I move:—
That the Foyle Area (Weekly Close Time) Regulations, 1962, be and are hereby annulled.
I raise this matter because I feel that the fishermen on the River Foyle and Lough Foyle are being treated harshly. As Deputies know, the story of Foyle fishing goes back a number of years. The fishermen there fought to have the right to fish it. The situation was rather controversial immediately after the Foyle-Bann case was lost in the High Court in Dublin. After 1952, the Foyle Fishery Act was brought into force to control fishing on the River Foyle. At that time, it was felt by all sections of the community that this was completely in the interest of the river and of the fishermen who fish it. However, the position at the moment is that the fishermen are ill at ease. They have come to the conclusion that we are going back to the Foyle and Bann period and that this is tending to be something like a private fishery again.
Without going into details, I believe that the difficulty on the Foyle must be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Commissioners, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, have failed to do the job they were appointed to do. This is due to the fact that the Commission do not recognise the advisory council, the body elected by the practical fishermen on the Foyle to speak for them in consultations with the Commission and to bring their practical problems to the notice of the Commission. They have been consistently ignored, so much so that in September, 1960, the advisory body passed a resolution of no confidence in the Commission. That is a known fact, despite the fact that it appeared in a local newspaper on Tuesday that the Commission refused to meet the advisory body without the Press being present.
Incidentally, I should refer to the fact that the Commission now say it was agreed by the advisory body to bring in these penal regulations. With the greatest respect to everyone, that is not a fact, as I am sure Deputy Cunningham will agree. He and I attended a few meetings of the fishermen. It was brought to our notice that only one meeting of the advisory body had been called since the elections last year— and the one meeting called was to entertain them to dinner or high tea! I shall leave it to the House to judge without going into it further.
This reduction of one day in the fishing week is a penal measure for the fishermen who fish the Foyle. The Commission have the solution themselves, if they would only use it. I am speaking the views of the practical fishermen, and I am sure Deputy Cunningham will do so as well. With the greatest respect, the Commissioners are civil servants. If they do not recognise the advisory council and if they completely ignore the fishermen, they are not serving the purpose for which they were appointed.
I feel the Commission are not bringing in these regulations entirely in the interests of the fishermen who make their living on the river. If they were, they would remove the stake net at Rosses Bay, which was described by Deputy Cunningham as a "killer"—a stake net which it would be illegal for anyone but the Commission to use. They have three such stake nets in the River Foyle catchment area. They could also reduce the length of the draught nets they use themselves to the length allowed to fishermen above Derry Bridge.
The big mistake is this. The Commission make regulations and submit them to the Governments, both north and south, and whenever the fishermen make a protest, they kindly agree to meet a deputation. Deputy Cunningham and I are to attend one of these deputations on Tuesday next. But it puzzles me why the Commission should be agreeable to meet a deputation after the thing has become an accomplished fact. It seems to be wasting the time of the fishermen and of the Commission itself. I am thankful to the Government Party for allowing me time to speak on this.
In 1959, the fishing season was reduced by one fortnight, from 15th April to 1st May, and it is now proposed to reduce it by one extra day per week. This is qualified by the Minister to, I think, a period of five years. At the end of five years, there will be no guarantee that conditions and circumstances will have changed; it may be extended to another five years or, perhaps, the fishing week reduced once more, or the season reduced. I submit that the Minister should recommend to the Commissioners — he appointed them — that they should consider the views of the fishermen who make their living by fishing the River Foyle before any new regulations are brought into force.
There is a widely-held opinion that all fishermen are rogues and poachers. That is not so. No one values a licence more than a legal fisherman. Fishermen appreciate that their living comes out of fishing, whether it is fulltime fishing in the Lough or in the upper reaches of the river. They all realise that the regulations made are made in their own interests. Now I have here some rather interesting figures. In the year ending 30th September, 1960, the Commission paid back £6,000; in the vear prior to that, they paid back £8,000 practically. They have £40,903 accumulated surplus; part of this is £27,000 in hard cash and investments, incidentally. The fishermen cannot understand how, if these regulations have to be brought in the interests of the River Foyle, this industry can make money. Would the Minister not agree that in this industrial age, with a Fianna Fáil Cabinet, this money should be spent keeping down poachers and benefiting the river ?
