Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Dec 1976

Vol. 295 No. 2

Salmon, Eel and Oyster Fishing Licences (Alteration of Licence Duties) Order, 1976: Motion.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. M.P. Murphy)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Salmon, Eel and Oyster Fishing Licences (Alteration of Licence Duties) Order, 1976,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid on the table of Dáil Éireann on the 3rd day of December, 1976.

The Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, permitted the increase of salmon, eel and oyster fishing licence duties by order subject to a maximum increase of 100 per cent. This limit was removed by the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1976, which stipulates, however, that an order increasing these licence duties must be laid in draft before each House of the Oireachtas and that the order cannot be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses.

I propose to increase salmon, eel and oyster fishing licence duties with effect from 1st January, 1977, as I indicated when the legislation removing the limit in the scale of licence duties was passing through the House. The new rates of licence duties are set out in the Schedule to the order.

At first sight many of the increases in respect of fishing for salmon and in particular the increases in drift and draft net licence duties might appear to be rather high but when one considers that most fishing licence duties have remained at the same level for many years and in the case of drift and draft nets since 1848 and 1925 respectively, the justification for the increases is obvious. The revenue from the increased licence duties will go to the boards of conservators to help them with their ever increasing costs of protection and conservation of our inland fisheries. The drift and draft nets account for the bulk of the salmon catch while revenue from drift and draft net licence duties at present constitutes only a small part of the total revenue from licence duties although there are nearly 1,800 of these nets operating.

The proposed increases in the various kinds of salmon rod licences are of more modest proportions but it has to be borne in mind that these licences were increased as recently as 1958.

I also propose to increase the oyster fishing licence duty from £4 to £15. This duty was last increased to £4 in 1975 but it is considered that in view of the present value of the individual catches the proposed new rate is fully justified.

In line with the increases proposed for the other fishing engines the order also provides for increased licence duties on eel fishing engines. The total income from licence duties in 1959 was £26,000 and in 1975 was £42,000 compared with the overall expenditure of boards of conservators, which increased from £81,000 in 1959 to £500,000 in 1975. The latter figure included an Exchequer grant of £300,000. It will be seen, therefore, that the income from licence duties at the existing levels contributes only about 8 per cent towards the running costs of the boards of conservators and having regard to the earnings being derived from the sale of salmon, we feel that there is an indisputable case for the increased scales of licence duty that are now proposed. Assuming that the same number of licences continue to be taken out the total income from this source will be increased to about £152,000.

I accordingly recommend to the House that a resolution be passed approving of the draft order.

Mr. Gallagher

While I accept the suggestion that an increase in the rate of various licences is due, I think the Parliamentary Secretary has gone too far with these increases. The licence fee for drift net fishermen has increased from £3 to £50—quite a jump. Every fisherman, irrespective of the size or type of his boat, is expected to pay £50. This type of fishing is traditional and has been carried on over a number of years by various families. In the main only part-time fishing is involved and it lasts for from six weeks to two months in mid-summer. The people employed in this type of fishing meet many hazards. While the catches this year were not quite as good as in recent years, prices were very good and their incomes and returns were greater. However, these men had to face a menace in the form of attacks by seals and, as a result, they lost a great deal of fish. Because the fish were damaged these men were not able to get the best price on the markets.

When talking about traditional fishermen one must consider the fishing methods employed. The skipper, the man getting the licence, will only get a share of the catch for his boat. In many instances, crew members are much better off than he is, because they are continuing the tradition which existed when engines were not used. He is the man who will be faced with this very high charge. Many of the people who will have to pay for their licences before 1st January are now drawing social welfare. Having to pay £50 at this time will not be easy for them.

I accept the argument that the boards of conservators are in need of a greater amount of money to help in preserving and conserving stocks and developing this very valuable industry. But if we had a system where a small levy could be placed on each individual catch, say, so much per pound, that would be more equitable than the present system where a man with a 16-foot boat at the mouth of the Moy will have to pay the same amount as the man with a large trawler who stands to catch more fish and have a higher return at the end of the year.

Because of the size of these increases we will have to oppose this order.

Mr. Coogan

While the increases may be justified to an extent, I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary did not make any reference to the issuing of licences. We have seen what I would call the well-heeled getting licences, those who can afford to pay this increased fee, but the poorer fishermen have great difficulty both in getting licences and in providing themselves with the necessary equipment. Though I agree that salmon fishing can be very lucrative, fishermen have to contend with the vagaries of the weather and the shortness of the season.

Fishing along the west coast was enforced on those who had to depend on what they could get from the sea to keep them alive during the Famine. They began to live there and to keep themselves alive from what they could get from the sea. They have stayed there since and any assistance the Minister could give to them would be very welcome. Most of the salmon fishermen in the west are not well-off people.

In regard to oyster fishing in Clarenbridge, we have some of the best oyster beds in the world. They have been built up during the years by the people there. Though they have good returns from the oyster catches, those engaged in it have to contend with the weather and with the very short fishing period. At times, because of the weather, they are unable to make a decent day's wages out of it. Last week they had to remain ashore and they had to forfeit good catches. The Minister should be able to give them some assistance because they are poor, in the main. I should not like to see all the licence money ploughed purely into protection. Oyster fishing is one of our national assets and more money should be put into its development.

Mr. Calleary

Like Deputy Gallagher, I come from an area from which the vast majority of fishermen put to sea in small boats during the salmon season. It is inequitable that they should be charged a fee of £50, regardless of the type of boat they use. The equipment they have dictates the amount of time they can spend fishing and the size of their catches. Mainly, these catches have to be manhandled from boat to shore.

I support Deputy Gallagher's suggestion that a levy of so much per lb. should be imposed and that the money would go not so much towards conservation as to providing better facilities for the fishermen. It is unjust that there should be a blanket fee for all, regardless of the size of the boats.

Deputy Coogan mentioned how licences are issued. It is something the Parliamentary Secretary should consider seriously because there are many inequities in the system through which licences are given out. Many of the fishermen have been fishing for generations. Some of them have done skippers' courses. They find themselves with boats and nets but they cannot get licences to fish. In view of the type of fishing carried out in Mayo, I suggest the increase we are dealing with now is much too high. From the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary, there is an obvious need for an increased amount, but the size of the proposed increase is completely against the small man.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. M.P. Murphy)

Deputy Gallagher expressed disagreement on the basis that the increases, especially for drift net licences, were too sharp. The fee was set at £3 in 1848 and I do not know how £3 then would compare with the same figure in 1976. I do not know the price of salmon in 1848 but the average price this year is £1.61 per lb.

I maintain there is every justification for these increases and I do not expect any opposition from drift net licence holders. I have received many deputations from them and they have indicated their willingness to make a contribution towards the restocking of our rivers and hatcheries and the work of salmon protection generally. The question is how they can best contribute. There are many ways, the first being increased licence fees. There could be a levy, as suggested by some Deputies.

Debate adjourned.

Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.