This is the only section dealing with definitions. Would the Minister like to say why salmon and sea-trout are not being differentiated? There is a reference to "salmon" and "salmon rod fishing". That appears to mean also fishing for sea-trout. In the licence being granted under these regulations, there is an obligation to make a single return of salmon and sea-trout. There is in fact no definition either of salmon itself or of sea-trout, or any separation. What is the official attitude towards that? Are they both regarded as the same fish? If so, is that quite fair, because the sea-trout is less than half the value of salmon, weight for weight?
Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Salmon and sea-trout are considered together for the purposes of the main Fisheries Act, even though there may be cases when they are regarded as separate. They are regarded as being of the same species.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister indicate in a general way what kind of conditions may be prescribed in the granting of fish culture licences? Later on in the section, the Minister is authorised to revoke fish culture licences. In that context, the House should know what conditions are to be attached to these licences.
The first commercial fish farm has not been established. Only the site has been purchased. We will have to form these regulations and go into the matter in considerable detail. It would be difficult for me at this stage to describe exactly what precautions would have to be taken and what conditions would be imposed on the owners of a trout culture farm licence because we have not had the experience. The section is to enable us to put these regulations into operation in order to enable people to sell trout out of season to a fish farm. It would be going a little far if I were to speculate on that at the moment.
Sub-section (5) says that if the Minister has in mind the revocation of fish culture licences, he will give a fortnight's notice in writing. I wonder if the Minister is satisfied that "a fortnight's notice in writing" in this section is a sufficient definition of the kind of notice that would be given? I think it is common form in this kind of case in other statutes to have the requirement of notice in writing by registered post or prepaid registered post and to a particular address. It seems to me to be extremely vague just to put down "a fortnight's notice in writing" without prescribing how this notice is to be delivered. The Minister might have a look at that with a view to considering whether he might not prescribe that the notice in writing be sent either by post or delivered by hand. Notice in writing could be given by mere publication in the columns of a newspaper which would satisfy the requirements of the statute and would ordinarily be regarded as the proper way to give notice.
I have not much experience myself of watching the operation of these Orders, but I think it would be fair to say that in the ordinary way it would be sent by registered post.
Would the Minister not think it better to prescribe by registered post?
I do not think it is necessary, really. Everyone knows that, in practice, it is unlikely that a letter of this kind would be sent prior to considerable discussion between the inspector and the owner of the fish farm because it would be mostly on technical matters that a difference of opinion would arise. It is almost inconceivable that a letter would be sent out of the blue to an owner of a fish farm licence without considerable discussion beforehand. I do not think the Senator need worry about the question of the form in which the letter is sent as long as I assure him that in the ordinary way we send these letters by registered post.
I am quite satisfied.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Under sub-section (11), the Minister may make regulations requiring persons by whom the levy is payable to keep records. I do not find in the Act any obligation on the Minister to lay these regulations before the House or any definition as to how they should be published. I do not know whether the regulations which have been made under this section will be covered by the Statutory Instruments Act. Perhaps the Minister might indicate what method of publication it is proposed to adopt in regard to these regulations?
While I am on this, I notice that in paragraph (b) of the sub-section a person who contravenes any regulation made under the section will be guilty of an offence. I have already mentioned some of the difficulties the courts had in dealing with charges under the Fisheries Acts. If the regulations are not intended to be regulations laid before each House, and if they do not come within the definition of "statutory instruments", I can see considerable difficulty in proving a person guilty of an offence under the regulations, when no method is prescribed in the Acts by which evidence of the regulations can be given in court which would satisfy a justice or a judge that the regulations had in fact been properly made.
I understand that, under earlier Acts, regulations of this kind had to be laid on the Table of the House and that, in the case of statutory instruments, they had to be published in Iris Oifigiúil; but I am also told—and I may have mentioned this before—that the appalling jungle of fishery legislation is being cut down. A Fisheries Consolidation Bill will be introduced very shortly, I hope, and it will make it much easier for those in the legal profession to deal with fishery offences and fishery law in general. Every time it was introduced before, the Government fell almost immediately afterwards. Whether that will be the result this time or not, I do not know.
Bring it in soon.
When I say that, and when I also indicate that these regulations will be laid on the Table of the House, I think that should satisfy the Senator.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Section 13 relates to penalties. I take it from what the Minister said earlier that under sub-section (1), paragraph (a), which reads:
"Any person fishes for or takes or kills salmon with rod and line in a fishery district",
salmon is taken to mean sea-trout also.
Yes.
Is that sufficiently explicit? I wonder what view the court would take of a person's plea that he did not in fact kill a salmon but a sea-trout. There is no inclusive definition.
Most of the prosecutions I see are in respect of salmon. I have not seen many in respect of sea-trout.
Would the Minister agree that it is legitimate, in that case, to fish for sea-trout without a licence?
Well, it is not encouraged.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move the amendment standing in my name:—
In sub-section (1) (a), to delete all words from and including "the" in line 5 down to the end of the paragraph and substitute:
(i) in the case of a person aged 21 years and upwards the sum set out in whichever of those columns relates to a salmon rod ordinary licence of that class and
(ii) in the case of a person who satisfies a board of conservators that he is for the time being under the age of 21 years, one-half the sum set out in which ever of those columns relates to a salmon rod ordinary licence of that class.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, I referred to the necessity for developing respect for our fishery laws and I suggested that there were certain things which might be done in order to avoid the extension of poaching. In his reply, the Minister stated that his Department had already had some talks on the radio about fisheries and their value. He said that he himself, on occasion, had made speeches condemning poaching and exhorting people to a greater respect for our fishery laws. This amendment is put down in that context.
There is not a whole lot that can be done to protect fisheries by endeavouring to bring poachers before the courts and having them found guilty and penalised. In addition to the more positive measures suggested already, I think a very good way of developing respect for the fishery laws would be to interest people, in their youth, in salmon fishing. I am quite prepared to say that it would be reasonable for a man, out fishing with a 17 or 18 year old son, not to think of taking out a licence for any rod and line that his son might be using. With the increase in licence fees contemplated under this Bill, the likelihood of a man taking out a licence for a son or any relation of his is very remote.
Consequently, those who will be the future fishermen will be at an early age given the bad example of seeing relatives by-passing the fishery laws and being guilty of a breach of them, knowing that they should be fishing under a licence and that they are not acting in accordance with the law by fishing without it.
In addition, salmon fishing is regarded at the present time as the sport of gentlemen and a sport rather reserved for the richer classes. If the people who have not got so much money feel that they, too, could fish, like the other class, they might be less inclined to indulge in poaching, rather than contravene certain laws which prevent them exercising a right which other people enjoy. Consequently, it would be a wise measure to encourage those people to begin in their early days when they are on low wages, as happens with most of them, if they had any inclination to take up salmon fishing as a hobby. For that reason, I have suggested in the amendment the age of 21, when such people would be earning some money on their own. It might encourage them to begin salmon fishing at the lower rate of licence fee suggested in the amendment.
It might be thought that the amendment is something new and that it establishes a new principle. In fact, it does not. Section 9 of the Fishery Act, 1939, provides that a board of conservators may, in a particular district, declare certain rivers, lakes or part of a lake to be scheduled waters for trout fishing purposes; and thereafter it is unlawful to fish in those waters without a trout rod licence. The section then prescribes that there shall be licences and it fixes the rate of duty for a general licence for an adult at 5/- and for a juvenile, that is, a person under the age of 18, at 6d., which is one-tenth of the general licence fee. Therefore, in 1939, the Legislature deemed it wise, where trout rod licences became necessary by reason of the order of a board of conservators, not to forgo the licence in the case of a juvenile, but it fixed a much lower rate, recognising the position of the juvenile and of his parents in regard to their capacity to pay for the licence.
As regards loss of revenue, I think that, so far from losing revenue, this amendment will increase it. People who may have their children out fishing are not likely to get any licence under the law as it stands, but there is every likelihood of their doing so, if the amendment is accepted. Then the revenue would be increased rather than diminished. For these reasons, I recommend the amendment to the House.
I must say that, when I first saw this amendment, I had a good deal of sympathy with the idea behind it. The clause in the 1939 Act, referred to by the Senator, in fact has never been put into operation, as it was believed that it would be difficult to enforce and particularly to get any idea of the actual age of the young people. That would be very difficult to prove. In connection with the general administration of the boards of conservators, it would be asking too much of them to distinguish the age of persons holding licences. I believe we would get not more but less revenue, and considering the value of salmon, in the case of a district licence, the difference between £3 and £2 does not seem to me to mean very much in relation to a young person. I should like to show sympathy towards the amendment, but I think the administration of it may be difficult. It may be noticed that that section of the Act has never been put into operation. Everybody has felt it would be unwise and that it would merely create difficulties for the water-keepers.
Do I understand the Minister to say that the section of the 1939 Act has never been put into operation because boards of conservators have never made the order they are entitled to make under the 1939 Act, declaring certain rivers and waters to be scheduled waters?
There are no junior licences for trout.
I imagine the boards of conservators have not exercised their powers, not because they would have to issue sixpenny licences to juveniles, but because it did not appear to be necessary or feasible to declare certain waters to be scheduled waters.
On the point of administration, I do not know whether or not the Minister is aware that there are such things as birth certificates. If a person is entitled to a licence at half-rate, he or she can produce the birth certificate showing that he or she is under 21 years of age. I cannot see the slightest difficulty in administration. Once there are such things as birth certificates, which people can produce, the onus is on the person seeking the licence at half-rate to produce the birth certificate. If the person does not do so, then the person does not get the licence at half-rate.
I was glad to hear the Minister say he has sympathy with the purpose behind the amendment, but I was extremely sorry to think that his sympathy was thwarted by the fear of administrative difficulties which do not, I think, exist.
Would this amendment, if adopted, not be an encouragement to young people to take out licences where at present they do not? Apart from being an encouragement to young people to go fishing, would it not also be an encouragement to fulfil the law? Would it not go a certain distance to solve the Minister's problem in dealing with people who fish without a licence?
My experience of looking at cases for prosecution is that I do not see a very large number of young people. People who come before the courts are mostly rather old hands. I am asked to comment on the requested mitigation.
The young people are more nimble.
Within the ambit of salmon fishing and its financial results, I do not think there is really much point in establishing a licence at a reduced fee. Any young man who learns to fish can become quite skilled at it at a young age and can have the same opportunities of making money in fishing salmon, if he is doing it commercially, as a person of greater age. I think it would be administratively difficult to have an age division. The simpler we keep the job of water-keeping, protection and the administration of the powers, the more desirable it is. They are complicated enough already.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to say something, arising out of what I said previously, in relation to Section 15 (1) (b), which reads:—
"The Minister may, from time to time, by Order alter the ordinary licence duty in respect of a salmon rod ordinary licence of a particular class specified in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to this Act, so however that the ordinary licence duty in respect of such a licence shall not be so altered that it exceeds twice the sum fixed in respect thereof by paragraph (a) of this sub-section."
If we turn to the part of the Schedule in question, we find rates made out in seven different columns—Part I of the Second Schedule — and we find that the seventh column refers to salmon rod late season district ordinary licences at a fee of £1.
By this section, we are giving the Minister power to alter all of these, provided he does not increase them by more than 100 per cent., does not more than double them. The Minister was good enough to circulate a copy as to the effects of such a change upon these licence fees.
I should like to ask the Minister whether it is intended immediately to double all fees, or is this merely an indication of his maximum powers? Does he intend immediately to make these regulations in order to double all these licence fees? Some of us feel that the licence fees, as set out in the Schedule, are not unreasonable and, as slightly increased, would not be unreasonable, but that some, doubled, might appear too high.
Therefore, my first question to the Minister is, whether he intends immediately, under the powers given to him in this section, to double all these fees. My reason for asking that question is linked up with what I said earlier about sea-trout and the differentiation of sea-trout from salmon. The Minister has referred to "the value of salmon". A three- or four-lb. salmon caught has considerable money value, but a sea-trout would be worth less than half weight for weight.
I notice in the official form under the Statistics Acts, 1926 and 1946, that the holders of these rod licences have to make a return which is called a "Return of all salmon, sea-trout and eels" caught during the year. They give various columns dealing with localities, and so on. The third column is: Salmon: number caught, weight and value. The fourth column: Sea-trout: number caught, weight and value. Now the value of both varies considerably. To take a recent price —say, June 3rd—salmon was selling at about 12/6 a lb. while sea-trout was at about 6/- a lb.
In referring, therefore, to "the value of salmon" as a factor making it legitimate to have a fairly high licence fee, I suggest that the Minister is perhaps forgetting that to fish for sea-trout, one has to pay the same fee, although the value of sea-trout is less than half the value of salmon.
The fact that they are sometimes officially separated is made clear in this official return which such licence holders I understand have to make out and return to the Department. I imagine there are difficulties in separating the fishing for two types of fish and that it is probably more convenient in every way to have the same licence. But when the Minister comes to consider ordering or increasing the fees under the powers given by this section, I think he should remember that he is dealing not only with those fishing for salmon, but also with those fishing for a much less valuable fish. I would ask him in relation to this "late season licence"— I think he told us on the Second Stage that it would be a matter for later decision as to what areas would be considered to be "late season", and so on — whether he contemplates to make Keel Lake in Achill Island one of these late districts? I understand that the sea-trout go there for their holidays, presumably only in early July and that there is no freshwater salmon at all at Keel. It seems to me that this area, where freshwater rod fishing for these fish would be concerned only with sea-trout, is an example of the sort of injustice that might arise if we insisted upon payment of too high a licence fee for the fishing of both these fish together, when, in fact, only one of them is available in that district. Does the Minister know or contemplate that that particular area is to be made a special-rate area or not?
Finally, I should like to hear from the Minister what precisely will be the consideration which will lead him, under the powers given by this section, to alter or increase these licence fees. I take it that he does not contemplate doing that very often, and I should like to urge him to hasten slowly in this respect. A large modification might have very considerable effect. Though in relation to salmon nobody can say the fee is very high, in relation to sea-trout, it would appear to be rather high in certain districts, if the scheduled rate were to be doubled.
On the Second Stage, I gave a fairly full picture of the general position in regard to licence fees and explained that boards of conservators urgently needed more finances, that their total revenues were no greater than 1939, allowing for the decline in the value of money, and that licence fees had not changed since 1925 when salmon was 1/8 a lb. compared with an average price of 6/3 a lb. last year. I made it clear also that I was very anxious for boards of conservators to have a permanent source of finance independent of the particular ideas of the Minister for Finance for the time being as to how much they should receive. I hoped that when the proposal was made to double the licence fees indicated in the second column of the memorandum it would receive general consent.
There were a number of particular complaints that there should be a district licence for a person who wanted ordinarily to fish in only one district and, as a measure of compromise, I introduced the district licences for the full season and for a later season commencing on 1st July. I am very glad to tell the Seanad that since that time I have had no complaints whatever. None of the boards of conservators has written again. They seem satisfied with the doubling of the rates indicated in the Schedule. The only complaints I have received were suggestions from various boards as to the fair distribution of the licence revenue to make quite sure that they would not lose revenue as a result of the extra sums collected. I wrote to everybody concerned, assuring them that the money would be properly distributed and each board would have revenue appropriate to its necessities, and so, as I have said, I am very glad to say that there has been fairly general agreement with the revised licences.
In relation to sea-trout and Achill, one of the reasons for establishing a late season district licence at £2, as compared with the full season licence of £3, was to cater for a number of rivers where there is a late run of sea-trout. There are rivers where workmen at the end of the day like to come to fish and it was felt that the £4 licence would be too much to impose. I received representations of that kind from areas where there seem to be no objections now to a fee of £2, payable after July 1st. This refers to cases where, after consultation with the boards of conservators, it seems prudent to establish this late district licence and where one of the major interests is the late summer run of sea-trout.
Paragraph 4 (b) states that the Minister "may by order alter". Will that type of Order be laid before the Oireachtas?
I am advised that the terms of the Order prescribed by the sub-section need not be laid on the Table of the House in that particular case.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 16 to 21 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister said on Section 15 that the Order made need not be laid on the Table of the House. This would seem to be a much narrower type of issue in relation to specified fishing here. Would that type of Order be laid on the Table of the House?
In that particular case, it is not mandatory to lay the Orders on the Table of the House.
Can the Minister say in what manner they will be published?
They will be published in Iris Oifigiúil, the statutory instrument.
Will the Minister take further steps to publish them in the local newspapers, if necessary?
Such publicity will be given as is necessary.
It is no use publishing them in Iris Oifigiúil which many many people have never heard of.
Nobody ever sees it.
I gather that this procedure is laid down in the Statutory Instruments Act.
I asked that question earlier, as to whether these regulations and Orders come within the Statutory Instruments Act. I have not had an opportunity of looking at that myself and thought that the Minister might know.
These Orders are covered by the Statutory Instruments Act.
Does that mean that it is sufficient to comply with the law to publish the Orders in Iris Oifigiúil?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 23 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill received for final consideration, and passed.