As this Bill is rather complex in form, there has been circulated an explanatory memorandum to serve as a guide to what are its main provisions and what is the grouping of sections which are respectively consequential on those main provisions.
The subject matter falls into five divisions and I shall deal with each of them in turn. Taking first what may be described as the financial provisions, Section 8 re-enacts as part of the fisheries code the Salmon Conservancy Fund Act, 1954, and Sections 14 and 15 and the Second Schedule are concerned with changes in the system of fishing licences and of the rates of licence duty to be charged. These financial provisions have been entirely misrepresented as forming part of a scheme to relieve the Exchequer and transfer heavy burdens to those who engage in fishing for salmon.
The simple facts are that the sources of revenue available to boards of conservators have for a number of years been proving less and less adequate to meet the cost of carrying out their protection work. Notwithstanding that fishery rates have been increased and increased Exchequer subventions provided, the apparent increase of conservators' revenues from £28,500 in 1938-39 to £66,000 odd in 1956-57 vanishes when the figures are adjusted to allow for the change in cost of living and purchasing power of money which occurred in the interval.
It has been evident for some time that despite the increase in revenues the conservancy service has been scarcely able to hold its own and no margin has been available to put the service on a more effective footing by reorganising the water-keeping staff and providing up-to-date means of transport and communication.
There are two main reasons for reimposing the salmon export levy and introducing legislation whereby fishing licence duties may be increased, namely, to put conservators in funds to help them to reorganise their protection services, and, secondly, to provide moneys for development work. In the latter connection a start has been made with engineering surveys of a number of rivers which are at present barren of salmon or carrying only a fraction of their potential stocks, due to the existence of natural barriers which impede the ascent of fish for spawning.
It seems likely that the engineering works required in some such cases will be fairly costly but where increased runs of salmon can be adduced it should be possible to amortise the cost within, say, 15 years having regard to the value of increased catch both by sporting and commercial methods. Each undertaking will, however, require careful study to ensure that the construction cost is in its proper relation to the increase in stock which can be forecast having regard to the extent of spawning grounds and availability of feeding for fry in the areas to be opened up.
On re-enactment of the Salmon Conservancy Fund Act, 1954, by Section 8 of the Bill, the opportunity is being taken in sub-section (9) to make it clear that moneys in the Salmon Conservancy Fund may be applied towards the expenses of improvement schemes of the kind I have indicated. Otherwise, the salmon export levy provisions of the 1954 Act remain unchanged. The rates of levy reimposed by Order in May, 1957, namely, 2d. per lb. from 1st January to 31st May in any year and 1d. per lb. thereafter are identical with those originally imposed. This cannot but be regarded as a modest charge in relation to a product which, in 1957, returned an average export price of 6/1 per lb. and the absence of any real protest during the past year may be taken as evidence that the industry recognises the need for such a charge and that it is reasonable in amount.
Coming to the licence duty provisions, Sections 14 and 15, together with the Second Schedule, provide for re-enactment of the ordinary licence duties on fishing engines at the current rates with new provision in Section 15 for alteration of such rates by Order and crediting of the increase to the Salmon Conservancy Fund. For the information of Senators, a statement has been circulated in the form of a comparative table showing what are to be the rates of licence duty as from the 1st January, 1959, as compared with those in force at present for fishing with rod and line. It is not my present intention to increase the licence duties for fishing engines other than rod and line.
Briefly, the chief changes in licensing will fall under two heads, namely, the introduction of rod licences available in all fishery districts throughout the State at £4 for the whole season, £3 for 21 days or for the remainder of the season after 1st July, and £1 for a seven-day licence and, secondly, the introduction of licences, available in the district of issue only, at licence duties of £3 for the whole season and £2 after 1st July. The late season district licence is designed to cater for the angler whose chief interest is in sea trout fishing and it is my intention to authorise its issue in consultation with the boards of conservators having regard to the extent to which sea trout fishing predominates in the various districts in the latter part of the season.
Since this Bill was circulated, boards of conservators and angling organisations have had every opportunity of making known their reactions and I have had occasion to meet throughout the country a number of persons with intimate knowledge of the angler's point of view. There has been no reasoned opposition to the new scheme of licence duties save in one respect. A fairly strong case was made for the angler who fishes only in the rivers of his own district and, acting on the advice received and following discussion in the other House, I introduced a series of amendments which brought in the district licence and late season district licence already mentioned. The final result is a scheme of licence duties which I am satisfied will be found reasonable by all concerned.
The net outcome of these financial provisions is an estimated total revenue to boards of conservators of some £80,000 in 1959-60 as compared with the £66,000 odd already mentioned for 1956-57. These figures include, in respect of grants from the Exchequer the sums of £6,000 and £13,000 respectively.
In the discussion on this Bill in the Dáil there appeared to be some confusion of mind in regard to whether boards of conservators would actually receive in the financial year, for example 1959-60, a considerable addition to their revenues as a result of the maintenance of the export levy and the introduction of new rod licence fees. I should like, therefore, to make it absolutely clear to Senators that, other things being equal, namely the number of visitors and the number of fishermen as a whole remaining stable, the general fishing conditions in the year 1959-60 being comparable to those of 1956-57, there will be available for conservancy and improvement schemes £14,000 more next year than in the previous year named, that is, the year 1956-57. The greater part of this increase will be received in cash by the boards of conservators.
I should also make it clear that in the elaborate organisation of the boards set up by numerous statutes from 1848 onwards all the machinery exists whereby the boards can become as self-supporting as possible so that I need only apply to the Minister for Finance for subventions to supply particular needs relating to development or some unforeseen circumstances. This is a policy which is generally understood in relation to other productive operations where the whole industry is knit together in an administrative machine.
I should also make it clear that the need for these extra revenues arises from the fact that the amount of money available to boards of conservators is not any greater than that found in 1938 and 1939, allowing for the decrease in the value of money, whereas it is absolutely essential to develop the industry, to restock the rivers, to increase the exports, and to increase the number of fishermen coming here, hence the decision in regard to the financial provisions of the Bill.
It is beyond doubt true that after these very moderate rod licence increases have been effected equivalent in fact to the catching of a salmon — weight 3½ to 7 lb. — extra in the year our salmon angling will still be far cheaper than in other countries.
Further provision in relation to licensing is made in Part IX of the Bill where oyster fishing licences are introduced. This has been found necessary in order that the conservators may be put in a position to undertake the effective protection of oyster beds which are threatened with depletion by illegal fishing.
The other main provisions of the Bill deal with two forms of development — the introduction of fish farming and the encouragement of eel fishing by the relaxation of certain restrictions.
Fish farming has proved to be a highly profitable industry in some continental countries where the natural conditions are by no means as favourable as ours. The fish farm established at Roscrea by the Inland Fisheries Trust by means of a grant from the National Development Fund is primarily engaged in the production of trout and coarse fish suitable for restocking of angling waters. Some rainbow trout is, however, being marketed for table use and those interested in fish farming for profit can learn a good deal about the layout, equipment and operating technique by studying what is being done at Roscrea. Arrangements are already in hand for the establishment by private enterprise of a large scale commercial trout farm and with such examples before them I look forward to seeing many farmers taking up trout farming as a profitable side line. The fish culture licences which are being introduced in Section 5 of the Bill to control this development will have the effect of enabling the fish farmer to net his fish for market at any time of the year free from restrictions as to close season which must be enforced for the protection of wild fish.
The yield of our eel fisheries must be regarded as far below optimum catch, with exports of eels showing an average over the past three years of only 2,200 cwt. valued at £28,000 a year. Here again we seem to have much to learn from the continentals and in the immediate future an officer of my Department will be engaged on a study tour to get first hand information on the methods best calculated to develop our eel fisheries and expand exports. In the meantime, the proposals contained in Sections 19 to 22 of the Bill have been worked out so as to make it possible to relax certain statutory restrictions on the operation of eel fisheries subject, where necessary, to conditions which will ensure that satisfactory provision is made for the free passage of salmon.
Finally, I would refer to the Fisheries Consolidation Bill which I hope to reintroduce in this House following enactment of the present Bill. Completion of the process of consolidation will prepare the way for comprehensive revision of the fishery laws and work will be put in hand without delay on an amending measure to deal with the more pressing problems, such as the election system for boards of conservators.