Would I be in order in expressing my regret at the need for this Bill and in referring to——
Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
No, in Committee we must deal with the various sections as they arise. On Second Stage we may deal with principles behind the Bill but not on Committee Stage.
What scope have we in speaking on the section?
Just on what the section says.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Parliamentary Secretary in this section seeks an extension to the time limit for the election of boards. He also mentions 1977. Do we take it that he proposes to have further extensions of the life of the boards despite the fact that in 1974 he told us he would have a look at the Inland Fisheries Commission Report in relation to the whole structure of the inland fishing industry?
I think I can be positive in stating that unless something completely unforeseen happens there will be no extension beyond 1977. This provision is only included in case the unforeseen did happen so that an extension could be granted. The extension could only be granted, of course, with the approval of both Houses; it could not be done outside the Houses of the Oireachtas. While I see no likelihood of that happening this is put in as a safeguard. For instance, another person in my position might wish to do things differently. Deputy Gallagher can be assured that there should be no difficulty regarding this section, that it is most unlikely it will ever have to be invoked. If that happens it will have to come before both Houses.
Is it the Parliamentary Secretary's intention to introduce the new legislation to which he referred to implement the recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Report which will include abolishing boards of conservators as we now know them?
The Deputy must wait until the Bill is introduced for that information.
Is it the Parliamentary Secretary's intention to introduce that Bill before Christmas?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
In this section the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking permission to increase licence fees and while there might be an argument for increases in some sections, the Bill itself is too vague. We have no indication as to what the increases are likely to be and we cannot accept a pig in a poke. We want to know exactly what he has in mind. We want guidelines on what the proposed increases are likely to be. We would like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind.
We have not yet determined the amount of the increase but whatever it will be, an order will be brought before this House and the Seanad for approval. Everybody will agree that there is justification for an increase. We are limited under previous legislation to an increase of not more than 100 per cent and, as regards drift net licences, 100 per cent of £3 is only £3, making £6. We think it should be much higher. I think there is very little objection by the fishermen to this measure as regards increasing licence duties but in any case the matter will come before the House for approval.
Under the 1959 Act the licence was fixed at £3 and there was provision to increase the licence for drift nets by an amount not exceeding 100 per cent. In other words, the Parliamentary Secretary has power to increase the drift net licence to £6 at present but it still remains at £3— is that correct?
The Deputy will appreciate that 100 per cent of £3 is too small a figure. I believe I should have power to increase it far beyond 100 per cent.
Has the amount for a salmon rod licence been increased in excess of the amount originally stated in the 1959 Act?
It is £4.
That is the figure in the 1959 Act. I never had the privilege of having a salmon rod licence; it would be no good to me as I have nowhere to use it. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it extraordinary that he should seek authority in a Bill such as this to increase the licences under the 1959 Act to an unspecified amount when he has, under existing fisheries legislation, power to increase existing licences by as much as 100 per cent and has not done so? If he considers that these licence fees are too low, as seems to be the case from what he has said here, surely he already has power to double them if he wishes to? After three years in office he has not done that. Why then seek power to increase them to an unspecified sum when he has not exercised the power he already has under the 1959 Act?
We were waiting for the legislation which I would hope to introduce this year to deal comprehensively with all matters relating to inland fisheries and also with increases in licence duties. Unfortunately, we were unable to get this legislation ready before the summer recess but we should not wait until it is finalised to get approval for increasing licence duties. From my knowledge there is little or no opposition to increasing the duties far in excess of 100 per cent which I am allowed to do at present. Increases of that amount would be insignificant.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he would increase all licences? Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any indication of the total amount of revenue obtained from licence duties and what he hopes to do with the increased revenue? The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the increased licence duty would go towards developing our fisheries and for that reason I should like to know how much development work could be done even with an increase of 100 per cent on all licences?
The Deputy will get that information when the draft order is circulated to Members later this year.
How much revenue is received from licences? Does the Parliamentary Secretary know? Surely it is possible for him to tell us the total amount obtained from rod, hand and net licence duties?
I am sure the Deputy is aware of the number of licences issued. Less than 1,000 £3 drift net licences were issued.
How about all the other licences issued?
The revenue from licences at present is very small.
And even if the Parliamentary Secretary doubled the total amount of revenue he could not do very much with it in the line of development work.
If we double the licence fees we will get double the amount of money we get at present and I am sure the Deputy can calculate that. The Deputy is aware of the number of licences issued under the various headings and he should know the revenue from them.
Obviously, the Parliamentary Secretary does not know.
We are departing from the main purpose of this section in a frightening way. The Minister has authority to increase the existing licence fee by 100 per cent and the Parliamentary Secretary is now asking us to amend that section of the old Act without being specific about what he has in mind. Surely it is unreasonable to ask us to accept something without indicating what he has in mind in relation to this section.
I made it clear that the increases, by way of order, would be brought before the House and it will be open to Deputies to voice their opinions about those increases. This section gives me power to increase the licence fees and the amounts are not determined at present. There is no question of increasing the licence fee under the section without referring the matter to the House. There is nothing unusual in this.
The Parliamentary Secretary is asking the House for an extraordinary carte blanche under this section. He must have his tongue in his cheek asking for permission to have legislation passed which will enable licence fees to be increased without any limit. The 1959 Act was fair legislation and it stated exactly the powers of the Minister. There was a basic licence fee figure which he could increase at his discretion up to an amount equal to the amount of the existing licence fee. In other words, he could increase it by 100 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary has not acted upon the powers he has because he thinks such an increase would be too puny to bother with.
Our experience of the Government in relation to charges, such as taxation and fees under Government control, is that they impose extraordinary increases. We have only to look at what happened to motor taxation. A vehicle which could be taxed for £30 three years ago now costs £120 in tax. If we agree to this section, which we will not, we are supporting the Minister in a move which will allow him to increase licence fees for drift net, draft nets, fixed engines and rod licences to an unlimited amount. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the necessity of bringing back an order to the House and told us we would have an opportunity of debating that order but he knows that the Government have a majority of votes and what is dictated by the Cabinet will be marched through the lobbies. If he gets this section he will have no hesitation in increasing the licence fees.
We must oppose this section because we fear moves which would be made if the power is given to the Minister. This debate has been very interesting in as much as we have had the first clear indication from the Government that they favour the imposition of a £2 licence fee on every rod and line cast into Irish waters, fresh or salt. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the principle is acceptable to him, and he speaks for the Government in relation to this Bill. I should like to issue a warning to him that he will not get that kind of legislation through the House easily. I should like to warn every angling club and every citizen who enjoys as a pastime the casting of a fishing line, be it a rod line or an ordinary hand line, which is often the pastime of people who have not great resources, that this is now to be taken away from them. The great claim made by Bord Fáilte over the past two decades was that we have some of the greatest free fishing waters in Europe but this is to be wiped out by the Government.
The Deputy is moving from the section.
We are talking about granting absolute powers to the Minister to increase fees to an unlimited figure. We are making a basic change from existing legislation which restricts the increase to 100 per cent. It is a very dangerous power to give the Government particularly in their present mood. We should also remember their recent history of tax increases. The Minister for Transport and Power who is charged with tourism is listening to the debate and he must be concerned at the possibility of destroying our reputation for having the largest free fishing waters in Europe. I appeal to him to exercise his influence within the Government to put a half to whatever moves there are to introduce a £2 licence fee on all rod and line fishing. The £2 is a misnomer. That was the figure suggested by the Inland Fisheries Commission but recent practice has shown that that £2 would be considered a very paltry sum by the Government. It could be any figure; it could be £20. We cannot agree to give the Minister this kind of power.
The Deputy is talking with his tongue in his cheek. We are talking about a fish which is at present selling for almost £2 per lb. We are talking about licence fees which do not exceed £4.
We were talking about motor tax at £30 three years ago.
Those people who are engaged in rod fishing will not cavil at having to pay an extra licence fee.
The Minister could make the rod licence £100 if he wished.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Question declared carried.
I understand that there has been a substitution of tellers, Deputy John O'Connell for Deputy Barry Desmond.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and O'Connell; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 30th June, 1976.