Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1958

Vol. 167 No. 5

Financial Resolutions. - Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Childers)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The prime purpose of this Bill is the provision of funds and of facilities that are needed to bring about the full economic development of the inland fisheries industry. The salmon industry may be taken as typical of inland fisheries generally. In its present state it has been capable of yielding over the past ten years exports valued at an average of some £560,000 a year. I am confident that this figure can be materially stepped up by the provision of improved protection services and by the building up of stocks in a number of rivers which are under-developed. On the sport side we can at present count on about 16,000 visiting anglers. This it is reckoned can be brought up to 50,000 by the improvement of amenities resulting from the five-year fisheries development plan being undertaken by Bord Fáilte Eireann and the Inland Fisheries Trust. At a conservative estimate this target would represent an annual spending of some £2,500,000.

This valuable industry cannot be expected to make its full potential contribution to the national economy if it continues to be starved of finance for the essential work of protection and development. The resources available to boards of conservators for their vitally important work may seem to have increased considerably in recent years but the apparent increase of total incomes of the boards from £28,500 in 1939 to close on £70,000 in 1957 vanishes when the figures are adjusted to allow for the change in cost of living and purchasing power of money between the two years. The charges levied by way of licence duty have remained unchanged since 1925 when the price of salmon stood at one-fourth of the present-day figure. The income from fishery rates has lagged by about 5 per cent. behind what would be needed to offset the fall in real money values. In the result the increase in State subventions and the yield from the salmon export levy had largely been swallowed up in making good these deficiencies.

The old machinery for providing the conservators with income for protection purposes must, therefore, be overhauled if the services they render are to be modernised and put on an effective footing. A start has been made in recent years with reorganisation of waterkeeping staff in some districts, but in many places there is still an insufficient number of whole-time keepers. Much has yet to be done by way of modernising means of transport and communication: the river staff must try to keep a move ahead of the poacher in this respect.

On the development side there is already in progress a survey of salmon stocks in all major river systems and of the spawning areas serving them. In addition, I am arranging for an engineering study of the number of rivers in which barriers to the free movement of fish leave large areas for the breeding of salmon unused as spawning grounds. The works required to deal with such problems would in general be costly; but it seems reasonable to expect that the cost would be amortised within 15 years considering the benefits from increased runs of salmon which would accrue to commercial and to sporting interests.

Although the Bill deals with only five main subjects the provisions which have to be made are somewhat complex due to the amount of revision of the extensive fishery code which they entail. The arrangement of sections adopted in drafting follows that of the subject matter in the draft Fisheries (Consolidation) Bill which it is hoped to reintroduce at an early date. The result of this arrangement is that provisions relating to a given subject in the present Bill do not follow consecutively. There has accordingly been circulated with the text of the Bill a memorandum indicating in respect of each main provision what are the consequential provisions relating to it.

As regards the five subjects referred to in the explanatory memorandum, Section 5 of the Bill which provides for the issue of fish culture licences is designed to facilitate the undertaking of fish farming and to provide for necessary controls. Fish which are reared and kept in captivity do not require the same protection by way of close season regulation as is afforded to wild fish. Once the brood stock of the farm is maintained and renewed from time to time by captures of wild fish in season no limitation need be put on the times at which the produce is cropped. The effect of the licence will be to enable the fish farmer to net his fish for market at any time or season. It is intended by Section 23 of the Bill to bring rainbow trout, a popular product of fish farms, within the scope of the 1925 Act licensing provisions so that dealings in rainbow trout will be the subject of records similar to those kept for salmon and brown trout.

Section 15 and Parts I and II of the Second Schedule comprise a re-enactment in general of the ordinary licence duties on fishing engines at the existing rates. Licence duties of £1 on seven-day and £1 10s. on 21-day salmon rod ordinary licences are provided in lieu of present provisions for short term licences which are available in district of issue only, and provision is made for increase by Order of the licence duties on any particular class of engine subject to a maximum of twice the existing scheduled duty, any such new rate of duty to be operative on and after 1st January next following the making of the Order. It is intended that the rod licence duties should be increased by Order after enactment of this Bill and become operative as from 1st January, 1959, the duties for whole season and for 21-day licences being increased by 100 per cent., the duty for the seven-day licence to remain for the present at £1. The rod licence duties in the 1959 season would therefore be full season £4, seven-day £1, and 21-day £3. It will be necessary to increase the supplementary licence duty for Foyle area licence holders to £2 10s.

All salmon rod licences proposed in this Bill will be available in all fishery districts throughout the State. This will be a substantial improvement on the present system whereby the £2 full season licence can be availed of in any district after the district of issue only on payment of an endorsement fee of 10/- for each district, and the special term licences for 14 days or after 1st July are available in the district of issue only. Nowadays there must be few salmon anglers whose appetite for the sport can be satisfied by fishing in his home district only and in many cases the payment of £4 for a licence with countrywide availability will represent a saving on current outlay in obtaining endorsements on the basic licence. The new arrangement will be particularly attractive to visiting anglers who will be saved the inconvenience of searching out a licence distributor in perhaps half a dozen districts which they may easily enter in the course of a comparatively short fishing holiday.

To meet the case of persons mainly interested in sea trout fishing I propose to bring in an amendment at the Committee Stage providing for the issue of licences after 1st July in each year at a fee of £1 10s., these licences to be available for use in all fishery districts and subject also to increase up to £3 under Section 15.

The amount of additional duty which the proposed increases will realise — estimated at between £9,000 and £10,000 per annum—will go to the credit of the Salmon Conservancy Fund.

No increase is at present proposed in licence duties on engines other than rod and line as such can be regarded as for the time being sufficiently under contribution in the form of the levy at present payable on salmon exports.

It has been considered desirable to extend the provisions of the Salmon Conservancy Fund Act, 1954, to enable moneys from the fund maintained under that Act to be made available for the costs of approved inland fisheries improvement schemes, in addition to the existing provision enabling payment of moneys from the fund to supplement the income of boards of conservators. It has been further deemed necessary to incorporate the Salmon Conservancy Fund Act, 1954, with the Fisheries Acts and the Act is therefore being repealed and its provisions as extended included in this Bill.

As to the eel fishery provisions (Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22), the state of our eel fishing industry cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Over the past three years exports of eels are returned as averaging only 2,200 cwt. valued at £28,000 a year. I shall be very surprised if these figures cannot be materially increased by the employment of more efficient methods of capture and of fishery management generally.

With a view to promoting development of eel fishing on proper lines, I am arranging for an officer to visit the Netherlands next month and Italy later in the year to study eel fishing techniques and handling and storage methods. This study tour will rank as a technical assistance project the cost of which will be recouped out of Grant Counterpart Funds.

I find that before I took up office some consideration had been given to the possibility of lifting the restrictions imposed on the use of certain eel weirs by Sections 33 and 34 of the Fisheries Act, 1939. So far as I have been able to ascertain these restrictions cannot have had a very significant effect on the country's total catch of eels. The restrictions were in the first instance an integral part of the 1939 Act scheme for acquisition of all were fisheries and of certain other exclusive fisheries in tidal waters. It is not my present intention to bring that scheme into operation but if it should be found necessary to implement it at some future date the position regarding the eel weirs can I am satisfied be safeguarded in another way. I accordingly propose to take power to modify the prohibition on erection of eel weirs by means of Orders under Section 20 of the Bill and the restriction on operation of certain weirs by means of authorisations under Section 21. Section 19 of the Bill provides for a consequential relaxation of the restriction imposed by Section 35 of the 1939 Act on netting for eels in public fisheries.

Finally in Section 22 it is proposed to make a realistic approach to the problem of free gaps in eel weirs. The Fisheries Acts require that there shall be a free gap in every fishing weir. This has been interpreted as applying to eel weirs equally with salmon weirs, but in practice to insist on putting a statutory free gap in an eel weir could hopelessly impair its catching power. This section will make it possible to grant an Order for the operation of an eel weir without a free gap subject to conditions which will enable the Minister to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the free passage of salmon.

The Bill also provides in Section 26 for the imposition of a licence duty of £2 (subject, however, to increase as provided under Section 15) on engines used for oyster fishing and in Section 24 for penalties for taking oysters unless by means of a licensed oyster fishing engine.

I may add that an amendment of the Long Title will be moved on the Committee Stage to delete the words "certain public" which appear before the words "oyster fisheries". This course is being adopted here and in Section 24 of the Bill as on reconsideration it is felt that if effective protection were to be provided for selected public oyster fisheries only, then the remaining fisheries, whether public or private, would be marked out for the attentions of the poachers. In the circumstances, it has been decided to bring all oyster fishing without exception under the new licensing arrangement and to require conservators to provide the necessary protection for public and private oyster beds alike.

The remainder of the Bill as indicated in the explanatory memorandum is comprised of amendments of the existing fishery law consequential on the foregoing main provisions.

In conclusion, I should again mention the long delayed Consolidation Bill which will be reintroduced in Seanad Eireann following enactment of the present measure. By the time the Consolidation Bill becomes law, work will be in progress on an amending measure of a more general nature than the present one. The introduction of such a measure will provide the opportunity of dealing with a variety of pressing problems about which boards of conservators and other bodies have for some time been seeking amending legislation.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It must be admitted by all that the laws connected with fisheries are very numerous and, not alone are they very numerous, but they are entirely out of date and far from being in keeping with modern times or modern methods. I thought that the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1957, would cover most of the varied problems with which boards of conservators are faced in their everyday activities but I note from the Minister's speech now that it is proposed to introduce further legislation at a later date.

The great difficulty over the years with regard to fishery legislation was the fact that so many different Acts were passed down through the years. The job was to codify that body of legislation and in that codification to remove the objectionable out-of-date sections and replace them by legislation of a more up-to-date character and more in keeping with the times in which we live.

The Bill before us is designed for the most part for two purposes: to increase the rod licences and to bring into permanent legislation the levy of 2d. per lb. imposed, on every lb. of salmon exported, by the Fianna Fáil Government under the Salmon Conservancy Fund Act. The inter-Party Government, after due consideration, decided to remove that levy because we believed that the levy was unreasonable. It was part of our policy not to impose a levy on any exports, particularly exports of an agricultural character.

A levy on the export of cattle, butter, cheese and eggs would be unjustifiable. The reason the Government introduced the levy on salmon was, in my opinion, that it could be used as a lever later on. By imposing a levy on an important export item such as salmon, they could say there was nothing to prevent them from imposing levies on eggs, butter, cheese, cattle, live stock or any agricultural export. We felt that was wrong and we removed the levy.

We were told that the reason for imposing the levy was to provide funds for the various boards of conservators in order to provide more protection for the fisheries. But that was not the case. We found that the levy was designed to relieve the Exchequer. The boards of conservators had a very difficult job because they had to take on additional staff and pay increases to inspectors and water-keepers. When the levy was put into operation, it did not mean that 100 per cent. of the money would be devoted to the protection of the fisheries by way of substantial grants to the boards of conservators.

During the years of the inter-Party Government, the boards of conservators received larger grants than ever before. Yet there was still a saving to the Exchequer, because the grants which had to be paid would have been paid from the Central Fund one way or another. Therefore, the Salmon Conservancy Fund was saving the Exchequer. I feel it is wrong that the Exchequer should be saved by imposing an unnecessary levy on any export.

I wonder if the Minister for Lands has lived up to an undertaking which I gave to the boards of conservators and various fishery interests that, before there would be any new fishery legislation, all parties concerned in the fishing industry would be consulted so that their views might be obtained on various aspects of new legislation? I remember giving that undertaking to the Federation of Salmon Anglers, the Trout Anglers' Association and various boards of conservators, including the boards in Waterford, Kerry and, I think, Galway.

The Minister must agree that as far as the boards of conservators are concerned, there is no such thing as unanimity in regard to the salmon levy. Resolutions passed by various boards of conservators are on record in the Minister's Department, protesting and asking for the removal of the export levy on salmon. It is quite wrong therefore that this levy should be made part of a permanent Fisheries Act. The Minister should make a clear admission that the main purpose of imposing the levy was to relieve the Exchequer. I believe the levy is wrong and very unreasonable. I objected to it in the past and my views on it have not altered in any way.

The whole question of inland fisheries is of the greatest public importance. I agree entirely with the Minister when he says that our fisheries are one of the greatest attractions we have for tourists. We can boast of having the finest fisheries in the world. The main difficulty is that they do not appear to get sufficient publicity abroad. I do not know the reason for this—whether it is lack of funds, lack of initiative or neglect on the part of our representatives abroad. They do not seem to concentrate sufficiently in giving our fisheries the publicity they are entitled to.

The Minister claims that something like 15,000 angling tourists come here every year; but as I say, we have the best fisheries in the world and they should be capable of attracting, not 15,000 angling tourists, but something in the region of 70,000 or 80,000 angling tourists. I want to say this in regard to the funds that are to be taken now in the form of the salmon levy and in the form of the additional increased charges on salmon rod licences. If these were to go entirely to boards of conservators for the protection and maintenance of fisheries, it would be quite all right, but we know from past experience that it has gone considerably to relieve the Exchequer.

The previous Government, particularly the then Minister for Agriculture, refused to increase the rod licence. One of the reasons was that we had attractive fisheries and wanted to encourage tourists and to prove to them that we had, not only the best fisheries in the world, but the cheapest. It was with the intention of encouraging angling tourists to avail of the great facilities here that we refused, as I think, rightly, to increase the rod licence.

If inland fisheries are to be improved and developed, funds must be available for that purpose. The Inland Fisheries Trust, which has done outstanding work, has not got the support from the angling public to which it is entitled. I cannot recall exactly what the present membership is, but the membership fee is very modest and reasonable, and I fail to see why every angler in the country is not associated with the trust and why there has not been more financial support from the fishing public. I do not understand why there has not been a greater measure of support from the hotels throughout the country, or why there has not been a greater measure of co-operation between the trust and An Bord Fáilte. I hope the Minister has considered this matter and that anything that can be done to secure a greater measure of co-operation with the trust, particularly from hotel managements, is being done.

It is only right that inland fisheries should be developed to the greatest possible extent and that every possible attraction should be offered to angling tourists. Angling tourists are a most important source of national income. The angling tourist is, perhaps, the best spender and, perhaps, the most useful type of visitor that we could have. Hoteliers in important fishing districts like to see the angling tourist because he is out all day fishing, comes in in the evening and goes out fishing again and spends a considerable amount of time discussing the day's catch and comparing notes with other anglers. He is regarded as being easily catered for and easily managed. While the Inland Fisheries Trust and the Fisheries Branch in general have played no small part in making conditions attractive for such good tourists, the hoteliers and others concerned have not played the part they should have played in that connection.

An increase in the rod licence does not make fishing more attractive to tourists. I do agree with the Bill and consider that it is a common-sense line of action that a person who has taken out a rod licence can fish, when this Bill becomes law, in any area.

Mr. McQuillan

Can he fish in any part of the country, in every lake and river in Ireland?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. McQuillan

Everywhere?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Yes, according to this Bill.

Mr. Childers

The licence covers the whole country.

Mr. McQuillan

Is it a fact that, under this Bill, a man who has a licence can fish in any river or lake, whether it is preserved or otherwise?

Mr. Childers

No; he has to pay the usual fee.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Surely, he has to pay for his licence.

Mr. Childers

He pays for his licence, but he pays the owner of the fishery sometimes a fee and sometimes there is free fishing. There is free salmon fishing in certain areas. There are fees payable to the owners of the fishery rights in other areas.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There are many areas in which no fees are charged.

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. McQuillan

There are many areas in which he cannot fish without the absolute consent of the owner, irrespective of whether he has a licence or not.

Mr. Childers

That is right.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The increase in the rod licence is not an encouragement. Rod licences have not been increased since 1925, but, for the sake of the amount that will be taken in as a result of the increase, it would be better to leave the licences as they are as an encouragement to the angling tourist.

The people who benefit by the development of inland fisheries should be asked to contribute towards their development. Hotel owners, angling clubs and others who benefit by angling tourists should become members of the Inland Fisheries Trust. The trust has spent wisely and well and has generally improved the standard of inlaid fisheries. There are well stocked rivers and wonderful improvements have been carried out. A fish farm was established at Fanure near Roscrea, coarse fish have been removed from certain lakes and the fishing in most lakes has been improved. The trust has done outstanding work and I hope it will continue. It is worthy of more financial support from the public than it has got.

The Minister suggested that boards of conservators should be in a position to have sufficient staff to provide proper protection. The great difficulty with many boards of conservators appears to that they have a number of water-keepers who are not properly paid and who are expected to cover too extensive an area. The most effective way of improving fishery protection would be to reduce the number of underpaid water-keepers, to provide proper travelling facilities and have well paid, whole-time, permanent water-keepers. That would mean more efficient protection services. I have known cases where water-keepers, on very low rates of pay, had to use ordinary bicycles to cover long distances and were not provided by the board with rubber boots and protective clothing.

Boards of conservators have the grave responsibility of maintaining protection, but it is regrettable that wholesale poaching has gone on in many areas where the protection is not adequate. I am sure the Minister has many instances of it. To get to the root of the problem, one must ask where the outlet is for the fish that is poached. I have known many cases where the best customer for the poacher was the hotel. I am sure the Minister is aware that evidence has been given time and again in cases where there were convictions that there was a ready market for the poacher's illegal catch. It is bad public spirit and wrong that salmon caught illegally should be purchased by hotels.

As a matter of fact I view this with such seriousness that I think, if there are licensed salmon dealers who purchase illegallycaught salmon, that the Minister should, in the interest and the protection of salmon fisheries, revoke such licences and take them from them. No encouragement whatever should be held out to provide an easy outlet for catches of salmon taken illegally by poachers. It is well known that in many areas the poaching of our fisheries is conducted by organised gangs. They have ample transport available and have a ready market for their catches. I am well aware of the fact also that there are lists in the Department of Fisheries of important hoteliers and hotel managements throughout the country which take in and deal in salmon of that kind.

I hope the Minister, when he is introducing further legislation, as promised, will bear that in mind and that a stop will be put to the marketing and purchasing of illegally caught fish. It would be very easy to protect fisheries and give greater co-operation to boards of conservators if the root cause of the problem were solved, and the ready market available were abolished. The schools, the clergy and the Garda could play a more important part than they have done in the past in regard to the protection of our fisheries. May I say it is only right and proper that a fishery fine should be something in the charge of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries? He should have the final and last word on it.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I would ask the Minister in all seriousness not to pass the buck to the Minister for Justice. When new legislation is introduced there should be some way of ending for all time the controversial correspondence and expressions of view that take place, and have taken place in the past, between the Fishery Department and the Department of Justice, with regard to the mitigation of fines and dealing with offences under the Fisheries Acts.

I would ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to consider the insertion of a section in this Bill which will enable him to decide on fines as he wishes, and to dispose of fines on poachers, and fines for all manner of fishery offences. There can be many fishery offences apart entirely from poaching. There can be dealing and selling of salmon in the close season, as well as many other illegal practices in connection with fisheries, that should be dealt with by the Minister responsible for the Department. It may be all right to say that the Minister for Justice is responsible for the courts and for fines and the mitigation of fines, but the Minister for Fisheries is responsible for the protection of fisheries and is responsible, through the boards of conservators, for the maintenance of fisheries. It should be in his discretion to say if a fine is to be mitigated, wiped out completely, or if it is to stand.

My experience in the past has been that boards of conservators have been very much displeased with the present method. Only recently I read a report of a long discussion at a meeting of the Limerick Board of Conservators on this subject and I think I directed a letter, or a parliamentary question—I cannot say which—to the Minister directing his attention to that meeting. It was stated at the meeting that the Department of Fisheries was giving no co-operation whatever on the question of fines for illegal fishing. There should be discussions between the two Departments towards securing that the Minister for Fisheries would take on the responsibility of deciding on fishery fines. I say this in the best interests of our fisheries because I feel that in the past poachers have been too leniently dealt with.

I have known of one very serious offence which involved the Department of Fisheries. It concerned a fisherman who was the holder of a salmon dealer's licence. He declared publicly that no matter what the District Court might decide, and no matter what fine was imposed, he would get out of it. He did get out of it and he pinned a notice from the Department of Fisheries mitigating his fine, with four drawing-pins, on a wall in his shop and told each and every one of his customers about it.

Mr. Childers

It was not of recent date?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

No, it was not of recent date, but if the Minister consults with the officers of his Department he will find that there was such a case. There ought not to be such a case; it was entirely against the rules of the Fishery Department that such a mitigation was granted. There is no use in giving the boards of conservators lip sympathy. Lip sympathy is what they have been getting in the past. It is only right when we have new fishery legislation that all aspects of the problem should be covered. I think the Minister for Lands ought to be the final arbiter to be consulted with regard to fishery fines and, if he does not see his way to implementing that in the present Bill, I trust, in the further amending legislation which he hopes to introduce at an early date, that point will be satisfactorily covered.

I have already dealt with the effect of the levy on the export of salmon and with the increase on rod licences. There does not appear to be anything else of a controversial nature in this Bill. It was designed only to rake in more out of the pockets of English visitors by increasing the rod licences. It confirms the levy of 2d. a lb. on salmon exports which I note was by Order of the Minister, and which can be increased from 2d. a lb. to any sum the Minister desires. We have opposed that in the past and we oppose it now. It is wrong that there should be a levy of that kind imposed on salmon exports. There is no levy on the export of eggs, bacon, cattle and live stock and, therefore, it is entirely wrong to have a levy imposed on such exports as these. I am strongly opposed to the continuance of the export levy on salmon. I feel it is no encouragement to the angling tourist to have his salmon rod licence increased but I do think it is common sense to extend the licence to every fishery authority in the State. That will be to the advantage of the tourist and of the salmon angler.

I hope and trust that the Minister will not bring in the other aspects of legislation which he promised in the conclusion of his speech too hastily. I hope he will bring them in only after consultation with boards of conservators, the Federation of Salmon Anglers, the Federation of Trout Anglers and all other fishery interests. A volume of useful, helpful and practical information can be had from such voluntary associations. I feel that their views on the activities in which they have been engaged over the years can bring forth a volume of very useful and helpful information in the formation of fishery laws.

Up-to-date fishery laws have been promised for many years. I hope every effort will be made to consult those people who have a practical and intimate knowledge of fisheries, who know where the faults lie and who can recommend certain proposals for the betterment and improvement of our laws. Voluntary organisations such as the federations to which I have referred would, I feel, be the best people with whom to enter into consultations.

I welcome the move which I noticed recently in relation to the setting-up of a central body of fishery conservators. It is a wise and a good move. I hope the Minister will take note of any recommendation they may have to make with regard to bringing our fishery laws up-to-date.

There are only two important aspects of this Bill. The first relates to the increase in the cost of rod licences, with which I disagree, and the second is the continuance of the levy on the export of salmon with which, also, I disagree. I feel they were originally designed by Fianna Fáil to relieve the Exchequer and not for the purpose of assisting boards of conservators in maintaining, keeping and improving the services so necessary for the preservation of the high standard of fisheries which will be a greater attraction not to 15,000 angling tourists but to 80,000 angling tourists to whom we are quite capable of offering fine sport.

I would also ask the Minister to make arrangements with our offices abroad, particularly in England, to provide publicity for our fishing attractions. It has been noticed that in the past three or four years more British anglers have been coming over here than for many years previously. Through Bord Fáilte or through our embassy in London, we should endeavour to get in touch with voluntary angling organisations in Great Britain and to circulate full details of what we have to offer to these sportsmen. I am sure we have more facilities to offer to the angling tourist than any other country. All we require is more propaganda and a greater drive abroad to encourage those people to come to our country.

When such tourists visit us, we expect that they will not be rooked. We want to see them treated hospitably and as they deserve to be treated. We should provide for them, as we can and did provide for them up to now, the cheapest sport and the cheapest fishing facilities in the world. It is quite true that there could be a greater measure of co-operation between the hotels but there again lies the need for greater co-operation between the Inland Fisheries Trust, the Department, Bord Fáilte and other interests who can solve many problems which are likely to arise in this regard.

I appeal to the Minister to be cautious in relation to his future fisheries legislation. I urge him to consult all the fisheries interests in advance. If he does that, I have no doubt that when he brings in future fisheries amending legislation, it will meet with the entire approval of those who are already in a position to give a fund of guiding knowledge to him which will be a real advantage in our efforts to make our fisheries the best and most attractive in the world.

Mr. Cunningham

When we see local anglers' associations, development committees, hotels, and so on, doing very useful work to provide facilities for visiting anglers and local anglers, it is good to note that our Department is also moving on and helping inland fisheries. I welcome this Bill as another step towards the improvement of salmon and trout fishing facilities in this country. We hope that more steps will be taken in time to come, because, all over the world, rod fishing has become a popular pastime. It is popular amongst workers who, at the present time, are inclined to go abroad for their holidays. Those people should be attracted to this country because we have something to offer them in the way of rod fishing that cannot be got elsewhere. Whether it be trout and salmon fishing or sea fishing, they have here a wide and excellent choice.

Bord Fáilte deserves credit for the amount of attention they give to the fishing angle in their publicity campaign for our tourist industry. Of course, more can be done locally. I am sure this Bill will be an encouragement to local associations to strive for and achieve better results. Recently, in my county, I heard publicly some criticism of visiting anglers. As a matter of fact, it was suggested that anglers from the Six-County area should not have licences issued to them in this country. I am completely and totally against any such interference. I maintain that we should not erect a border in angling. Possibly these complaints—I am sure they were —were voiced because of the fact that poachers cross the Border and it is difficult to get them. Very strict measures should be taken against these people. The Guards should be given more powers to deal with them. However, it is going much too far to suggest that the fisherman who comes in for a day's pastime should not have available to him the licences which our own anglers have.

I am aware that the Minister is anxious to get extra funds to do the work envisaged by this Bill. I am sorry he has not looked around to see if there is some way of getting these funds other than the continued imposition of the levy on the export of salmon. I say that for the reason, first of all, of the amount of difficulty it involves, the amount of form filling it entails for the people concerned.

I should also like to point out that on one of our important rivers, the Foyle, it is not helpful to have such a levy, because fish caught in the Foyle can be landed on the other side, whereas, if the levy were done away with, the inducement to do so would not exist. However, that is a small local matter. I think that every avenue of likely revenue should be looked into, with a view to easing this levy position and its final abolition.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Cunningham

When fisheries which are in the hands of people who are not natives, who do not live in this country come up for sale, assistance should be given to local development committees to purchase them. It was often suggested that the Land Commission should acquire some of these fishing properties. That would be ideal, but the Minister well knows how difficult that would be. In this era of co-operation, local development committees of one kind or another are doing excellent work in other fields. I know that some of them are anxious and willing to purchase, on a co-operative basis, some of these small fisheries. They are finding it difficult to get the funds and a small assistance in some cases from the Minister's Department would enable such a valuable asset to find its way into the hands of co-operative societies or local development committees.

That would have the effect that whereas at the moment such a fishery, whether a river or other fishery, is in the hands of the type of person I mentioned, and those people, from an historical point of view, have no interest in preserving it for the Irish people, if it were owned by the local people, they would have a pride in its development and its protection. Not alone would it improve the fishery, but it would provide us with a national asset from which revenue would be available to the Department. I should like to see a Minister give such assistance.

I did not quite catch what the Minister said about the special Foyle area licences. There is not very much in the explanatory memorandum about it. I would be very grateful if he would mention it in his closing speech.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I was not present for the Minister's opening speech on this Bill, but, reading through the Bill, I gather that it is very narrow in its scope and more or less extends only to river fishing throughout the country. Time and again, I have mentioned one matter here relative to fisheries. On a number of occasions, I have asked the present Minister— and the past Minister, Deputy Dillon, who is in the House—to give some explanation of this item, but without success. I note that in this Bill no mention whatever is made—good, bad or indifferent—of this item.

Before I go any further, I think it is quite true to say that there is little originality in this Bill. The information I have sought from this House is this: how in the world does it so happen that, since we established native government, no Government has yet taken steps to acquire the fishery rights of the country and give to the citizens an equal right to fish wherever they so desire? The present Minister, speaking on the Estimate last year, mentioned that that would be the very same as acquiring a person's private property. I maintain here that the rivers are not private property, that they are public property, owned by the people, as are the lakes. We notice from time to time stretches of river, here, there and everywhere, whereon the fishing rights are for sale. Surely Dáil Éireann has sufficient power to acquire all those reservations and place them at the disposal of the citizens? I have made many inquiries about this question and I have found it peculiar that fishing rights which were handed over to citizens under charters made during the reign of Charles II or James I, or some other English king, are now a binding factor in legislation in this country, and neither Deputy Dillon nor the present Minister, Deputy Childers, has made a move to change that position.

During my period in this House, I have referred again and again to this matter and I have hoped that when a Bill would be introduced, it would cover it and we would get some enlightenment, but no such enlightenment has come on this measure.

As an example of what is happening as a result of these pieces of fishing legislation, we need not go beyond a daily paper of this date. In it, we find it shown that an English visitor—and I am not against English visitors—is in the happy position that she had a catch of five salmon, one of 17½ lb. and four of 12 lb. each, taken from the River Blackwater in a reserve belonging to a gentleman whom I do not think it is right to mention. We have several of these photographs of these fortunate people who are able to come across here to their friends, as a result of our legislation, and come into a stretch of river and take away five salmon in one day. That is not the position with those who are earning their livelihood from salmon fishing.

I shall be entirely against the fishery laws until such time as some Minister is strong enough to change this rotten piece of legislation which allows these reserved fisheries to remain in the ownership of these people, the majority of whom, it is no misstatement to say, are not of Irish origin.

I am very disappointed that the Minister has made no mention of this question and another peculiar fact is that when we mention this matter on the annual Estimate, we are told that it is not relevant and naturally the Ceann Comhairle invokes the powers conferred on him and tells us that we must refrain from mentioning it. Now we have a chance to mention it to-day in relevant form.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is aware that the Minister has the fullest power to acquire all the fisheries, if he wants to.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am very much against the Minister in that. I referred to this when Deputy Dillon was Minister and I have to put him in the same boat as the present Minister.

Mr. Dillon

I had the same power.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Why did you not use it?

Mr. Dillon

Purely a matter of £.s.d.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This is the first concrete statement I have got. The previous Minister states that it is purely a matter of £.s.d. I should like Deputy Dillon to inform us——

Mr. Dillon

Address the Minister.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I should like Deputy Dillon to inform us further, through the Chair, when he contributes to this debate — if he has not already made his contribution — and to explain the position and how £ s.d. enters into the question seeing that the present Minister is too reluctant to give us any explanation. What can we assume? The only reasonable assumption is that these people are able to exert a great influence on Governments of this country and their influence is so strong that they have precluded all Governments from taking steps to withdraw these rights which they do not justly own. I am the last Deputy to stand up and advocate interference with private property, but I say to-day that I am on very solid ground.

Recently I got some information regarding fisheries. We had one extended stretch of river in Cork, and we found that it was held under a charter granted by Charles II when he was King of England and when this country was subject to him. I believe that was some 300 years ago. Surely that charter is not, or should not be, legally or morally binding on any Government of this country to-day. I assume that if similar inquiries were made regarding all the other reservations, be they stretches of river or lakes, it would be found that the same position obtains—that in years gone by, possibly hundreds of years ago, the English royalty gave to their loyal subjects in this country certain rights to which they were not entitled and which one would have hoped would have been wiped out as soon as we got charge of our own affairs, seeing that they have no legal basis whatever.

That briefly is the case I have to make, and that is the reason I am making this contribution to the debate, because there is not very much more in this measure. I ask the Minister: does he intend to give a detailed statement on this question? He avoided the issue last year on the ground that it was irrelevant to discuss it on the annual Estimate. Now that it is no longer irrelevant, will he tell us what is behind all this?

Mr. Childers

It is completely irrelevant on this Bill.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Yes, the Minister would like to assume the powers of the Ceann Comhairle and to say that it is irrelevant, because he does not like a discussion on this matter. He would like to bypass any discussion on it, and I am asking him again in what way is it irrelevant? In the course of this debate, are we supposed to refer only to rivers which are in the ownership of the State and not to rivers in the ownership of foreigners?

An Ceann Comhairle

I would not press the question of relevancy.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I submit that, in view of the Minister's statement that my remarks are irrelevant, this Bill must be divided into two parts, and the part relevant to this discussion is on rivers and lakes publicly-owned, where every citizen who obtains the necessary licence has a right to fish. Do we assume that fisheries reserved to the landed gentry, and other such people, are not the subject matter of any debate? It is peculiar that under our Constitution, and under the guiding rules of Dáil Éireann, whether on a Fisheries Bill or on the Estimate, we are told that it is irrelevant. When, then, will it become relevant?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can very easily make it quite relevant. Every opportunity will be afforded to him to put down a motion on the Order Paper. It can be very easily discussed.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

One would think that there should be no secrets surrounding this matter. It is not I alone who have referred to this time and again.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy a good deal of latitude. The ambit of the Bill is wide and I have allowed him to make certain statements which, if it were not so wide, I would have said were irrelevant. I suggest that he pass on to other matters in the Bill.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The punishment for breaches of the fishery laws is dealt with in this Bill at reasonable length. It is an unfortunate position that the majority of people in this country have not — should I use the term?—a great respect for the licensing laws. It is not because the people wish to break the laws or to ignore the laws laid down by this Parliament but because they believe the laws are not in order and that proper fishery legislation has not been enacted by this House. While these private reservations are allowed to continue, I am afraid disrespect for the fishery laws will also continue. That is my opinion on that question.

We have, time and again, the Minister, in his weekly dissertations all over the country, advising people about the observance of the fishery laws and threatening them with severe punishments if they break them, and saying that they are not behaving as respectable citizens in breaking these laws. Mark you, the answer to that is that we cannot get people to accept these fishery laws laid down here as fair and just with this rotten system in being.

I shall not delay the House any longer, for there is no need to labour any more this little sample taken from to-day's paper. It should be sufficient to bring home to the Minister the gravity of this position. Imagine a struggling fisherman dependent on fishing for his livelihood reading about the fortunate person who can take out salmon — I do not know the value of it, but I am sure it is worth several pounds — in one day. Surely that is not an incentive to him to carry out the law.

I appeal to the Minister to tell us the case for not changing the law and I am asking the previous Minister, Deputy Dillon, who dodged the question — I think the word "dodged" is not out of place—to explain how £ s.d. is a relevant factor in this vital matter for many people. I am most anxious to get some information from the Minister or the Government on these points.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Loughman.

Mr. McQuillan

I have sat here since this debate opened and I think I am the only Deputy in the House to have done so. There has already been a speaker from Fianna Fáil, from Fine Gael and from the Labour Party, and in view of the fact that I have sat here and offered, I think it is unfair to call a second member of Fianna Fáil——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair cannot keep an account of who stays in the House and who does not. The Chair is interlarding speakers from the different Parties as far as possible.

Mr. McQuillan

It seems that as far as I am concerned it is preferable to call three from the other Parties before giving an Independent a chance. I have sat here——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know how long the Deputy sat, nor am I concerned with how long he sat. I am calling on Deputies and I am doing so in accordance with the procedure of the House. Deputy Loughman.

Mr. McQuillan

I just want to make it known to the House—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may bring it to the notice of whomever he likes.

Mr. Loughman

I remained here during all the debate except for about five minutes when I found it necessary to leave the House. Apart from that, I should like to say a word about Deputy Murphy's statement. When he talks of people owning private fisheries, he must include a number of Irish farmers who also own private fisheries. He must realise also that every citizen has equal rights and it is on that basis that I look upon the owners of fisheries, whether gentry or farmers. If we are to get anywhere, we must give all the people their rights as citizens.

I listened very carefully to Deputy O. J. Flanagan and, in the main, I agreed with him, and where I differed from him, I allow there was a case for argument. He was very concerned about the levy on salmon and while I agree that could be argued, I also believe that since the moneys accruing from that source are used to develop, help and provide for the fishing industry, I do not see why the salmon fisherman should object to it. It is not a very heavy impost and, as far as I know, salmon fishermen have made no very strenuous objection to it. A great industry such as the salmon industry, in view of the facilities offered, should be, to some extent, self-supporting, and I support the idea of the Minister in maintaining the levy on salmon fisheries, on the understanding that the moneys from that source are made available to fishery conservators.

I agree fully with Deputy O.J. Flanagan that the keepers — in the old days, we called them water bailiffs — should be well paid for a number of reasons, not least of them the fact that when I lived near a river which was an excellent fishing river, the water bailiffs were the biggest poachers. I have plenty of evidence of that. I think the Gardaí should not be asked to preserve the rivers; the fisheries themselves should be able to provide their own police to ensure that fishery laws are carried out meticulously — I put it that way.

As far as fines are concerned, it may interest Deputy O.J. Flanagan to know that some months ago, at the request of a number of people, I approached the Department of Justice with a view to having rather heavy fines inflicted down in my county mitigated. I was met by a point-blank refusal and I found, so far as fishery fines are concerned, the Department of Justice was inflexible. I do not know if other people meet with a more favourable response, but while I was sorry for the people fined, I had to agree with the Department of Justice in that regard.

I did not agree with Deputy O.J. Flanagan when he objected to an increase in licences and when he said we should give to the people who recognised that our fisheries were amongst the best in the world the cheapest fishing in the world. I do not see why we should offer these people abroad such cheap fishing. If our fisheries are worth the money, if they are among the best, the people should pay for them.

Regarding angling associations and their impact on tourist development for fishery purposes, I believe that anglers, when they control portions of a river, are not over-anxious to let people from outside fish in those portions. In places that I know, the associations would be the last people who would wish to see anglers from abroad coming in. Rather would they prevent them coming in because it would mean they themselves would have worse fishing, due to the extra people coming in.

I am in favour of preserving rivers, but I should like to see that the associations would not preserve rivers solely for themselves, but rather in the interests of the country, so that people coming here could, in certain conditions, use the fisheries over which the associations have control. I should like to see the State acquire certain of our fisheries which could be let to people at home and from abroad. It is interesting to note that farmers in, we shall say, fresh water sections of the rivers, in the old days when there was net fishing, let their portions above the tidal waters to the net fishermen. The sum of money they now get from individuals and anglers' associations is several times greater than that which they got from the ordinary net fishermen away back before the 1939 Act was introduced. I think the people who own these fisheries along the rivers should be under some kind of an obligation to keep not only the rivers but also the river banks in good condition.

I welcome the Bill. I might say I was a member of the Committee of the Seanad which was occupied with the preparation of the Consolidation Bill. We spent several months on it. That is some years ago. It involved an immense amount of work going back over fishery laws which extended well over 100 years. When the Bill is completed, it will do much to help people to get some reasonable grasp of the various complicated laws passed in this country over 100 years.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy M.P. Murphy spoke trenchantly to-day on the mystifications that have been raised by successive Ministers for Fisheries about the ownership of fishing rights on the rivers of Ireland and he wondered if anything had been done to reverse grants in the reigns of Charles II and James I. There is no mystery about the matter. There was a comprehensive Fishery Act passed by this House many years ago. I think that under Section 5 of that Act every Minister for Fisheries has full power to acquire all the fisheries on every river in Ireland provided he pay for it. I think it is not an underestimate to say that to buy these fisheries at a fair and honest price would cost some millions. It has been believed by successive Governments that there is such urgent need of capital for investment in urgent projects that the acquisition of these fisheries by the State must take its place in the appropriate hierarchy of urgencies and await the availability of money to give it effect.

Deputy Murphy professes to see in this some sinister results of ulterior interests. I must acquit my successor in this case because there are no sinister influences at work at all. There is nothing strange in a civilised and Christian State in providing that the citizens' property will not be expropriated without compensation. I believe that if anybody tried to do that, the provisions of the Constitution would protect the individual from whom it was proposed to take the property. Nor should Deputy Murphy think this anything very remarkable because I think Deputy Murphy is himself a farmer and presumably owns land. He probably bought his land under the Land Commission but if he will go to the Land Commission they will show him the original title deeds and Deputy Murphy to his horror may discover that he is paying for land that somebody held under a deed of gift made by Queen Elizabeth if it is situated in County Cork and that the annuity which Deputy Murphy is paying to-day is being used or was being used to discharge the claim of some respectable citizen whose title derived ultimately from a grant made by a British king.

It is important to remember that in the intervening 300 or 400 years the Murphys, Mulcahys, O'Reillys and even Dillons have paid their hard-earned money to buy in good faith the titles created by these ancient deeds. If Deputy Murphy is buying his land under the Land Commission, he is paying off the money that the Land Commission paid to a man named O'Shaughnessy in respect of land which Mr. O'Shaughnessy had bought from various other parties until you trace back the original title to the source under the feudal system which existed in the sovereign.

Would it not be very nice if we could undo the story of history? Unfortunately, history is there and if property created and transferred is to be acquired in our time it must be acquired on the basis of equity and justice. The only basis upon which we can acquire fishery rights is the same basis as that on which you acquire any other property and that is by paying the owner a fair compensation for it. There is full power in this Minister, and, I think, in every other Minister since 1939, to acquire all the fisheries.

I think the error into which Deputy Murphy further falls is this. He imagines it likely that if the State acquired all these fisheries all and sundry would be free to fish. That would be a very happy state but who will pay the millions, and the interest on the millions, invested in the purchase of these fisheries? If we reach a state of affluence at which we can purchase them and present them to the community as an amenity to be enjoyed free, gratis and for nothing, that will be a very happy day but in our existing circumstances it is very much more likely, if we acquire these fisheries and compensate the owners, that there will have to be levied on each individual who catches a salmon a fee very much the same as that at present charged by the existing owners.

Some day, perhaps in the lifetime of Deputy Murphy's grandchildren and my grandchildren we shall reach a stage at which we can restore this agreeable amenity on the public gratis. I think it is right to sound this note of warning. If we proclaimed in the rivers and lakes of Ireland free fishing for salmon and sea trout they would not be in the rivers long because the country would be invaded by anglers who would catch the salmon. If the present price of salmon obtained, they would have a very prosperous time sweeping the rivers of this country clean of all the fish in it. I think nobody would seriously suggest that we should invite all and sundry to draw from the rivers salmon which to-day are worth from £4 to £15 a piece for no greater exertion than fishing with rod, line and fly.

I have gone into this matter at some length because I think it a pity that Deputy Murphy should labour under the illusion that successive Ministers for Fisheries, including myself and Deputy Flanagan, who was a Parliamentary Secretary, have been influenced by dark and sinister powers because, if that belief were widespread, it would do very material harm to the institutions of the State. I think Deputy McQuillan was bursting to get to his feet to join his voice to that of Deputy M.P. Murphy in this protest. It might be well for the present Minister not to overlook this kind of illusion because, strangely enough, I think that Deputy Murphy honestly believes that there is some foundation for the suspicion which he entertains, and it is the kind of thing that causes a good deal of public malaise if it is not dealt with categorically and explained, if necessary, again and again.

I venture to say that this matter has been discussed exhaustively and entirely relevantly on the Estimate almost every year for the last 20 years. Every year it was perfectly relevant on the Estimate to ask the Minister why he did not use the powers he had in the course of the last year to acquire a fishery. Certainly I was asked that question every year I was directly responsible for fisheries and I believe Deputy Oliver Flanagan was asked that question when he was responsible as Parliamentary Secretary to the House. On each occasion we explained the matter in great detail but I do not want that fact to discourage the present Minister from taking the same trouble. It is the kind of thing that crops up continually but it is the kind of thing that should not be left unanswered because it can cause a great deal of unhappiness if people believe that the doubts that Deputy M.P. Murphy has mentioned have any foundation in fact.

If Deputy Loughman does not understand why the levy on the export of salmon is injurious why does he not ask his colleague, Deputy Cunningharm? Deputy Cunningham represents Donegal.

Mr. Loughman

I have my own ideas.

Mr. Dillon

But bear this in mind. Deputy Cunningham represents Donegal where there are a great many salmon fishery exporters. This levy applies mainly to the men who are fishing for their living in the estuaries of Ireland.

Mr. Loughman

I said that I knew it was a question that could be debated. I was just giving my own views.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Loughman said that he was prepared to support the imposition of this levy on condition that its proceeds were devoted to enlarging the resources of the boards of conservators for the preservation of fisheries.

Mr. Loughman

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Does Deputy Loughman not know that not one penny of this levy was devoted to that purpose?

Mr. Loughman

I did not know that.

Mr. Dillon

I wish he would bend his mind to this matter. What happened was that in 1953 Deputy Bartley, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, gave birth to this notion of a levy on salmon exports and he operated it for one year. I pointed out to the House that prior to that, during the period when I was Minister for Fisheries and during the first two years of the subsequent Fianna Fáil Administration of 1951 and 1952, there was provided by the Exchequer annually a sum of approximately £10,000 or £12,000 to increase the resources of the boards of conservators whose income from licence and rates was not sufficient to enable them adequately to protect the fisheries. When the levy had operated for a year and had yielded approximately £10,000 or £11,000 it emerged that the boards of conservators did not get one penny more than they had been getting heretofore. What happened was that the sum appropriated in the Fisheries Vote out of Exchequer funds was reduced to a token sum of £5 and every penny of the levy was in relief of the liability which the Exchequer was carrying in respect of the deficiencies of the boards of conservators.

When we came into office in 1954 I argued with the Government that the whole principle of imposing levies on agricultural or fishery exports was bad and that, far from imposing levies on exports, we ought to lay it down as an absolutely iron rule that Oireachtas Éireann would never consent to impose levies on exports. The Government of which I was a member shared that view and we cancelled the levy but no board of conservators received one penny piece less as a result of that decision. On the contrary, we paid them 50 per cent. more and our aim during the period from 1954 to 1957 was to try to get all the boards of conservators on to a clean sheet, to wipe out all their arrears and make them self-supporting.

When this infernal levy principle was introduced before, I said to this House: "Watch what you are doing. If you consent to this principle of levying in respect of fishery exports it will be extended to agricultural exports." Who was right? Is that not what is happening?

Mr. Childers

That is not happening.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not announced now that we shall levy all butter to pay for exports and that there will be a levy in respect of exports of wheat? Did I not warm you that if you once accepted the principle that there were to be levies for agricultural or fishery ex- ports, that principle would be extended——

Mr. Childers

It has nothing to do with the salmon.

Mr. Dillon

Once you admitted the principle it has been expanded steadily with this reservation, that there is no levy on the export of boots; there is no levy on the export of anything which comes under the aegis of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

This levy is the source of all levies.

An Ceann Comhairle

It may be, but we may discuss only levies in respect of this Bill. We cannot discuss the principle of levies so far as the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned.

Mr. Dillon

No, because there are none. There are no levies on industrial exports and if there was ever a suggestion that there should be——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may discuss only the levies in respect of this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I want to make a comparison.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not, by comparison, discuss other levies.

Mr. Dillon

The very point I want to make is that there are no other levies——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy pointed out that there are, perhaps, levies in respect of agricultural exports. Incidentally, he is discussing these by making contrasts with the levy position in so far as industry is concerned.

Mr. Dillon

There are no levies on industrial exports. May I make that point? Why should we put a levy on fishery and agricultural exports and dismiss as unthinkable the suggestion that we should put a levy on industrial exports? Now, I warned that would happen, and it is happening. Deputy Cunningham, who voted for this levy when it was first propounded, has changed his mind. Why has he changed his mind? Because Deputy Cunningham is brought into constant contact with the fishermen who are suffering under this levy.

People will ask: "What is a levy of 2d. per lb. on salmon, the export price of which is 10/- per lb.?" But it is no longer 10/- per lb. It is 8/- per lb. It is not so much the amount of the levy, however, that is of consequence; it is not primarily the amount. What is my primary concern in regard to this is the principle that, simply because you get a profitable market for an agricultural or fishery product, instantly the decision is made to put a levy on it: these fellows are making too much! If you get a profitable market for an industrial product, there is a banquet given in the Gresham Hotel, and the Minister goes down and brings two or three Parliamentary Secretaries with him, and there is a scene of rejoicing and everyone drinks the exporter's health in champagne and says: "A most remarkable man!"

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is irrelevant?

Mr. Dillon

Surely, I can complain of the distinction that is made between the fishermen in the estuaries of Donegal and the industrialists?

Mr. Loughman

Is the Deputy arguing on the rights of industrialists?

Mr. Dillon

What I am arguing about is the discrimination against fishermen.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy ought to cease these irrelevancies. He is discussing a levy, or an alleged levy, on agricultural products, while there is no levy on industrial products. He is clearly discussing this matter on a levy for salmon.

Mr. Dillon

No. Leave out the agricultural levies. Does this House think it is fair that we should have a levy on exports of fish, salmon, because there is a profitable market for them and because they are the produce of the fishermen around our coast and, at the same time, accept as an incontrovertible principle that there should not be a levy on industrial products? Does the House think it is fair that, simply because the ordinary fishermen without any ta-rara-boom-de-ay find a profitable market, our reaction ought to be at once: "They are getting too much. Let us take some of it from them"? But if the manufacturer of boots, or bottles, or any other industrial commodity succeeds in getting an external market, it is made a cause of demonstration and excitement. The fishermen never send anybody to America to look for a profitable market. The exporters of fish have never availed of the services of the Industrial Development Authority or Córas Tráchtála Teo. They have been able to establish, maintain and develop this market, without any of these adventitious aids. Why does the House think that we should put a levy on them, when, at the same time, we are copiously subsidising anybody who makes even an effort to secure an outlet for industrial exports? I see no equity in that; I think it is grossly unfair. I think, further, that it is pregnant of great evil in a much wider field.

I want to direct Deputy Loughman's attention to this: quite apart from the 2d. per lb., or whatever the levy is, there is all the annoyance—it is a very great annoyance—of filling up forms and there is the element of delay which is a perennial nightmare to those who are concerned to get salmon to the London market in a fresh condition. Deputy Cunningham knows all about that. He did not know it when this levy was first introduced, because he voted for it. But it has been gradually borne in on him against his own belief and I suggest to Deputy Loughman now that he ought to have a chat with Deputy Cunningham. Deputy Cunningham is in contact with the fishermen every day. Deputy Loughman is simply looking at them, as it were, theoretically.

Mr. Loughman

Of course it is a long time, but I knew a great number of fishermen very well.

Mr. Dillon

But there was no levy on them in that long time ago.

Mr. Loughman

There was not, certainly.

Mr. Dillon

I suggest Deputy Loughman go back and renew his acquaintance with his friends of yesteryear and hear their minds upon it now.

Mr. Childers

There has been no protest to me of any substantial character.

Mr. O'Donnell

Go up to Donegal and talk to the fishermen there and the Minister will know all about it.

Mr. Childers

There has been no protest to me.

Mr. Dillon

May I sound a note of warning to the Minister for Lands? If his interjection is noted by the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, he may have another milk march in Dublin.

Mr. Childers

I was referring to what is my business — the salmon levy.

Mr. Dillon

But the Minister's conviction is carried by protest marches.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would the Minister say if he has had representations from his own colleagues who represent maritime counties?

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Minister heard Deputy Cunningham to-day.

Mr. O'Donnell

And Deputy J. Brennan.

Mr. Dillon

I have not heard Deputy J. Brennan. He has not opened his beak on this Bill so far. I think he is hoping to be a Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. O'Donnell

We have had worse.

Mr. Dillon

Certainly we have, and certainly none would be more discreet. Apparently Deputy Cunningham has abandoned hope of preferment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies should keep to the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

The query has been posed: Why does Deputy Cunningham speak and Deputy J. Brennan does not?

An Ceann Comhairle

Every Deputy is entitled to make his contribution in relation to the matter before the House——

Mr. Dillon

And the rest of us are entitled to comment on it.

An Ceann Comhairle

——and motives should not be ascribed——

Mr. Dillon

Motives should not be ascribed! That is something new in parliamentary procedure. That is something I have never heard of before. If that rule is enforced in this House, debate comes to an end.

An Ceann Comhairle

Motives other than those which are relevant to the debate.

Mr. Dillon

That is the very thing. He will not contribute to the debate. Where is Deputy J. Brennan?

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely it is not relevant to ask on a debate where any Deputy is.

Mr. Dillon

Surely, if he represents salmon fishermen, and they are relevant to this debate——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is carrying this too far. I have given him a good deal of latitude. Whether or not Deputy J. Brennan is in the House does not arise on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Moher

He is the one that got away.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy has said a mouthful. Certainly Deputy Cunningham spoke and, on Deputy Cunningham's observations, we are entitled to comment. There was a time when Deputy Cunningham shared the view, with a number of his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party, that there should be a levy on exports of salmon. He no longer shares that view. The Minister in charge of this Bill says he has received no protests. Did he hear the protest made here to-day by his colleague, Deputy Cunningham? What is he going to do about it? It represents a pretty dramatic conversion. I wonder what are all the other Fianna Fáil Deputies, who represent salmon fishermen here, going to say on this Bill. Sing dumb? We will wait and see.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Cunningham merely said that he was disappointed we had kept it.

Mr. Dillon

Who was disappointed?

Mr. Childers

Deputy Cunningham.

Mr. Dillon

I am sure he is very circumspect, but to any normal auditor of his observations, he was asking the Minister not to put the levy on, or, if it was on, to take it off.

Mr. Childers

I wish I did not have to have it.

Mr. Dillon

I can assure the Minister that if he is deceived by the suggestion that he has to—or perhaps he has to; I had not thought of that— against his better judgment—have we convinced the Minister?

Mr. Childers

No.

Mr. Dillon

Courage, courage. If Deputy Cunningham gets behind the Minister, he might actually get the Minister to stand up to his colleagues in the Government and we might get this matter put right. The Minister's last intervention was eloquent and pregnant in meaning. Could I trust Deputy Moher to tell his colleague, Deputy Cunningham, who has now gone, how hopeful the situation is?

The second thing this Bill makes provision for is the doubling of the salmon rod licence. That is calculated to bring in £9,000 or £10,000. I think that is thoroughly bad policy. That proposal has been excogitated by Ministers for Fisheries for the past ten years. Deputy Flanagan and I turned it down for this reason. The most optimistic calculation is that it will earn £9,000 or £10,000. It was represented to me that a great many people who are themselves salmon fishermen would welcome it. Mark that — it is important. I asked this question: "When you say they would welcome it, would you tell me why?" The answer was: "Because it will reduce the number of rods on the rivers."

Every salmon fisherman wants to reduce competition on the rivers, as far as he can. Those who can afford to pay £4 rejoice at the prospect of that licence fee being charged because it knocks out a certain percentage of persons who could afford £2, but could not afford £4. From the point of view of the matter referred to by Deputy M. P. Murphy, that we should try to make the amenities of our rivers available to as wide a public as it is within our power to do, and secondly, from the point of view mentioned by Deputy O. J. Flanagan that it is in our interest to proclaim to the world that we have the best and the cheapest fishing available in the world, surely it is a silly economy to relieve the Exchequer to the tune of £9,000 or £10,000 at the expense of doubling the cost of a salmon licence in this country?

The Minister is right in making one licence operative for the whole country. From that point of view, I welcome the procedure envisaged in this Bill of drawing all the fees into a common pool and then paying them out to the boards of conservators thereafter. But I am certain he is making a grave mistake by doubling the cost of the salmon licence. I am sure it was very good publicity for the fishing amenities of this country in our tourist literature that we were charging only £2 for a salmon licence.

Mark you, I think I am right in saying if you wish to fish for sea trout in the early part of the year, you must have a salmon licence; you cannot catch sea trout without a salmon licence. I see the Minister has made provision for those who fish only for the autumn run of sea trout, but there are rivers where the sea trout runs in June or earlier. If you wish to fish for sea trout or salmon, you must have a salmon licence. I know it is possible to buy a licence for a week or for an intermediate period, but the fact that these qualifications of the basic charge exist reinforces the view that the publicity of having salmon fishing available in this country at a licence fee of £2 is worth infinitely more than the revenue which it is hoped to derive from the increase in the salmon licence. I strongly advise the Minister, even if he gets the power conferred by this Bill, not to increase the rod licence fee.

Thirdly, I want to endorse what Deputy O.J. Flanagan has said about the buyer of illegally caught salmon. I do not want to particularise too precisely, but the truth is that the preservation of salmon is so important and the preservation of game fish generally is so important to this country that it is not an exaggeration to compare the buyer of illegally caught fish with the receiver of stolen goods. I have always believed it was profoundly true that if there were no receivers of stolen goods, there would be comparatively few thieves. It is the receiver who begets the thief; it is the trader in illegally caught salmon who begets the poacher.

This has to be borne in mind. I tried to emphasise it when I was Minister and I commend to the present Minister the desirability of doing it now. There is all the difference in the world — and I hope I will not shock anybody by saying it—in my judgment, between the moral quality of the act of a man who goes in on preserved waters with a rod, line and salmon fly and in the process of trespass catches a salmon in respect of which he ought to have paid a day's rent to the proprietor of the fishery—in my judgment, it is the business of the owner of the fishery to catch that fellow and exact his fee, if he is fit to do so — and the act of a man who goes out by night to stroke-haul, to throw explosives into a river or poison a river for the purpose of stunning fish and taking them illegally.

It is the latter category of persons who, I believe, are encouraged and whose activities are promoted by the individuals, be they dealers or hotel proprietors, who are prepared to deal in illegally caught fish. It is the latter category of persons upon whom, I have always felt, the full rigour of the law should be visited. Unless we are prepared to face the fact that there is a fundamental difference in the moral quality of these two parallel offences, we will not get the public sympathy and support or full effective enforcement of the law. I believe that 90 per cent. of the people are prepared cordially to support the enforcement of any law against explosives, poisoning, stroke-hauling or illegitimate engines for the capture of sporting fish, but not 5 per cent. of the population are prepared to support the employment of the forces of boards of conservators or of the Garda to enforce the title of proprietors to the fish in their proprietary waters.

The general feeling is that that is an offence partaking more of the quality of trespass than poaching in the evil sense of the word and I made it perfectly clear, when Minister for Fisheries, that I was not much interested in the vindication of these proprietary rights, although I fully recognised the right of the proprietor to enforce his right in the courts of civil law, but that I was prepared to justify the fullest possible rigour of the law in connection with the illegitimate form of capturing fish.

It has to be borne in mind that it is one of the great difficulties, that there are people, frequently resident in extremely remote parts of the country, up at the head of rivers where salmon go to spawn, who will capture salmon which to the normal kind of person appears to be virtually uneatable. Yet they will go to the greatest rounds to go over and capture them at the spawning bed, completely indifferent to the consequences not only of the capture of the fish itself but of the havoc that is wrought upon the spawning bed disturbed. Nothing can check that but careful supervision of the rivers by adequately paid keepers.

Serious as is the damage that such persons do, it is relatively insignificant compared to the activities of the organised poachers who are, or were until recently, in my experience, using fleets of motor cars very frequently, and ultimately reaching a stage in certain areas in which their resources far outstripped the resources of the officers of the boards of conservators to grapple with them. Such persons should be harried and pursued with all the resources that the law disposes of because in certain cases they were assuming the guise and practice for which the word "gangsterism" is not too strong.

I think Deputy Oliver Flanagan is right to draw the attention of the House to a most extraordinary dichotomy that exists in the enforcement of fishery laws, that is, that when the district justice or the appropriate court convicts for a fishery offence and imposes a penalty, if the person penalised seeks clemency he is entitled to appeal to the Minister for Justice. The practice is that the Minister for Justice consults the Minister for Fisheries but, unfortunately, the practice has become established that the Minister for Justice does not feel himself bound by the recommendation of the Minister for Fisheries.

There have been cases where the Minister for Fisheries has strongly urged that there should be no remission of the penalty but, his advice notwithstanding, the penalty has been remitted, on certain occasions to the great scandal of the general public who were not aware of all the circumstances of the case. Without going into further and better particulars, I can only confirm what Deputy Oliver Flanagan said in respect of one peculiarly glaring case of which I believe the Minister has knowledge.

Mr. Childers

Not in my time.

Mr. Dillon

It was not during the Minister's time, no. I know that.

Mr. Childers

Not since I became Minister.

Mr. Dillon

No, it did not happen during that period but it is illustrative of the deplorable dichotomy that exists in regard to this matter. Interestingly enough, I think, with regard to sea fishery offences, it is the Minister for Fisheries who is the final authority because I remember refusing to return gear to aggrieved persons who had been captured within our fishery limits and from that decision I do not think there was any further reference but, in regard to poaching offences, the other situation obtains and I think it ought to be put right.

If you do succeed in eliminating that dichotomy, you will not withhold clemency from certain offenders because, no matter how resolved you may be firmly and resolutely to maintain a uniform rule that there shall be no remission of penalties in any circumstances, experience teaches that a case will turn up where the hardship of the full penalty being visited in the special circumstances of some defendant is so wildly disproportionate that it is the duty of a conscientious Minister to invoke the clemency which it is in his power to bestow.

I have very little doubt that it would be a great improvement if the final responsibility were put on the Minister for Fisheries because at the present time it is very often difficult to determine on whose shoulders the responsibility should lie for such remissions as are made available.

The last thing I want to refer to is the position with regard to the Owenea river. I know how difficult this problem is. I assume the Minister accepts the general principle which was established in the Department of Fisheries by myself, or somebody, that where there are two competitive tenders for a fishery in the possession of the Department of Fisheries or the Land Commission, one coming from a local body of anglers and the other coming from any individual or group of individuals other than a group of local anglers, preference is given to the group of local anglers. That creates a difficulty because groups of local anglers are not always as public-spirited as they might be.

In one year they readily concede that a fair rent for a fishery is £800 and they know, perhaps, that somebody else has bid £900 but, operating the rule of preference for the local men, they are given the fishery for £800. The following year the fishery is put up for tender again and this time the local boys bid £500 and they announce that they are now the sitting tenants and, if anybody comes in now to become grabbers of their property, they will know the reason why. If they get away with that, the following year they will offer £300, until eventually they will offer a token sum.

Of course, the easy thing is for the Minister to make himself popular with the local boys. It does not matter to the Minister, personally, whether the fishery is let for 6d. or £1,000, but the Minister has a public duty; he is the custodian of private property and has a duty imposed upon him to get a fair price for it. There is no way of getting a fair price for it except by putting it up to tender and the Minister would be wrong to give it to anyone other than the highest bidder if he did not come to the House, as I think I did on more than one occasion and asked in my Estimate for the approval of the general principle that I should have discretion, which I was entitled to exercise within reasonable limits, in favour of a local angling association rather than a private individual. That discretion can be made inoperative if the local angling association is not prepared to act reasonably.

I am not satisfied that with regard to the Owenea river the local angling association was not prepared to act reasonably. They were prepared to act reasonably when they were prepared to offer £500 a year for this fishery. The Minister wanted £800 and, when they failed to arrive at an agreement, the Minister, in discharge of what he believed to be his duty, said: "Very well; I will retain the fishery and rent it to individual rods." The result is that the income of the fishery is probably substantially less than the £500 which the local anglers' association were prepared to give.

I do not want to make any point on this. I do not want to suggest that the Minister was guilty of any nefarious conspiracy. I think, however, he would have acted fairly, if he had said to the local anglers' association: "I am prepared to give you the fishery for £500 a year for a term of years, with a clear understanding that I will not renew it for less and, if you are not prepared to meet me, then, I have a duty to the public purse and, even though I get more or less, I would have to let it out to individual rods." This again would prevent the rent of a valuable fishery of that kind being beaten down by local pressure. If the Minister had made such an offer, he would have given full and fair effect to the principle that the local anglers' associations should have some preference, but not a right of coercive power over the Minister for Lands in the discharge of his public duty.

I would, therefore, suggest to the Minister that he might reconsider the whole situation with regard to the Owenea river. I have some experience of the problem of letting it on a satisfactory basis and the Minister, I think, should make an offer something on the lines I now suggest, so that nobody may be left under a sense of grievance and, in the meantime, the Minister may derive from the river something approximating a fair and adequate return.

Mr. Corry

With reference to Deputy Dillon's comment on rod licences, once a visiting angler secures one, the next question is where he is to use the rod, and that is where the trouble comes in. I had hoped, when I heard that a new fishery law was to be passed here with regard to inland fisheries, that the law would come to fundamentals and remove the injustices. We cannot expect any law which is built on injustice to be respected anywhere. On the borders of my constituency there is a gentleman known as the Duke of Devonshire who got a charter from Queen Elizabeth, handing a whole stretch of water over to himself. His descendants carried on with the game and I wonder if the Minister ever inquired, or if he could tell us, the number of hundreds of salmon lifted with a four-pronged fork out of that gentle-man's fishing trap during a season.

Mr. O'Donnell

Hear, hear!

Mr. Corry

I think it is a fair question when we hear about the length and breadth of the law being advocated for the fellows who go out with a strocáil.

Mr. O'Donnell

Hear, hear! Wipe out the traps.

Mr. Corry

I would also like to know, considering the number of years we are supposed to have freedom here, how a gentleman holding a charter from Queen Elizabeth of England, is entitled to come down into the town of Youghal and extract from the ordinary fishermen there, on foot of that charter, anything from £12 to £16 per licence to enable those Republican fishermen to earn their livelihoods in Irish Republican waters? Those are the things I should like to have removed. We got freedom from the landlords by land legislation and we think we should now get rid of that type of landlordism. The Minister need not expect, and nobody in this country need expect, that there will be any respect for the law that protects such a gentleman in the levying of tribute on Irish Republican fishermen for fishing in Irish Republican waters.

In another part of my constituency, in Fermoy, we have another extraordinary condition of affairs. We have men who purchased land under the Land Acts paying rates and annuities for the bed of a river in which they are not allowed to fish, while that same joker, Lord So-and-So, has a right to walk along the bank, which must be kept clear of briars so that he can walk along it to take out fish. I was a member of a deputation that waited on Deputy Blowick, when he was Minister for Lands, in connection with that. I know there have been three Supreme Court cases in connection with it, but the injustice is still there. I know, if it were on my land, they would not get the golliwog that swims on a boggy hole in Deputy Flanagan's constituency, and I make no bones about it. So long as you seek to implement unjust laws in this country, so long will you fail.

The valuation of holdings in that neighbourhood is something around 35/- a statute acre. A farmer pays 38/- in the £ on that and he pays 38/- a £ on the bed of that river in which Lord So-and-So across the water fishes, or sells to another Lord So-and-So. Deputy Dillon is very anxious that nobody should get a salmon from such a man and I hope the Minister will deal with this in legislation.

Mr. O'Donnell

He can amend the legislation.

Mr. Childers

Your Government did not amend it.

Mr. O'Donnell

Deputy Corry, a member of your Party, wants to amend it. I am sure, if Deputy Corry speaks to the Minister, he would amend it.

Mr. Corry

I had a go when your crowd were in and got nowhere.

Mr. O'Donnell

You have your own Minister now and he opposes it.

Mr. Corry

I say it is a waste of time and public money to introduce legislation here from time to time in an endeavour to protect injustice, because injustice cannot be protected. You have to come to the fundamentals first. You have to get rid of the Duke of Devonshire. In the town of Lismore, there is a fish trap into which the unfortunate salmon go. Every morning, the Duke's fisherman comes along, not with rod and line, but with a four-pronged fork, and he forks them out for export. That is the law for one man. For the other man, if he goes out with a strocáil to get a bit of fish for his Friday dinner, the length and breadth of the law is applied to him.

Deputy Dillon seemed to be indignant because the Minister for Justice had not consulted him before he reduced fishery fines. Let us see where we stand in relation to this matter. Let us see if we are going to protect those whom we ought to protect. So long as you have laws in this country protecting those other people, these laws will be treated with contempt and I clap the man on the back who treats them with contempt. A few years ago, I happened to be called down by the Youghal fishermen in connection with this matter. The Duke's——

Mr. Childers

On a point of order, there is nothing in the Bill which deals with the acquisition of private fisheries.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy is entitled to discuss the things that should be in the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the Second Reading of a Bill, Deputies are entitled to point to what they would like incorporated in the Bill or to criticise what is in it.

Mr. Corry

Yes, that is what I am doing. I am telling the Minister what, in my opinion, should be in the Bill. Some few years ago, I was called to a meeting of unfortunate fishermen in Youghal. The noble Duke had increased their licence leavy or the tribute they had to pay. I asked the fishermen what would happen if they refused to pay. They told me they had wives and children and were depending for their livelihood on the few months' fishing and that if they did not get the licence, they could not fish. Unfortunately, they did not give me much time to consider the matter because they were meeting the Duke's agent the following morning. I went with two of the fishermen the following morning, accompanied by the former Senator O'Gorman. I explained my position. I said I was a Deputy in a Republican Parliament. I pointed out that this was a Republic and that I could not recognise any charter of Queen Elizabeth giving any gentleman a right to collect a tribute from Irish Republican fishermen for fishing in Irish Republican waters. "However," I said, "since this damn thing must be done to-day, I am prepared to give way this much. We will give you last year's money." That was £12. The Duke's agent replied that his instructions were to take £17.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All this is very interesting, but it is not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Corry

I am pointing out to the Minister the grip which this type of gentleman still has on a large body of unfortunate people in my constituency who earn their livelihood by fishing.

Mr. Childers

There is nothing in the Bill which has anything to do with what the Deputy speaks of.

Mr. Corry

I did not prepare the Bill. I am blaming the Minister for not putting it in the Bill. That was his job, not mine. It was his duty to see, in the first place, before he brought law upon law, that the fundamental laws are correct and just.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is talking nonsense.

Mr. Corry

There is no justice in that. It is not just to allow a man to double and treble the rent at will, without any appeal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister does not seem to have any responsibility.

Mr. Corry

He has. He is Minister for Fisheries. He is bringing in this Bill to protect this type of gentleman and those boards of conservators.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will the Deputy put down an amendment?

Mr. Corry

The Deputy will do his own business. He always did it. He did it long before he saw Deputy O'Donnell and he will be doing it years after he sees the last of him. I guarantee that.

Mr. O'Donnell

His business consists of talking.

Mr. Corry

These are the mistakes that are made. Unfortunately, Minister for Fisheries after Minister for Fisheries has come in here and started to build up laws for the protection of fish on an unjust fundamental law that already exists. The first thing that must be done, before we waste time discussing these things, is to amend the fundamental law. So long as you leave that unjust law there, you might as well be idle as bring in Bills of this sort.

Do you mean to tell me that any man born and reared in this country will look on and view as just a law by which one man is prosecuted because he is found with a rod fishing for salmon without a licence, whilst at the same time another gentleman has a right, by the same law, to fork out that salmon with a fork and pike? That is what is wrong with laws in this country. We got rid of the landlord. Here is a worse landlord still— a man who can come along at the start of the year and say: "You paid me £20 last year. Pay me £40 this year or you will not fish." The unfortunate man has no alternative, no court, no redress whatever, except to pay the £40 to that blasted highlander or get out. Where is the basis of justice and honesty in all that? These are the things which I think should first be brought in here by any Minister for Fisheries if he wants to get at the root of the problem and have our fishery laws respected. You cannot have respect for a law of that type. Consider the case of the unfortunate man who has a farm in Carey's Glen, Fermoy. He is paying 38/- in the £ on a valuation of 30/- or 35/- an acre for four acres of the very river in which he has no right to fish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already said that.

Mr. Corry

That type of thing is at the root of the whole fishery laws of this country and, so long as it exists, you might as well be idle as try to enforce justice. Thank God, the people of this country have pluck enough to stand up against injustice.

Mr. O'Donnell

I should like Deputy Corry to sit and listen for two minutes while I tell him a little story. He protested — rightly, in my opinion — against the owners of several fisheries and the owners of private fisheries increasing the rental to the local man who wants to fish. I am in full agreement with him. However, I want to tell a story about his colleague, the present Minister for Lands. The State owns a river in County Donegal called the Owenea river. They rent that river annually. Some years ago, I persuaded — with the assistance of Deputy Breslin and Deputy J. Brennan — the then Minister, Deputy Dillon, to let that river to the local anglers' association. Deputy Dillon did so, and he charged the local anglers' association a rental of £400 per year.

Mr. Corry

You let him.

Mr. O'Donnell

This year, that river was again for letting and not only was £400 offered for it but the local anglers offered the present Minister £500 for it. What was the reply they received from the Minister for Fisheries? "Not one penny less than £800 will I accept fo it"—with the result that he did not give them the river this year.

Mr. Corry

He was worse than Deputy Dillon.

Mr. O'Donnell

Much worse. I am glad that Deputy Corry is with me. He is so disgusted that he will leave the House, but if the Minister cracks his fingers or if I demand a division, Deputy Corry would very soon come to heel, come back and support him. That is a little story which bears repetition; I did not intend to mention it, were it not that Deputy Corry drew me. That is what the present Minister did to the local anglers in a town in my part of the county.

I had no intention of intervening in this debate, were it not for the Minister's remarks on the export levy on salmon. As Deputy Dillon pointed out, in 1953 the then Minister for Fisheries imposed a levy of 2d. per lb. on the export of salmon during the year up to the 1st June and 1d. per lb. thereafter. Salmon and agriculture are the only things on which we pay levies on their exportation. As Deputy Dillon also pointed out, if we wish to procure a market for the exportation of some industrial product, we get up and cheer and congratulate each other and send ambassadors abroad to find such markets. The fishermen have no person to send abroad to find markets for their fish, but when they have found a very good market — as they have in Britain to-day—we clamp down an export bounty on salmon.

In 1953 it was explained to us by the person then in charge of this Vote that the reason this export bounty was being imposed was to add to the funds of the local boards of conservators and that, by increasing the funds available to those boards, we would improve the fisheries. At that time, the State contributed approximately £10,000 or £12,000 a year to assist local boards of conservators whose funds were depleted. In the first year this export bounty was imposed, a sum of approximately between £10,000 and £12,000 was collected under it. Did that go to supplement the State contribution to the boards? No. Immediately that sum was available, the Minister withdrew the State Grant-in-Aid to the boards and the only contribution they received in that year was the money subscribed by the poor unfortunate fishermen by way of export bounty.

When Deputy Dillon became Minister for Fisheries in June, 1954, he immediately abolished that export bounty and again made the State contribute, to aid this valuable industry, a sum of £10,000 or £12,000 to the boards of conservators. Immediately the present Minister came into office, he reimposed this export duty on salmon. To-day, when Deputy Dillon mentioned that fact, the Minister interjected that he received no protest whatever from any person against this abominable imposition on fishermen. I protested on four different occasions in this House and now, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I want to protest again on behalf of the fishermen of West Donegal.

I invite my colleagues, Deputy Brennan and Deputy Breslin, to come in here and support me in protesting to the Minister against this imposition of 2d. per lb. on salmon. I know that I have my colleagues behind me. I am aware that I have my colleagues, Deputies Brennan and Breslin, behind me and all I ask them to do is to come in here and raise their voices on this matter. The Minister apparently has an open mind on it. He says that he has received no protest and he indicated that it was not his special view that this levy should be imposed.

Mr. Childers

I must interrupt the Deputy. I stand by this levy.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister said that he got no protest. Perhaps if my colleagues join me in protest we may persuade the Minister to drop his levy and go back to the Cabinet and persuade them to make the contribution to the conservators' funds which we are asking these unfortunate fishermen to make. I invite not only my colleagues in West Donegal but my colleagues from East Donegal—my colleagues who represent the fishermen of Downings. I also invite Deputy Corry, who represents the fishermen of Youghal, to join with me in protesting to the Minister against this imposition and this levy imposed on these unfortunate drift net fishermen and draft fishermen.

I do not mind the gentlemen referred to by Deputy Corry, the gentlemen who procure their fish with a four-pronged fork. I do not mind the Minister imposing an export levy of 6d. or 1/- a lb. on the gentlemen who use traps on the river, who use what the Minister gave to the E.S.B. on the River Erne, permission to use a trap without even a gap in it. I do not mind the levy being imposed on them. I object, and object vehemently, to a levy being imposed on poor unfortunate drift net fishermen of 2d. per lb. I know I am speaking for my colleagues and I know they will come in and support me in protesting to the Minister against this levy.

Mr. Moloney

I should like to say a few words in this debate. First, I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing this measure. At the same time, I should like to say that I am somewhat disappointed that the measure he has produced is not more comprehensive. I had expected that provision would have been made in this amending legislation for many deficiencies in the existing fishery code. However, I understand that the Bill now introduced is only the forerunner of a number of other measures to come before us in due course. For what it is worth, and as it deals with a limited part of the fishery industry, I welcome the Bill.

This measure in itself will be very useful, particularly in the early part of the fishing season; but, of course, I take it that it will not be law before the end of the present season. I am particularly glad that the Minister has changed the system of licensing and has made provision now for short period licences—for periods of a week, a month and part-season. Now that these licences are being issued at a very nominal rate of duty, they will be very useful and should be of great assistance to our tourist industry. Heretofore, I understand that some boards of conservators did manage to issue part-time licences, but on the whole the arrangement was not sufficiently widespread.

Another difficulty which existed in the past—I am glad to see that it has now been removed—is the fact that licences issued by a board of conservators, at the full rate, can now be used in any other area under the jurisdiction of other boards in the State. That is a very good arrangement and one that will be appreciated very much by tourists coming in here to exploit the fishing potentialities of our rivers. The increase in the licence duty, under all headings, is nominal and I am quite sure that there will be very little cause for complaint by licensed anglers and any other interests associated with the fishing industry, in so far as that part of the Bill is concerned.

The Minister has provided in the Bill for the setting up of a Salmon Conservancy Fund. As I understand it, that proposal is similar to the levy that we have heard discussed by previous speakers. Evidently, the levy was first introduced in 1953 and was on all salmon exported, at the rate of 2d. per lb. At a later period, that levy was removed by the succeeding Government, and we are told that the money necessary to feed the fund, that the levy was intended for, came from another source.

I can say that I am in a position to vouch for what the Minister has stated with regard to the proposed levy so far as my part of the country is concerned. I represent an area that has a very great interest in inland fishing, as well as in deep-sea fishing, and I can state, without fear of contradiction, that there is no protest forthcoming from any of the interests involved in that area with regard to the introduction of the proposed salmon levy. In fact, the contrary is the case and a number of boards of conservators have actually recommended the introduction of this levy. I am rather inclined to think that the board of conservators which administers the affairs of the Limerick area—it extends to the Feale and its tributaries—did actually recommend the levy to the Minister.

We all know that at present there is a great need for salmon hatcheries. These hatcheries are being initiated, controlled and generally maintained by voluntary organisations in the form of hatchery associations. I think it is far too much to expect voluntary bodies of that kind to continue indefinitely to maintain hatcheries. I feel that now it will be possible for those organisations to get substantial assistance from this fund. I hope the Minister will preserve the fund as a separate entity and will ensure that all the moneys that go into it from the levies will go back into the industry to generally improve our fisheries, particularly the fisheries of the inland waters from which a substantial portion of the fund will be derived.

In recent years, we have been fortunate in getting our fishermen to become more public-spirited than they were in years gone by and in every district now you will find anglers' associations representative of the angling interests in the area and, apart from that, you will also find a number of hatchery development associations. Both bodies are very important to the fishing industry, which, as we know, has come to the forefront in recent years and particularly during the past 12 months. They are voluntary organisations and, in their own way, are doing very useful and important work on behalf of the industry. I feel, however, that eventually it will prove difficult for those organisations to work as unincorporated bodies. The Minister should provide, either in this measure by way of amendment, or alternatively, by separate legislation, assistance for the operation of these bodies.

There are many ways the Minister could assist them. Whilst I would not for a moment suggest that anything should be done which would discourage the voluntary spirit that exists amongst the members of these associations, I feel that steps should be taken now to try to have the relative associations registered as companies limited by guarantee. Encouragement should be given to those bodies on somewhat similar lines to that which An Bord Fáilte gives to tourist development associations where important work is to be done in a district in connection with the provision of social amenities or the extension of certain tourist activities.

A number of people are facilitated to come together by An Bord Fáilte and in so far as the costs of initiating the limited liability company are usually paid by the board, it is, in my opinion, very helpful. It provides for the continuity of these local organisations. It is much easier for an organisation that is registered in that way, and which has certain statutory responsibilities placed on it, to continue. Our experience of all these voluntary organisation is that they start off with very good intentions and when they have got a lot of important work to do, they work very well. In due course, however, when the important work that they have in hands usually comes to an end they find themselves in the position of not being able to carry on very easily. I was hoping that the Minister might give some recognition to those bodies on the lines I have suggested.

There is no provision made in the Bill with regard to the election of boards of conservators. I take it that, in the legislation that is to follow, the Minister will keep that matter in mind, because the present system is very lopsided, very ineffective and generally unsatisfactory. That has proved so particularly in recent years. I have received a large number of complaints about the abuses and imperfections of the arrangements for the election of boards of conservators; I think that, now that these bodies are expected to do so much, and are charged with extra responsibility, it is desirable that adequate steps should be taken to regularise the position regarding their election. I hope when the Minister comes to deal with that part of the fishery code he will bear in mind the remarks I have made.

Mr. Palmer

I had no intention of speaking on this Bill, but when I heard my Kerry colleague state that he had heard no protest against the 2d. per lb. export levy on salmon, I thought it was about time I rose to contradict that. I now protest against it, just as Deputy O'Donnell has previously protested. It may be true that no protest was made by way of meetings and so forth, because, in the ordinary way, when a Bill is introduced in this House and some reference is made to it in the Press, the ordinary fisherman never knows the contents of that Bill, nor does he take very much interest in it. It is, therefore, the duty of the representatives of the people to express their views here and to state that if the people of North Kerry did not protest against the 2d. per lb. salmon levy, I can assure the House that the fishermen of South Kerry have done so.

It is rather strange that this levy which was first imposed—in 1952 or 1953, I think—by the Minister for Agriculture and abolished by the new Minister in 1954, should now be brought in in a Bill so that in the future it will require an amending Bill to remove it. Deputy Moloney said boards of conservators are in its favour: I do not doubt that. I am not speaking on their behalf, but on behalf of the fishermen because anyone can realise that the 2d. per lb. levy on salmon exported will be imposed on fishermen. Those who purchase salmon for export will reduce the price of salmon to that extent. That is a very serious matter for those who have to make their living by fishing. It is also a very serious matter for many to have rod licences increased. There may be some good point there, such as having rod licences for a fortnight or a month for people on holidays, but the increase means a great deal to a man who tries to make his living by fishing in that way.

I cannot understand why it is, having had our own Government for almost 40 years, that no steps have been taken to ensure that our fisheries will belong to the people of the country and not to foreigners, because that is really the position. It is an impossible position, of which I shall give an instance. There is a river in Kerry called the Inny, one of the best fishing rivers in the country. It is near Waterville. Probably because of the position of landlordism long ago, the farmers and landowners on one bank of the river own fishing rights. They can fish the river themselves or let fishing rights to the hotels in Waterville or to anybody else. The landowners on the other side of the river cannot fish; the rights belong to the landlord, wherever he may be. The rights belong to foreigners and is that not a most peculiar position?

Possibly in other parts of the country similar situations may exist, but it is about time some steps were taken by the Government to ensure that the fishing rights, the inland fisheries, belong to the people of the country. When the landlords sold their estates, some of them gave the fishing rights to the people and some of them withheld those rights. One way of dealing with the matter would be, where the rights were withheld, to introduce legislation giving the rights back to the people. Another way would be to nationalise the whole fishing industry, to bring it under State ownership, although I do not like nationalisation. Something should be done to rectify the matter because it is a kind of mixum-gatherum scheme, this whole inland fisheries business. If we have rights to the fisheries within the territorial waters, why should we not also have rights to all inland fisheries within the State?

While I protest against the levy on salmon and against the increase in salmon rod licences, I hold this sort of legislation is only a makeshift, and it is time some Government got down to the whole business of the inland fisheries and brought in a comprehensive Bill by which the fishing rights of the country will be brought into the ownership of the people of the country.

Mr. Childers

This debate started in reasonable calm and then we had some—I think—entirely unjustifiable explosive outbursts against the proposals in the Bill. I must admit that Deputy O.J. Flanagan on rather rare occasions does speak moderately and he described the Bill as one that was not extreme in any sense.

First of all, I should like to deal with the question of the reason for continuing the salmon levy and increasing the rod licence fees. I am very anxious that those concerned in this vital industry, which is largely administered by boards of conservators who are, more or less, co-operative organisations, consisting of rodsmen and netsmen and owners, should work together for the protection of their fisheries, should be as far as possible free from the whim of the Minister for Finance from year to year. I am very keen that they should have for themselves certain basic revenues coming from the industry, revenues which will be sufficient to support their expenses, leaving the Minister for Finance to provide any extra sums required for long-term development here by way of grant or loan.

I felt that an industry in which the price of the product had increased four times since before the last World War and which had a certain sale for the product available could provide basic revenue through increased rod licence fees and through salmon export levies, so that at least we could ensure that the money available was sufficient for adequate protection. I should make it clear to the House that, in spite of the increase in rates, if one were to take the actual value of money at the present time as compared with 1939, we would still need, on the basis of 1957 expenditure by boards, another £2,000 in order to recoup the fall in the value of money. It is perfectly obvious that a great many boards require permanent aid in the form of increased revenues, not simply revenue for particular purposes or for development. They need more money for their ordinary administration and ordinary protection. I want to reiterate that there has been no noticeable protest against the salmon levy since it was introduced some months ago.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I do not think the Minister is right.

Mr. Childers

Boards of conservators have not in a general way protested and I have been going back in my mind in regard to the matter. I can say definitely that there has been no substantial protest against the reintroduction of the export levy. Part of the reason is that the amount is a very modest one of 2d. per lb. The average price for salmon in the year 1957 was 6/1. That is not an enormous impost having regard to the price of salmon.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The price of salmon is going down.

Mr. Childers

It was very high in the early part of the season. There was a fall in the price last year, due to the sudden importation of large quantities of frozen Japanese salmon on the British market, but its effect was not very prolonged. I want to make clear to the House the fact that the whole of the proceeds of the salmon levy and rod licences will go to the boards of conservators. In addition, I hope the Minister for Finance will make available some subvention whenever possible. This year the Minister for Finance is making £6,000 available from State funds in addition to the proceeds from the Salmon Conservancy Fund. Next year, I hope, if I can prove the need for additional assistance, he will provide further funds.

I should make it clear that the total grants to boards have increased in recent years. In the year 1955-56, for example, the total amount paid out of the various resources of the State was £13,250. This year, the total amount made available will be £21,000, which should go a long way towards assisting boards of conservators in their work of protection. It would be difficult to find any case outside the industry where a Government is expected to compensate very largely for the fall in the value of money which has taken place since 1939. I am trying to stabilise the position and ensure that boards of conservators will have a constant revenue in the future. With salmon 6/1 per lb. on an average, in 1957, as compared with 1/8 in 1939, I do not think the increase in rod licence fees is excessive.

The next thing I want to make clear is that I am perfectly certain that, even after these rod licences have been increased, not only will the fishing be excellent in this country but it will still be relatively cheap. In regard to fishermen's expenses, the amounts he may have to pay if he rents a bank from a private owner and adding in the increase in the rod licence, it will still be relatively inexpensive fishing compared with that to be found in Great Britain or other countries where there are salmon fisheries.

The Government have come to the aid of both coarse and game fishermen by providing a total of £20,000 more through Bord Fáilte and the Inland Fisheries Trust for the development of our inland fisheries. Although it is true that a proportion of that money is being spent on coarse fishing development, a very considerable amount is being spent on game fishing. Boards of conservators will benefit indirectly from the work of Bord Fáilte and the Inland Fisheries Trust.

If anyone says that the Minister for Finance or the Government are deserting the cause of the inland fishermen, I can only say that the increase in the amount available from Bord Fáilte and the Inland Fisheries Trust shows the contrary to be the case. Apart from that, Deputy O.J. Flanagan made some observations on the Inland Fisheries Trust in which I heartily concur. I hope more anglers will join the trust. There are some 2,800 members who pay 7/6 a year and 7/6 is not an excessive sum. The larger the membership, the more work can be done to develop salmon fisheries, trout, coarse fisheries and the rest. The whole industry will get strong and advance in every way. I should make it clear that the Inland Fisheries Trust is co-operating with Bord Fáilte and is in complete harmony with them for the improvement of salmon fishing.

References were also made in the course of the debate to the necessity for support by hotels. I should like to call upon the hotel industry, those of them who have not given support, to contribute more to the work of the trust and contribute more in coordinating the efforts of all the local associations in developing the salmon industry. As everyone knows, and as Deputy O.J. Flanagan said, publicity is the life of the tourist industry.

A number of excellent anglers' guides have been prepared by local associations. More are required. Above all, we need information as to the kind of fishing available, access to fisheries, the charges made, the exact location of the fisheries, hotel, boarding house and guest house accommodation, the availability of bait and so on. All that information needs to be coordinated if the full value is to be obtained from what is being done by the Inland Fisheries Trust, the boards of conservators and the anglers associations in developing the salmon industry and the rest of the fishing industry.

I should say again, to justify the increases in rod licences and the continuation of the salmon levy, that more publicity is being undertaken abroad. Deputy O.J. Flanagan and some other Deputies suggested that was essential. A new edition of the Angling Guide has been published with maps and is available at a very moderate price to the public. Teams of anglers have been brought over this year in greater numbers than ever. During the year, films will be produced which will be shown abroad. Every step possible is being taken to draw more angling tourists to this country. As I said before, I feel that our fishing facilities are improving and the total charges made, even after the payment of the increased rod licences, will be found to be very reasonable compared with those elsewhere.

I entirely agree with what a number of Deputies said about poaching. I agree that co-operation by the whole community is essential. I am examining the question of penalties in connection with the second Fisheries Bill which will come along later. I have taken an absolute tough attitude in regard to the mitigation of penalties. I will continue that. In that connection, I feel that the Minister for Justice and myself are reasonably of one mind on the subject. I have no reason to feel that there is any divergence of opinion on the necessity for preventing poaching because the salmon industry is a vital national industry, with a large export potential. If it is properly developed and the spawn stocks are preserved, it should give a very good deal of direct and indirect employment in the future and bring a good deal of money to the country.

Even at the moment, there are 5,000 persons employed in the inland fishing industry in various capacities. I speak of the industry as a whole because every type of fishing is of importance to the life of the State and one simply cannot have a sentimental attitude towards poaching. I am told by certain people that poaching is a traditionally Irish thing. I find that poaching is infinitely worse in a great many other countries. It is run by organised criminal gangs in countries that should know better. The suggestion that there is something peculiarly Irish about poaching is absolute nonsense. It is a universal form of theft of people's private property, and as it can deplete vital stocks required to ensure a growth in the numbers of the salmon in the rivers we must take a stern attitude towards it.

Reference was made to the need for consultation in connection with the Bill which we shall be bringing before the House and in which we intend to make other changes which will be of advantage to the administration of the boards of conservators. I should say that we intend to invite proposals from the board of conservators and we may have discussions with them, if necessary, in order that we can see what is required. There is a considerable amount of controversy in regard to a great deal of legislation affecting boards of conservators and a great many arguments can be produced on both sides. One small example is that some people will say that one should have a postal ballot for the election of members; other people will say that that would not be fair. That is a typical example of the difficulties of formulating proposals of this kind, but every effort will be made to prepare the further Bill as soon as possible.

The River Owenea in Donegal was mentioned. I feel that the State should not be allowed to lose money on the operation of the only salmon fishery we have in the Department. We made arrangements to issue individual tickets for fishing on the river and I think the results will be satisfactory. I do not believe there will be any source of complaint by anybody.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Does the Minister not think that £500 would be better than to lose all?

Mr. Childers

I would agree with the Deputy, but the difficulty was that the river cost more than that for us to administer. It did not seem reasonable that we should lose money on the administration of the river.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Agreed, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Mr. Childers

In connection with the provision of licences for fish farms, I am glad to inform the House that a company has already purchased land and intends to start the first large-scale commercial trout farm in this country. With that example and the example of the State fish farm at Roscrea, I hope there will begin a new era in which money can be made by farmers through trout farming. This is an industry which has been found to be highly profitable in countries where the weather is worse, where the water conditions are not so satisfactory and where exports of fish farm trout can rise to the figure of 1,500,000 in a year.

This is an industry which involves technical knowledge. It involves a certain amount of co-operation, but at least a start has been made with the proposed establishment of one private commercial fish farm. That is why we have inserted a provision in respect of licences to collect trout from farms out of season, and with the further example of the Roscrea fish farm, which should be open on April 28th, I think we can make progress in that industry. It should be a very useful sideline for farmers living on rivers where the water conditions are suitable and where the conditions are suitable for bringing the fish for deep freezing and consequential export.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Could the Minister say if he has any particular site in mind for the trout fish farm?

Mr. Childers

A site has been bought but as it is still a private matter I would not like to say anything further than that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Would the Minister say whether it is on the Barrow?

Mr. Childers

I can tell the Deputy it is not on the Barrow. I think I have dealt with every other item except the questions raised by Deputy Michael Murphy and Deputy Corry in which they attacked the private ownership of salmon fisheries. I should not need to stand up in this House to inform Deputies in regard to the wording of the Constitution and its implications. Deputy Dillon himself gave a full account of the picture as it has been regarded by successive Ministers in charge of Fisheries, but the actual position is that the Fishery Acts take no account of whether land was owned privately before 1921 or after 1921. The right of ownership of a salmon fishery will only be taken away by full compensation being paid to the owner no matter when he originally received the rights. That was clearly expressed in the Constitution in which the conception was laid down that we started completely afresh as an independent nation and we wished everyone to have equal rights and privileges as citizens.

Some of the observations made by Deputy Corry and Deputy Murphy were directly contrary to the Proclamation of the Republic in 1916 and I utterly abhor them and all they said in regard to having prejudicial interests against persons whose origin differed from that of other persons. I would ask Deputy Corry and Deputy Murphy to read the 1916 Proclamation and see what was said about the matter there.

It is true we have rights under the present Fishery Acts to acquire all the inland fisheries of the country. However, I see no point in acquiring, unless I could be certain that, first of all, we can afford the capital outlay. This is a time when capital is difficult to procure as has been recognised by every Party in the House. Secondly, I would not believe in making any change unless I was quite sure the result would be to the ultimate benefit of the people as a whole.

I should add that if the private fisheries were purchased, the people who intended to exercise their new rights would have to be very strictly and sternly controlled by whatever authority was set up or they might remove every salmon from the river. They would also have to pay richly for repaying the capital cost of acquiring the fishery. I can see in many respects the State involved in what might turn into a gigantic home assistance administration in regard to which we would have to set up all sorts of controls at a very high cost because everything the State does is at a higher cost than when it is undertaken by the private individual.

It is preferable, in my opinion, that we should endeavour to develop the salmon fisheries through the boards of conservators so that everyone would benefit thereby. There are enormous stretches of rivers in which the fishing rights are owned by many different sorts of people including people with quite a small interest in a particular stretch of river. The idea that all the fishing rights along rivers are owned by people of enormous wealth is grossly exaggerated and I should make it clear that the poaching of rivers where private owners have a very special interest will be regarded as far as I am concerned in exactly the same way as poaching anywhere else. In actual fact, salmon fishing is fairly freely available throughout the country. There are places where salmon fishing is free. I do not believe the State should undertake any form of production, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Looking at the whole pattern of salmon river development, I believe we can proceed without having to start another State company to do another job. I think the boards of conservators, when they work efficiently, can themselves do a very good job for the country both in enabling an increase in salmon exports on a commercial basis and in bringing tourists into the country. Under present circumstances I think that is the best way in which development should proceed.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 29.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Griffin, James.
• Boland, Gerald
• Boland, Kevin.
• Brady, Philip A
• Brady, Seán.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• O'Toole, James.
• Russell, George E.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Richard.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Kyne.

Question declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 13th May.