Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 May 1958

Vol. 168 No. 6

Fisheries Amendment Bill, 1957—Fifth Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Dillon

The Minister does not seem to have much to say on the Fifth Stage of this Bill. I want to make a few observations. There has been a great deal of talk about what this Fisheries (Amendment) Bill is designed to do. Most of the talk has been eye-wash, and I am opposed to the passing of this Bill. I declare this Bill to be a Bill to transfer from the Exchequer on to the backs of the net fishermen in the estuaries of our rivers and of the rod fishermen who fish for salmon a charge that heretofore has been borne on the Exchequer, and this Bill does nothing else.

The case has been made repeatedly that the purpose of this Bill is to provide additional revenue for boards of conservators. There is no truth in that whatever. Any Deputy who is prepared to take the trouble of examining the Estimates will see that, whereas in previous Fishery Estimates there was up to £14,000 per annum provided from the Exchequer to assist boards of conservators, in the current Estimate that figure is £6,000 or £8,000 so that in fact not less than £8,000 of whatever sum will accrue from this Bill is in relief of the Exchequer.

I want the House to know that when I was Minister for Fisheries it was pressed upon me that I should increase salmon rod licences, and it was pressed upon me not only from the finance point of view but also by certain boards of conservators. The real reason why certain boards of conservators pressed that course upon me was that their membership consisted very largely of rod fishermen who could afford to pay £4 a year and they wanted the licence raised in order to reduce the number of persons who would otherwise fish upon the waters where they fished. That is a human kind of reaction but it is not a reaction that I thought should be sponsored by the Minister for Fisheries.

If you make fishing so expensive for our own people on rivers upon which they consider they have a certain natural right to fish, the tendency is that you will reduce the number of legal fishermen by day but only at the price of multiplying the number of illegal fishermen by night. The whole object of our fishery legislation ought to be to create in the minds of all our people the feeling that these amenities are being maintained and developed for the benefit of everybody and that, therefore, it is in the interest of everybody to collaborate with the boards of conservators in protecting rivers from illegal methods of fishing such as stroke hauling, explosives, poisoning and fishing over the spawning beds out of season. There is no amount of policing and conservancy work which will replace co-operation by the mass of the people which can only result from persuading them that they can have access to this amenity at a price they can afford to pay.

Over and above all that, it is surely a mistaken policy to spend £400,000 a year promoting tourism and at the same time, by a Bill of this kind, seriously to abridge one of the only unique tourist attractions we have here. It cannot too often be said that it is an entirely illusory objective to attempt to offer here to tourists the kind of attractions that are available in continental cities, because we cannot provide them, but we can make facilities, in my opinion, for amenities that are no longer available on the Continent or elsewhere, that is, sporting activities under conditions and at prices the average person can afford.

Therefore, to raise the salmon rod-fishing licence fee from £2 to £4 is, I think, to throw away for an entirely inadequate consideration, one very attractive inducement that it is in our power to offer potential tourists, particularly from the United States and from Britain. It was something of which we were in a position to boast that we offered here the cheapest salmon and sea-trout fishing in the world and that we had to offer not only a very low licence fee for the salmon rod licence but also free fishing in certain areas and that in the areas where the fisheries were in the hands of private owners, access to them was usually to be had for a very moderate fee.

If we are to make any change in the licensing of salmon rods, my strong inclination would be to abolish the old system altogether. I want to say with the fullest sense of responsibility, as an ex-Minister for Agriculture, that I never accepted the view, although it was pressed upon me, that a river was damaged by lawful fishing. We have never had a situation here where a sporting river was so intensively fished with rod and line as to create a problem, and I do not believe that at this moment, if one removed all licences from salmon rod fishing, any damage would be done to the salmon fisheries or to the pike or trout fisheries, by people fishing with rods and lines.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would that not be more appropriate to the Second Reading? It is not proposed to remove the salmon licence fee by this Bill and it is only what is in the Bill that may be discussed.

Mr. Dillon

I am making the case against the proposal in the Bill to increase the rod licence fee——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy to deal with that.

Mr. Dillon

I am arguing that if I had my way, far from increasing the fee, I would be inclined to abolish——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not in the Bill, and only what is in the Bill may be discussed.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know that I am excluded from saying it. I am arguing that the Bill should not pass——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has said it, anyway.

Mr. Dillon

I am arguing that the Bill should not pass and I am arguing that there are not valid grounds for enacting this measure at all. It is not calculated to afford any protection to existing fishing facilities. There is nothing in the Bill calculated to increase the quantity of fish in the rivers or to protect the rivers from any possibility of depletion by persons fishing with rod and line. I want to emphasise that, in my submission, the contention that these are the justifications for this Bill are fraudulent and that the only purpose served by this Bill is to transfer from the Exchequer to those using rods and those using nets in the estuaries a burden which should not be so transferred.

This Bill is also designed to perpetuate, and to permit the perpetuation of, the existing duty on exports of salmon and to enable the Minister to increase that levy. That is a rotten principle. I repealed this levy when I became Minister in 1954 and I did so because I knew when I took office, as I knew before that, that the levy then in existence had one purpose only, and that an integral part of the 1952 Budget—to relieve the burden on the Exchequer at the expense of the net fishermen. That was not its only evil, that it transferred the burden from shoulders well able to bear it to shoulders relatively unable to bear it. It seemed to me grotesque in our conditions, as Deputy Cunningham knows in the case of the Teelin fishermen, to accept that it was proper to levy 2d. per lb. on all they caught in order to relieve the Exchequer. Anybody knowing their conditions realises that on some occasions they pay as much as £40 for a licence and get nothing if fishing happens to be bad.

I often wonder when I see a Bill of this kind before the House whether it is not true that Fianna Fáil policy for fishermen is the same as Fianna Fáil policy for agriculture. There used to be an old landlord's bailiff on the Featherstonehaugh Estate in County Longford in days long ago and when anyone came to him to represent to him that the rents being charged were excessive, his reply was: "No, no, no; the heavier you load them, the sweeter they will draw." I wonder is that the thesis of Fianna Fáil whenever they deal with anybody in rural areas——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is getting very far from the Bill. It is very general.

Mr. Dillon

I am protesting against the salmon levy of 2d. per lb.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy to do that, but the Deputy may not travel over all the manifestations of country life.

Mr. Childers

This is not a Budget debate.

Mr. Dillon

This is part of the Budget. Now, we see I am bringing the Minister round. We now see the light is beginning to dawn on his mind. A discussion on this Bill strikes the Minister as a discussion on the Budget. Right! It is part of the Budget——

Mr. Childers

It is nothing of the kind.

Mr. Dillon

That is the purpose of this Bill——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss the Budget. He may discuss only the provisions in this Bill——

Mr. Dillon

One of which is that there shall be a levy of 2d. per lb.——

Mr. Childers

That was in operation before the Bill came before the House.

Mr. Dillon

It is in the Bill, and it is now to be within the power of the Minister to increase it. Is that not the purpose of this Bill? Does the Minister know his own Bill? The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Minister to impose a heavier burden. I am suggesting that it is on the load principle of "the heavier the burden, the sweeter they will draw". Does Deputy Cunningham think it is just to levy 2d. per lb. on salmon exports? There is no other Donegal or Kerry Deputy here from the Fianna Fáil Party. Is there anybody prepared to tell the Minister at this stage on behalf of the net fishermen of our estuaries what they think of the proposal to levy 2d., 3d. or 4d. on salmon exports?

Mr. Childers

None of the net fishermen has said a word against it, not a single one.

Mr. Dillon

Come now, Deputy Cunningham. On the Second Stage, Deputy Cunningham spoke against it. I heard him on the Second Stage. He thought it was unjust.

Mr. Cunningham

Let the Deputy make his speech; I will make mine.

Mr. Dillon

But the Deputy will make it, will he not? The Minister said he never uttered a word.

Mr. Childers

I said the net men's association and the net men's groups.

Mr. Dillon

But the net men's Deputy, Deputy Cunningham, is here. Is he not entitled to speak for them or is he merely engaging in sentimental nonsense?

An Ceann Comhairle

All this is not relevant to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

There is 2d. levy on salmon in the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no use reverting to that after travelling far from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Childers

It is a peculiar Fifth Stage discussion.

Mr. Dillon

I am not travelling a fraction of an inch from the 2d. levy on the export of salmon and the power in this Bill to increase that levy. I say it is wrong and unjust. I say I repealed it when I was Minister for Fisheries because I thought it was unjust. Now the Minister is bringing it back and bringing it back with knobs on—not only the 2d. but so much more, if he chooses to put it on. It is unjust because a charge is being levied on poor people which they should not be called on to pay.

It is bad for another reason. I warned this House before and I warn them again, every Deputy representative of rural interests in this House, if he accepts the principle of relieving the Exchequer from existing burdens, through the instrumentality of levying on exports, as certainly as we are standing in this House that principle will be extended to other exports. Do not forget that it was advocated in Seanad Eireann by the then leader of the Fianna Fáil Party there that one means of relieving the general burden of taxation was to levy cattle exports.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is travelling far afield? We are dealing only with taxation on the export of fish. That is all that is dealt with here. We may not travel farther and include the export of other things. This is limited purely to what is in this Bill and Deputy Dillon knows that.

Mr. Dillon

I do.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy knows he is travelling beyond the limits of this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Surely if there is enshrined in this Bill for the first time the principle of a levy on exports, am I not entitled to discuss whither that principle leads us?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. The Deputy may discuss the effect of the levy on the export of fish, and that only.

Mr. Dillon

I will accept that and confine myself to it. Is it desirable or just to levy exports of fish so hardly won by men engaged in one of the most difficult vocations there is, the netting of fish? Deputy Cunningham ought not to laugh. Has he ever seen them fish in a salmon estuary? Does he doubt it is a difficult occupation? He ought to have seen them.

I want to reiterate that fishing by night for salmon in any estuary of this country is one of the most dangerous forms of fishing there is, one of the most laborious and one of the most precarious for which fishermen pay a very high licence fee and not infrequently find themselves at the end of the season without having caught enough salmon to pay the licence. Does Deputy Cunningham deny that? Those are the facts and these are the people whom it is proposed in this Bill to levy to the tune of 2d. per lb. or more to relieve the Exchequer.

I want to stigmatise as dishonest and false the representation that the proceeds of this are to be devoted to the improvement of inland fisheries. That is simply not true. There is no connection between the proceeds of any levy made under this Bill or any licence prescribed by this Bill and the Inland Fisheries Trust and the operations thereof. I find it hard to understand how the Minister can make that representation to the House.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is making a misrepresentation.

Mr. Dillon

But there is not any connection between any licence fee or levy proposed in this Bill and the Inland Fisheries Trust, except in so far as the proceeds of these licence fees and levies go into the Exchequer and the annual subscription to Board Fáilte comes from the Exchequer and thus from the Exchequer to the Inland Fisheries Trust. That is a tenuous enough connection. By that method, you could connect every other tax levied under the Finance Act with inland fisheries. There is no more connection between the levies and the licence fees and the Inland Fisheries Trust than there is between the tariff on galvanised iron and the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust. To suggest that there is, is not true. It is simply put in to throw dust in the eyes of Deputies.

These are taxes and they are taxes that ought not to be levied. Those Deputies who represent maritime constituencies ought to be ashamed of having this Bill introduced. At least I can say Deputy O'Malley kicked up a row on the Second Stage in defence of the anglers he was concerned about and I admit he got some concession. But there is Deputy Cunningham sitting behind him. He had not the spunk to kick up a row. He had a soft bleating noise on the Second Stage. He was told to keep quite and he has kept quiet ever since, though he has a much better case than Deputy O'Malley. Deputy O'Malley was talking for gentlemen who could afford to pay £2, £3 or £4, but he got a reduction for them.

There is one matter of detail which, perhaps, I do not understand and the Minister might clarify it for me. Part I of the Second Schedule appears to set out the licence duties in respect of salmon rod ordinary licences of £2. I understood the Minister to tell us his intention of using the powers of this Bill for the purpose of increasing that licence to £4, but he subsequently decided to make the increase only to £3. Why is the proposed new figure not incorporated in the Schedule to the Bill, or is it merely some drafting difficulty that makes it expedient to repeat the old figure and leave it to the Minister to make an Order?

Mr. Childers

Those are the basic figures and we will increase them by Order.

Mr. Dillon

On the ground that this Bill represents an attack on the estuarine net men, it is injurious, inequitable and, in principle, evil; and because it increases by 50 per cent. The tax on salmon rods, I object to it. I want to warn the House—I have told the House I resisted strong pressure to increase the salmon rod licence and I think the House should be informed of this also—that from the same quarter heavy pressure was brought to bear on me to put a licence of £1 or £2, half whatever the salmon rod licence was, on trout rods. I resisted that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is correct.

Mr. Dillon

I warn the House that, if they pass this Bill, it will not be very long before a proposal in regard to trout rods is brought before them and, if and when that happens, this Bill will be quoted as justification for the new departure. The only ground upon which there is any hope of expanding is by adhering to the existing low rates as a matter of policy. The more it is pointed out to us that these rates are ridiculously low as compared with the rates charged 50 years ago, the more we should glory in that fact, the more we should publicise that fact and the more we should dwell upon it in order to carry conviction to potential tourists that there is available here something that is not available anywhere else.

I hope this Bill will be thrown out by the Seanad. I despair of getting it thrown out by this House in view of the attitude of Deputies like Deputy Cunningham, who knows the Bill is wrong but who, if I challenged a division now, would not have the spunk to go into the Division Lobby with me. I am not in a position to draw Deputy O'Malley into the Division Lobby with me because, between himself and the Kerryman, they have put the closure on the Minister in respect of the interests they were sworn to protect.

Mr. Russell

There is one point which does not appear to be covered by the Bill but which arises out of the remarks of the Minister; I refer to the actual election of boards of conservators.

Mr. Childers

That is not in the Bill at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

Anything that is not in the Bill may not be discussed.

Mr. Russell

May I ask the Minister a question? Will he carry out the undertaking he gave in some recent speech that he would, in fact, investigate the represent method of election of boards of conservators, which appears to be unsatisfactory in many respects?

Mr. Childers

I will, but it is not part of this Bill.

Mr. Russell

There is a net increase in the Estimate for Fisheries this year of £16,820. The Minister stated that he expects to get something like £14,000 more as a result of the levy on salmon exports and the increase in the rod licence. It is to be assumed that, if these increases were not imposed, that £14,000 would have to be found by the taxpayer. On the last occasion on which this Bill was under discussion I expressed the view that the taxpayer is already bearing more than his fair share of the expenses of running the country and, if he can be relieved even to a small extent by a small levy on the export of salmon and a reasonable increase in the rod licence, I do not think the principle is a bad one at all. I expressed the view the last day that if the Minister could strike a fair apportionment between the taxpayer, the rod licence holder and the exporter of salmon, that is as much as the House would expect him to achieve. By and large, he has done that. With all due respect to Deputy Dillon, tourist fishermen from the United States of America will not be put off coming to fish here because the rod licence has been increased from £2 to £4 and the district licence from £2 to £3. Despite these increases, we can still offer some of the cheapest, if not the cheapest, fishing anywhere in Europe. I am glad the Minister intends to deal with the question of election of boards of conservators. The present position is, as the Minister knows, unsatisfactory in many respects.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to interfere with the Deputy, but if I allow him to deal with a matter which is not in this Bill I must allow all subsequent speakers to do likewise.

Mr. Russell

I think Deputy Dillon ranged a little bit outside the Bill, if I may say so.

Mr. Childers

This is the Fifth Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is the Fifth Stage of the Bill and the Deputy may only discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. Russell

If the Minister uses these additional funds for salmon conservancy he will be making progress in the right direction by building up our fisheries into a really worthwhile tourist attraction and into something of benefit to the ordinary common-or-garden workingman who wants to make a few pounds in the year in a legitimate sport on his own rivers.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I should like to join in the protests already made by Deputy Dillon in relation to the contents of this Bill. Frankly, I am horrified to think that at this stage we are sponsoring legislation of this kind, legislation which emanates from a particular source and which is designed for a particular purpose. This is a rich man's Bill. It is brought in in the interests of a privileged section of the community and the Bill is designed to make the privileges of the few more secure and, in doing so, to impose quite a considerable burden on ordinary folk.

It is proposed in this Bill to increase salmon licences. At the moment a salmon licence has to be taken out if an ordinary workingman in the town of Drogheda wants to get on his bicycle and cycle down to fish for white trout in the River Nanny. Fishing is an ordinary avocation engaged in by many people in and around our eastern towns. They are not rich people. They go out to fish for salmon trout or white trout. Under existing legislation they must take out a salmon rod licence. It is now proposed that henceforth these people will have their licence duty increased by 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. That is a most unjust imposition.

On many of the rivers that they fish at the moment for white trout and salmon trout there has never been any expenditure of any portion of the salmon licence duty. They are largely maintained by the trout anglers' associations who do not share in the revenue of the boards of conservators in the particular districts. They get nothing for the duty they pay and here now, in the interests of a few, it is proposed that the licence fee should be increased by from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. It is unjust and wrong. I am surprised this Bill received the approval of the Government. I am glad to be able to say that when a suggestion similar to this was made at the time of the previous Government it was rejected out of hand.

It is proposed to increase the imposition on net fishermen in the estuaries. These are ordinary folk, earning their livelihood in a hard and strenuous but traditional way by net fishing for salmon and sea trout in our estuaries. They are to be taxed in the interests of a select and privileged few.

The export duty is being made permanent and is given a statutory position in this Bill. It represents a tax on the efforts of ordinary folk throughout this country. The scattered estuary fishermen along the east, north-west and southern coasts will now have to pay a duty on the fish they catch for export. It is said that that duty is to go to and be controlled by the boards of conservators but, of course, it is in ease of the Exchequer.

These three proposals are unjust. It is wrong that a Bill of this kind should be passed by this Legislature. This is the type of Bill one might expect the British House of Commons to pass for Ireland 30 or 40 years ago when we were regarded merely as the sporting fields for rich British gentry, when the right to fish our lakes and streams for white or sea trout was a right never expected to be availed of by the mere Irish. This Bill is the product of that kind of mentality and I think it is wrong that it should be passed.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I should like to add my voice to protests with regard to the passing of this Bill. This is a bad Bill and, furthermore, it will reap in money under false pretences. It is a deceitful piece of legislation. We are told that, under this Bill, steps are being taken to collect certain sums of money for certain purposes. The certain sums of money are to be raked in in the form of a levy of 2d. or more— the Minister has power to increase it —on salmon exports. There is also to be a substantial increase in the fee for salmon rod licences. We are told that this money is earmarked for the purpose of financing boards of conservators in their efforts to provide more up-to-date protection for the fisheries.

Everybody in this House knows, and nobody knows it more clearly than the present Minister for Lands and Fisheries, that this Bill is deliberately designed for the one purpose of relieving the Exchequer.

Mr. Childers

Nonsense.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

On another stage of this Bill, when I questioned him on the amount of money that was provided for boards of conservators, the Minister clearly admitted that when the salmon export levy was removed by the inter-Party Government not alone did boards of conservators get the same amount of grants but they got increased grants. I want the Minister to be frank with the House. Is the real motive behind the introduction and resurrection of the salmon levy not mere political spite? Is it not an effort and an attempt to get their own back on the members of the fishing community who made appeals to the inter-Party Government to remove the levy of 2d. per lb. on salmon exports? It is entire nonsense for the Minister to say that no requests or appeals have come forward to him, as Minister for Lands, not to reimpose the export levy.

I visited a number of fishing centres, particularly in the South, and I came into contact with various boards of conservators. One of the first questions always asked was: "What was the main purpose of the Fianna Fáil Government is imposing a levy of 2d. per lb. on salmon exports?" They asked that question because they saw clearly that, despite the fact that they were told by the then Government that substantial increased grants would be made available for boards of conservators, those increased grants were not coming along.

The fishermen, particularly salmon fishermen, none of whom was wealthy and all of whom were honest and most of whom were hard-working, particularly those men with whom I came into contact in County Donegal, made an earnest appeal to the Government of the day to come to their rescue and remove what they described as "a cruel and brutal injustice." Having considered the facts as submitted by a number of deputations, by resolutions from boards of conservators and by the fishermen themselves, the then Government decided it would be in the best interests of salmon fishing and of the improvement of the standard of living of fishermen engaged in that branch of fishing that the salmon export levy should be revoked and wiped out completely. That was done.

I feel, as Deputy Dillon feels, that this is a means of raking in money under false pretences. I think this is a dishonest Bill. Many other strong cases have been put forward to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries calling for various improvements and adjustments in fishery legislation which he could have brought in if he had so desired. This Bill is designed deliberately and solely to enable the Government to dive their hands deep down into the trousers pockets of poor fishermen, firstly, by the levy on salmon exports and, secondly, by increasing the rod licence fees.

It is quite true for Deputy Dillon to say that when he was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries every effort that could possibly be made was made to convince the Government of the day that they should increase the salmon rod licence fees. I think it was the Kerry Board of Fishery Conservators which expressed a strong objection to an increase in salmon rod licence fees. After their views and the views of others, who should know, were fully considered, it was decided that the then Government would not under any circumstances increase the salmon rod licence fees. The reasons were very clear and they are well known.

I put it to the Minister that his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in a loud tone is calling tourists to come to this country to enjoy their holidays and spend their money, and pointing out the facilities we offer them in many lines, that the principal attraction we can offer is the most attractive fisheries in the world and the cheapest rates of fishing in the world and that much of that is being negatived by this Bill. I do not subscribe to the idea of Deputy Russell that even when this Bill is passed, we will still have the cheapest fisheries in the world to attract tourists. Even if we can still boast, after the Bill is passed, of having such attractive fisheries at such low cost, why should we lessen that boast?

I think this is a bad Bill and the House ought not pass it. It is closely connected with the Budget and is a part of the Government's policy to squeeze money by every means in their power out of the pockets of every section of the community. I have no further comment to make upon it. I have advised the House it is a bad measure and have told the fishermen there is nothing in it to improve fisheries. I have sounded a note of warning to boards of conservators that, when this Bill is passed, it will not be the means of improving their financial position by 1½d. because the Bill is deliberately designed so as to relieve the Exchequer of certain financial commitments to boards of conservators.

A most regrettable incident occurred during the debate on this Bill. There was an occasion when the Minister probably lost his temper and spoke in terms which I feel he now regrets.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter may not be raised at this stage. I understand the Minister withdrew the remark at that time.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

What remark was that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

May I ask the Deputy what he was referring to?

Mr. Corish

Sure, you have just ruled him out of order.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I was referring to the unfair and remarkable statement made by the Minister for Lands in reference to The Kerryman.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I took it that was what the Deputy was referring to.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We take it that the Minister expressed his sincere regret. He expressed an opinion he ought not have expressed and we take it he now apologises to The Kerryman.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy did not read my letter to The Kerryman.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Kerryman is a newspaper of great national importance and I am glad the Minister has mended his ways in that regard.

Mr. Childers

I did not say I mended my ways at all. Deputy Dillon's observations and those of Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Flanagan were reminders of the sort of clotted nonsense we have been listening to from the Fine Gael Party for the last ten years. They are the people who promised they would reduce taxation by £10,000,000 but instead they increased it by £20,000,000. They come before this House dripping with sorrow because there has been an attempt made to bring to boards of conservators sufficient revenues with which to develop fishing for the "mere Irishman", as well as for tourists, and to maintain the increased revenues by which the "mere Irishman" can continue to fish; to find revenues by which 5,000 persons in employment in the inland fishing industry can continue to be employed, and to find the means by which more persons can be employed in inland fishing in this country.

The House might like to know that the former Minister for Agriculture sent recommendations to the Government for increases in rod licence fees. I do not know whether the former Parliamentary Secretary recalls this. The Government saw fit not to do it but nevertheless the former Minister for Agriculture made proposals for increases.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Were they approved?

Mr. Childers

They were not but the former Minister for Agriculture approved of them.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

They were not approved by the Government.

Mr. Childers

But the former Minister for Agriculture proposed them.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is not my argument.

Mr. Childers

Would the Deputy be good enough to allow me to point out that the former Minister for Agriculture made such proposals? He agreed with his officers and made proposals for increases in rod licence fees which were not accepted by the former Government. The former Government were in such a financial mess——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

They were not.

Mr. Childers

They were in such a mess that they could not consider anything in the light of intelligence. Secondly, it is utterly untrue to say that this Bill is a fraudulent method of collecting taxation for the Exchequer, and that boards of conservators will receive no increase in revenues. Assuming the grant from the Exchequer remains the same as it is this year and assuming the general state of the salmon fishing industry— the run of salmon and the other physical circumstances attending this industry—remain the same, there will be an increase in revenue, all of which will go to boards of conservators. There will be an increase of approximately £14,000 as compared with the year 1956. Those are the facts and it is just nonsense to suggest that I am fraudulently in league with the Minister for Finance to take what in effect is a very small amount of money to help the Minister in his Budget. This Bill will produce, if all goes well, a total increase in revenue of £14,000.

During the last two years of the late Government's term of office the amount of money available to boards of conservators, in all its forms, was not sufficient to make allowance for the decrease in the value of money that had taken place since 1939, so no one need imagine that the late Government had any deep sympathy for boards of conservators, or for the development of the salmon industry, because the amount of money available for them was less, allowing for increases in wages and the decline in the value of money, than it was in 1939. All these complaints are nothing but sheer crocodile tears. They represent no well established feeling in the country. No groups of netsmen have sent resolutions either to boards of conservators or to me protesting against the salmon levy.

The salmon levy represents 2d. per lb. of salmon. The average price of salmon is 73d. per lb. and, therefore, it cannot be considered a crushing levy, but it brings very much needed revenues for the development of salmon fisheries.

Mr. Corish

This is on the net fishermen as well?

Mr. Childers

The export of all salmon is subject to levy whether it be exported by netsmen, rodsmen or licensed dealers. The levy will vary between 1d. and 2d. according to time of year. Taking the figure of 2d., it represents 2d. on the average value of salmon, which is 73d. per lb.

Mr. Corish

I do not mind the rod fishermen, but I think it is harsh on the net fishermen.

Mr. Childers

In respect of the increase in rod licences, I thought we were reaching the situation where we could discuss this question intelligently. I am glad to say that, with the exception of about four Deputies, the whole of the House did discuss the rod licences intelligently, and the compromise I made as a result of advice I received from Deputies and from boards of conservators was the establishment of a district licence of £3 for the whole season and £2 after July 1st, subject to certain conditions. The compromise seems to be regarded satisfactorily. During the last few days, I have been talking with a number of fishermen who think it is a reasonable compromise and none of the angling associations has protested since this compromise was suggested. One would imagine I was imposing an impossible burden on the fishermen and on the rods men by the proposals in this Bill. Deputy Dillon tries to make a connection between tax on the export of cattle and the salmon export levy, but Deputy Dillon——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister will agree this is the thin end of the wedge.

Mr. Childers

——knows perfectly well that he has approved of certain types of levies on agricultural produce. He puts forward the fantastic idea that there is a conspiracy between me and the Minister for Agriculture. The revenue for the boards of conservators is provided by Acts of the Dáil, but the boards of conservators are supposed, in fact, to be independent of any help from the Minister for Finance. This idea of Deputy Dillon of some sort of connection between one sort of tax and another is a ludicrous figment of his imagination just as was his statement in 1947 that beet and wheat were up the spout "and may peat go up the spout too and God speed the day". It is just the sort of clotted nonsense——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if, on the Fifth Stage of this Bill, the Minister is going to speak on wheat and beet I respectfully ask to be allowed to make my contribution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister would not be in order continuing on beet and wheat.

Mr. Childers

I have not gone any further than Deputy Dillon went.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister knows that it is the thin end of the wedge.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is not going to stop me from speaking. There is no thin end of the wedge in connection with this Bill.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is what the Minister thinks.

Mr. Childers

It is what I know. The Deputy knows nothing about my intentions. It is only I who know about them. Deputy Dillon went further and said that we should abolish rod licences altogether and that everybody should be allowed to fish without paying a licence. It is very important for boards of conservators to know how many people are coming to fish on their rivers for the sake of conservation. In actual fact, the price of salmon is so high that the number of anglers who fish commercially, as every Deputy knows, has grown enormously and the numbers are increasing all the time. The length of time during which the body of rod anglers fish is also increasing all the time and it is quite essential to have some form of licence control exercised by the boards, with a view at least to obtaining some statistical data to maintain a balance between rod anglers and netsmen to ensure conservancy. I have no evidence during the last ten years that there has been any startling increase in the stocks of salmon coming up our rivers every year. I should like to say there was evidence of such an increase. I have not been told that there is any immediate danger of a decrease but what I do know is there is plenty of room for development and that the industry gives good employment and is responsible for valuable exports.

For that reason, we must see what we can do to get as much revenue as possible. One of my reasons for asking the House to pass this Bill is that I desire to be able to appeal to the Minister for Finance, on occasion, not to supplement the ordinary revenues of the boards but to obtain extra sums for use by the boards for development purposes, so that, for example, when I receive the report of the engineers on a river up which no salmon flow, because there are engineering obstacles, with reasonable expenditure, those rivers can be developed and protected by the board of conservators in the district concerned. I can go to the Minister for Finance and it will be easier for me to secure such grants or loans or advances that will have the result that when that constructional work can be done, it will be to the board of conservators a solid source of revenue to enable them to secure worthwhile protection and enable the industry to develop.

Lastly, I should like to say that there is absolutely no question that after the increases in rod licences come into operation this will still be one of the cheapest countries in the world from the point of view of salmon fishing. I have looked at the fees charged in the really valuable rivers in Great Britain and Scotland and I have examined the situation in general, and I am satisfied that the very small increases asked of rod anglers will not have any effect whatever in discouraging tourists from coming here. It will still be relatively inexpensive, after paying all the costs. I think the increase in the rod licence fee is in fact a negligible percentage of what the expenses of fishermen are.

That is all I have to say, except to repeat that, in spite of what Deputy Dillon said, I have heard no tremendous outcry since the Bill, in its present revised form, came before the House. I do not believe that Deputy Dillon is speaking for any type of angler and I do not see how the increase in the rod licence fee—the first to have taken place since 1925— which represents in fact the catching of 3½lb. weight more of salmon in the entire season for the purpose of defraying the extra charge, can be regarded as coldblooded taxation designed to destroy the fishing of the ordinary man.

Question put and agreed to.