When the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with points made by Opposition speakers and I mentioned the diversity of views during the debate on salmon conservancy. A number of Deputies suggested that we should be much more liberal in the allocation of licences, but others expressed opposite views. Salmon is a very valuable asset and we must always consider conservancy of those stocks. At the same time, we must take account of what is happening in so far as the economy is concerned. Salmon exports in 1975 amounted to £3,129,994 as against £1.88 million in 1974. Netting is mainly responsible for salmon catches and it is the fishing system that has come in for the most severe criticism.
This is an industry which boosted our exports last year by more than £3 million and we could diminish that by making regulations that would be so rigid as to drastically reduce our intake. That would be unwise. However, we must make laws to limit the number of licences issued and if, as a result of our experience this year, we discover there is a need for more drastic limitation, measures will be introduced to do so. I have introduced a number of by-laws aimed at salmon conservancy. Deputies should be conversant with them because they have been publicly announced. In the circumstances they are fair and reasonable.
The issue of licences is a very vexed question. I mentioned on the last occasion that if there were no restrictions we would have applications for more than 5,000 extra drift net licences. We cannot do that. We must impose restrictions and as a result many people are dissatisfied and are naturally very critical. Every fairminded person will agree that we cannot extend the regulations or improve the criteria for the issue of drift net licences without damaging our salmon stocks. Board of conservators have a very difficult job. It is their duty to determine applications in accordance with control orders that I make, and from the information at my disposal I can say the boards do a very good job. It is a thankless one because board members are criticised by unsuccessful applicants. Still, they deal with applications fairly. In two areas, two boards were abolished and two administrators were appointed. These officers who are of the highest integrity are doing an excellent job. When dealing with applications they act with complete impartiality.
Reference was made to the present position in the Cork Fishery Board area which is now administered by an administrator. He is thoroughly conversant with fisheries, particularly salmon fisheries, because of his work in the Department and he had no connection prior to his appointment with Cork county. I felt it advisable to appoint a man of the highest integrity, a man who understood the salmon industry and had no local connections, because I could see difficulties arising if a local man were appointed to such a position. It is he, in common with the other administrator and the 15 boards of conservation for drift net licences is successful. I have no function in that respect. My functions relate to laying down the criteria on which applications are determined and the number of licences to be issued by each board.
Deputy Molloy was exceptionally critical of what was happening in Cork. In 1972 244 drift net licences were issued in Cork. At that time no restriction obtained and licences were freely available by paying the prescribed fee. The Cork Fishery Board area comprises the greater part of the Cork county coastline, from Castletownbere, beyond Cork city to Ballycotton. The administrator has reduced the number of licences in that area from 244 in 1972 to 135 at present. This shows that, instead of issuing licences in parts of county Cork without justification, the administrator has imposed stringent regulations and scrutinised each application to ensure that it complies with the regulations set down by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I am satisfied that he has determined these applications with complete impartiality. This proves that when people allege that the Cork Fishery Board are doing something underhand in the granting of licences, they are mistaken.
Because of the regulations the administrator had to reject many applications. In the Cork area—I am sure the same applies to other areas also— many people feel very much aggrieved about this. I am satisfied that everything is fair and above board. If a person qualifies for a licence he gets it and vice versa, with one exception— and this could apply in any of the boards—when the number of drift net licences is limited. The number for the Cork area is 135 but if there are 140 qualified applicants the administrator, of necessity, must rule out five. He will rule out the five who have the least claim to a licence even though under the regulations they qualify.
The Galway board was mentioned. That board were unable to issue their full quota of licences because of the lack of qualified applicants.
