I am greatly surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary had to come before us again seeking an extension of the life of the boards of conservators. I have not had time to peruse the debate on a previous occasion when the permission of the House was sought to continue the life of these boards, but the sentiments expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary then led me to believe he was sincere about seeking to introduce new legislation following the abolition of the boards as previously constituted. He told us he was awaiting the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission and that the minute he had the report, and he was pressing them for it, we would see action. He has had the report since last July but there is no evidence of action from him or the Fisheries Division. This is a great disappointment because the recommendations in the report are far-reaching and indeed radical in certain respects.
Though I do not agree with all the recommendations they made I certainly agree they were thinking in the right direction. There is need for these new structures to be established and the Opposition here are patiently waiting the opportunity of discussing the terms and the changes. It seems to have been the pattern since this Dáil came into being for the Fisheries Branch to play a very conservative role, to say the least of it, and not to come forward with any legislation other than bits and pieces like this. I expressed my personal views on the old boards of conservators quite forcibly on the last occasion on which we had an opportunity of discussing the matter and I do not intend to go over that ground again, but there are anachronisms from the old days of occupation. The powers vested in these boards should not be vested in bodies appointed in the way these boards are and now we are being asked to continue the system.
One of the important functions of these boards is the issue of drift net licences. There are many anomalies in the manner in which these licences are distributed. A game of ping-pong is being played in every coastal county between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the boards of conservators. Applicants are unjustly turned down in many cases and, when the Parliamentary Secretary is approached, he says it is not a matter for him; it is a matter for the boards of conservators. When the boards are approached they say it is not a matter for them; their functions are controlled by the Parliamentary Secretary. The whole situation is most unsatisfactory.
The number of licences in each fishery district is controlled by the Parliamentary Secretary. Strange as it may seem, the Parliamentary Secretary's first love is down around the southern corner of the country. The number of licences there is astronomical in comparison with the number permitted up along the west coast. One can draw one's own conclusions why this should be so. It has caused very great resentment along the Galway coast and I am sure Deputy Gallagher will agree that the same resentment exists along the Mayo coast. I can speak with knowledge of the Galway coast. There we had the unusual situation where drift netting for salmon in the sea had only been permitted in the year 1969. There was a complete ban on drift netting for the three fishery districts off the Galway coast up to that year and there could not therefore have been a tradition of drift netting for salmon off the Galway coast in the years before that because it was not permitted under an old British statute which was repealed by Fianna Fáil.
The concern about conserving numbers arose early in 1970 shortly after drift netting had been permitted off the Galway coast. I believe an exception should be made in that case and the situation should have been reviewed at the end of a period of five years' operation. We are now being confined to the number of licences originally permitted and, because of that, a number of injustices have arisen. One injustice is that perpetrated on fishermen resident on the islands remote from the mainland. They have only two ways in which to earn a livelihood. They can rear cattle and stock. There is no tillage other than a few spuds in the back garden. Rearing stock is all that is left. The grass is good in the summer but very poor in the winter. The only other source—it is becoming a primary source—is sea fishing. I have appealed on numerous occasions to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the position of the islanders in relation to the issue of salmon drift net licences. It is most unfair to deny them the opportunity of moving out into the seas that surround them to fish whatever species are available. They are prohibited from catching salmon. Side by side with that the Parliamentary Secretary tolerates the wholesale slaughter of salmon in the estuaries where they are caught by fixed engines and where there is scarcely any control whatever over the number taken.
I appeal once more to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the position. I would like to quote for him the sentiments he expressed as far back as July, 1974, when he said in Volume 274 of the Official Report of 17th July: "I believe every fisherman should as far as possible be entitled legally to fish for whatever kind of fish is most remunerative to him." The Parliamentary Secretary has had two full years to do something about that but nothing has been done. The unsatisfactory situation is allowed to continue and it is quite impossible to give island fishermen a logical explanation as to why Michael Pat Murphy, as he is known, the Parliamentary Secretary, is refusing even to consider their case.
There seems to be an almost incomprehensible obstinacy whenever representations are made. No progress is made. Those making representations are directed back to the boards of conservators who may not issue licences above the limit set by the Parliamentary Secretary. The fishermen of Inishmore—unfortunately neither Inishere or Inishmaan have any facilities—have no large lobster boats but, using currachs, they are prohibited from fishing for salmon in the sea. The same prohibition applies to Inishturbot, Inishboffin and Lettermullen. The latter is not in the same category as the islands because it is connected with the mainland, but the same resentment exists there, as it exists around Rossaveal, because of the refusal to increase the number of licences.
The number actually issued is tiny in comparison with the numbers issued in the southern counties. We are in the unique position that Fianna Fáil abolished the ban following on a public inquiry instituted by the then Minister, an inquiry I attended. I was one of the investigators in the move to have the old British statute repealed. I worked for that continuously over a period of 12 months until the hearing was held. There was one hearing in Letterfrack, one in Carna and the final one in the courthouse in Galway. I said my piece at the first hearing in Letterfrack and I was supported by the fishermen of the fishery districts. Then conservation entered in and a limit on the number of salmon licences. It is now six or seven years since the first licences were issued and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the position as it applies in County Galway and the position where anomalies exist in other coastal areas.
I have made my point. Those affected cannot understand why this attitude should prevail. Apparently the logic of their request has not yet sunk in. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the Inland Fisheries report. He said he is still considering the report and he is not yet ready to bring in legislation providing for the abolition of boards of conservators and the establishment of new structures.
We have not seen anything from the Parliamentary Secretary for our party to take any official stand on the matter. I make a personal appeal to him to reject out of hand the proposal in that report to impose a £2 licence fee on every rod and line cast into fresh water or salt water in the country. Many people spent valuable hours working on the Inland Fisheries Commission Report and made a valuable contribution to the development of fisheries. They produced a remarkable document which gives a very clear and concise résumé of the progress and the history of fishery development over the past 100 years. The report gives very acurate information on the existing legislation.
The report is a wonderful document in most respects but I must thoroughly disagree with some of its specific proposals. If a citizen wishes to cast a line into his local river or lake or into the sea off his local promenade or pier it is a very retrograde step for the State to demand that he must pay a £2 licence fee before he can indulge in that little luxury. I believe in social justice but I do not believe in that kind of socialism, where the State takes over every little pleasure and every little activity of every citizen. If we allow that kind of thing to creep in there will be very few things we can consider free in the country.
I have discussed this proposal with people who sat on that commission and who signed their names to the report. I have discussed this matter with what I would describe as some of the most conscientious members of that commission about how they arrived at that final decision. The only reason they were forced to put that in was because the State was reneging on its responsibilities towards our fisheries, and the control of pollution. Those people feared that the State would not provide the funds to take care of the necessary developments so they felt it was incumbent on them in order to save our fisheries to ask everybody to pay a licence fee.
We have traffic wardens looking after the parking of cars in cities. We will now have some type of water wardens going around patrolling our canals, rivers and lakes, trying to find the small law breaker who has not got a red docket in his pocket to say he has paid his £2 licence fee. The people of this country have enjoyed fishing for generations. I oppose the imposition of this licence fee as vigorously as I can. I am opposed to the principle. There is also the fear that if the licence fee is imposed it will not remain at £2. It will be soon raised to quite a substantial sum because of the cash hungry Minister for Finance. The Parliamentary Secretary has not stated his views one way or another. He has kept quiet about this proposal in the report and has not disclosed what his views are.
