to the boards of conservators. We are only arguing here for providing an income for the boards of conservators, so that they can do more to preserve the fisheries for the fishermen. I would urge, therefore, that it might be better to let these new rates stand in the Bill. I do not think the amendment would be wise. If I would give an undertaking that as far as I am concerned, and as long as I am here—I may not be here up to 1944, which is a very long time— but I am prepared to say that as far as I am concerned I would not bring that into operation until 1944.

There might be someone else in the Minister's place before then.

Deputies might as well accept that undertaking that it will not be put into operation until 1944, and then we can argue again about it.

That is very plausible indeed. We are dealing yet with drift nets and draft nets.

No, with draft nets only.

There are two arguments used by the Minister. The first is that by 1944 the biological operations will put more fish in the sea. The Minister knows that while there will be more salmon in the deep sea they may not mesh at all. But if they are there they are certain to go into the estuaries and it is the estuarine fishermen who are to develop them. The estuarine men are bound to get more fish. If the fishes breed up the rivers they are bound to get back and the estuarine fishermen are bound to benefit. It does not follow that that will benefit the deep sea fishermen at all. There may be thousands and thousands of salmon making for the estuaries that will not mesh at all. Then we are told that because the fishermen will be fewer there will be more fish going to the deep sea men and the draft net fishermen. One argument is that there will be more fish in the deep sea. That is almost certain according to the biological theory of the Minister and Deputy Lynch. If the fish are in the deep sea they will go into the estuaries and the estuarine fisheries are bound to develop.

Mr. Lynch

That is an absolute case against the draft men.

The Minister said that men made £57 each in 1937. How many men does it take to work a licence?

That makes a very small revenue.

The Minister may have rather optimistic views about what fishermen have got. One body of fishermen wrote to me in February. They pointed out that they had six bad seasons; that they were in debt and they were required to form a new association in order to get clear, and so on. I suggest to the Minister that if that be anything like the general situation throughout the country he would accept Deputy Lynch's amendment—amendment No. 33—with the alteration that the word "before" be inserted in place of the word "until". It will be one of these inheritances which somebody else will probably deal with, and if, during the period, there is a succession of bad years, it is obviously in the interests of everybody that it should come up for consideration then.

I am agreeable to accept that it should not come in before 1944. That would settle the matter.

Would the Minister undertake to place the order on the Table of the House and give the House an opportunity of reviewing it in the light of the fishing being done then?

Representations can be made to him, if the word "before" is inserted.

I think Deputies will hear about it, if it is coming in.

The Minister may be full of good intentions, but there might be another Minister.

Mr. Lynch

I accept the Minister's undertaking in respect of both my amendments. It stands to reason that no Deputy is going to believe that the Minister will bring this in on the quiet. That is contrary to common sense. It does not matter who the Minister is, because he will inform the House.

But will the House then have any means of making a case against it?

The Deputy can put down a motion.

Can we do that?

I am accepting amendment No. 33 with the alteration that it shall not come into force before the 1st October, 1944.

Does that apply to any length of net?

Do I understand that a Deputy can then put down a motion on the matter?

Provided the Standing Orders are not against him in the meantime.

That is the point. I do not want to be told later that I am out of order. The Ceann Comhairle may send a little billet doux saying that such a motion would be out of order.

The Deputy could put a question and, 12 months before, he could put down his motion. That would give him plenty of time.

I should like to know the position before we accept the Minister's undertaking.

Amendment No. 24, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments 25, 26 and 27 not moved?

I want to know where I am before I withdraw my amendment.

The Deputy might table a motion.

The position is that these duties are not to come into operation before 1st October, 1944, and that we can make representations in the light of the then existing position?

Amendments 25, 26 and 27 not moved.
Amendments 28, 29 and 30 not moved.

Amendment 31 seems to assume that the figure will be £4. It might be altered, if the Deputy desires to move it, to read: "in four equal monthly instalments," or by the addition of some words which would adapt it to the £5 rate.

I move amendment No. 31:—

At the end of the section to add the following words: "provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in any of the Fisheries Acts, 1842 to 1939, the licence duty payable in respect of a licence for a draft net or seine or a drift net may at the option of the person taking out such licence be payable in four monthly instalments of £1 each, and each such licence shall be issued on the payment of the first such instalment and shall be valid for the normal period of such licence unless at any time any such instalment shall be one month or more in arrears. Upon any arrears of instalments of such licence duty being paid in full, such licence shall again be valid notwithstanding that it may have previously ceased to be valid.

I do not know whether the Minister is disposed to consider this amendment, but the situation, as I am informed, is that fishermen find a difficulty on occasions in discovering £4 or £5, as the case may be. It would probably be harder to discover £5 than £4. In consequence, they have to negotiate loans. If a loan has to be negotiated, the £4 probably becomes £5 and there is that difficulty in the situation.

Amendment 32 should be debated with this amendment, as they both deal with payment by instalments.

It is to avoid the borrowing of money that I move this amendment. It may not be necessary in all cases to avail of it. Some people could put down £4 quite easily, but it is unfortunate that, just at the commencement of the season, before any results have been obtained, nearly all the expense has to be incurred. That is really all there is to be said on the issue.

I am informed that a proposal of this nature has been very often put to the Department of Fisheries and has been examined on many occasions. There are evidently very big difficulties in adopting it. Every Deputy knows that, taking one year with another, the fish come at different times. Some years, they come early and, in other years, they come late and if we were to adopt a system of payment over four months, it is quite possible that all the fish would have come during the first or second month and that then the fishermen would say: "The fish have all gone so we need not take out our licences for the third and fourth months." Alternatively, it might happen that fishermen, having taken out licences in the first or second month, and having got no fish, might become disheartened and might not proceed with the other instalments when the fish were coming along. There are, I think, great difficulties in dividing this into seasons. In the case of the Erne, we have a system of instalments. The fishermen there found it very hard to pay £40 for a licence—the licence on that river is £40—and we divided it into four, but, from the experience we had there, we had to fix the dates so close together that it did not appear to make very much difference. The dates are 1st May, 15th May, 19th May —the third instalment four days after the second—and 12th June. If a fisherman does not pay the 1st instalment, when he comes to take out the second, he has to pay both. He cannot skip the first. I know that £4 is quite a considerable sum to a fisherman, or to three or four fishermen together, but it would be difficult to get all the various data necessary for all the various rivers, to find out what would be the time the fish would come, and then to fix these dates so as to give the fishermen time to make enough out of the first instalment to pay the second, and so on. That would have to be done for every single river in the country, if we were to adopt the system of instalments suggested, and I appeal to Deputy Cosgrave not to press his amendment because it would be impossible for the Department to administer it.

I move amendment No. 32:—

At the end of the section to add the words "and such licence duty may be paid in one sum before the season opens, or in two portions as follows, i.e., one half before the season opens and the remaining half within 40 days from the date of the opening of the season".

I do not think there is any use in my putting forward the amendment, but my suggestion is rather of a wider nature and could be applied to every river without exception. Instead of four instalments, where it is only a matter of four pounds, I want the principle established that a man could pay half at the beginning of the season and half a month later. That would almost bring in the Erne, too, because the dates are so close. The men would have a month before paying the second instalment and in the meantime, they might have got in some money for their fish. As a rule, the fish are early in the rivers the Minister spoke of, and the argument I used with regard to keeping down the licence duty to £4 applies here again, especially in regard to the places I am acquainted with, Kinsale and Cork, that the men have to depend on public charity in order to be able to put out boats at all and some consideration should be given to these men.

The Minister told us that the earnings in these boats were £23 for every £1 of licence paid. With a licence duty of £4, that would represent £92. Does the Minister think £92 a terrible amount of remuneration for a boat of five men, working for 18 weeks? It works out at about £1 a man per week and does not take into account the cost of fitting out the boat. It is a very small remuneration for these men. The men in draft boats have to work up to their waists in water.

It is very hard work. The Minister should extend some sort of charity to them in the way of making the payment of the initial licence fee a little easier. I do not think that there would be much difficulty about dividing the fee into halves and allowing a month to intervene between the payments. I do not want to spread payment over a long period because I see the Minister's difficulty about collecting the amounts. If provision is made for two payments —one at the beginning of the season and one a month after fishing has started—I do not think that there would be much official difficulty in collecting the fees.

I see the trouble as regards dividing the fees into two parts, but I think the Minister will agree that it is very hard for fishermen to pay the initial sum before they have dipped their nets. As Deputy O'Neill has told us, the men concerned are very hard-working and are prepared to face the hardship of the sea in small boats. At the beginning of the season, before they have earned a penny and after they have been idle for the rest of the year, it is hard to expect them to pay the entire fee. If a month were allowed between the initial and the final payments, the men would have caught some salmon by the time the second payment was required, and they would have a little cash. That may mean a little extra clerical trouble, but see the trouble the Land Commission go to in connection with the collection of land annuities. This is not a perfect world, and we have to make the best of it. The thing to do is to aim at the ideal and get as near to it as possible, knowing that we cannot attain the ideal. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates the difficulties of these brave men or not. They have to take their lives in their hands. Crews of my own people in Donegal have gone out in the evening from happy homes and have never returned.

I support the amendment moved by Deputy O'Neill. The Minister has overlooked the fact that the opening of the season is the leanest part of the year, because these men have to get credit from the shopkeepers during the months when there is no fishing. As regards the Minister's point about the difficulty of administration, these licences are issued by officers representing the various boards of conservators. That perhaps is not the difficulty the Minister apprehends. The fishermen are simply put out of employment if they are not able to find the licence fee, because they cannot go out to fish. On that initial difficulty it would be advisable to meet the fishermen. Both Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy O'Neill have made a very important point, and I know from personal knowledge the difficulties of the fishermen. The fishermen have the greatest possible difficulty in finding the licence duty.

The amendment requires some examination. Suppose we were to adopt, in principle, Deputy O'Neill's amendment to pay half the fee before the season and the other half after some period, the difficulty would be to get a period that would apply fairly to all rivers. For some of the rivers, 40 days may be far too long, for all I know, while for others it may be too short. The proposition is a simple one, I admit, and I undertake to examine it and see if something can be done in respect of it on the Fourth Stage.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment No. 34 as follows:—

At the end of sub-section (2) to add the following words "and the person so convicted shall be disqualified from holding a licence for one year".

I am moving the amendment merely because no period of time is fixed to which the disqualification is to extend. I have an open mind on the matter and I am not pressing the amendment. I put it down merely as a suggestion that the disqualification should extend for the particular fishing year for which the licence is taken out. As many of the boards of conservators know, some of those persons who commit fishery offences are making so much out of a particular type of offence that the minute they would leave court they would pass over to the clerk and take out another licence. If a man who is disqualified can walk out and get another licence it is making a joke of the law.

I do not think that the amendment would effect very much. We might as well allow a person to walk out of court and get a new licence, because what would happen is that his partner, brother or son would get a licence and carry on as usual.

There is an option left to the magistrate.

Yes, with regard to forfeiture.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(1) Where—
(a) a person who is the rated occupier of a fishery situate in a particular electoral division has paid the fishery rate on such fishery for the fishery year next preceding a fishery year in which an election of the conservators for that electoral division is held, and
(b) the amount of such fishery rate is £1 or more, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(c) such person or an attorney or agent duly appointed under Section 3 or 4 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1850, shall be entitled to vote at such election and to have thereat the following number of votes, that is to say:—
(i) if the amount of such fishery rate is less than £3, one vote;
(ii) if the said amount is less than £6 but not less than £3, two votes;
(iii) if the said amount is less than £10 but not less than £6, three votes;
(iv) if the said amount is not less than £10, four votes;
(d) the production of a receipt for the second moiety of such fishery rate shall be sufficient evidence of the right of such person or attorney or agent to vote at such election.

I move amendment No. 35:—

Before Section 14, to insert a new section as follows:—

Every Board of Conservators shall as soon as may be after the 1st day of January in each year pay to every member of the board such contribution as is authorised by the Minister towards the expenses incurred by such member in attending the meetings of such board.

It was suggested to me that, seeing that other public representatives get expenses to pay for petrol used in travelling, members of boards of conservators in large counties like Donegal, Kerry and Cork should be similarly treated, as a heavy burden is imposed upon them.

Deputies must realise that boards of conservators will find it very hard to make ends meet. We are not yet in a position to pay the expenses of members. I know that it is hard on some of the members of the boards, but I am afraid that we could not do anything about it for a while, until the income of the boards improves considerably. I would be inclined to resist the amendments that we have here with regard to the boards of conservators for this reason. When speaking on the Second Reading I said that we were preparing a consolidated measure for all the legislation down to the present, and we meant to bring in that consolidation and at the same time to deal with the boards of conservators. There are a number of points that we wish to deal with, points arising about powers and so forth, and consequently, I would be inclined to ask Deputies to postpone the matter for the moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment No. 36:—

In sub-section (1), line 46, to delete the word "the" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "a".

If the Minister could give some such assurance, as he did under Section 6, that he would consider the matter of a proxy for the particular rated occupier, it would meet the point that I had in mind.

I think we could consider that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 37:—

In sub-section (1), page 7, line 46, to insert before the word "situate" the following: "(the valuation of which under the Valuation Acts is less than fifty pounds)".

I mentioned this matter on the Second Reading. A person has an ex-officio vote if his valuation is more than fifty pounds. It was more or less overlooked on the drafting of the section. As it is, that person would also have votes for other candidates for the board. This is to deprive him of his power to vote for others.

Mr. Lynch

I agree that there is a great lot to be said for this. A person who has already an ex-officio seat on the board should not as well have voting power. That may be all right for the person with a valuation of £50 to £150, but there are some other proprietary fishery owners who are really the mainstay of the boards of conservators at the moment. The amount that they pay constitutes practically 75/80 per cent. of the funds of the whole board. I don't want to mention any particular cases, but there is a case, from the Minister's point of view, for putting in this amendment. One ought to consider the case of persons who pay a rate to the boards of from £250 upwards. A man whose poor law valuation is £300 should get one vote in addition to his ex-officio seat, two votes if it is £350, three votes if it is £400, with a maximum of, say, four votes if it is £500. We must always remember that the present proprietors are there, from the date of the passing of this Bill into law, in a purely temporary capacity. In a few years the Minister will be there, and the Minister himself must look to the interests of the State when that time comes, and it is necessary that he should have as much voting power as possible in the interests of the State. I think that there is a case for the examination of my proposition that, whereas the Minister's amendment is all right now for the persons on the £50/250 valuation, there is a case for providing, in addition to the ex-officio seat, for persons with over £300 valuation an additional vote for every £50.

Our experience in the Cromane district was that people who had the opportunity of increasing their vote through the fact of having different gradings through the board of conservators have eventually controlled the whole system. There was a system within a system, and the Minister is quite right in trying to clarify the position in so far as there will be some limit put to this question of voting power. The same people would vote themselves back again. In practice it worked out in our area that these vested interests developed themselves financially and did not pay very much attention to the outlying districts where numbers of people could be employed, and valuable fisheries were neglected. I think the principle implied in the Minister's proposal is quite correct.

Mr. Lynch

It is perfectly clear that Deputy Flynn neither understands the Bill, nor the Minister's amendment to it, nor what I said.

Mr. Flynn

That is what you think.

I quite admit that a Minister would be tempted to change these things when the State would own all the fisheries, but for the present I do not think there is any danger.

Amendment 37 agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) No person shall be entitled to vote at an election of a board of conservators in respect of the licence duty on an engine (other than a rod licence) used in the taking of fish in a several fishery save only the person whose name is contained on the licence issued in respect of such engine.
(5) The sum of five shillings paid in respect of a trout rod licence shall not be taken into account in computing the amount of licence duty paid for the purpose of determining voting rights at any election of conservators, other than an election held under the provisions of the next following section.

I move amendments Nos. 38 and 39:—

38. In sub-section (1), page 8, line 24, to insert before the word "rod" the word "salmon".

39. In sub-section (5), page 8, line 43, to delete the words "of five shillings".

These two amendments are consequential to the new Section 9.

Amendments agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(1) Where in any fishery district the number of trout rod licences issued during any year in which an election of a board of conservators for such district takes place is equal to or exceeds the number of salmon rod licences which have been issued in such district during such year and for which the licence duty of two pounds has been paid, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) in case the number of such trout rod licences equals or exceeds by less than twenty-five per cent. the number of such salmon rod licences, the holders of such trout rod licences may elect one of their number as a representative to sit on such board of conservators;
(b) in any other case, such holders may elect two of their number as representatives to sit on such board of conservators.
(2) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to any person elected under sub-section (1) of this section in any year as a representative to sit on a board of conservators for a district that is to say:—
(a) such person shall, subject to the provisions of the Fisheries Acts, and this Act, so far as those provisions are applicable, sit and act as a conservator on such board and shall be additional to the number of conservators to be elected for such district under the Fisheries Acts;
(b) such person shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns or becomes incapable or disqualified, hold office during the period of office of the ordinary conservators elected for such district in the year in which such person is elected;
(c) if such person during his period of office dies, resigns or becomes disqualified from acting as a conservator, such board may at or before the second meeting after such death, resignation or disqualification elect in his place another person, who is the holder of a trout rod licence issued by such board, to fill during the residue of the term of office of such board, the vacancy created by such death, resignation or disqualification.

I move amendment No. 40:—

Before Section 16 to insert the following new section:—

Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Fisheries Act, 1925 (No. 32 of 1925) shall, as and from the passing of this Act apply and have effect as if at the end of that sub-section there were inserted the following proviso, that is to say,

"provided always that the number of holders of fishing net licences entitled to be elected and returned for any electoral division shall be a number equal to one-third of the total number of conservators elected and returned for such electoral division",

and the said sub-section shall be construed accordingly.

We have always heard complaints from the different fishery areas that the holders of licences for net fishing did not get sufficient representation. They have always been in a hopeless minority. People of whom Deputy Flynn speaks have always been able to do whatever they wanted, as there were only one or two representatives of net fishing.

I do not know if the Deputy is aware of how these boards are constituted. They are roughly on the basis of half of the representatives from the tidal water areas and half from the fresh water areas. The nets-men are from the tidal waters, while from the fresh waters come the others, who are the owners of fisheries or rodmen.

What sort of progress can be made when you have a rule like that? The only change is to bring in two brown trout men.

I should prefer to leave the reorganisation until we are bringing in a Bill for that purpose.

Does not the Minister know the common practice in every board of conservators? Does not the Minister know what is happening in every board of conservators? They are always quarrelling about the allocation of the money and where it is going to be spent. Some of them want to have it spent in the head-waters in the close season and they want no supervision in the fishing areas in the open season, whereas the fresh-water fishermen want all the supervision in the tidal waters in the open season. You have the two sections always quarrelling with each other about the allocation of the money. I suggest that there should be some other body that would have the deciding voice in this matter, who would do things in the national interest rather than in the interest of those two conflicting bodies.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Corish, take the River Slaney, with which he and I are familiar; there are no net men on the fresh-water portion of the River Slaney. Therefore, net men could not be elected to the board.

I think the Minister and I hear frequent complaints that they are very badly represented.

I would like that the whole question of the reconstitution of these boards be put back for another time. With regard to what Deputy Gorey says about the allocation of the money by the boards of conservators for protection, that is a matter that comes up to the Department for approval and is very often criticised by the Department and sent back to the board for readjustment and fairer apportionment.

I should like that the Department should have the power of vetoing anything they did not think was right.

That amounts to a veto.

I think it is the experience of everybody that in the spawning season it is the little streamlets at the very end of the rivers that need the protection.

That is right.

That is where the whole damage can be done, and is being done. No protection is ever given there. It is a common thing to see people go out with torches—I have not seen it myself, but I know it is happening—they go out with torches and attract the fish to the surface, and if they cannot sell it they give it to the people. The amount of salmon that is being destroyed in this way has gone beyond computation. The damage done is extraordinary. The same thing applies to trout, but not to the same degree.

Not to the same degree at all.

Something should be done about it. You will never have the amount of salmon that the rivers of this country can carry unless stringent supervision is exercised on the spawning beds.

They do spend all the money they can for that purpose.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendments Nos. 41 and 42:—

In sub-section (1), page 8, line 50, to delete the words "is equal to or exceeds" and substitute the words "amounts to at least fifty per cent. of".

In sub-section (1), page 8, lines 55 and 56, to delete the words "equals or exceeds by less than twenty-five per cent." and substitute the words "is at least fifty per cent. of and not more than seventy-five per cent. of".

These amendments are to give better representation or, at least, representation on more favourable terms to the brown trout rod men, because it was felt on the Second Reading that, as the Bill stood, it would be rather difficult to get one or two representatives of the brown trout rod men on to the board. If the number of trout rod licences amounts to at least 50 per cent. of the number of salmon rod licences which have been issued, the holder of such licences can get one representative on to the board. If the licences are more than 75 per cent. of the number of salmon rod licences issued, they can get two representatives on to the board. That is making it 50 per cent. easier to get their men on to the board.

Can they not have more than two?

Two is the maximum.

Would the Minister not consider increasing the maximum?

I think Deputies should realise that the Department and the Minister have a great deal of control over the doings of the conservators, over their expenditure and that sort of thing, and if even one man is there who advocates a certain line of conduct or a certain way of having money spent, and if it is turned down the minutes come up to the Department.

If the Department think this man has made a good case, and that it is turned down without any great reason, the Department can see that his views get fair consideration, and can insist, in fact, on the board having the views of this man carried out. I do not think there is any great necessity for having bigger boards than we have. I think we can leave it at a maximum of two members for the brown trout rod-men, at least, until we reconsider the whole basis of the boards of conservators.

It is quality you want and not quantity.

That is right.

Amendments agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 43, 43a, 43b, 43c, not moved.

I move amendment No. 44:—

In sub-section (2) (c), page 9, line 21, to delete the word "elect" and substitute the word "co-opt".

This is a drafting amendment. There was a mistake in the draft.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 45:—

At the end of the section to insert the following new sub-section:—

"(5) In this section the expression ‘trout rod licences' shall not include trout rod (juvenile) licences."

This is to obviate the absurdity, if you like, of the small boy having a vote. It is bad for small boys to have votes.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
(1) The Minister may at any time, if he thinks fit, order an inquiry into the performance of their duties by any board of conservators and may appoint any person to hold such inquiry.
(6) When an inquiry in relation to a board of conservators has been held under this section, the Minister shall certify the amount of the expenses incurred by the Minister in relation to such inquiry, and the amount so certified shall be recovered by the Minister from the revenue of such board.
(7) Any sum recovered by the Minister under the next proceeding sub-section of this section shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance may direct.

I move amendment No. 46:—

In sub-section (1), page 9, line 35, to delete the word "their" and substitute the word "its".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 47:—

To delete sub-sections (6) and (7).

The object of this amendment is to provide for a matter that I mentioned on the Second Reading, that is, that where these inquiries are held, the burden shall not be put on the board of conservators to pay for them. The Minister made the case of a few minutes ago that the payment of the expenses of members travelling to the board would put too big a burden on the boards in their present state of finances. I entirely agree with that, and I think that certainly also applies to that case where the Minister decides to hold an inquiry. I think he should bear the costs and expenses of such an inquiry, and not have the burden thrown on the boards of conservators.

What inquiries are visualised in this?

Mr. Lynch

Inquiries more or less analogous to the local government inquiries, which are always followed by dissolution.

I think the Minister is familiar with the position on the Slaney where on a couple of occasions inquiries were held.

It is not that kind of thing. It is parallel to an inquiry held into the working of a local authority. It is what is referred to as "a sound administrative principle" to make the board pay the expenses of the inquiry, but, of course, if the board cannot afford it, the Department has to come to their aid.

Will the Minister adopt the same principle as far as the men are concerned, if they cannot afford to pay their own expenses?

That is a different point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) If and whenever—
(a) the Minister is satisfied after holding under this Act an inquiry into the performance of their duties by a board of conservators that the duties of such board are not being duly and effectually discharged by such board, or
(b) a board of conservators wilfully neglect to comply with any lawful order, direction, or regulation of the Minister, or fail to comply with any judgment, order or decree of any court,
the Minister may by order dissolve such board of conservators and either order (under the power hereinafter conferred on him) a new election of members of such board or transfer the funds, books and other property and the several powers, duties and liabilities of such board to any body or persons or person he shall think fit.
(5) At any time after a board of conservators has been dissolved under this section the Minister may, if and when he so thinks fit, by order cause a new election of members of such board to be held, and upon the completion of such new election all the property, powers, and duties of the dissolved board of conservators shall vest in the body so elected, notwithstanding that the same may have been transferred by the Minister under this section to any other body, persons or person.
(6) Where a new election of members of a board of conservators is held in pursuance of an order made under the next preceding sub-section of this section, the next subsequent election of members of such board of conservators shall be held on the next occasion on which an election of such members would have been required by law to be held if such board had not been dissolved, and accordingly the members elected at the said new election shall hold office until the said next subsequent election.

I move amendment No. 48:—

In sub-section (1), page 10, line 22, to delete the word "their" and substitute the word "its".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 49:—

In sub-section (1), page 10, line 34, to delete the words "or persons".

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 50:—

In sub-section (5), page 10, line 64, to delete the word "persons".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 51:—

To delete sub-section (6) and substitute the following new sub-section:—

(6) Whether or not a new election of members of a board of conservators has been held in pursuance of an order made under the next preceding sub-section of this section, the next subsequent election of members of such board of conservators shall be held on the next occasion on which an election of such members would have been required by law to be held if such board had not been dissolved, and thereupon all the property, powers and duties of the dissolved board of conservators shall vest in the body so elected.

Some Deputies were rather suspicious on the Second Reading that if the Minister once dissolved a board he would keep the thing under his own control. This is to ensure that, even though he dissolves a board, he must allow the election to take place so that he can only dissolve the board for the remainder of the normal period of office of that board.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 not moved.
Section 18, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Where a person is convicted of an offence under the Fisheries Acts, or under this Act, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) such person shall upon such conviction be permanently disqualified from being elected to be a member of a board of conservators,
(b) if such person is an elected member of a board of conservators, he shall upon such conviction cease to be a member of such board,
(c) if such person is at the date of such conviction possessed of or subsequently becomes possessed of, as rated occupier (either alone or with other persons), a several or exclusive fishery valued under the Valuation Acts at £50 yearly or upwards, the rights conferred by Section 6 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1848, as amended by Section 7 of the Fisheries Act, 1925 (No. 32 of 1925), and this Act, shall cease to be exercisable by such person:
(d) if such person is an agent of another person qualified as anex-officio conservator under Section 6 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1848, as so amended, he shall cease thereafter to be qualified to act as an agent for such other person in that other person's capacity as an ex-officio conservator;
(e) such person shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from being appointed an agent under Section 4 of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1850.

I move amendment No. 54:—

In page 11, paragraph (a), to delete in line 16 the word "permanently" and to insert in line 18 after the word "conservators" the words "for a period of seven years from the date of such conviction"; in paragraph (c) to insert in line 30 after the word "person" the words "for a period of seven years from the date of such conviction"; in paragraph (d) to insert in line 36 after the word "conservator" the words "for a period of seven years from the date of such conviction"; in paragraph (e), to delete in line 36 the word "permanently" and to insert in line 38 after the figures "1850" the words "for a period of seven years from the date of such conviction".

I accept the period of seven years; it was permanent disqualification before. I had suggested five, but I accept the seven.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 not moved.
Section 19, as amended, put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 58 not moved.
Section 20 put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
The period of office of the clerk or of any other officer or servant of a board of conservators shall not be terminated by reason only of the retirement or removal from office of the members of such board.

I move amendment No. 59:—

At the beginning of the section to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Any person who is a Clerk or an Inspector of Fisheries of a Board of Conservators shall continue to hold that office unless removed by the Minister for reasons stated.

This is much the same as the amendment by the Deputy Walsh, the Mayor of Drogheda. It aims at securing the same thing. I raised this matter on the Second Reading. It is a question of permanency for the higher officials of the board—say, the clerk, and the inspector of bailiffs. I instanced a case where an inspector of bailiffs, in the course of his duty raiding the weir of a member of the board of conservators, was hauled before the board of conservators by that particular member. In spite of the fact that I believe some of my colleagues from Cork very much resent my statement, I repeat that the backboneless board of conservators—or those of them who were present—made an order that the particular inspector of bailiffs would not again be allowed to visit that weir unless he had a nursemaid in the shape of a Civic Guard along with him. That is the position with regard to those officials of boards of conservators. If they do their jobs properly they are going to tread on the toes of their own employers. This was the case of Lord Charles Cavendish, who appealed to the Lismore board about the inspector of bailiffs visiting the Lismore weir.

That is not in Cork.

Mr. Lynch

I think there is a very strong case for giving some kind of permanency to those officials. It may be said: "Why do it for the present crowd when it was not done for the crowd that were there, say, before the last election?" But a great many of them, most of them, have been there for a number of years, and the fact of giving them permanency would also obviate the dog-fight which you have after every triennial election with regard to those jobs as clerks of boards and inspectors of bailiffs.

It does not matter much about the minor posts—that is, the ordinary bailiffs along the stream. I would leave that to the board, but in regard to the higher posts under the board, I think the sooner they are made permanent the better. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to accept that now, or whether he will consider the matter when consolidating the Bill.

That would be much better.

Mr. Lynch

If the Minister gives me an assurance that that will be done, I am satisfied.

It will be done then all right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 60 not moved.

I have been asked to oppose this.

It has been withdrawn.

Mr. Lynch

On the assurance of the Minister that he will consider the matter when bringing in the consolidated Bill. The Deputy can use his influence-with the Minister between this and then.

Mr. Flynn

But there is another amendment here in the name of Deputy Walsh——

That has not been moved.

Wait until the Minister brings in his amendment on the next stages.

The second amendment has not been moved and the first has been withdrawn.

Sections 21 and 22 put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, for the purpose of taking any salmon, or trout, use or have in his possession or control in any lake, river, or estuary or on or near the banks thereof any light or fire of any kind nor any otter, spear, strokehaul, gaff, or other instrument of a similar kind.
(2) Any person who shall use or have in his possession or control any light, fire, or instrument in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months.
(3) Every person who is convicted of an offence under this section shall forfeit the light or fire used in the commission of the offence of which such person is convicted and the means or materials by which such light or fire was produced and also any instrument used by such person in the commission of such offence.
(4) The prohibition contained in this section shall not extend to the use, possession, or control by any person of a gaff used or to be used solely as auxiliary to lawful angling with rod and line between sunrise and one hour after sunset, or used or to be used by the licensee of any lawful weir, box, or crib solely for the purpose of removing fish therefrom or to the use, possession, or control by any person of an eel spear used for taking eels.

I move amendment No. 61:—

Before Section 23 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The Minister shall in accordance with regulations to be made by him under this section give statutory recognition to the existing trout angling associations in Ireland, and in making such regulations regard shall be had to the said existing associations, and of all kindred bodies with which such associations are affiliated.

(2) Such regulations shall divide Ireland into areas over which such associations shall have power to exercise statutory powers.

(3) The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of this section.

(4) The moneys from trout rod licences shall be appropriated by the Trout Angling Associations for the purpose of preserving and propagating trout.

(5) The Minister shall in respect of any such clubs and associations to which statutory powers are given under this section vest in them similar powers in regard to brown trout fishing as are vested in the boards of conservators in regard to salmon, etc., by this Act or by any of the Fisheries Acts.

I drafted this amendment for the purpose of attempting to get statutory recognition for the trout angling associations, for the purpose of getting similar regulations to those made by the board of conservators for the salmon fishing. I drafted it for the purpose of meeting the storm of objection which arose in regard to the five shillings licences, but in view of the new section to replace Section 9 I do not think I would be justified in wasting the time of the House any further. I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 62:—

In sub-section (1), lines 18 and 19, to delete the words "on or near" and substitute the words "in the vicinity of".

In my opinion, if the word "near" is left in the section you cannot get convictions in a great many cases. A person can have gear in a motor car and run it up some laneway half-a-mile or three-quarters of a mile away; he can then go out and look around to see that all is fair before he goes down to the river. There will be all sorts of cases like that, and convictions cannot be got. The word "near" is too narrow. It is indefinite. I think the words "in the vicinity of" would be better. Again, it is a question of fact for the judge trying the case. This amendment is merely for the purpose of improving the drafting of the section and endeavouring to make it effective.

The law officers informed me that they believe the words "on or near" would be more helpful to the court than the words "in the vicinity of." I am altogether in the hands of the law officers in a case like that. They think this would be more helpful to the court. It is a matter of opinion, I suppose.

There would be no need for lawyers if it were made clear.

The amendment embodied not merely my own opinion with regard to the present form. I got a whole series of stuff sent to me by a solicitor who was a member of an association, and it helped me enormously. He made the suggestion that the word "near" was too indefinite. "Near" means, of course, on the bank of the river; it means nothing else. If you are at the top of the field, obviously you are not on the river, and you cannot convict a man; you cannot do it. If the field runs down to the river, and I claim to be at the top of it, at the gate, you cannot do it.

I suggest it is a relative terms, "near"; does the Deputy not think so?

It is too narrow.

"Somewhere in the vicinity of"?

That may mean anything—possibly a mile away. You can have all the gear a half a mile away.

The Deputy will have all his colleagues at the Bar idle if he argues like that.

Very well, but if you let the words in the Bill stand, and try to convict a man in that language, when he has his gear at the top of the field, I suggest you will get no conviction. I am only interested in improving the Bill.

It is really a matter of opinion.

Perhaps the Minister will consider the matter between now and the Report Stage?

Amendment No. 62, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 63:—

In sub-section (1), lines 20 and 21, to delete the words "of a similar kind" and substitute the words "for such purpose".

The sub-section refers to "any light or fire of any kind, nor any otter, spear, strokehaul, gaff, or other instrument of a similar kind." These would be used for the purpose of taking fish illegally.

I think the same thing applies here. I suggest it is a matter for the law officers; it is a matter of opinion, really. They are of the opinion that the words "of a similar kind" are better than the words "for such purpose". If, for instance, a person could kill a salmon with a hurley, it would be used for such purpose and therefore it would be illegal if Deputy McMenamin's words were accepted. What we are really after is an instrument of a kind similar to those set out in the Bill. I think it is better to leave the words in the section.

Amendment No. 63, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 64:—

In sub-section (4), line 34, after the word "gaff" to insert the words "or tailer".

Mr. Lynch

I think everybody would like to know what a "tailer" is, besides being a big "half."

As a matter of fact, it was quite new to me. It was enclosed with an amount of stuff, and it was suggested by this gentleman who sent me a number of amendments. He says that it is quite a simple thing. It is a snare attached to the end of a stick or pole for the purpose of landing a fish instead of gaffing it. You wound a fish in gaffing it; you make a hole in it. Apparently with the tailer you can pull the snare over the fish and pull out the fish without wounding it.

There is no reason why we should make a tailer legal here. It is not used in this country at all.

It is. I did not think it was. It is used in the West of Ireland.

It is a modification of the landing net.

As a matter of fact, poachers use it when the fish is lying under a rock. They put this under its tail and haul it out. I never heard a word put on it until now.

Such an instrument is, as a matter of fact, used. I have seen a gipsy showing us a trick or two. I have seen him putting down gut or horse hair, getting it over a pike, and out he came. I thought it was a most scientific operation, and I never saw that type of thing done before. The fish was not hooked at all, and yet they took him out. I thought I knew everything about it up to that.

I have a price-list here with "tailers" in it.

Mr. Lynch

They would be about 1/3.

If the Minister does not want it in the Bill, I am prepared to withdraw it.

Amendment No. 64, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment No. 65:—

In sub-section (4), line 36, page 12, to delete the words "one hour" and to substitute in lieu thereof the words "three hours."

I understand that this is merely carrying out the law as it stands, but the case was made to me that in a place like Killarney the anglers are out late in the evening and considerably more than one hour after sunset, and this might affect them. I understand that is how the law stands at the moment, but apparently it is, to a great extent, ignored.

We give them here an hour longer than they have at the moment.

Mr. Lynch

From what I can hear, that particular law has not been obeyed.

This refers only to using the gaff.

Mr. Lynch

What I have in mind is when they are angling a couple of hours after sunset, as sometimes they are on the lakes.

There is nothing wrong with angling without the gaff.

Mr. Lynch

How are you going to catch a big trout, fly-fishing, without a gaff?

You do not want a gaff with trout. This section has reference to a person using a gaff an hour after sunset.

Mr. Lynch

All right; I am satisfied.

Amendment No. 65, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) No person shall have in his possession or control in any lake, river or estuary or in any part thereof, or on or near the banks of any lake, river or estuary or of any particular part thereof, any net or other instrument or lure or bait the use of which in such lake, river, or estuary or such particular part thereof (as the case may be) for the purpose of taking salmon, trout, or other fish is unlawful.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment No. 66:—

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 six inches in length.

I want to hear the Minister's opinion on it. I have no great conviction on the matter. It was raised by way of a letter written to Deputy O'Sullivan and he asked me to look into it. I thought the best thing to do was to put down an amendment and give the Minister an opportunity of expressing an opinion. The allegation was that frequently salmon fry are killed as trout and they are less than six inches. I understand that some provision is made in that connection; at least I think it is in some of the Fishery Acts.

It would be very difficult to have a general law for the country in this matter. I believe that while it might be quite reasonable to say in one case that you must not kill a trout under seven inches in length, you might have to say five inches in another case. I think this matter might safely be left for regulation in the different districts.

Amendment No. 66, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 67 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 68:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

No person shall deposit in any river, lake, or natural or artificial watercourse any refuse material or other matter that is injurious or likely to become injurious to fish.

I thought the section as drafted was too narrow. It left certain types of pollution unprovided for. What does the Minister think about that?

I will ask the Deputy to look up earlier legislation in reference to the pollution of rivers, and I think he will find exactly what he wants. I think the whole matter is covered under the Pollution of Rivers Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 agreed to.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 28th April.
Top
Share