I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), line 21, after "year" to add "and is available for use in every fishery district".
Committee on Finance. - Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Report Stage.
Amendment Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 24 seem to be all one piece. Amendment No. 8 might have a discussion to itself, if that is desired.
I want to reserve my right in respect of each amendment.
I am not limiting the Deputy at all but I am suggesting that if it is convenient to the House, these amendments may be discussed together.
I wish to reserve my right in respect of each amendment. We are in a peculiar position. I suggested that this Bill should be recommitted. The Minister takes the view that these amendments taken in globo are designed to achieve one purpose and therefore suggests that recommittal is more than the circumstances require, I expressed the view that I was not prepared to press my view, if that was his opinion. The more I study the amendments, the more it appears to me their purpose is much wider. It seems to me the whole principle of gathering the rod licence money into one central fund and distributing it to the boards of conservators has now gone.
There is no change in that.
I would prefer to postpone the question of taking the amendments until the first amendment has been disposed of.
Might I explain that, with one exception, every one of these amendments hangs on Nos. 10 and 12. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are guiding amendments. All the rest are consequential, so if I could explain the purposes of these amendments, it really disposes of most of the rest of the amendments.
Deputy Dillon wants the right to discuss each amendment as it comes.
Yes.
The debate on the Committee Stage centred in the main around the reimposition of the salmon export levy and the introduction of increased licence duties on fishing engines. The additional revenue to be raised by these measures and credited to the Salmon Conservancy Fund is required to pay for improved protection services which I am urging boards of conservators throughout the country to provide and is also to be applied towards the cost of improvement schemes whereby it is hoped that the yield of the salmon fisheries may be materially increased. I have shown that the additional charges required to feed the Salmon Conservancy Fund for these essential purposes are not unreasonable and I am satisfied that the salmon industry as a whole recognises the justice of the case that they should contribute in this manner. Arguments were put forward from both sides of the House to the effect that a rod licence duty of £4 would bear with undue severity on the angler who fished only in the rivers in his own district. I may say that a few of the boards of conservators have made much the same point in commenting on the Bill. I gave an undertaking on Committee Stage to look further into this matter and I am now bringing in a series of amendments, the adoption of which will I think go a long way towards meeting these representations.
There are 24 amendments in all, and, with the exception of No. 6, all the amendments have to do with provisions for rod licences available in the district of issue only. The main provisions making this change are the following:—
Amendment No. 10 provides for an additional class of salmon rod licence, namely, a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence issuable for a year and available for use in the district of issue only.
Amendment No. 12 brings in a salmon rod (late season) (district) licence. Amendment No. 8 which is ancillary to Amendment No. 12 is enabling in form, that is to say, that licences of this class will be issuable by a board of conservators only when enabled to do so by Order of the Minister. This is in effect the same procedure as at present applies in regard to licences issuable after 1st July, and it is necessary to preserve this form as licences of this class have to be issued with due regard to the type of fishing prevailing in the district in question.
Amendment No. 24 adds to the Second Schedule the two additional classes of salmon rod licence with appropriate licence duties, namely, £2 for the district licence available for the whole year and £1 for the district licence available for six months from the 1st July. These are the existing rates for the corresponding types of rod licence at present. It is my intention to increase the £2 licence available in the district of issue only by 50 per cent. by Order under Section 15 and not by 100 per cent. as in the case of other licences, as the holder will not have the right which he at present enjoys of obtaining endorsement licences at 10/- each enabling him to fish in other fishery districts. The £1 fee for late season licences available in the districts of issue only will be liable to the general 100 per cent. increase. A licence duty of £10 s. will be fixed by Order for payment by the holder of a Foyle area salmon rod licence who wishes to take out a district licence under Section 15 as extended by Amendment No. 22.
The remaining amendments, with the exception of No. 6, are ancillary to or consequential on the amendments just described. As to the exception, No. 6, this is merely a drafting amendment to give more comprehensive effect to the provision in sub-section (9) (a) of Section 8 extending the purposes for which moneys may be paid out of the Salmon Conservancy Fund. As amended, the provision will enable the Minister to pay out of the fund "such sums towards the expenses incurred in connection with any scheme for the improvement of the inland fisheries as the Minister thinks proper."
As a result of these changes, there will be some short fall in the revenue which I anticipated would find its way back to the boards of conservators and I shall have to examine, in the light of experience, the effect of the comparatively small fall of revenue. We can always review the financial situation at a later date. As I already indicated, our officers are going around among the boards examining the whole position of waterkeepers, what can be done to assist them and what improvements may be affected in various rivers to improve salmon spawning and salmon stocks. We are asking the boards to co-operate with us in making use of the increased subventions they will get as a result of this Bill.
I am glad to say that the boards of conservators have taken a very reasonable view of the general proposal to increase rod licences. Of the 17 boards, three met and made no comment at all; seven approved but asked that there be a district licence, saying that the licence of £4 was too high for a great many types of anglers and for the man who fished only in his own district, and that there should be a district licence such as is provided for in these Report Stage amendments. Apart from that, they recognised in general the need to secure more revenue for water-keeping purposes.
Some of the anglers' associations protested against the increase of rod licences, but the Salmon Anglers' Federation, while asking for a compromise in the form of a district licence, made no other antagonistic comment. These amendments are really a result of the privilege I have that the Minister for Finance has not got, in that I present a budget of expenses for the boards of conservators; I receive complaints from the Opposition and from members of my own Party and I am enabled to make a compromise between the Committee and the Report Stages. The compromise is in the form of issuing a district licence available for fishing only in one area.
If I may, I will now read to the House the proposed duties that will come into operation in 1959. They will be: £4 for an ordinary annual licence available for all districts; £3, an increase of £1 on the previous licence, for an annual district ordinary licence for fishing only in one district; a seven-day licence available in all districts of £1; a 21-day licence available for all districts of £3; a salmon rod late season licence, after 1st July, available in all districts, of £3 and a salmon rod late season licence which has again to be with my permission, because of the difficulty that might arise in certain areas when the whole of the main season of fishing is after 1st July; and a district licence of £2.
That is the total array of licences. It can be said that they have received the general support of the boards of conservators. I cannot say the absolute support, but the board of conservators recognised the need for increases and asked me to consider what I could do in the way of providing a district licence available only for a particular district. I have done so and I should like to feel that I had the consent of the House as a whole as this is a genuine effort to compromise between the previous decision and a position in which I could forsee no possibility of finding sufficient revenue for the operations of the boards of conservators.
I believe that these amendments are being introduced as a result of a row between Deputy O'Malley and the Minister, in the course of which the Minister told Deputy O'Malley that he was talking sentimental nonsense. Deputy O'Malley said that he threw those words back in the Minister's face and that the Minister could not talk to him in that way. I believe that there was a row in the Fianna Fáil room and that now the Minister is running for cover as best he can.
There was no row in the Fianna Fáil room.
There was language, endorsed in the Official Report of the Dáil, of a most scurrilous character between the Minister and Deputy O'Malley. However, that is their own row.
The Deputy is dealing in fantasies now.
Now the Minister comes in as with some marvellous gesture, as some kind of superman. The truth is that Deputy O'Malley has him on the run and somebody said to the Minister: "You had better back pedal. You cannot tell your Deputies they are talking sentimental nonsense. You better try to pacify him." I suppose he is in process of being pacified now. The Minister has enough trouble on his hands, without having Deputy O'Malley on his hands, too, and if he is unloading him as a result of this operation, I do not blame him. He has my sympathy. The Minister has a passion for dropping bricks, and if he was not so full of himself, he would not drop so many bricks. If he drops bricks on Deputy O'Malley in certain circumstances, Deputy O'Malley is prone to react energetically. That is largely the reason why we have these 24 amendments before us.
I am not concerned with the row between the Minister and Deputy O'Malley, but the Minister presents these amendments to the House as his reactions as Minister for Fisheries to the necessity of enriching the conservators' funds. That is all eye-wash. There is not one penny of this money designed to increase the resources of the conservators' funds. Every penny of these increased charges will go in relief of the Exchequer. Every year that I was in office, and that my predecessor was in office, such funds as it was necessary to make available to supplement the revenue accruing to the boards of conservators from rates and rod licences were provided from the Exchequer.
Why was that decided upon? I want to tell the House that the proposals in this Bill, of doubling the salmon rod licence and raising the cost of fishing generally, were pressed on me year after year when I was Minister for Fisheries. I turned them down year after year by explaining to the Minister for Finance that, in my opinion, the tourist attractions which we had to offer in this country were limited. We had no bright lights and no exotic entertainment such as is available in Paris. We had not got the night life of London and we had not the climate of the Mediterranean but we had certain amenities here which were not available, so far as I knew, anywhere else in the world. One of those amenities, I explained, was cheap fishing.
Now that salmon fishing and sea trout fishing in Scotland and Great Britain have become furiously expensive and are available now only to people in the millionaire class, I explained that I wanted to build up, in the tourist world, the idea that we had here in Ireland not only fishing that you could rent at a reasonable rent from proprietors, but we had what I do not believe exists in other parts of Europe, large areas of free fishing, and that a man who came here was not expected to pay immense licences fees, and that only a nominal fee was payable in respect of a salmon rod, so that we could offer a certain very desirable type of tourist amenity that no other country in the world was in a position to offer at the present time. I said that if you wanted to sell that idea, you had to label it clearly and obviously as cheap fishing.
I think it is utter folly, for the sake of the relatively insignificant revenue that will be derived from this, to double the salmon rod licence. We are granting to An Bord Fáilte, £400,000 annually and I am bound to say that An Bord Fáilte, recognising the value of fisheries when I approached them, agreed with me, and have agreed since with the present Minister to embark on a five year programme to which An Bord Fáilte will devote part of their funds, for the development of brown trout and coarse fishing.
I think the Minister brings a good deal of trouble on his own head by talking about all the peregrinations and peripatetic inspection he is going to carry on to improve the service of water beiliffs and look after the rivers better than they were looked after before. You would imagine that until Deputy Erskine Childers turned up in 3 Upper O'Connell Street, the Department of Fisheries was in a state of chronic somnolence; that they never stirred out or did a hand's turn until he arrived to excite everybody. What in the name of goodness does the Minister imagine the Department of Fisheries has been doing for the past 20 years except to try to improve boards of conservators, the Fishery Laws and bring things up to date? That was largely done by the immense Fishery Consolidation Bill that was brought into this House and is still in the process of passing through this House. The process of attempting the improvement of the supervision of fishing is a constant process but anyone who has any knowledge of the problem knows that there is nothing you can do by peripatetic inspection or anything of that kind. It is very largely a matter of winning the support of the local people through the supervisory activities.
One of the great arguments I always used or sought to use with the Minister for Fisheries was that the poorest creature is in a position to fish for trout and he need not pay any licence. People can fish for salmon on the payment of £2. The view was pressed on me strongly that I ought to put a licence on trout fishing. I always argued that if we cannot get the local people to regard this amenity as their own you will never get the local co-operation you must have if you are to arrest the worst abuses of poaching.
I think that the whole idea of increasing the salmon rod licence is all wrong. The Minister says that a great many boards of conservators do it. Of course they do. Who is on the boards of conservators? Everybody on the boards of conservators is a died-in-the-wool salmon fisher. These are the men to whom an extra £1 or £2 on the licence makes very little difference because they are at it all the time. If you catch a great many salmon in the year and sell them at the present prices ruling, £1 or £2 makes very little difference. Such people feel that the fewer people who fish for salmon the more pleased they are, because more of the river is left for their exclusive enjoyment.
Human nature says if you are an enthusiastic salmon fisher the fewer rods on that river the better pleased you are but it is a short-sighted policy. I would much sooner see a multitude of rods legitimately fishing than a small select coterie of rods on the river in daytime and an army of poachers on the same river every night. If you keep the people off the river and make them feel that the river is the prerogative of a small privileged coterie in their vicinity, we have got to face the fact that our people, being what they are, if they cannot do it legitimately by day, will have a very strong tendency to go out and do it illegitimately by night.
Therefore, I think this whole idea of making it more expensive to fish in this country is wrong and foolish and the gain is not worth the candle. To my mind it is dishonest for the Minister for Lands to make the case to this House that this money is designed to supplement conservancy funds. He knows it is not true.
It is true.
The Minister knows that there was a corresponding reduction in his own Vote in relief of the Exchequer. Is that not so?
The Minister for Finance granted £6,000.
Last year the provision was £12,000 or £14,000.
It is a complete contribution. It does not replace any Government subvention.
The subvention from the Exchequer has gone down.
The total amount of revenue is up. The Exchequer continues to pay £6,000——
Instead of £14,000.
——and £20,000 to Bord Fáilte and the Inland Fisheries Trust.
Hold your horses. Note the Minister concedes that the provision this year from the Exchequer is £6,000 where it used to be £14,000. Say what you like, when you have those figures before you, am I right or wrong in saying that these increased rod licences are going in relief of the Exchequer? The boards of conservators will get £14,000 from these two sources. Before this, they got the £14,000 from the Exchequer. Who will it benefit—the boards of conservators or the Exchequer? I think it is complete imbecility, for the sake of relieving the Exchequer to the tune of £8,000, to get the reputation of doubling the cost of the salmon rod licence. Four pounds for a licence is a pretty stiff charge to make in rural Ireland. The Minister seeks to meet that, as a result of the ruckus with Deputy O'Malley, by reducing it to £3 for a local area.
The Minister tries to bring in an entirely new element. He intervened to say that the boards of conservators were going to get money from Bord Fáilte. I do not think they are. I think that the Inland Fisheries Trust is getting assistance from Bord Fáilte under the five-year development scheme. That was agreed before the Minister came into office. This is not all because this is not the only charge that is being raised from fish in relief of the Exchequer. Over and above the increased rod licences, the Minister has introduced a levy of 2d. per lb. on all salmon exported. He wants to persuade the House that that is going to boards of conservators. It is not going to boards of conservators. It is going in relief of the Exchequer and it is a rotten bad principle. It is not true to say that the bulk of the salmon bearing that levy of 2d. for a lb. is salmon caught on the rivers of Ireland. It is not caught on the rivers of Ireland. It is caught by poor fishermen in the estuary and outside the estuary. It is a very arduous, doubtful and difficult form of earning a living.
That does not seem to arise.
The Minister is trying to make the case that these subventions are swelling the resources of the boards of conservators.
The amendments deal entirely with district licences.
With rod licences.
The amendments deal with the whole question of finding finance for the boards of conservators.
We are really having another Second Reading discussion on this. These amendments deal entirely with the provision for district licences.
The Minister has chosen to change. There is no point in bringing in a Bill on one basis on Second Stage, then changing the basis—not on Committee Stage but on Report—and then not allowing the House to discuss the new proposal. I do not believe the House is apprised of the true facts of the situation. I believe the bulk of Deputies accept the proposition that all this extra subvention is being raised to strengthen the position of the boards of conservators and increase their resources for the protection of the fisheries. I want to say that there is not a word of truth in it. All this extra money is being raised from poor fishermen in the estuaries, from rod licences in the country, in relief of the Exchequer.
I want to put it to this House that they are travelling the wrong road. Our line here should be that we offer the public at home—and, as a result thereof, demand the co-operation of our own people in the protection of the fisheries—abundant fishing of good quality on terms that the humblest citizen can afford. Secondly, our objective should be in the sphere of tourism to proclaim to the world that we can offer in many cases free game fishing here at the cheapest rates available in any country in the world. This Bill and all the policy that the Minister is advocating are moving steadily away from these two objectives.
If that course is continued, two evils will ensue. If you make legitimate fishing too expensive for our own people, you will promote poaching and you will build up public sympathy with the poaching and that is the very thing we should try not to do. Secondly, if we get the reputation of raising our charges for fishing the moment we have some success in drawing fishing tourists to this country, we lose that most valuable element in our potential tourist income. Surely they are not so crazy, when the matter involved is a few thousand pounds, to follow this course.
I observe that here the Minister is taking some step in the direction of reducing his proposals to charge £4 in respect of licences and to make some such licences available for £3 but, in my opinion, the whole principle on which this design of increasing licences is based is wrong and will lead to great evils.
What I deprecate most strongly is that the Minister for Lands has consistently sought to convince the House that the increased revenues to be raised hereby are designed to strengthen the boards of conservators, when I say, and the figures prove, that the primary purpose, both of the salmon levy and of this increased charge on rods, is to relieve the Exchequer of the burden it bore during my period of administration and during the period of my predecessor's administration.
I believe our policy was right. I believe that Exchequer expenditure was prudent. I believe it yielded a splendid return and I believe that the effort to discharge the Exchequer from that liability at this cost is a most ill-considered and imprudent departure.
I heartily agree with Deputy Dillon, for entirely different reasons. While the law remains as it is, I am an unashamed supporter of the poacher. We found ourselves faced with a pretty number of problems when we took over this country. We took over the tail-end of a land problem, where we still had landlordism.
This does not arise on the amendment before the House. The Deputy will appreciate that we are dealing with the Report Stage of the Bill.
If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will give me a few minutes, I shall explain. That was got rid of by land legislation. The further problem that remained was the problem of certain fisheries held by foreigners.
The ownership of fisheries does not arise and cannot be debated at this stage of the Bill.
On a point of order, it has nothing to do with this Stage of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill about it.
This is an extra sum of money to assist the conservators. That is what this amendment is for. Each such provision that has been brought in here from time to time has built up a further barrier against the taking over of those fisheries by the people of the nation.
The provisions referred to by the Deputy cannot be discussed at this stage of the Bill. The Deputy will have to find another opportunity of raising the question of ownership of fisheries.
I am raising the question of ownership, inasmuch as every step taken here to provide more money for the protection of fisheries in the hands of foreign owners is a step to increase the value of those fisheries and to increase the burden that the nation will have to bear in taking over the fisheries in the finish. As a result of legislation that has been passed here and the amounts of money paid by the State and in other ways to boards of conservators, in the past 12 years the value of these foreign owners' fisheries has been trebled at least.
The Deputy is getting away from the amendment. The amendment before the House deals specifically with the issue of a licence and the Deputy must relate his remarks to that.
And the amount to be charged.
And the amount to be charged.
And the manner in which that increased money will be expended. According to the Minister, that increased money is to go to strengthen the funds of the boards of conservators for the protection of fisheries for the foreigner. I do not agree with it.
I leave it to the Minister to reply to Deputy Dillon's point, but there is one point that occurs to me. In the Limerick conservators area, the main impost, as I pointed out on the last occasion this Bill was before the House, is not the rod licence charge, which is not unreasonable, even at £3, but the charge which the E.S.B. levy on anglers in the area, which was £10 up to last year and which was to be raised to £25 this season, but for the fact that, due to the most unusual procedure of asking licence owners to vote as to whether or not they wanted the increase, the E.S.B. suggestion was turned down and temporarily, at least, withdrawn.
In the Limerick district, the position therefore arises that you have the estate agent and the conservators' agent demanding from the fishermen two licence fees, one for £10 and now one for £3. I do not know if that apertains to any other section in the country. In the case of the E.S.B. having control over the Shannon fisheries, I do not think that licences should apply at all. The arguments put forward by Deputy Dillon with regard to the ordinary sporting angler applies more strongly in the case of the Limerick angler than to anglers in any other area in the country.
I do not agree with Deputy Dillon's point that, if we cannot provide the bright lights of paris and London, we should as an alternative provide tourists with cheap rod licences at the expense of our taxpayers. After all, the funds of the Exchequer are provided by thousands of small taxpayers who never had the opportunity or desire to fish. Even if we had, Deputy Dillon's own suggestion, that the increase in the levy on the export of salmon and the increased cost of rod licences does help to relieve the Exchequer, by which we mean the taxpayer, of some of the overhead cost it carries, I do not see that that is a bad principle. I do not see why the unfortunate taxpayers should be asked to provide by far the cheapest fishing in Europe for tourists.
This country provides far greater amenities and attractions for the type of tourist that comes here than the bright lights of Paris or the night clubs of London. If we are to approach it from the point that our alternative is to provide cheap rod fishing licences, I would rather do without that type of tourist. We should strike a fair balance between what the taxpayer provides in assistance in the development of fisheries and providing sport at a reasonable cost in the first instance to our own people at home and also to the tourists. If the Minister can strike a fair balance, I shall be glad to support it. It is completely wrong to say the Exchequer should be called to to provide ridiculously cheap fishing just in order to boast about it as an alternative to the bright lights of Paris.
This amendment would seem to outlaw the small angler and make fishing a hobby of the idle rich and the wealthy class. Eventually, if the Minister goes on as he has been going, before a man can flick a rod it will cost him at least £8. Now he will not be allowed to flick that rod without paying a fee of £4 to the Minister afterwards. I have a protest from the Galway and Corrib Anglers' Association proprietors of the Oughterard Hatchery, the largest brown trout hatchery in Ireland, from which over 500,000 trout try are turned out annually for Lough Corrib. This is an association which has done more for fishing in the West than any of the Departments over the years. They say:—
"We, the members of the above association, representing over 100 anglers in the Galway area, resent most vehemently the proposal of the Minister for Lands to increase the current salmon licence fee from £2 to £4.
The case made by the Minister is that the increased charge is offset by the fact that this new charge of £4 will apply to any area in the Republic as compared with the existing system, whereby the basic licence fee is £2 for any one area, but an additional fee of 10/- has to be paid if the angler moves from one area of conservation to another. For example, a local Galway angler takes out a £2 licence for the Galway area. If he wishes to fish for salmon or sea trout in the Connemara area, he must take out a supplementary licence costing 10/-; and if he wishes to fish in Donegal he must take out a further supplementary licence costing 10/-, and so on.
The normal resident Galway angler is confined entirely to his own area throughout the fishing season; the only free salmon fishing available for him is in Lough Corrib. His work and his purse confine him to Lough Corrib. He is not concerned, because he cannot, with fishing in other areas of conservation.
The anglers who avail of supplementary licences are a wealthy class who can afford the leisure and money to fish the country from end to end. The increased charge of £4 will make salmon fishing cheaper for this class of angler, but the run-of-the-mill angler—the angler who can least afford it—is being penalised.
Few local anglers will pay a £4 licence on the off-chance of killing the odd salmon on Lough Corrib and the net result will be to turn the decent and poorer angler into a poacher and the local board of conservators will suffer the loss of £2 per local angler."
That is a rather long quotation. It is not usual to have such long quotations.
I should like to point out that this is the case made by these anglers.
This amendment was made in order to satisfy the reasonable requests of anglers.
This represents a protest.
They could not do so, now that they have got this amendment.
These anglers maintain that eventually this will tend to make poaching more prevalent. This means providing for the idle rich and, if the Minister intends to have it that way, he is asking for more trouble than he can deal with.
As I explained on Second Stage, when Deputy Dillon was not present, the object in securing increased revenue for the boards, apart from whatever gift the Minister can make, was to ensure the future preservation of the boards. In connection with an industry such as the salmon industry, it is very important that there should be a permanent source of revenue, independent of the particular views of the Minister for Finance of the day; and it will be easier for any Minister for Lands to secure such extra revenue as he requires from the Minister for Finance in the form of a Grant-in-Aid or as a contribution to the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust where it improves game fishing, or as a contribution to An Bord Fáilte for the provision of publicity and other amenities for salmon anglers.
It is better to rely on the Minister for Finance for additional sums over and beyond the normal needs of the boards of conservators. I have said that with absolute sincerity and I am absolutely convinced we will be proved right in the long run. There would be additional revenue of some £14,000 were it not for the short fall of revenue which will be occasioned by the amendments put in on the Report Stage of the Bill, which will reduce slightly the rod licence revenue.
By how much?
By about £3,000 or £4,000. There would have been between £13,000 and £14,000 more total income payable after allowing for the actual reduction in the grant made under this head by the Minister for Finance. The revenue we anticipate would be received in 1959-60 when these licences come into operation is based on the assumption that the same conditions exist as existed in 1956-57 from the point of view of the actual sport of salmon fishing; and one has to make an assumption obviously in making an estimate. The total revenue would be £80,000 as compared with £66,000 odd in the financial year 1956-57.
In regard to the other observations made, I should like to commend Deputy Russell for what he said. Salmon fishing in Ireland is still by far the cheapest of any country in Europe and the fees payable both to owners and to boards of conservators are very much lower than in any other part of Europe. In particular, in England and Scotland, the fees are far higher. This Bill is asking anglers, whether rich or poor, to pay, in a great many cases, the equivalent of not more than the cost of 3¼ lb. weight of salmon at the average price received for salmon last year. It surely is not a very great impost. An additional fee of £1 for a district licence equivalent to about 3¼ lb. weight of salmon is really not excessive. I think Deputies should be reasonable in agreeing that that is not an excessive impost to place on the industry.
I might add that salmon at certain times of the year is very much dearer than 6/3 — it goes up to 12/- 15/- or even 18/- per lb. For the local man who fishes and for whom it is only a part-time sport at week-ends, the impost is not very much greater. He need only get 3¼ lb. more salmon and he has paid the extra licence. If he fishes after July 1st, for example sea-trout fishing, he has only to pay £2.
The facts are that these rod licence fees go back to 1925 when salmon was 1/8 per lb., but it is now 6/3 or more. Adjustments of taxation of every kind have been required to compensate the boards and the State, incidentally, for the decline in the value of money. As I indicated on the Second Stage of the Bill, if you allow for the fall in the value of money, the revenue accruing to the boards of conservators was £3,000 less on the figure of £69,000 in a recent year than it should have been to compensate for the fall in the value of money since 1939, in spite of the great increase in salmon fishery rates and in spite of whatever grants have been made available by Governments from time to time.
I do not think I am putting an impossible impost on the industry. I do not believe this is a grievous burden to be carried by rod fishermen who fish in their own district now that we have made this provision for district licences. I believe that the industry should carry its own impost to the greatest degree possible and that the Minister for Finance should make such extra contributions as he can. I do not believe that the present Minister for Finance will be slow to give extra contributions if such are required for the general capital development of the industry.
We know there will be a net increase of nearly £10,000 to the boards, assuming all things are equal in relation to the success of the salmon fishing next year as compared with recent years— one has to make that assumption. That will be an increase which is very badly needed.
The Minister said that the fee for salmon rods here compares very favourably with that paid for salmon rods in England and Scotland. Does he happen to have the figures by him?
No. I was not referring to rod licence fees; I was referring to the total expenses.
What is the rod licence fee in Scotland?
I could not say. The main thing would be the expenses. That would be the owners' charges for the use of the water which are so much greater than our additional charges. An increase of £1 or even £2 in the rod licence fee would make very little difference to the total amount paid for permission to fish.
With a £2 licence you might encourage people to take out a licence, people who would not take out a licence if the fee were £3 or £4. You might discourage these people from becoming legitimate anglers— that is one of the dangers I see.
Amendment agreed to.
I understand it has been agreed that certain amendments be discussed together.
So far as I am concerned the merits of this group of amendments submitted by the Minister have been substantially covered by the discussion we have had. We differ fundamentally and we shall not agree about it, but that is what Parliaments are for, I suppose. I object strenuously to the whole scheme. I think it is wrong, shortsighted and unrealistic. I believe Deputy O'Malley agrees with me, but I doubt if I could get him to come into the Lobby with me even if I challenged a division. I saw some Fianna Fáil Deputies trotting into the Lobby to-day to support reductions in the price of wheat, pigs and barley and after that I almost despair of callling a division. If I thought I could bring Deputy O'Malley into the Lobby with me in support of what I am convinced he believes, I might trouble the House with a division; but as I am not quite so optimistic. I do not propose to divide the House on any of these amendments unless Deputy O'Malley gives me a signal that he will come into the Lobby with me.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following new definition:—
the expression "salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence" means a salmon rod ordinary licence which is valid for a period of one year and is available for use in the fishery district of the board of conservators by which it was issued and in no other fishery district.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), line 27, after "July" to add "and is available for use in every fishery district".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following new definition:—
the expression "salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licence" means a salmon rod ordinary licence which is valid for a period of six months commencing on a first day of July and is available for use in the fishery district of the board of conservators by which it was issued and in no other fishery district.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 5, Section 6 (1) (c), line 49, to delete "(annual)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 8, Section 8 (9) (a), line 7, to delete "costs of" and substitute "expenses incurred in connection with".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 9, Section 13 (1), to delete lines 14 to 16 and substitute the following:—
13. —(1) If—
(a) any person fishes for or takes or kills salmon with rod and line in a fishery district and
(b) such person is not the holder of a salmon rod ordinary licence which is for the time being in force and is available for use in that fishery district.
such person shall be guilty of an.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 9, Section 14 (2), between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(a) A board of conservators shall not issue salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licences unless there is for the time being in force an order under paragraph (b) of this sub-section authorising that board of conservators to issue licences of that class.
(b) The Minister may by order (either on his own motion or on the application of the board of conservators) authorise a board of conservators to issue salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licences.
(c) The Minister may at any time by order revoke an order made under paragraph (b) of this sub-section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 9, Section 14 (2) (d), line 43, before "shall" to insert "and available for use in every fishery district".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 9, Section 14 (2), between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following new paragraph:—
( ) Salmon rod ordinary licences issuable for a year and available for use in the fishery district of the board of conservators by which they were issued and in no other fishery district shall be called, and are in this Act referred to as, salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licences.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 9, Section 14 (2) (e), line 47, before "shall" to insert "and available for use in every fishery district".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 9, Section 14 (2), between lines 49 and 50, to insert the following new paragraph:—
( ) Salmon rod ordinary licences issuable for a period of six months commencing on a first day of July and available for use in the fishery district of the board of conservators by which they were issued and in no other fishery district shall be called, and are in this Act referred to as, salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licences.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 10, Section 14 (3) (c), line 1, before "shall" to insert "or a salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licence".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 10, Section 14 (3) (d), line 8, after "licence" to insert "or a salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licence".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 10, Section 14 (5) (b), to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute "licence or a salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licence or a salmon rod (annual) ordinary licence to which sub-section (2) of Section 15 of this Act applies or a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence to which sub-section (3) of the said Section 15".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 10, to delete sub-section (7), lines 30 to 33, and substitute the following new sub-section:—
() Each of the following ordinary fishing licences shall be available for use in the fishery district of the board of conservators by which it was issued and in no other fishery district—
(a) an ordinary fishing licence (not being a salmon rod ordinary licence),
(b) a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence.
(c) a salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licence.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 10, to delete sub-section (8), lines 34 and 35, and substitute the following new sub-section:—
() A salmon rod ordinary licence (not being a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence or a salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licence) shall be available for use in every fishery district.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 10, Section 14 (11), line 46, before "shall" to insert "(not being a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence or a salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licence)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 10, between lines 50 and 51, to insert the following new sub-section:—
() Every salmon rod ordinary licence (being a salmon road (annual) (district) ordinary licence or a salmon rod (late season) (district) ordinary licence) shall operate to authorise the person named therein, but no other person, to use, during the period specified therein and in the fishery district of the board of conservators by which it was issued, a salmon rod, but subject to the provisions of the Acts and this Act and any instrument made thereunder.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 10, Section 15 (1) (a), line 54, to delete "(4) or (5)" and substitute "(4), (5), (6) or (7)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 11, Section 15 (1), to delete paragraph (c), lines 9 to 12, and substitute the following new paragraph:—
(c) This sub-section does not apply to the ordinary licence duty payable in respect of—
(i) a salmon rod (annual) ordinary licence to which sub-section (2) of this section applies, or
(ii) a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence to which sub-section (3) of this section applies.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 11, Section 15, to insert (as sub-section (3)) between lines 28 and 29, the following new sub-section:—
() (a) This sub-section applies to a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence which is valid for a particular year and is issued to a person who is the holder of a salmon rod (Foyle Area) licence which is valid for that year.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this sub-section the ordinary licence duty payable in respect of a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence to which this sub-section applies shall be 10/-
(c) Whenever the Minister makes, under paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section, an Order altering the ordinary licence duty in respect of a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence, he may by Order alter the annual licence duty payable in respect of a salmon rod (annual) (district) ordinary licence to which this sub-section applies.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 12, Section 15 (5), lines 2 and 3, to delete "paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) and paragraph (c) of sub-section (4)" and substitute "paragraph (c) of sub-section (3), paragraph (b) of sub-section (4) and paragraph (c) of sub-section (5)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 17, Second Schedule, to delete Part I and substitute the following new Part:—
"PART I.
Licence Duties in Respect of Salmon Rod Ordinary Licences.
|
Classes of Salmon Rod Ordinary Licences |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Kind of Engine |
Salmon Rod (annual) ordinary licences |
Salmon Rod (annual) (district) ordinary licences |
Salmon Rod (seven day) ordinary licences |
Salmon Rod (twentyone day) ordinary licences |
Salmon Rod (late season) ordinary licences |
Salmon Rod (late season) (district) ordinary licences |
||||||||||||
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
||||||||||||
|
£ |
s. |
d. |
£ |
s. |
d. |
£ |
s. |
d. |
£ |
s. |
d. |
£ |
s. |
d. |
£ |
s. |
d. |
|
|
Salmon Rod |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Fifth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28th May, 1958.