I should like to express my deep regret at the necessity for this extension, my regret at the Parliamentary Secretary having to come to the House to seek our authority to extend the election date for the board of conservators.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that on the 2nd May, 1974, in answer to a Parliamentary Question from Deputy Daly, in Volume 272 of the Official Report, at column 729 he was asked if he proposed to change the system of election of membership of boards of conservators; and, if so, the changes he proposed to make. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply read:
The system of election of boards of fishery conservators is at present being reviewed in my Department. I have not as yet finalised any proposals in the matter.
I intervened to ask:
Will the decision be made within a short time?
And the Parliamentary Secretary replied: "Yes"
I pointed out that we had waited a long time for action on this matter from the Parliamentary Secretary but that nothing had happened yet and the Parliamentary Secretary then replied:
I expect to have it before the next elections which are to take place in October.
All this was said on the 2nd May this year. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the position then was that he had the whole matter of this question of the system of election to the board of conservators under review; what has happened the review which was being carried out in his Department and why has he not arrived at a decision and brought forward the legislation—as he promised to do—in time to have this new legislation, implementing a new system of election to these boards, in operation for the elections which were due next October. I am not satisfied with the explanation that the Parliamentary Secretary has given in the document he has circulated where he states that he has had discussions with the Chairman and members of the Inland Fisheries Commission and particularly where he says:
... I understand that the Commission will have recommendations which would call for extensive amendments of the fisheries legislation
That, we expect. Then he goes on to say:
on many aspects of conservation including the constitution of the boards.
These gentlemen's views on the constitution of the board might be validly taken into consideration in arriving at a decision but I fail to understand why their views should influence the Parliamentary Secretary so completely that he decides to postpone the elections for a full 12 months period and implies, in this postponement, that whatever views these gentlemen will bring forward are more or less going to be the bones of the new system. As one of the Deputies who influenced the establishment of that Commission at the time Mr. Blaney was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—and I can rightly claim to have influenced the decision to establish that Commission through representations I had been making continuously before that period—I should like to express here—this is the first opportunity I have taken to express it publicly in the House—my complete dissatisfaction at the persons who constitute membership of this Commission.
I do not feel they are representative of the Irish community or of the Irish fisheries interest. I think that these boards—as are the boards of conservators which have existed up to the present time—are overloaded with a vested interest, that interest being the ownership of private fisheries. I think that such persons who have this interest should not have been appointed in such large numbers to the Commission. This is the very system about which we are complaining, which operate in the election to the boards of conservators up to now— that this vested interest group holds the sway and determines what happens. We know that they have proved to have been ultra-conservative in all the actions they have taken in relation to fishery matters throughout the years.
In my view, these boards of conservators have very little of which to be proud, and I am entitled to offer my opinion here. I have very good reason for expressing that view. I have had experience of how they operate. I have had experience of the resistance which they have presented against the legitimate claims of fishermen in my own area where, thanks to the then Minister, a public inquiry was held despite their protests. The inquiry, thanks be to God, came down on the side of the fishermen. My experience of how they operated then, before then and indeed since, leads me to have very little regard for the manner in which they carry out their business.
Because of that, I deem it a matter of very great regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has come to the House and asked for this extension. He is allowing these people to control the whole fishery conservation work for another 12 months, a group of conservative people who, in the main, represent their own private interests only. This, I think, is not good for fisheries. I do not think it is a good principle on which to establish any committee or commission. I would go so far as to say that, in my view, fisheries in this country in the hands of private owners should be acquired by the State. Many of the titles are questionable and many of the owners have never resided in this country; some of the owners cannot even be traced. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider very seriously setting into motion some process under which the State could acquire gradually private fisheries, when they become available; in cases where they are being neglected totally by the owners, he should acquire unto himself power—in the new legislation coming forward later on—to acquire such fisheries, and that a policy should be adopted by the State of phasing out, over a period, the private ownership of any fisheries in this country.
The old argument which has been used successfully up to now in resisting my type of proposal has been the constitutional protection of the rights of private ownership, therefore, the obligation on the State to pay compensation and that the amount of compensation so required would be so enormous that the State could not justify the expenditure of such large amounts of money in acquiring such fisheries, especially when the State at any particular time would always have pressing demands on its resources. Knowing that argument and feeling if it is going to be used continuously against a policy of acquisition of private fisheries by the State, we will never arrive at a situation where the State comes into control. Therefore, we are adhering to a policy of private ownership and agreeing with it. We know that much of the title to these is doubtful; many of the ownerships which now exist were acquired by the sword in days gone by and by doubtful gifts from the king and queen of our neighbouring country. I would have no sympathy with the owners. I would accept their rights to some degree of compensation. I would not be frightened by the huge sums involved. I would set about a process of acquisition bit by bit—as they become available and the ones that have been neglected—and I would set aside each year a certain sum of money devoted solely to the acquisition of fisheries.
We have a structure in this country well capable of controlling and managing such private fisheries for the State. The Inland Fisheries Trust is there, operates very successfully, has all the machinery, technique, expertise, owns fisheries at this moment on behalf of the State. It would be no burden on the Inland Fisheries Trust to assume the management of further large tracts of fisheries which are at present held in private ownership. I have always argued that the Inland Fisheries Trust should receive substantially increased financial support from the State year by year. I am pleased to record that over the years the allocation granted to them to carry out their very valuable and successful work has been increased. The State has recognised the value of the work they have been doing.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any independent views at all on the question of private ownership or the composition of the boards of conservators because he has not expressed himself very often on these matters though they are his responsibility. A little enlightenment at the end of this debate might be helpful to those of us who have always taken a special interest in fishery matters. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary had already under review the system of election to those boards and has not decided to implement the proposals which he was considering but has postponed his decision to enable him to consider the views of this commission is something I regret. It implies that the Parliamentary Secretary is not his own man in this matter.
Fisheries, no more than any other aspect of our economy, should not be left on the long finger. When he does come to make his decision I know that he will take into consideration the views expressed by Deputies in this House. I hope that in whatever new system emerges only a democratic system of election will be applied and that the idea of a special number of votes for the owners of fisheries over a certain valuation will be abolished. All that must be abolished. There are genuine members of the community as concerned about the development of fisheries and the conservation of stock as any private owner, and much more so in many cases. If the Parliamentary Secretary looks around and consults in each local area he can gather together a very high level of representation of fishery interests, very dedicated people who could give very valuable service to the promotion of Irish inland fisheries. We are not dependent on the brains and the so-called knowledge of those who own fisheries. Their right to ownership in some cases is doubtful and in others their only right has been the size of their bank account. They look upon their stretch of private fishing as a status symbol. I am not saying all of them do. There is a danger, when making global statements, of accusing everybody. I am not, but I am saying that such people exist. They have very little interest in fisheries apart from a week-end down in the west to fish the old private stretch. Many of them get great delight from owning such stretches of water so that they can give free fishing to their big business friends. The whole thing stinks of status symbols and big money. I do not think any legislation should be designed to cater especially for such people, and that is what has happened. We know that the basis of it in 1848 came from a Government and a people who lived in that environment and who thrived in it, but we are a democratic State, established now for over 50 years. It is a sad fact and it is a reflection on those of us who supported a party in government here before the Parliamentary Secretary's party came in. The only credit I can claim for the Fianna Fáil Party is that at least in our time we did set about dismantling all those structures by the creation of commissions to go into all fishery legislation with a view to modernising it and to removing the stigma of British imperialism which runs rife through all fisheries legislation. Much was done in 1959 and great credit is due to the then Minister, but much of the basic legislation still remains in operation and this is the cause of my complaint today.
I want to refer to the power of the boards of conservators at present to issue drift net licences to fishermen. Quite rightly in recent times restrictions have been introduced on the number of licences to be granted and on the category of persons entitled to such licences. Accepting those two basic principles does not imply a complete ban on every individual seeking a licence. I think there has been a restrictive attitude adopted by the boards of conservators who were only too delighted to get those new regulations into their hands and to wield them as stringently and in as restrictive a manner as possible. They have never shown any concern for or any interest in the welfare of people who derive their livelihood from fishing for salmon at sea with drift nets. To give them, who are in the majority on those boards in the main, certainly on the west coast, the power to issue licences, has introduced an element of Tammany Hall. I am aware of persons who were genuinely refused licences, who had alternative sources of income but who could make a case, granted a weak one, and who were refused on their original applications. Means were employed to soften certain individuals on the boards and licences were subsequently issued for very wrong reasons. I am concerned about the genuine people who are now shut out.
An inquiry was held in the fishery districts off the Galway coast. There are three fishery districts there where drift netting for salmon had been debarred by law for 40 or 50 years or more, up to the time of that inquiry. The result of the inquiry was the removal of the ban. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that drift netting for salmon off the Galway coast is a new thing, that there were not any drift netters there before 1969, when the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries gave his decision bearing in mind the report of the three inquiries. Many fishermen did not know anything about drift netting for salmon off the Galway coast. They knew it was something that was carried on in Donegal, that there was a little of it off the Mayo coast, that there was some in the south of Ireland. They had no experience of it. They did not even know what kind of nets were needed, what hours one fished or what kind of boats were suitable. I know this for a fact. Nobody came to help them or to inform them on how to acquire the skill of drift netting. One can waste a lot of money on buying nets and boats and spend a lot of money on petrol for expensive engines if one does not have the necessary basic information. They visited other areas and spoke to fishermen but it was not a popular operation. Anyone who undertook it in the early years when the licence was available found it very hard. Only a handful of fishermen availed of the licence.
I had to encourage certain fishermen to apply because they thought it was a waste of time. There was a very strong belief among the fishermen in the Aran Islands that there was no salmon to be caught off the Aran Islands. The first Aran Island fishermen who applied for licences brought their boats into Spiddal and fished from there. They left their own fishing grounds because they believed no salmon could be obtained off the Aran Islands. I say this to demonstrate to the Parliamentary Secretary that any system of allocating drift net licences, which is dependent on the number of years in which you held a licence previous to your application, is a wrong system, because there are genuine fishermen, people who spend most of their time fishing for lobster, whose trade has been falling steadily. It has become more and more difficult to eke a living out of lobster fishing in the summer months in recent years. The answer to the drop in the number of lobster being caught is to increase the number of pots they put into the sea. They had to invest in new pots and have had to do twice the amount of dropping and hauling of pots as they were doing 5 or 6 years ago. All of this is done to try to acquire the same income from it.
The Parlimentary Secretary knows that fishing is a hazardous business, especially on the west coast of Ireland. These men, whose income was reduced year by year from lobster and cray fish, could have turned to drift netting for salmon if they believed there was salmon there. Last year an attempt was made by a small number to drift for salmon off the Aran Islands. In certain parts some fish were caught. This year, for the very first time, full-time drift net fishing for salmon in the legal period, which only lasts for a few weeks, was undertaken by some of the fishermen there who have been fairly successful.
The Parliamentary Secretary today, in answer to a question by Deputy Crowley asking that special consideration be given to island fishermen in their application, gave a very negative reply. I am sure he will remember that I asked a very similar question not so long ago when I also got a very negative and unhelpful reply. I asked that special consideration be given to the Aran fishermen because they had a special case. If they apply now they are told they did not hold a licence for two out of the previous three years, and they will not be given a licence. The Parliamentary Secretary has the reputation, which some people believe, of being a reasonable man. He can prove to me he is a reasonable man if he will reconsider the decision about the application of these new regulations to the Aran Island fishermen. It is distressing to think that so much opposition and lack of co-operation is coming from the Department when one considers that only a handful of fishermen are involved. It is a sad reflection on the Parlimentary Secretary, and on the officials of his Department, and it is also a very poor reflection on the boards of conservators in our area. They may claim their hands are tied by the regulations drawn up by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I started out by saying there was a need for a restriction. I believe in conservation but I also believe in the development of fisheries. I believe it should be applied fairly, that the means used to apply it should be reasonable and that the regulations should apply in a fair manner, taking into consideration the circumstances of the applicant. A rigid application can cause great hardship in certain areas and to certain families who are affected. I agree with bringing in some level of control.
Deputy Jackie Fahey introduced the first attempt in this country to operate a successful conservation policy for salmon. It was a brave thing to attempt to do because it was not popular with the people who would be affected. We did not hear the boards of conservators clapping loudly about this work of conservation undertaken by the Government at that time. The present Parliamentary Secretary came into office some months later at an opportune time to receive all the complaints. He made some adjustment to the regulations. Now, I believe there is a need to review the operation of these regulations in toto. It is wrong thinking to feel, because the Parliamentary Secretary made a regulation, he should not change it. I would agree he is a reasonable and sensible man if he would undertake, before next year's salmon season starts, to review completely, with the assistance of local knowledge, local circumstances and having invited those who feel they have a grievance to write to him and explain their grievances, these regulations. I do not believe the boards of conservators have their hearts in the right places as far as the poor people of this country are concerned. They have no idea of the difference between casting a salmon rod on a stretch of river on a cool summer evening and going out in a small boat in a rough sea, throwing out a long net which will drift and waiting for many hours, watching your net, making sure it is drifting in the right line and patrolling your net to make sure you get your salmon before the seals do.
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of all these problems. It is a hard life, and weather can be so bad on occasions that it is impossible to go out. If there are three working a boat that means there are three people whose incomes depend on what they get. If they are in for four days out of the week there will not be much to divide at the end of the week. We all hear of the trip when they come in with 40, 50 or 60 salmon. They get more in Donegal, but they certainly do not get large catches off the Galway coast. A catch of 45 salmon is a redletter day for the drift netters off the Galway coast. In Donegal they come in with hundreds. These men lead a very hard life. They are taking a risk and they cannot get into the business without heavy capital expenditure. Their boats cost from £2,000 to £20,000. The lobster boats which some of them use for drift netting are bigger and more expensive.
The nets costs hundreds of pounds and they can be lost at sea. They can be torn to ribbons, and if the British mine sweepers are around they can be cut in two as well. They are very often lost. Sometimes a fisherman buys a net which is not suitable for the sea conditions off his coast and this is a useless net to him. The fishermen on the Galway coast had to import nets from Japan. Somebody said one of those was successful last year so they all switched to them. They have to leave the nets which they had last year in the sheds. The fishermen have to use heavy engines which consume petrol all the time, because if you tie up for long periods you will find your salmon has been taken by seals or you have lost your net. There are tricks of patrolling the net and in that way confusing the salmon, which get enmeshed. If the weather is bad the fisherman's income can be very small.
I am putting these facts before the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope that he will agree to review the operation of these regulations since he changed them on coming into office. I am asking him to give very special consideration to the few fishermen in the Aran Islands who have been denied licences on the grounds of a rigid interpretation and application of the condition of having to have held a licence for two years previously. This was not possible in that area because there was no tradition of salmon fishing there; people were sceptical of the possibility of catching them and did not have the capital to acquire the boats and nets and to go out there fully equipped on a chance. It has been shown that it can be done in a small way for a few weeks very successfully. None of them will make any great amount of money. If the Parliamentary Secretary continues his attitude of refusing to allow these people ever to hold a licence, then he will only encourage poaching or illegal fishing. It is not fair to a small man that he should have to be watching over his shoulder all the time for a patrol boat or for an employee of the board of conservators or the Garda to catch him. They do not want to break the law, but they have to make a living. If the living is outside the door and the only thing that is stopping them is the Parlimentary Secretary, Deputy Pat Murphy, and his regulations, then I do not think you could blame them if they feel he has not acted reasonably with them.
Deputy Gallagher made the point that the emphasis in the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to these boards was on conservation. Maybe the title of these boards would imply that. I think we are all interested in the development of our fisheries, not just in trying to conserve the stocks that are there. I personally would refuse to accept the stated view of the owners of private fisheries that the biggest danger to the preservation of the salmon species in this country is the drift netting fishermen. We have a private fishery in the Moy in Ballina, County Mayo, where Deputy Gallagher has informed us 700 salmon were taken in one haul, and they keep hauling that river hour after hour. It is unknown to me at this moment how many thousands of salmon have been taken out of the Moy this year, last year, or the year before. No restriction whatever is applied to the numbers of fish that these private fisheries can take. I can never understand how any person attempts to speak with authority on the conservation of salmon in Ireland and leaves the blame on the drift netting fishermen while making no reference to the vast quantities of salmon that are being taken out of the private fisheries in the summer months. The same applies in the town of Galway where they can close off the river and take everything they want out of it.
What has been done in relation to restricting licences for drift netting was good thinking, but the application of it must be kept under continual review in order to ensure that there is no genuine hardship, and there has been, as I pointed out, and there may be in other areas that the Parliamentary Secretary may know of himself. That was good, but there should be some limit on the number of fish that can be taken from the private fisheries. If the fear is that so many fish are going to be taken before they get to the river, that they will not get up to spawn and that the species will die out, then the biggest fishing of all is taking place in the estuaries of these rivers where netting and other forms of fishing are allowed legally, smiled on by officialdom and the boards of conservators and which in the main, are owned by the boards of conservators. There was a minor restriction included in the new regulations, but it is having no real effect. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that in introducing some real restriction on these people he would have my support and that of the majority of my colleagues who have given any thought to this.
These are the very people who when it came to considering whether drift netting should be allowed off the Galway coast organised themselves and had a collection headed by a director of Guinnesses, Sir Richard Levine, who put up £500 as the first contribution to start a fund to fight the fishermen off the Galway coast in the fishing inquiry that was to be held. These were the monied people, and they employed the best legal brains in the country to attend at a little hall down in Letterfrack on one day, in Carna on the next day, and in the court house in Galway on the third day. We were confronted—the fishermen and those who were there speaking with them—by the best legal brains in the country representing the vested interest, the Sir Richard Levines, and the owners of the private fisheries. No mention was made in their argument about the overfishing they were doing themselves. Very little reference was made to any contribution they were making towards the development of fisheries. I will give credit to the Guinness organisation, who did seem to have a genuine enough interest and who have invested in salmon research; so well they might. The ESB were present on that occasion, and my memory is that they were not very helpful either.
Therefore I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary that, in considering all these laws and the powers and functions of the boards of conservators and the purpose for which they will make these decisions in the application of the Parliamentary Secretary's regulations, he would bear in mind the necessity to apply the restrictions on both sides of the fence, not just on the drift netter who has all the hazards of the sea to confront and who takes so many chances with the weather. He is the man who needs the Parliamentary Secretary's sympathy, not the man who owns the private fishery.
