Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1958

Vol. 49 No. 6

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Lands (Mr. Childers)

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.

Professor Stanford

I should like to take this opportunity, first, of expressing the genuine appreciation of fishermen in many parts of the country of the Minister's energetic efforts on their behalf. He has shown in his statement this evening a genuinely progressive policy. I noticed especially with interest the projects for fish farming and such like. The fact is, as the Minister very well realises, there is a great harvest to be won from our rivers. It looks as if he is going to see that that harvest is well cultivated in the next few years.

I still think, as I thought eight years or so ago when I spoke on this subject first in this House, that it is almost impossible for one man to combine the interests of the land with the interests of the water. Again and again you find the waterman and the landsman are in conflict on fundamental matters. I think the time will have to come, despite the energies of the present Minister and of previous Ministers, when we will need a special Minister for Fisheries. It is too important to be shared by any other Department. I would urge on the present Minister — and this is said in no sense of depreciation of his own talents — to keep in mind that the time is approaching when he or someone else must choose between the land and the water.

I would like to give one clear example of this conflict between the two elements. It is well known to fishermen, and probably well known to the House, that these schemes of land drainage which are so beneficial to the farmers are sometimes of great disadvantage to fishermen. I have here a letter from a very energetic fisherman in the West of Ireland. He says that the rivers in his area are chocolate in colour and not fishable at the present time, owing to the drainage schemes. Throughout the country, I have heard reports of a similar kind. In many cases, these drained areas are bringing much profit to the farmer but much disadvantage to the fisherman. In this there must be a clash of policy between the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture on one side and the Minister for Fisheries on the other; and it must be difficult for one man to resolve the conflict.

On the other hand, I should like to welcome the Minister's statement about the exploration of the possibility of opening up new rivers. Once again, that is a progressive policy and I hope it pays the dividends it deserves.

I should like, in passing, to direct the Minister's attention to this interest in another Bill which will come before the House very soon. The Transport Bill will possibly ring the death knell of the canals. If it does, the Minister for Fisheries is going to lose some valuable territory. It has been pointed out again and again in the public Press that the canals, apart from other great usefulness, can be most valuable for coarse fishing. In England, this is a most popular pastime. Many tourists would come over here if there were well stocked canals in this country. I would urge the Minister to do everything possible to preserve the canals, for that reason as well as for others.

There is one particular point on the Bill which I should like to raise. The Minister has heard it before: I hope he will be patient with me if he hears it again, expressed from a slightly different point of view, perhaps. The Bill as I see it is almost entirely a beneficial and timely measure, but I still question the wisdom of the increase in the cost of rod licences under Section 15. I know the Minister has gone a good way to meet objections on this, but I do not think he has gone quite far enough. As I have said earlier, the fishermen at the moment are not enjoying as good fishing in the West and South of Ireland as they did some years ago, as a direct result of Government policy. The drainage schemes have definitely disimproved fishing. Is it just, at a time when the fishermen are at a disadvantage in that way, to increase the cost of their licences? That is the first objection, and I think it is a just one. Why should fishermen who are already getting less value for their money have to pay more money?

Secondly — and I do not think this point has been raised before, and I hope the Minister may think it is a valid one — I am told by a reliable source that there is grave risk, if the cost of the licence is increased, that the licence fee simply will not be paid and illegal fishing will increase. The extra £1 is not very much, but it may be just enough to make some very competent legal fishermen into very competent illegal fishermen. I think the Minister should take that very seriously into account.

A very experienced fisherman — and one who has had good experience also of the administration of fisheries — has told me that in his opinion if the licence fee is increased, many men will not take out a licence at all: it will increase illegal fishing for salmon and give extra work to the employees of the several boards of conservators; they in their turn will join the ranks of others who are looking for increased wages for extra work. In other words, the increase may be a boomerang. If illegal fishing increases, there may be a demand for higher salaries, and the few pounds gained by the increase in rod licence fees will be more than lost in the other way.

I would urge on the Minister that there is still time to bring back the proposed cost of the licence for local fishermen to the present sum. It is not a question of amending the Bill. The Minister has power to do this. Of course, his answer will be that money is needed for improvements and we must find it somewhere. I think there is a very simple solution to that. The visitors can pay much more than they are being asked to pay. I am informed that they are unlikely to object to paying much more than they have to pay at present. Fishing is much dearer in Great Britain and elsewhere than it is in Ireland, and if an extra couple of pounds were put on to their licences. I do not think it would deter a single tourist from coming to this country. I suggest that the money can be found by this means if the Minister decides to keep the licensing prices at the present rate.

I would ask the Minister to think over this just once again. He has gone quite a long way in this direction. I think he might go the whole way. He has a discretion in the matter. I do not want to delay the House longer on this Bill. I want to emphasise that it is a measure of progressive policy. It is not merely a run-of-the-mill Bill. It is a forward-looking Bill. I just regret that if the Minister administers one particular section in the way he suggests, some harm may be done to local fishermen.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister devoted a good part of his statement to justifying the increased charges that will be made in consequence of the enactment of the Bill. He mentioned that these were justified in relation to the cost of living in 1938 and the decline in purchasing power which has taken place since that time and that in consequence, if I understood his arguments correctly, there was a need to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. I am glad to hear the Minister say that, where the cost of living rises and the value of money declines, it is proper that the income of the people should keep pace with that rise. I am sure that is a statement which will often be quoted in the future in certain contexts.

Let me come to the matter contained in the Bill. I am afraid that a Bill of this kind must be considered against the historical background of our people. Our rivers have been flowing since God made them and God never intended that one small, select set of people should be entitled to fish in particular parts of rivers, while everybody else should be regarded as trespassers. That is the background against which we must view any attempt made to protect our fisheries.

I should think that a good deal of legislation which is designed to protect our fisheries will have as little effect as an enactment to ensure that all the people should be honest. There is a great temptation for people when they see some people entitled to fish and others not so entitled. There will always be that difficulty in connection with the protection of our fisheries. People do not see any good reason why they should not be allowed to fish where they like.

There are a number of people holding that view who do not realise the great danger they do to the fisheries by poaching and things of that kind. In addition to such protection as can be afforded by legislation, there is some need to educate people into what ought not to be done as a matter of civic duty and that if certain practices were allowed to continue indiscriminately great harm would be done.

I am sure the Minister must have a certain amount of experience in that respect. There are cases where unthinking people with factories pollute rivers. I think Senator Stanford referred to that. There is no concern for the fact that it will do great damage to our fisheries.

There are a few matters which I should like to deal with specifically. I do not know whether the Minister is quite satisfied that elections to boards of conservators, in some areas at any rate, are conducted in the way they should be conducted.

Mr. Childers

That is a separate Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

I take it that it arises on this Bill. These boards of conservators are to receive increased funds for the discharge of their duties. If we are to give them increased funds for the discharge of their duties — I hope I am not very much out of order — we ought to address ourselves to the question as to whether they are properly elected in all cases. The very fact that a number of people feel there is a small coterie who become members of boards of conservators is another reason why there is not that respect for fishing rights and why there is not that protection given to fisheries about which I am talking.

It is a further aspect of the historical background. I have been speaking about. People have got this grudge against anybody who wants to protect the fisheries, even though they may be sportsmen with no particular interest beyond an interest in sport. If these boards of conservators are to get increased financial assistance, the method by which they are elected should be subjected to the closest scrutiny.

Senator Stanford expressed doubt as to the wisdom of increasing certain licences. I am inclined to think that one of the attractions this country has is that fishing is virtually free. It is amazing how far people will travel to get anything free. When fishing was virtually free in this country, it had an added attraction for English tourists. I am not at all sure that these increased fees will discourage them to any great extent, but I do not think they will encourage English tourists.

It is like what I was talking about to-day on the Industrial Development Bill. On the one hand, we are trying to encourage foreign investors and on the other, we are doing something which will frighten them off. A lot of advertising and publicity by the Tourist Board is a positive step toward inducing people to come here to spend their money. Then you have this kind of thing which would at least be a disincentive. I think that in years to come, when we are better on our feet in the tourist world, this might be more appropriate. At the present time we are trying to attract as many tourists as possible in order to increase our invisible exports. This is an untimely point at which to introduce this increase in rod licence fees.

Again, for a different reason, I think it is not wise to increase these licences. We have a commission inquiring into television at the present time and we see these deplorable tendencies among certain sections of our youth emphasising themselves in teddy boys, rock ‘n' roll and that kind of thing. At the same time, we are doing everything in our power to prevent young people who might be interested in fishing from engaging in that kind of occupation by putting it out of their reach. Anything that would encourage young people and people with very little money to engage in the healthy pastime of salmon fishing should be done and we should be very slow to do anything which would have the effect of discouraging people from following these very desirable forms of entertainment.

The Minister is probably aware that up to the present time, quite a number of people have not been taking out licences and have fished for salmon without licences. When they catch a salmon and sell it and get the price of a licence, they buy the licence. That is not unknown. There is very little hope that such people will bother to pay the increased licence that may be called for when this Bill becomes law. Instead of having people conforming with the law, it will make it more difficult for them to take out licences and so comply with the law. Disrespect for the law in one sense manifests itself in other senses and creates a rather bad type of climate for the achievement of the objects which certain sections of this Bill attempt to achieve.

There is one further matter that I should like to mention to the Minister for his observations. This Bill amends quite a number of older Acts. In connection with the prosecution of offences, I would draw the attention of the Minister to Section 12 of the 1956 Act. Certain Circuit Court judges have declared that the Act is so wide that it is quite impossible to say in any particular set of circumstances that a person is guilty of the offence which is sought to be created under the section. I do not know whether the present would be the appropriate time for amending that section, with a view to defining the circumstances in which people can be successfully prosecuted. There have been circumstances in which people have been found redhanded, but, by reason of the wording of Section 12 of the Act of 1956, nobody could say that they had committed a breach of the section. I do not know if the present is the appropriate time to amend that section but I would ask the Minister to examine that matter. If it is examined it may be possible to amend that section so as to make enforcement of the fisheries law more effective.

Mr. Louis Walsh

This Bill when enacted should undoubtedly contribute to the improvement and development of inland fisheries as the whole of the proceeds of the increased rod licence fee and salmon levy export duty will be paid over to the boards of conservators. According to the Estimates for this year, an additional £7,500 is being provided by the State as a contribution towards the Inland Fisheries Trust which, in my opinion, is doing very excellent work. Boards of conservators, whose members comprise rod fishermen, net fishermen and owners of several fisheries, are the proper people to develop and supervise inland fisheries, especially salmon fisheries. These boards, which are a kind of co-operative society, are made up of men who are personally interested in the improvement of fisheries. They serve in a voluntary capacity and are doing work which could not be done as well by the State and certainly at much less cost than if it were done by the State.

These boards require increased funds if proper protection is to be provided against poaching and if the water-keepers are to be paid an adequate wage for carrying out their onerous duties. The water-keepers have to spend a considerable portion of each night on the banks of rivers. At present, owing to lack of funds, at least some boards find it difficult to pay an adequate wage to their employees or to engage a sufficient number of men for protection work. Boards of conservators are also required to improve and extend spawning beds by the replacement of gravel, to arrange for the preservation of spawning beds, proper drainage schemes and the wise planning of afforestation schemes which will provide a more even flow of water.

In that respect, Senator Stanford has referred to the fact that the Minister is Minister for Lands and Minister for Fisheries and that the two do not mix well. In his capacity as the Minister in charge of afforestation, he could do some useful work in the planting of an area which might be acquired. Drainage could be effectively done by planting an area convenient to a catchment area. That would reduce considerably the rush of water at a particular time and avoid spates which are not so good from the point of view of fishing because they limit the time at which fishing can be carried on. It is also important that spawning beds should be made as free as possible of ducks and sea birds which destroy large quantities of ova.

The boards of conservators, with their intimate knowledge of the area and their personal interest, are the most efficient organisations for the development of inland fisheries. I understand that there are approximately 5,000 miles of rivers in the country and that only one fish now enters our rivers for every 100 that entered at the beginning of the 19th Century. If that is true, the potentialities in connection with the development of salmon fishing are enormous.

It has been stated that because of our temperate climate and the freedom of our rivers from injurious pollution, this country is more suited than any country in the world for the rearing of salmon. Apparently, at the present time we earn £500,000 per annum from salmon exports. Obviously, that could be increased many times by adequate protection and proper development of the spawning facilities. If the number of anglers is to be trebled, and apparently that is the hope of those in charge of the tourist business, considerably increased expenditure is required for the development of this valuable asset, namely, salmon fisheries. At a time when there is such keen competition for the tourist trade, such an important attraction as angling facilities should be developed to the utmost possible limit. It is particularly important because angling is decentralised and is, therefore, of great benefit to rural areas which at the present time are suffering so much from depopulation.

I feel there is no surer way of attracting tourists and extending the tourist season than by increasing the supply of salmon and trout in out rivers, estuaries and lakes. Anglers are certainly a most beneficial type of tourist and are welcome everywhere, but especially in a country like ours with its high rainfall. It is sometimes depressing to meet visitors and have to sympathise with them on the poor holiday weather they have because of our climate, but that does not apply to the anglers one meets. In fact, they are often disappointed when the rainfall is not sufficiently heavy for their sport.

Senator O'Quigley referred to the development of civics and I certainly agree that something should be done in this respect. I suggest the Minister should initiate a series of lectures and film shows in districts contiguous to salmon rivers for the purpose of instructing the people on the importance of the preservation of salmon and white trout supplies and inculcating in the people a proper disposition and a better sense of civic duty and responsibility. Too many people are prepared to purchase salmon which they know has been poached and hoteliers catering for anglers are certainly not beyond reproach in this matter.

The Minister has made a good case for the increased rod licence fees. In view of the present value of money, this licence duty is still well below the real value of money in 1925 when these fees were first fixed. I hope, however, that the proposed increase will not discourage anglers who are living convenient to the Border on the other side of it and who may have to pay fairly heavy licence duty on their own side of the Border. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to cater for the poorer angler who fishes only after his day's work or at week-ends, by limiting the increase in his case to £1. I think that is fair and reasonable. It is good to see factory workers and others, who may have been previously tempted to poach, becoming interested in rod angling.

I think the export levy on salmon is reasonable in view of the Minister's assurance that the proceeds of the levy will be used for the purposes of the boards of conservators. If, as the Minister said, the average price of salmon is 6/- per lb. the levy of 2d. means that only 1/36th of the price is being retained by the Department for much needed development of salmon protection. Few industrialists or business men would be satisfied to use only 1/36th of their income for the further improvement or development of their industry or business which could obviously be achieved. The Minister has said that the levy is reduced to 1d. per 1b. from the 1st June which covers a considerable portion of the salmon season. Consequently, it would mean only 1/72nd part of the price of the salmon is taken by the Department.

In conclusion, might I ask the Minister to consider permitting salmon exporters to pay the export levy by cheque, even if it would have to be guaranteed, as the present stamp system is not always convenient? It is sometimes difficult in country districts to get the proper stamp and have it attached to the sheets. I have been asked by an exporter who has a considerable amount of experience to mention this and he feels that at times the present system is rather awkward. If the Minister would agree to have a cheque substituted for the stamp and have a deposit lodged with the Revenue Commissioners, it would be more convenient.

Senator O'Quigley spoke about the rivers being as God made them, but unfortunately the poachers are as God made them also, and if there were no adequate protection, our rivers would eventually be completely denuded of salmon. Unfortunately a number of our rivers are at present denuded of salmon and for that reason I feel the increased funds now being provided will be spent to the best advantage by handing them over to the boards of conservators.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I wish to thank the Minister for the nice present he gave us in producing this Bill. My only complaint about it is that it is too brief. I was very interested in fish farming but he did not say enough about it. He concluded by telling anybody interested that he could go to Roscrea to see it carried on. It is not so easy to go to Roscrea particularly in the case of those who are "people of the land" as Senator Stanford said. These are not people of the water; they are of a different mentality. If the Minister would consider issuing a leaflet on fish farming on the lines he mentioned but more elaborate, perhaps, I for one would be very grateful.

The Minister also spoke about stocking rivers with salmon and I think he said it might be 15 years before we would see results. I do not know if I followed him correctly and perhaps he would make it clearer when replying.

I do not know if the Minister has received complaints about election to boards of conservators. Senator O'Quigley referred to it and I have heard some complaints, but I do not know if they were genuine or whether they came from people who thought they should be conservators themselves and were disappointed. If the Minister has not already done so, it might be well if he would examine the matter and see if the elections are in order and above board in every way.

I do not know if the Garda Síochána give any help in the protection of the rivers. It appears to me to be a reasonable job for them to do. I have never heard of them doing it. I wonder what the position is. I should like to hear from the Minister the actual position about the protection of the rivers.

Somebody also spoke about the rivers not being free to everybody. In my part of the country, trout fishing is free to everybody; salmon fishing is not.

I know of a river which is being polluted from a source which I shall not mention. I should like to know who looks after the river in that respect. Do the conservators? Are they the people whose duty it is to do so?

I have nothing further to say except to ask the Minister to consider issuing a leaflet on the subject of fish farming.

Mr. O'Reilly

There are two matters which I should like to mention. One has been touched on by Senator O'Callaghan — the question of the pollution of rivers. I have not in mind rivers where there are boards of conservators, but, in relation to the pollution of rivers, I should like to know whose responsibility it is. Senator O'Callaghan said he knows of a river which is being polluted from a source which he did not name. There should be a policy in regard to this matter.

Many factories and creameries are located beside rivers. They are located beside rivers, of necessity, because of modern tendencies, modern processes and modern factory plants. There are certain processes in which chemicals such as sulphuric acid, nitric acid and caustic soda are used. Caustic soda and sulphuric acid are used by creameries and in other processes. I fear we close our eyes to the fact that they discharge in to the rivers, without the use of any neutralising factor. Some of these rivers may be the property of a joint drainage committee where, in practically all cases, there is coarse fishing. Nobody seems to be responsible or, at any rate, nobody bothers in quite a lot of cases. The Minister should take steps to discover how far this evil exists and what can be done to remedy it.

I should like the Minister to tell me, and others, so that he may have an opportunity of putting it on record, what steps might be taken, say, in the case of a lake that is suitable for stocking with trout, particularly. I mention this because I know of one lake which is absolutely free, so far as I am aware, of pike and in which there is a species of trout. It is a lake which should be developed. I know there is not any board to look after it and that any fishing there is just a free-for-all. I often wonder about it. Possibly steps might be taken by people, but I do not think they are even aware of what might be done to establish control over that lake — and there are other such lakes — and also to stock it and make it a valuable fishery.

Mr. Childers

First of all, I want to thank the Seanad for the very helpful and constructive observations made by everybody. I shall attempt to deal with some of the points that were raised. Senator Stanford, whose speech was most encouraging, referred to the effects of arterial drainage on salmon development. We maintain a liaison with the Board of Works and any other bodies who carry out drainage. To some extent, we know that rivers recover under certain conditions fairly rapidly. For example, the River Feale has made a very rapid recovery, although certain types of fishermen may claim that some of the pool has been changed. The character of the river has been altered to some extent, necessitating some change in the regulations. There is still trouble in respect of the Glyde and Dee. The Corrib has been affected. However, wherever we can, we try to make arrangements to reduce the ill-effects as much as possible.

When the drainage has been completed, I hope to have established a special hatchery designed solely for rehabilitating rivers which have been drained under the Arterial Drainage Acts. Sometimes anglers' associations take part in activities — I hope with the Inland Fisheries Trust in the future — in connection with re-establishing spawning beds. Sometimes it is possible, by consultation with the drainage authority, to prevent the worst from happening.

The draining of a river, deepening it, can be designed in such a way that, whereas the agricultural effects can be positive, the worst effects on the spawning beds can be avoided. I understand that a great many of the canals have uses other than transport. I think they carry water to towns for filtration purposes. Therefore, the water will have to go to the canals. I should hate to see them disappear. The Inland Fisheries Trust are taking steps to stock them with tench, for example, for which they are particularly suitable.

Senator Stanford asked me to consider again the question of district licences. I secure advice wherever I can on this matter. In the first place, since the district licence was announced, boards of conservators have had quite a time in which to make observations to me. Most of them seem to be content with the compromise — the £3 and the £2 district licences. I have to rely on the advice of many people as regards whether or not a fisherman who has to pay £1 more for a district licence will turn a poacher. I am told the vast majority of people who are likely to be poachers have never yet taken out any licences. One cannot be sure of these things: I hope I have been informed correctly. That deals with most of what Senator Stanford said.

Senator O'Quigley started the story, which I like to resist, that poaching is particularly an Irish trait and is related to our history. I do not believe that. I believe poaching takes place nowadays because salmon are anything from 18/- to 4/6 a 1b. and that it is a tempting thing to poach. Poaching exists everywhere. It is a terrific problem in Scotland and in certain countries on the Continent. It does not seem to me to have anything peculiarly Irish about it.

Senator O'Quigley spoke about the education of the people in regard to poaching. I am doing my best. I do not know whether we can manage films but we have had some broadcasts on the value of our salmon fisheries by Dr. Went, our scientific adviser. I made a number of speeches pointing out the destructive effects of poaching. This is an industry which employs 5,000 people in all—as many as the Forestry Department. It can be destroyed or enormously improved by the absence of protection or otherwise. I have done all I can to make it clear that I will not recommend mitigation of offences for poaching. Everybody knows it is illegal and that the law must be carried out.

A number of Senators spoke about the arrangements for election to boards of conservators. That is going to be examined in connection with the provision of a second Bill which will come after the Consolidation Bill. We are going into all those matters, and all the many representations that have been made to me, and to my predecessor, by boards of conservators and by the Salmon Anglers' Federation, will be taken into account. In addition, we are going to invite the views of all the boards in this connection. Recently, boards of conservators formed a council of their own, set up for the purpose of consulting each other, the meetings of which will take place in Dublin, to examine the many matters which require attention. We are also dealing with the sections of the Fisheries (Statute Law Revision) Act, 1956, and we will examine the deficiencies in that Act referred to by Senator O'Quigley.

Senator Louis Walsh also made a very helpful speech, and I should say that the total increase in subvention for inland fisheries development, in connection with the Inland Fisheries Trust and Bord Fáilte, is £20,000. Bord Fáilte and the Inland Fisheries Trust work together to improve inland fisheries, and between the two of them they have got £20,000 which will ensure that their work will progress rapidly. I agree with Senator Walsh in what he said about forestry. I find it extraordinarily difficult to coordinate forestry for the purposes of conserving waters and forestry as an industry in itself. The offers of land do not frequently come in the order which is desirable from the point of view of treating an area as a whole in respect of the forestry, flood protection element, the fishery protection element, and so forth.

I should also say that the voluntary work of angling associations is very important in the development of the salmon, trout and coarse fishing industry and I hope all angling associations will follow the good example of those who have already done much in this respect. A great deal of work must be done voluntarily before the Government can be justified in contributing to the industry and, in fact, the combined work of boards of conservators, angling associations, Bord Fáilte and the Inland Fisheries Trust constitutes possibly the finest piece of co-operative development work which exists in this country to-day. I can only hope that that sort of atmosphere would prevail in all other industries.

We have groups of people all over the country scheduling accommodation, building boats, standardising fees charged for boats, preparing local brochures, scheduling the characteristic fishing facilities in rivers and lakes around them, helping the Inland Fisheries Trust by doing initial surveys on rivers and lakes so that the Inland Fisheries Trust will have some information upon which to make their final survey, doing access work so that the fishermen can get close to river banks and lake banks, sometimes in advance of heavier work done by Government contribution through Bord Fáilte, the whole being co-ordinated through growing numbers of federations.

Some absolutely splendid work is being done by hundreds of people all over the country, at their own cost in their spare time, and it is not true to say that co-operation is impossible in Ireland. I was in Leitrim the other day and saw in that county evidence of the most splendid work being accomplished. I met the secretary of the Carrick-on-Shannon Angling Association and heard from him that 450 people have booked into the town of Carrick-on-Shannon for the angling season, a number which, from my knowledge of Carrick-on-Shannon, would seem to be incredible, but that is a fact. I should not single them out because there are many other small towns in Leitrim, Cavan Monaghan, Cork and elsewhere doing the same thing, and that spirit is spreading. Sometimes they are disappointed because anglers do not all come in the one year, but gradually their numbers are growing.

I agree with Senator Walsh that we should ask hotels to give more co-operation in inland fishery development. I should like to see more of them joining the Inland Fisheries Trust, and I should like to see more of them making sure that the salmon they purchase are not poached. On the other hand, many hotels are doing fine work in this respect, many of them are co-operating, but I should like to ask those who have not just the same attitude to come over and help all associations to go ahead with the work. I will consider the regulations for the export levy to see if a cheque is possible instead of stamps.

Senator O'Callaghan spoke of the new fish farms but it would take too long at this hour of the night to describe the operation of a commercial fish farm. It depends on certain water conditions and certain soil conditions. It should be fairly near a bacon factory with deep-freeze equipment, and fairly near a place where meat offal can be obtained as food. A leaflet has been prepared and we will have one sent to the Senator. We are doing further work of exploration in regard to this, and I hope there will be a great future for commercial fish farming. When the first concern is opened, I hope it will have many visitors and one result that can be expected from this development is an increase in our exports. Exports of deep-frozen rainbow trout to Great Britain from one country alone, where conditions of water and climate are far less suitable than in our case, in value are worth £1,500,000.

The Garda Síochána have many duties but they give whatever help they can to fishery protection. In some circumstances, people can become water-keepers with the consent of the boards — not paid water-keepers — but in many cases anglers can become water-keepers under the Acts and can help with protection. I should like to foster the growth of angling associations, particularly if they are composed of responsible men. The more men fishing who belong to angling associations, the more public-spirited is the attitude in their respective districts with regard to poaching.

Senator O'Reilly referred to the question of pollution. Boards of conservators have the duty of prosecuting firms for polluting rivers and most of the rivers and lakes in the country come under the jurisdiction of one or other of the 17 boards, even in some cases where there is no salmon river. I should say that creameries on the whole are very good in their attitude towards the prevention of pollution, but if the Senator knows of one creamery which is bad in its attitude in this respect, he should write to me, or to the Department, and I will have the information conveyed to the local board of conservators and perhaps we can get something done voluntarily.

Mr. O'Reilly

It would be done voluntarily in all cases, if it were brought to their notice.

Mr. Childers

If the Senator will give any information he has to the board in his area, or to the Department, we will see what can be done about it. I think the question of stocking rivers and lakes does not arise on this Bill, but for Senator O'Reilly's information, he should get in touch with the Inland Fisheries Trust, give them the name of the lake, or lakes in which he is interested, and they will see if the lake can come into their five year plan for inland fishery development, if it needs restocking and what are the conditions in it. I should say in that connection that people are often disappointed in the replies they get from the Inland Fisheries Trust in the case of lakes where the feeding is bound to be defective, where trout remain small and it is not worth putting money into its development. That does not apply to all lakes but it applies to some lakes where trout remain very small.

Mr. O'Reilly

Does that smallness apply also to the area of a lake — a lake of small area?

Mr. Childers

Not necessarily. A lake of small area where there is plenty of insect life may be suitable, particularly a limestone lake. I am not an expert yet on this subject and I hope the Senator will not press me any further. I am increasing my knowledge as quickly as I can.

I think that takes me to the end of the comments made by Senators. Once again, I am very thankful for their co-operative attitude and I do assure them I have secured the advice of a great many people on the assessments of these rod licences and the money is very much required for the development of the industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m.sine die.