Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1954

Vol. 144 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Salmon Conservatory Fund Bill, 1953 —Second Stage.

Molaim go léifear an Bille an Dara Uair. Ó thaobh gheilleagair dhe, is fíor a rá gurb é an bradán rí na n-iasc sa tír seo. Onnmhuirítear luach trí ceathrúnaí milliúin punt airgid sa mbliain den bhreac seo—sé sin le rá gurb é an bradán formhór mór dár n-onnmhuirithe éisc. Baineann sé sin leis an taobh tráchtálach de gheilleagar an bhradáin. Níl geilleagar an bhradáin, ámhthach, taobh le tráchtáil dhíreach ó eangach an iascaire go dtí bínse marmair an tsiopadóra. Is mór an tarraingt atá ag an mbradán ar an gcuairteóir. Tá a fhios againn gur fiú an chuartaíocht na milliúin móra airgid, ach is doiligh a mheas cén chuid dhe gur chóir a chur i leith na slatiascaireachta. Meastar gur fiú deich bpunt ar a laghad don tír gach bradán dá maraítear ag cuairteóirí. Tá daoine ann a mheasas a luach a bheith i bhfad níos airde ná an méad sin. Gan a bheith barainneach sa scéal, is fíor a rá go bhfanann an t-iascaire slait níos fuide, ar an mheán, ar a chuairt inár measc ná cuairteóirí eile. Má tá buachtáil ag an tír seo ar thíortha eile i dtaobh na cuartaíochta, déarfainn gurb í an iascaireacht slait í, agus má chothaítear agus má fhorbraítear gach a bhféadfar í bainfear barraíocht buntáiste as an mbuachtáil sin. Tháinig agus tiocfaidh an t-iascaire cuairteóra ar ais arís agus arís eile chugainn nuair a chuaigh agus nuair imeos an cuairteóir féachana ó thír go tír. Dá fheabhas an t-iascach slaite abhfus is amhlaidh is mó den chineál sin chuairteóra a thiocfas.

Nuair a dí-rialaíodh praghas an bhradáin thall roinnt bliain ó shoin chuaigh sé suas go mór, agus ar an abhar sin spreagadh an phóitseál thar cionn. Ní féidir lucht chaomhanta a chúiteamh sách maith as an teacht-isteach atá ag na Boird Chaomhnóirí leis an bhfadhb seo a cheannsú. Sé sin fáth an Bhille seo. Is dreamanna mórán neamh-spleácha iad na Boird seo i bhfeighil chaomhantais, agus go dtí roinnt bliain ó shoin bhíodar taobh le hairgead a gheofaí as cendúnais iascaigh slait agus eangacha agus rátaí ar chearta leithleasachta iascaigh. De bhárr ardú páighe is eile, ní leór na foinsí sin airgid anois chun a gcostais a ghlanadh, agus b'éigean deontais as Vóta an Iascaigh a sholáthair dóibh. Tá méadú mór ar na deontais le blianta beaga anuas. Is beag má d'athraigh teacht-isteach na mBord feadh na mbliain, agus tá luach onnmhuirithe gaibhte suas faoi cheathar nó faoi chúig. Caithfí praghas na gceadúnas a mhéadú faoi dhó le teacht-isteach na mBord a chur in araíocht a gcúram agus a gcostas. Luífeadh sé sin róthrom ar lucht na n-eangach agus ní chuideódh sé leis an gcuartaíocht. Onnmhuirítear saothrú na n-eangach beagnach ar fad agus íocfaidh siad an bhreis a bhéas orthu do réir mar shaothrós siad é. Síltear go gcaitear cuid na slat abhfus, agus meastar gur mar a chéile sa toradh ioncaim deich scilleach sa mbreis an tslat agus dhá phingin an punt meáchain dá maraíonn na slait. Tá sé measta go soláthróidh an dá bhealach seo an oiread eile is a bhailíos na Boird faoi láthair. Riarfaidh agus roinnfidh an t-Aire Talmhaíochta toradh na ndleacht nua seo, tar éis chomhairle a ghlacadh leis an Aire Airgeadais, de réir cáll na gceanntar éagsúl.

Tá dualgas orrainn caomhantas an iascaigh a chur chun cinn, agus is é mo thuairim go bhfuil costas an dualgais sin leagtha orra siúd gur cóir a bheith thíos leis.

The object of this Bill is to establish a fund, the income of which will be derived mainly from a levy on salmon exports and on salmon rod licences, and from which payments can be made to any board of conservators whose income is deemed to be insufficient to cover the cost of maintaining adequate protection of the salmon fisheries in their district.

To meet the expenses of protection and conservation—represented in the main by employment of waterkeepers and supervisory staff—these boards are provided with two main statutory sources of income, namely, fishery rates and licence duties on the various nets, weirs, rods and other fishing engines used in their districts. Where such revenue proves insufficient to meet the immediate requirements of protection expenses, grants have hitherto been made from voted moneys in an effort to make good the deficiency. In recent years the demands for State assistance have mounted steadily higher and higher; thus where in 1949-50 a sum of only £2,500 was provided in the Vote for Fisheries for the payment of grants to boards of conservators, the corresponding figure for 1952-53 was £3,500 and that for 1953-54, £8,000. As matters stand, there is every reason to expect that the statutory revenues of boards of conservators from the sources referred to will have to be supplemented to an even greater extent in the future. Two main factors are at work in bringing about this situation. One is the very high level at which the price of salmon has been maintained for the past 12 years or so, which has led to increased activity by poachers. Protection services have required to be strengthened all round to meet this new situation, and this brings us to the second factor in the situation, which is the fact that wages of protection staff have increased steadily over the same period and now stand, in some instances, at a rate of as much as three times what was paid prior to the increase in salmon prices dating from 1941.

In an effort to meet their heavy commitments, boards of conservators have been obliged to strike progressively higher fishery rates, which, in many cases, now stand at a higher rate per £ than those of local authorities. It has been suggested that an increase in fishing licences, which were last revised in 1925, is overdue. While this may be so in regard to some modes of fishing, I am not prepared to impose an all-round increase on licence duties, which would need to be doubled in order to provide the revenue required to bridge the gap between total revenues of the boards throughout the country and their total expenditures. I am not satisfied that the burden of the increased costs would be equitably distributed by means of such an increase, which would bear very harshly on the working fisherman in particular, as adding to his overhead costs before he can start fishing.

The salmon fishing industry is a particularly valuable one, producing as it does not only a catch by means of commercial methods yielding an exportable surplus valued at an average of £679,000 over the four years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953, but also the highly desirable sporting amenity, the value of which as a tourist asset is generally recognised. It is in the interests of this industry that adequate protection should be afforded to breeding fish on which survival of the industry depends, and that those who engage in illegal methods of fishing should be dealt with as they deserve. It is, therefore, no more than reasonable that the industry as a whole should contribute towards the expenses incurred by boards of conservators in carrying out this valuable work.

The scheme of levies set out in this Bill has been drawn up with a view to securing that in the course of a few years a sum of approximately £15,000 per annum may be collected in a full normal year. The rate of export levy is proposed by Section 3 to be limited to a maximum of 2d. per lb., only to be exceeded if, as provided for in subsection (4) of that section, an Order prescribing a higher rate is confirmed by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas. So far as can now be foreseen, it should not be necessary to resort to this special expedient, save perhaps in the event of an abnormally low catch on which the amount of export levy would be entirely inadequate and insignificant in comparison with the higher prices to be expected in a time of scarcity. Judging by the experience of recent years, however, it would seem sufficient that the rate of export levy should be fixed at 2d. a lb. on exports up to the end of May in each year and ld. per lb. from 1st June until the end of the season, the latter period being that in which fish of the grilse type predominate, and market prices generally strike a lower level.

In Section 4 a maximum limit of one-half the licence duty is specified in regard to the levy on salmon rod licences. As in the case of the export levy, it is not at present intended to prescribe the maximum rate of levy on rod fishermen who pay £2 for a salmon rod licence for the whole season and £1 for short-term licences such as those issued by certain boards for 14 days or for a period after 1st July in each season.

Considering the usual annual catch by the average rod fisherman, and making allowance for the sale of a certain proportion of catch through commercial channels which would ultimately attract export levy, it has been calculated that a duty at the rate of 10/- on each full-season licence and 5/- on each part-season licence would be roughly equivalent to a levy of 2d. per lb. on the retained catch, that is the catch which is not sold commercially. This is an approximate calculation, but I have no reason to think that it would operate unfairly. The effect of what is provided in subsection (4) of this section is that no levy is payable on the 10/- endorsement licence, this being a licence issued at a reduced rate in one district to a person who has already taken out a full season's licence in respect of another district. Such persons will, of course, have, in fact, contributed levy on the original licence and are not called upon to pay again.

The remaining provisions, other than Section 7, of the Bill are in the main of the routine nature customary in regard to the establishment and maintenance of a statutory fund. The provision in Section 7 for the making of payments, either by way of grant or by repayable advances into the fund out of voted moneys, is one which has been inserted as a precaution and should not be taken as indicating any intention of maintaining this fund in credit by means of regular subventions from the Exchequer. The sources of income feeding the fund should be ample for the purpose, taking one year with another, and, unless very exceptional circumstances should arise, it is not intended to have recourse to voted moneys, save, perhaps, by way of repayable advances to tide over some temporary shortage arising, say, from a disappointing salmon fishing season.

There is one thing which this Bill will do and that is it will increase the numerical strength of two classes in this country, namely, the poacher and the smuggler because, stripped of its trimmings, this Bill is going to increase the tax on the angler and encourage him to turn poacher. It is going to impose a tax on the legitimate exportation of salmon and will thereby encourage the smuggler.

For a good many years in this country angling was confined to a particular class, but, thank God, we succeeded in educating the former poacher and turned him to a legitimate angler. As a result of the acquisition of our fisheries, we have now a considerable number of legitimate anglers in the country, anglers who have paid their £2 licence duty each year to enable them to fish for salmon and sea trout. That £2 licence is going to be increased under this Bill by 50 per cent. to £3 of an annual licence, and not only that, but the fish which the angler procures by the exercise of his skill will be taxed if he exports the fish from this country.

We all know that our Irish market is not sufficient to deal with the supplies of salmon which are procured in this country in the very short season at our disposal, and that, consequently, we have to depend on the market in Great Britain for the sale of our surplus salmon. Under this Bill, we are going to impose a levy of 2d. per lb. on every lb. of salmon which is legitimately exported from the country. Who is going to pay that 2d.? The unfortunate draught net and drift net fishermen in the first place, while the angler, in addition to paying an extra £1 in licence duty for his licence, is going to pay an extra 2d. per lb. on every lb. of salmon which he exports out of the country.

I think that this Bill is a most unfair Bill, but it is in line with what we expect from Fianna Fáil. In every bit of legislation which they have introduced within the past few years there has been that tendency towards an increase in the cost of the particular commodity with which the legislation deals. Here we have a Bill introduced under the caption of the Salmon Conservatory Fund Bill, 1953, the purpose of which is to increase and make more expensive the capture of salmon by legitimate sportsmen, thereby detracting from the price received by the unfortunate fisherman who catches them.

For some time past we have endeavoured to persuade our Government to give local angling associations first preference in the leasing of our fisheries. As we all know, non-nationals had a complete monopoly of our fisheries until quite recently, but those non-nationals are still on the market and they are still competing against the local angling associations. The Parliamentary Secretary knows better than I do how they have raised the ante within the last week in so far as a particular fishery in Donegal is concerned. I refer to the river Owenea, one of the finest fisheries in Ireland. Through the good graces of the Parliamentary Secretary, the local angling association was able to procure the rights on that river at an annual rental of £400. However, two competitors recently came on the market, one of them being the Minister for Finance, who is anxious to get a higher rental out of the fishery, and the other a nonnational of this country, with the result that this year the local angling association procured the fishing rights on the river Owenea at an increase in the annual rental of from £400 to £500. In addition to that, each member of the association who hopes to fish on that river during the coming season will, when this Bill becomes an Act, be paying an additional 50 per cent. in his licence duty, and if he wishes to export the fish which he legitimately catches, he will have to pay an extra 2d. per lb. by way of an export duty.

I think it is very unfair to establish this fund. It is merely an excuse for raising money and nothing else. We are told that its purpose is to supplement the funds of certain boards of conservators. I know a particular board of conservators in the County Donegal which has a credit balance each year of £1,300, and is not permitted by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to spend 1d. of that £1,300 on the protection of the fisheries in the area over which it as a board of conservators exercises control. I say that the establishment of this fund is merely an excuse to collect further revenue for the Department.

I would like to see bracketed with the fisheries the sporting rights and the shooting rights on the mountains and arable land of Ireland. Another Department collects each year an annual sum from each sportsman who uses a gun, and no return whatsoever is given for that. In my opinion, a less return is given for the £2 which is paid for the rod licence to fish for salmon. Instead of doing something for the fisherman by way of setting up hatcheries, we are going to increase the annual rate of duty, and, at the same time, encourage poaching. I always believed that the best water-keeper is a former poacher and there is only one way in which you will make him a water-keeper, that is, by interesting him in legitimate angling. That has been done all over the country through local angling associations, but the one thing which held back the small farmer and the labourer from joining angling associations was the annual rate of rod licence of £2 per year. That is a considerable amount for a very short season, but under this Bill we find that amount being increased by 50 per cent., bringing it up to £3 per year.

On this question of boards of conservators, might I mention that a number of non-nationals, non-residents of the State, take out an annual licence here and have the same say in the election of boards of conservators as residents of the State, as riparian owners and as rated occupiers of fisheries? Some non-residents of the State are doing valuable work on boards of conservators, but others are there merely for the purpose of obstructing the legitimate progress desired by local angling associations. Recently, at a meeting of an angling association in the county I represent, a resolution protesting against the right of non-nationals to serve on boards of conservators was passed. There is a lot to be said for and a lot to be said against. Personally, I welcome residents of the Six Counties coming in here and assisting in legislation, and on one occasion quite recently I requested the Government from these benches to bring in an elected representative of the people of the Six Counties and to give him an opportunity of participating in the forming of legislation.

I feel that the question of boards of conservators does not arise on this.

I was coming to that. I feel that if residents of the Six Counties are elected to our boards of conservators in this part of the country they should be welcomed, but I do object to people who do not reside on this side of the Irish Sea being members of our boards of conservators. I make one last appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw this Bill, because, stripped of its trimmings, it is merely a Bill to encourage the poacher and enlarge the army of smugglers in this country.

Like Deputy O'Donnell I think the anglers of this country ought to be encouraged rather than treated as pariahs and driven off the rivers in the interests of outsiders. If the Parliamentary Secretary hopes to raise some funds for this conservancy fund from the extra taxation on salmon going out and increasing the salmon licence he will need to give them that encouragement. It is now going to cost the angler 50 per cent. more to fish the rivers of this country and I want to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that over a considerable portion of these rivers somebody other than the Minister has a say in relation to the imposition of taxation. I wonder what is to be the fate of the anglers on the Shannon which is controlled by the E.S.B., a body which, without any consultation with the Department or anybody else, seems to take the law into its own hands and increase the cost of the permit to fish on the rivers governed by it from £2 to £10. This year the salmon angler down there has to pay £8 on top of his £2, plus £2 to the State, making £12 for the right to fish on the banks of the Shannon.

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister are really doing their duty in allowing the landlords, whether private landlords or public companies, who have control of certain rivers to have a free hand to do what they like, because I believe that anglers are people who ought to be encouraged. Deputy O'Donnell has said that it is an encouraging sign to see anglers replacing poachers but the tendency now is for the anglers on the Shannon and its watershed to be driven off. The E.S.B., for reasons best known to themselves, have taken the bit in their teeth and have declared total war against the anglers' associations down there. These respectable citizens who wish to enjoy themselves at week-ends paid what they were asked to pay by the State and now they are to be asked to pay another 50 per cent., but instead of contributing to this fund they are being driven off the rivers. If the Minister has not got the authority, he ought to have the authority to inquire into what is taking place which has the effect of decimating the number of anglers over a very big stretch of the Shannon.

If the Minister is to exercise control for the State he should do so, and should resent the usurpation of his powers by any body whose actions are tending to dislocate and disrupt what should be the functions of the Fisheries Department, an action which is being carried out under the authority of a public board which seems to be overriding the best desires and intentions of the Minister. I draw his attention to what is taking place, and I wonder, in relation to this conservancy fund, which he wants to make a success, for whom he is conserving it. The people whom the fishing should be serving ought to be the citizens of this country —the legitimate anglers and legitimate exporters and net fishermen. Outside people ought not to be permitted to undermine what the Minister is doing here in this House.

Deputy O'Donnell has spoken about the usurpation of our rivers by non-nationals. That is happening to a very great extent on the river I speak of. The lettings this year on tributaries of the Shannon are being holus-bolus tied up in stretches for the gentry who come from across the water and our anglers are being driven off. This £10 being clapped on now instead of £2 is the last straw in an attempt to drive them completely off the river. Hence I say that the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to get as much from the increased charge he is making as he is getting now from the £2, because the men will not pay it if something is not done to protect them from the ravages of the E.S.B.

Remembering something of the practical conditions of things in this country when I was a youth this Bill is certainly an eye-opener. When I was a youth of course nobody belonging to the class of the people that I sprang from, that was the people of rural Ireland, could look into a river, much less fish in it; and through the evolution of time and events we have now reached the stage when the citizens of this country, claiming no abnormal right, have acquired the right to go if they have a spare hour or two and fish in a river. It is not so much at all the catching of fish; in the main I think it can be said generally of our people irrespective of what is given off because some particular individual does something, that they are all sportsmen, every one of them. I know them as well as anybody else, taking them in the main.

It is a commentary on the evolution of things that a workman, a tradesman, a shoe repairer or a bootmaker would once a week give up an hour or two to have a bit of sport. He wants to do something for the hour or two, and out of his earnings he has been paying £2 in order to get a bit of enjoyment out of the particular sport he likes. To pay that £2 is a hardship on him. Anybody in this House will know that it is a hardship on a man, particularly a small boot man or a boot repairer, who is a thoroughly decent man and is a decent sport. It is not, you see, the fact of having money that makes a man a sportsman—very far from that. That is not at all true, because one of the things that characterise our people is the sport that they are in for the love of it, and the expense and cost they put themselves to in order to pursue sport—costs that they cannot afford.

This class of men that I am talking about—and there are hundreds and hundreds of them, and probably all over the country it would run into thousands—have bought a rod which is a rather expensive thing for those men, got a new line and a new set of hooks, and paid £2, and after all that for the whole season such a man does not catch one salmon. I am dealing now with the rod men. I really think that it is not hard to understand and appreciate the mentality of this class of people. What does liberty mean to them? I would like to hear what is behind it. These are the type of men that were involved in all the suffering and the struggle in the country by which it reached its freedom. Does the Parliamentary Secretary or this House think that the limits of these people are exhausted? I think we know the history of this country well enough to know this, that you cannot press the screw too tightly on the people— because these people are the people; you cannot turn it down to the last thread on the screw without making them react to it. They can effectively react, and there is nothing whereby you can so effectively react as with regard to the fishing of rivers. I am old enough and young enough to know all the tricks of that trade, and to know how that can be done. I think it would be a fatal thing.

I have no object at all now except the welfare of our fishing industry. It can be destroyed. You can destroy it with this Bill. It can be destroyed overnight and nothing can prevent it. You would want to put an army, a man standing with a sword, on every yard of all the rivers in Ireland to prevent it. Are we not inviting that? Why should we do that by a paltry quid on each one of these men? These are the class of people to whom by the operations of this House in the last number of years living has been made really hard, harder in fact than they have ever known it before. Are we going to go on piling the straws on the camel's back until finally the camel revolts? We are doing that for this paltry sum. I do sincerely and in the utmost bona fides appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to drop that section of the Bill because he has not told us and it would be very hard to convince me that this fund that he is setting up to assist conservators is actually going to do anything of real benefit with regard to fishing on our rivers. I do not want to labour that thing. Anybody who is of my own age in this House who knows the history of this country knows that the people when driven to a certain point will revolt and defeat any power. They did it before, and these are the sons of the men who did it.

I am sorry that I have to talk this way and to issue this warning, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not do it. We intend to do a certain thing in this Bill and we are doing it with a good intention, but a good intention does not always reap the harvest that was behind the intention. It is for that reason that I am issuing this warning.

I come to the part talked about by Deputy Keyes. I do not know anything about Limerick, curiously. I have passed through it a couple of times, and that is all I know about it. I do not know anything about its citizens; but we can take it that it is a city with the average type of people, and, according to Deputy Keyes's statement here, the rod fishermen there, if I understand him correctly, have to pay a licence duty to the conservators and they have to pay £10 to the E.S.B. for the right to fish on the Shannon. That is £10 additional to what that class of people have to pay throughout the country generally; £12 in order to get a rod of some kind and get a line on it and a couple of hooks and a right to pass an hour or two and perhaps not a hope on earth of ever catching a salmon. Yet you are clapping a tax of £12 a year on him. Does the Parliamentary Secretary or the House think that that type of man has no power of reaction? I again particularly apply that warning with regard to the people who are concerned there.

I come now to the deep sea fishermen. Everybody in this House knows the class of people who fish for salmon in this country. They are all very small men and they are incapable of engaging in the fishing industry except through the medium of substantial assistance from the State. They are all poor men. Not one of them could put up £100 for any purpose. What are we going to do with them? In order to increase the tourist industry, apparently, and bring more visitors here, we propose to tax these poor people. How will we tax them? By asking them to pay 2d. on the lb. What will that mean? It will not mean just 2d per lb.—and I want those Deputies unacquainted with the seacoast to understand this: the all-in cost of sending 1 lb. of salmon from Donegal to London is now 10d. Add 2d. to that and we have 1/- per lb. Remember, it is the fisherman who will have to pay that 1/- on that. He will be at the loss of it because this is an export market and the price that the salmon will bring in that market is the price the importing country will pay for it. It is the producer, therefore, the poor fisherman, who will pay the 1/- per lb.

Because of the increased impact of economic conditions generally there is bound to be a fall in the price of salmon once rationing is removed and other types of fish and foodstuffs become plentiful. There will not be a rush to buy salmon and the price will not be pushed up. Do not let us deceive ourselves into believing that the price will remain high when other foodstuffs become plentiful. During the emergency people paid these excessive prices because they had to have something to eat in order to live.

I would be talking through my hat if I were to hold that that position will obtain in the future. I would be very glad if it did obtain but, knowing that it will not obtain, I realise that these poor fishermen will have to meet a levy of 1/- per lb. on every lb. of salmon they catch. Is it wise to set up this fund? For what are we establishing it? Nobody will be more delighted than I am to see everybody who buys an excursion ticket arriving in Ireland. But the question is: what are we doing? We propose to hand over a huge sum of money for the purpose of appointing inspectors to go around the country setting up local Tóstal councils for the purpose of An Tóstal. Has our patriotism reached the stage that no one will do anything for the benefit of the country without having a paid organiser and a whole hierarchy for the purpose of making things more attractive in our cities and towns? Is that the plight we have reached? We will make the poor fisherman leave his wife and family and go out into the sea and tax him for doing so in order to keep this collection of junk earning handy money and to keep up the farce. Work like that should be done voluntarily, if there is any public spirit in the country. If there is not sufficient public spirit to induce people to carry out such work voluntarily and do everything possible to make the country more attractive, then God help the country.

I do not think we can discuss Tóstal committees on this Bill.

Is it not all woven into this? Is that not the object of the Bill?

The Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for setting up Tóstal committees.

I suggest we should not be so nervous about this. It may not be strictly relevant but it is part of the Bill. It is what is behind the Bill. From whom will we take these benefits? We will take them from the poor fisherman, from the Parliamentary Secretary's constituents and mine, from the poor creatures who have not got so much as an oily rag and who only earn a few pounds in the year, and some years nothing at all. It is of those people I am thinking. This House can pass this Bill but, before it is passed, I want to point out to the House the implications behind what is being done. The purpose of this Bill can be defeated by the people concerned. I need not state how that can be done because those who know understand; they are old enough to appreciate what has happened here in the past and to realise that that can happen again.

This money is required for protection duties, as I have already indicated. There are two obvious courses open to us: one is that the industry itself should provide the money or, alternatively, that the taxpayer should provide it. If the Minister for Finance came in here with a Budget proposal that the taxpayer should meet this sum for either the sport or the profit of others there would be justifiable cause for a genuine and real complaint. In my travels around amongst those who are interested in this question of salmon protection I have canvassed the views of those concerned and I have found that there is recognition of the fact that both the sport and the industry should pay the cost of the protection necessary. It is known that the rated fisheries contribute a very considerable sum towards that cost. They contribute much more than the licence duties received in respect of nets and rods. The income from these rates has doubled since pre-war but the income from licensed duties has remained practically static over the past 20 years.

It is interesting to note that in the year 1933 the price of exported salmon was 1/8 per lb. and the income derived therefrom in that year was £192,000. In the year 1953 the value of exports was £607,000 and the price per lb. was 7/2. Can anybody here make even a semblance of a case in support of no increase in the contribution from the industry itself towards its own protection, because that is really what we are doing? Can anybody make a justifiable case for that? If we were to allow the present condition of affairs to continue both the nets men and the rods men would have very little to get in a few years' time. We are, in other words, protecting their sport and their livelihood.

Against whom?

Against poachers. Does the Deputy not know that it is against poachers the protection staff is recruited?

When I was a youngster I saw more fish taken out of a river in one night than would come out of the same river in three years now. They do not know how to poach now. They would be afraid of getting wet.

It is interesting to note that in the Cork district some years ago, the local board succeeded in getting the nets men to contribute voluntarily 6d. per lb. for this work and the State did not come in on it at all.

I attended a meeting of the National Salmon Anglers' Federation, and they are quite agreeable to this method of increasing the income for protection, and they recognise that the sport and the industry should provide the necessary money. I do not think it comes very well from a Deputy from Donegal to decry the tourist industry. If we do attract more tourists to Donegal by giving better protection to salmon angling, the whole community in Donegal will benefit by it. At any rate, the protection is more urgent now because of the salmon prices which I have mentioned. The incentive for poaching is much greater than it has been at any time, and men are prepared to risk very, very heavy fines to catch salmon because the price is so big. The job of protecting the remote stretches of rivers is a very difficult one indeed, and the wages for that work will have to be made commensurate with its responsibility and difficulty, and the money is being provided in this way for that purpose.

I disagree entirely with Deputy O'Donnell who said that poachers have become anglers. The experience of the Fisheries Branch and of the local boards is quite the reverse. I also want to point out that we do not propose to increase the salmon rod licence by 50 per cent. The £2 licence will be subjected to an excise duty of 10/-, and the part-time licence will pay an extra 5/-. The endorsement licence, which is a licence which a man can take out in another district, having already paid his £2 licence in some other district, will not be subjected to any further charge.

There have been representations made from many sources up and down the country to the Fisheries Branch to take some effective steps to deal with this question of poaching and the levy has been recommended from various sources. With regard to the method of collecting from the commercial fishermen, such as the net men, I think it is preferable that it should be done in this manner of a levy per lb. If we were to get the same income by an increase in licence duties it would be necessary to increase them by 100 per cent. That would mean that a man who now pays £4 for a licence for a net would have to pay £8 before he caught a salmon and the £4 is not easily got by these net men when they are starting off. Very often, I understand, they have to get a loan of the £4 to get a licence until they have sold some salmon. In addition to that, it is the experience in various estuaries that one estuary may be good and another bad in any given year. That means that a man would have his first charge doubled and might then experience a bad year. Very often, even in the same estuaries, different crews have a varied experience in the matter of the return of catches and by this method of pay-as-you-earn a fisherman will only pay if, in fact, he catches a fish and we think that that is a very fair principle to apply to the matter.

Extraneous matters were brought in, such as ownership, and Deputy Keyes referred particularly to the Shannon fisheries and to the disabilities which, he alleges, the anglers on the Shannon are being subjected to by the E.S.B. This parliament in two Acts has conferred ownership of the Shannon fisheries on the E.S.B. and whatever consequences have flown from the administration of those fisheries by the E.S.B. it flows from a deliberate Act of this Parliament and the only way in which that can be changed is by a change of the legislation which vested these fisheries in the ownership of the E.S.B. I am given no function whatsoever in relation to the management or control of those fisheries. We do ensure that the E.S.B. comply with and observe the fishery laws and if they do not do that they will be prosecuted in the same way as any other person or group operating a fishery.

No serious case has been adduced against the method of collecting this money. Nobody has challenged the need to get it and I think that as between the two methods which I outlined by which it might be got, this is the one which we can all stand over with the greatest amount of justification. Nobody wants to increase the cost either of sport or of the industry, but when it can be demonstrated that the commercial return from these fisheries has increased to the extent which I have indicated. I do not think any case whatsoever can be made for resisting this method of getting the money which is necessary to protect the livelihoods of about 7,000 people engaged in this industry.

Question put and agreed to.

When will the next stage be taken?

This day week.

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken on Wednesday, 24th February.
Top
Share