Vol. 144 No. 7
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 21, to delete the definition of "salmon" and substitute the following:—
"‘salmon' does not include salmon preserved and contained in tins, bottles, jars or similar containers holding only portions of fish or products of fish."
I raised the question of the levy and the Parliamentary Secretary in reply stated that the present price of salmon would bear it. Of course it would if the price of salmon remained what it is now but I do not foresee that the price of salmon will remain at the present figure. I gave my reasons then and I mentioned that it costs about 1/- a lb. now to deliver salmon in London. That is all to come off the fishermen, these poor men. If the price of salmon falls to the prices that we knew, 2/6 and 3/6 a lb. and if you take the cost of the box and the freight, together with this levy, it will approximate to about 1/- a lb. I think that making this permanent legislation, and ignoring the variations that will take place in price, will put an unbearable burden on poor men and drive them out of fishing for salmon altogether. I am convinced that, with the world situation as it is to-day, and looking at the prospects for the future, I am right in that. Therefore, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should not press this too far. He has told us that this money is to aid the conservators, to give them money for protection purposes. I do not want to repeat what I said on that on the Second Reading of the Bill. I wonder will this additional sum of money which the conservators are to get tend to increase the efficiency of the protection of salmon. I do not think that any amount of additional money which is given over and above what is provided at present is going to do that. So far as I know, the rivers are reasonably well protected. I do not think that anything more in the line of additional water bailiffs is going to make the protection of them any more efficient than it is.
I do not think this is the proper road to travel. We know enough about our people to be able to say that while protection for the rivers is one thing repression is quite another thing. I am sure Deputies will agree with me that if there is one people on the face of the earth who will resist repression it is our people. Therefore, I do not see the need for any additional sum of money to be given to the conservators. What we really want is respect and obedience for the fishery laws. No amount of repression is going to solve that problem. We should be prepared to provide reasonable facilities for the average man who wants to fish for salmon during his leisure hours. Provided he pays a couple of pounds for a licence, he should be given that right. I am not concerned with the amount of salmon that he will take out of the river. Probably he will catch none at all. I suggest to the House that it would be a retrograde step to deny these reasonable facilities to our own people. Surely, it is far better that a man should spend a few hours on the banks of a river fishing than amongst the ranks of the industrious unemployed at the street corners in our local towns or villages.
What stage of the Bill is this?
The Committee Stage.
Why should not our own people have the right to enjoy themselves fishing on the banks of a river as well as visitors who come here? I am not claiming any privileges for them, but that is a right which was denied for centuries to our people. It is one which they should now be able to exercise. This Bill should not aim at repression or at having an army of water bailiffs who would be a source of provocation to the sons of riparian owners and to people in our country villages and towns. I cannot see the wisdom of this proposal. In fact, I can see that it is capable of producing disastrous results. In my opinion, our fisheries are being protected in so far as it is humanly possible to do it. I think that our rivers, too, are being protected with reasonable efficiency. It is true, of course, that there are some people whom one cannot stop from doing damage. They will do damage no matter how many water bailiffs we provide or how much money this House gives to conservators. Our aim in this legislation should be to get the confidence of the public and not give the idea that we are passing legislation which is going to have the effect of repressing the average man in the country from exercising a simple sporting right.
I am afraid that Deputy McMenamin has not given me anything to reply to. There is not any question of repression in this Bill. As a matter of fact, the only person who has spoken, and who could be said to have alluded, even remotely, to repression was the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Morrissey, who told me that he would not give people who used the objectionable method of poaching the option of a fine but would send them to prison. Our fisheries laws, as framed, do give the courts a choice in that matter. They have the option of imposing a fine rather than of sending a person to prison. Therefore, I think Deputy McMenamin has referred to something that is not contained either in this Bill or in the Acts already in existence.
I cannot understand why Deputy McMenamin, having accepted Section 2 —and not having moved his amendment—which, in fact, imposes a levy, should now object in Section 3 to the Minister prescribing the rate of levy. That does not make sense.
I am trying to get the Parliamentary Secretary to modify what he is proposing in this Bill.
The Deputy has accepted the imposition of the levy. He allowed that to go through unchallenged although he had given notice that he was going to move its deletion.
The Ceann Comhairle had a word to say on that.
Deputy McMenamin's amendment was ruled out of order.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow Deputy McMenamin to move his amendment now he will do so.
He has not the power to do that.
Well, the position having been explained to me, may I say that the sub-section which the Deputy is now opposing merely provides that the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, will prescribe the rate of levy? If the Deputy has not been allowed to move his objection to Section 2, I do not think there is anything to argue between myself and the Deputy. I am standing over the section that the levy rate be prescribed, and Deputy McMenamin opposes the prescribing of it. I do not think that position as between the two of us requires any argument.
On the section I do appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to go easy with this. The sum of money involved is not going to be big. I do feel that enacting this provision will cause real revulsion among the young men of the country who do a bit of fishing. As I said before, they do not go out to slaughter the rivers. That is not the way that rivers are hurt. That would not do any river any harm. There is no doubt about it. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is already aware that those young men who were in fishing clubs and angling associations are already perturbed by this line of country. I would appeal to him to drop any increase in the licence duty. There will be a substantial sum of money coming from the levy on salmon according to the kind of year it is for fishing. If it is a good year the sum will be quite substantial, and I think that this addition to the rod licence is a trumpery thing. As Deputy Morrissey said already, when you change from one conservators' district to another you have to pay an additional sum anyway. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary—I have no object at all in doing so except to help the object that he has in view— to help salmon and trout fishing on our rivers. I fear that real damage will be done over a thing that is only trivial and worth nothing. I think we will get ample money from the levy on the export of salmon to cover the Parliamentary Secretary's requirements, and I do really appeal to him not to irritate those young men, members of angling associations, who fish for amusement and for health purposes. They are entitled to their sport just as well as everybody else and visitors who come to this country, and we cannot preclude them. We could try it but we would not succeed. This is a petty thing and I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to drop it. There is no substantial sum of money in it and I do not think any substantial sum is required to help the conservators with regard to giving protection. As I said already I think the protection is reasonably good, and I do not want protection to become repression, because if we do that there is an end to salmon fishing in the rivers of this country.
Amendment No. 6 to Section 4, in the name of Deputy O'Donnell, is not moved.
On the section, I did seek as much advice and information as I could get when this matter of providing extra money for salmon protection became acute. One body that in my opinion is well qualified to give advice on the matter is the National Salmon Anglers' Federation. I can tell Deputy McMenamin that at the second last annual meeting of that body which I attended and at which various methods of finding additional money for financing protection were discussed they did not demur to a suggestion that money might be got in either or both of these ways.
What type of people constitute this body? Are they a collection of nabobs?
I do not know how you would define a nabob, or whether you would call them Irish nabobs, but in any event they were all nationals, all Irishmen, all resident in this country, all following varying occupations, and while there may have been some among them who are by ordinary standards comfortable I think that in the main they were a body of ordinary citizens representing a much larger body of ordinary citizens and that their views were genuinely representative. I think it was only fair, in any event, that their opinion on this matter might be asked, not that I bound myself to accept their advice—I could not do that—but I think they were entitled to be asked to offer advice and I took the opportunity of one of their annual gatherings to have the matter discussed. I think I can say that they were not opposed, and in fact I would say that their viewpoint was in favour of this small addition to the cost of a salmon-fishing licence.
In relation to this matter I should say that a very large number of salmon anglers are professional anglers and make a pretty nice income out of it in the year. It has been worked out from fishery statistics that the money value of the average catch by rod and line is something over £10, so that if we ask a man who is now paying £2 to pay an extra 10/- and he gets £10 worth of salmon in the year I think we are not imposing a harsh fine or infliction upon him.
Can you guarantee £10 of salmon per rod?
That is the average. In some districts the figure is very much higher than that. The average number of fish per rod is something between four and six. I would be inclined to put it at five salmon per rod. You could average salmon between nine and ten lb. weight each. So I think that the figure of £10 of money value per rod is not exaggerated. It is conservative rather than the reverse.
Is that the average over all the licences taken out in this country?
That is the average of all the rod licences.
Did you get that record from the gentlemen who were in that association? Did they advise you as to what their catches were?
I am afraid that the anglers' association would not be able to give me accurate records in respect of its own membership, but, as the Deputy knows, everybody who catches a salmon legally has to furnish particulars of his catch and, therefore, we have accurate information of the legal catch both by rod and line and by net. What the illegal catch is, Deputy McMenamin's guess is as good as mine. According to what Deputy Morrissey was saying, it is very considerable, indeed. We know that it is greater since the price of salmon was decontrolled in England a few years ago. We know that it is very much higher now than it was before that took place. We know that what Deputy Morrissey has said is true, because there is such a high price for salmon there is a strong incentive to use any and every method to catch salmon and, in fact, to risk even a heavy fine in the process. That is the position. If Deputy McMenamin calls our attempts to reduce that illegal fishing to a minimum repression, then I make him a present of the expression. All genuine anglers and all genuine fishermen who fish for salmon favour stricter and more efficient methods of protecting the stocks on which they both depend. Deputy McMenamin will find that the number of people who look upon adequate fishery protection as repression are very few indeed. I know that there are many fisheries in which the man who takes out an ordinary licence cannot cast a line because these fisheries are privately owned. Deputies know that in respect of those in the estuaries the 1939 Act made provision for their compulsory acquisition. The war prevented these fisheries coming into public ownership and the task of implementing that Act is now receiving active consideration in the Fisheries Branch, but it will have to be amended. That work is being attended to.
Arising out of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said there are people who would lead others to believe that it would be good for their health to cut their throats. The man of leisure can fish at any hour of the day. He can pick the time when conditions are most favourable and when the weather is suitable and he can land in an hour five or six salmon. The average citizen can only fish on his half-day and he must take his chance with both the weather and conditions. He has as much chance of hooking a star as he has of hooking a salmon.
Let us not sneeze at this £2. It is a pretty substantial sum of money to-day and it calls for a great sacrifice on the part of the ordinary individual who fishes as a hobby. He may be a married man with a wife and family who likes to go out to cast a line on the local river. I think this is an injustice to that man. It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back and £2 represents a very substantial sum to the ordinary man whereas £20 would mean practically nothing to the man of leisure who can choose his time and pick his weather. I have no sympathy with the latter. He can pay any sum in reason because he makes money out of fishing. The ordinary fisherman, the bank clerk and the fellow who is stuck in an office all day, must take pot-luck. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates that that man makes a sacrifice in putting down £2. He does not fish in order to make an income or for the sake of what he will get out of it. He fishes for the sport of it, and I do not think we should be unduly severe on him.
I believe that if the licensing fee were reduced a larger number of people would be induced to fish legally. A licence fee of £2 provides a temptation to fish illegally. Deputy McMenamin is quite correct in saying that the leisured classes can select their days and no doubt receive sufficient compensation for both their efforts and their licences. The ordinary citizen, with only a few days' holidays, who can only fish four or five times in the year, will not find it easy to pay £2. The temptation then is to fish illegally. Golf courses charge a day fee and something on the same system might be suitable in relation to fishing. If one visits a particular locality on a particular day there should be provision for a reasonable fee to enable that person to fish, thereby obviating the temptation to fish illegally.
The issue of rod licences has been increasing in recent years and I think that is evidence that the £2 fee is not oppressive. I believe that increase is due partly, if not entirely, to the fact that the majority of the anglers to whom Deputies have referred find it not only an agreeable pastime but a profitable sport. I think that is the main reason for the increase in the number of licences.
With regard to fees, there are, of course, fees which have to be paid for fishing where there is no public right. I do not know whether it is to that aspect of the matter Deputy MacEoin was referring. There are some fisheries in the ownership of the Department of Agriculture and, where possible, these are let to local associations who do provide a day ticket for visitors who come along when these visitors have provided themselves with the right to fish.
The £2 licence?
Yes. The increase of 10/- has been made much of by Deputy McMenamin, but I should like to remind him that although he says £2 is a substantial sum, very often we are told that £2 is a very insubstantial sum nowadays. However, I am prepared to accept Deputy McMenamin's estimation of the value of £2 and to agree with him that it is a substantial sum. I would, however, remind him that in the Fisheries Act of 1925 the licence of £1 was increased to £2. Deputies will admit that there is some difference between the value of the £ in 1925 and the value in 1954. The amount was actually doubled in 1925.
How much extra money do you hope to get from this?
We hope to get from the levy and the excise duty on the rods £15,000 in round figures. There is about £15,000 in round figures at the present time from the licence duties. We could possibly get the £15,000 by doubling the licence duties, but we felt that it would be unfair to ask a netsman, who has a comparatively short season, to pay £8 before he catches a fish rather than the £4 which he has to pay now. In any event, he will pay as he earns now, which I think is a considerable advantage.
When the amount was increased in 1925 there was any amount of salmon, but the £1 on the rod licence helped to do away with the rodsmen and you are losing them ever since.
You mean that the stocks were greater?
Yes. According to the E.S.B. the slaughter of salmon since 1925 has been greater than ever in this country.
The salmon must have been there if the slaughter has been kept up.
If the £1 was not put on the licence, you would have got double the number of people to take out a licence and there would be more salmon in the rivers.
How is that?
There would not be the same temptation to poach. By doubling the £1 licence you doubled the temptation.
The Deputy is ignoring the close season. You cannot fish for salmon in the close season. The rodsmen are not available then for scaring off the potential poachers. I should have pointed out that one advantage the rodsman has over the netsman is that he can catch fish during the weekly close time on Saturdays and Sundays. That is an advantage to the rodsman, particularly the type of man for whom Deputies have been speaking, the man who has to earn his living.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how the conservators are going to handle this money when they get it? Will they get it exclusively for appointing additional water bailiffs or will they get it for any other purpose? Will any of this additional money be used by them, by order of the Department, for restocking?
I think that would arise more properly on Section 6.
In reply to Deputy McMenamin, I might say that this fund will be administered by the Minister for Agriculture. Lest there be any misunderstanding about it, I should like to point out that it is not a fund which will be divided by the number of fishery districts and an equal part of it handed out to each of these boards each year. The purpose of the fund is to supplement the work where it most needs to be supplemented. There are some districts which are in a satisfactory financial position. There are other districts where, possibly, the duties of protection are more onerous and in which they find that they have not got enough money.
The experience of the Fisheries Branch in recent years has been that the demand for supplementary grants to aid their rates and licence revenue has been for greater amounts each year. We anticipate that this demand will continue to grow and, therefore, this Bill had to be introduced so that we would have money which the Minister would have under his control and which he could administer by taking into account the needs and necessities of the various districts. There will be a fair apportionment of it on that basis. While it may not be quite sufficient in the course of the next few years, in any event we do feel that for some years to come there will be need for this growing fund for grants.
Having got this additional source of revenue, the conservators then will appoint henchmen simply to give them a week's wages irrespective of the necessity for them to protect rivers or things like that. You open the door for a flood of that sort of thing. How will the Department keep a check on whether or not in any given case where there is an application to appoint additional bailiffs they are really necessary and will add to the efficiency of the protection of the rivers? We have seen things like that being done. I can see this money, taken from men who cannot well afford it, being abused in its administration.
All I can say in reply to Deputy McMenamin is that each board has to submit a budget, so to speak, each year to the Department for examination and approval. They set out the extent to which they intend to employ water keepers for the ensuing annual period.
How will you arrive at a decision when you come to sanction this additional money?
If we find on examination, for instance, that the number of water keepers is greatly inflated, there would be almost automatically an inquiry as to the need for a large additional number. In any event, the inspectors of fisheries in the Department are in close touch with the organisation in each district and they attend meetings from time to time of the board and do go in detail into the requirements of the board in the matter of protection, the number of staff required and so on, and the amount of money necessary to finance it. Deputy McMenamin can take it from me that the affairs of each board are fairly intimately known to the officials of the Fisheries Branch.
Next stage?
Is there any objection to completing all stages of the Bill now?
I do not think there is but I do not want anybody to come down on my neck later. I would prefer you would leave it over, but, so far as I am concerned, you can take all stages because I do not see that we can get any further with it.
There can be no further amendment.
Perhaps as the Parliamentary Secretary has been in such a genial manner and has shown such a disposition to listen to reason and argument, he might be allowed all stages now.
Agreed to take remaining stages now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
This is a Money Bill for the purposes of Article 22 of the Constitution.
