Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 1984

Vol. 354 No. 10

Salmon, Eel and Oyster Fishing Licences (Alteration of Licence Duties) Order, 1984: Motion.

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. O'Toole)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Salmon, Eel and Oyster Fishing Licences (Alteration of Licence Duties) Order, 1984,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 3rd day of December, 1984.

Under sections 68 and 279 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, as amended, the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry is empowered to make an order altering salmon, eel and oyster fishing licences. The order may not be made, however, until a resolution approving the draft order has been passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Eireann.

Salmon, eel and oyster fishing licence duties were last increased with effect from 1 January 1983. I am satisfied that a further increase in fishing licence duties is warranted in the light of the rate of inflation in the meantime. On that basis an increase of 20 per cent in the fees would have been justified but bearing in mind the reduced level of catches of salmon this year I am restricting the increase in fishing licence duties to 15 per cent, to take effect from 1 January 1985.

Income from fishing licence duties this year will amount to £280,000 approximately. The increase in these duties, which I have provided for in the draft order, will generate £40,000 approximately in additional revenue in 1985. While some fishermen may feel aggrieved at having to pay more for their fishing licences next year I would ask them to bear in mind that the Exchequer is providing more than £5 million towards the cost of inland fisheries development for 1985.

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

Mr. Daly

I am sorry the Minister did not avail of this opportunity to give us an outline of his general policy in relation to the whole inland fisheries industry. We are opposed to the increase in duties first of all because we believe it is not desirable at present to impose increases on fishermen in view of the state of the country in general. It is inappropriate also because catches of salmon and trout were so bad this year that this additional imposition on licensed anglers, particularly salmon fishermen, will drive many of them out of the industry.

There are genuine fears among responsible angling associations and fishermen that our salmon inland fisheries are in a seriously declining state and that this extra burden will result in many licensed anglers refusing to take out licences. That will mean a fall-off in the numbers of applications for licences. Therefore, I do not think the Minister will get the extra £40,000 he expects from this imposition. Anyway, everybody knows that £40,000 will not go anywhere when divided among the fishery boards throughout the country which are in very bad financial circumstances.

I urge the Minister to increase the subvention to the boards immediately to enable them to carry out their statutory responsibilities in relation to enforcement of the fishery laws and to help them with the development part of their work under the new Fisheries (Consolidation) Act. Development work on our inland fisheries is at a standstill. It should be starting with the central board and involving the regional boards but they do not have the finances to deal with necessary development work.

As I said, this new imposition will undermine the confidence of genuine anglers who have been having a very bad time, yet it will not in any way curtail the activities of illegal operators who have had such a damaging influence on our fisheries in the past number of years. We need direct cash grants for the central board and the regional boards to help them to tackle the widespread illegal activities on our rivers and lakes. Instead, what we get here is an order that will penalise genuine fishermen without curtailing the activities of those illegal operators who have been the scourge of our inland fisheries industry in recent years. The regional boards are able to provide only skeleton staffs for fishery protection. The waterkeepers are almost totally immobilised because they have not got the resources to fund the equipment which is so essential in the fight against illegal fishing activities.

The fishery protection staff are not as effective as they should be, or as they want to be. Many of them express the view openly that they are merely ticking over. No pressure is being put on them by the regional boards because the boards themselves have not got the finance to carry on their own activities. At Question Time a few days ago I said there was a crisis in some of the boards. I asked the Minister to check the reports that some boards were unable to have regular meetings because they did not have the finance to meet the expense involved. This is very serious and it should be rectified.

Doubts have been cast on our pollution controls, especially during last summer. There is fairly widespread evidence that during last summer there was a significant increase in the number of fish kills. The fish kills detected in 1983 were in the region of 109 or 110. For the year up to September 1984 the figure was almost 107 or 108, probably more. It is more than likely that a substantial number of fish kills which were not detected went unreported. This is very serious at a time when we must have strict controls on pollution. During the summertime some of our more valuable fisheries are under threat on an almost daily basis because of certain activities we have spoken about here before and which I do not want to go into now. We need vigilance and constant monitoring of our inland fisheries. The staffs of the regional boards cannot provide that monitoring because of the financial curtailments.

I have spoken here before about the general dissatisfaction on the part of the staffs of the boards. We had an unnecessary dispute which hampered development for quite a while in the regional board areas. That has been resolved, but now the central board staff are dissatisfied because of the regionalisation scheme of the central board. This may result in further industrial action. I do not wish to say anything which might complicate that position. I appeal to the Minister to use his good offices to try to prevent further industrial action in the new year. This would be a most undesirable development. It could involve the central board staff and complicate the delicate negotiations which were worked out with the regional board staff. It might involve difficulties for the central board staff and spread into the regional board areas. We would all wish to see that avoided.

I know the Minister is limited in the extent to which he can play a role, but he has a very useful role to play in avoiding that problem. Quick action might prevent that development in 1985. I regret that we will have to oppose this motion. We see it as a very minor effort to deal with the finances of the regional boards. It will not help to resolve their problems and it may well alienate some of the most staunch supporters of the conservation people and the boards. There is an urgent necessity for the Government to provide additional funds for the regional fishery boards and the Central Fishery Board to enable them to undertake their development responsibilities which have been clearly defined for them. The way things are developing, there is no prospect of anything being done in 1985.

Here we have a fantastic national resources which could be developed at very little expense to the State. At a conservative estimate it could provide revenue of £20 million a year. If we were to value the whole inland fisheries we would see that we have a very valuable national resource which is relatively unexploited. There is no major development there and very little is being done because of financial constraints. The central board and the regional boards are operating under difficulties.

I want to impress upon the Minister the need to provide some funds in 1985 for the acquisition of some of our well known national fisheries. The Minister will be aware that a time of stringent financial controls in the Department, it was possible to purchase the Erriff fishery which was a remarkable success. The Galway fisheries have also been a remarkable success. There is evidence that, when the central board are given the back-up to do the job, they are capable of doing it.

I compliment the staffs of the boards on the work they are doing in spite of the handicaps they are suffering. The Minister has an obligation to provide a proper funding system for them instead of this piecemeal proposal we have this evening. It will not do anything for the development of our inland fisheries which are crying out for development. We will have to oppose the motion.

Mr. P. Gallagher

Like my colleague I will have to oppose the increase in the licence fees, despite the fact that on the surface it appears to be a modest increase of 15 per cent. The increase should be in the same ratio as the increase in the price of salmon and the overall income of the fishermen over the past few years. The drift net licence fee is being increased from £115 to £132. While £17 may not seem to be very much, we must remember that over the past few years there has been a reduction in the price of fish, not because of a fall in the stock of fish or the landings of fish, with the result that the fishermen's net income is very well down on what it was in previous years. We have to take into consideration the price of oil, diesel, gear, provisions, the maintenance of the boats and repayments to BIM or the banks. All these factors must be taken into consideration. The increase is 15 per cent this year. This represents an increase of £17 on the licence which is most used in my area. In Donegal there are 192 licences. If we have a pro rata increase over the years it will not be long until they are talking about £400 or £500 and only the rich, and not the poor sections I represent, will be able to purchase salmon licences. In the case of the regional fisheries board it would amount to an increase of between £5,000 and £6,000, which is very little when compared with the £5 million proposed to be expended on inland fisheries this year. However, the expenditure of at least that £5,000 or £6,000 would ensure that meetings could be held, because it is my information that throughout the country many meetings of regional boards cannot be held through lack of finance.

Mr. Wilson

With no petrol to be put in vans either.

Mr. P. Gallagher

I should have thought that the Minister might have availed of this opportunity to dwell longer on salmon in relation to which many contentious issues, on which he and I would not be at one, could have been discussed. I should have thought he would have availed of this opportunity to refer to the necessity for salmon fishing in daylight because of the number of large trawlers operating up and down the west coast. Even if only from a safety point of view daylight fishing should be reverted to. By so doing there would also be greater awareness of the numbers of fish taken each year, by which method we could ensure also that our fisheries stocks would be sustained. At present we do not have any accurate record of our stocks of existing fish or of the numbers taken out. Nobody can tell us that there are X number fished annually, which number could be curtailed thus ensuring that our stocks are maintained.

If not this evening perhaps on another occasion the Minister would deal with that matter. I could substantiate my reasons for advocating a reversion to daylight fishing but time will not permit. In that way we could be absolutely certain of the full co-operation of fishermen, which I would be the first to admit can be difficult to obtain on occasion. A reversion to daylight fishing would ensure their 99 per cent co-operation. Because of the difficulties encountered along the west coast in recent years fishemen are now prepared to co-operate to the full with officials of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and Defence. These fishermen are quite happy to fish a five day week, ensuring that fishing would commence in daylight with their coming back ashore on a Friday evening, at the latest by 6 o'clock. I would not here defend any fishermen caught fishing after 6 o'clock on a Friday evening or before 6 o'clock on a Monday evening. That is how I feel about it and I know that is how all the fishermen regard the matter also. In recent years none of them feels happy going out through fear for their lives, not from anything malicious, but because of the prospective accidents at sea.

The Minister might make officials of his Department available to continue the discussions initiated some years ago between the various interested groups. I was pleased to note that at the beginning of last year the small fishermen — never before under any umbrella — came under that of the NFO. Indeed I must compliment the NFO on the case they made on behalf of those fishermen. Unfortunately none of their recommendations was taken into consideration and it would appear that rather than taking a step forward we have taken a retrograde step. With the next season not commencing until June there is ample time in which to pursue those discussions. I believe fully that even if some of the NFO recommendations were implemented they would be to the benefit of the fishermen and the industry as a whole. We should remember that we are not here talking merely about the eighties, but about years to come and we must act responsibly. I would say to officials in the Department that it would appear that generally we are not prepared to look at any changes at all. It would appear that we continue to live with an antiquated system that has obtained for many years. Regardless of whichever Minister is in office, until such time as his officials are prepared to sit down and talk with the fishermen, come out and see exactly what is taking place along our coasts — I do appreciate that they do so periodically — and realise that the fisherman is prepared to co-operate fully with them many of the problems will not be resolved. I know that one fisherman of whom I am aware caught only eight fish in the last season — this was because of fear of going to sea — at the end of which he had a loss.

Since 1980 the number of licences issued in the Donegal and northern region has been reduced by approximately 50. Who decides who is to receive a licence and who is not? There are many small, traditional island fishermen who do not possess any licence at all. The House will appreciate that they have no option but to go out and endeavour to make a livelihood for their families through fishing. Special consideration should be given them. The Minister will be fully briefed on their problems. This is another factor which could be taken into consideration in regard to the issue of such licences. I would recommend that the Minister speak to the fishery boards. I know that the regional fisheries board see no justification — and have gone public on this — for a reduction in the number of licences issued, particularly to the traditional small fishermen.

As far as drift net licences are concerned there is a discrepancy in regard to the west coast and Lough Swilly, the same charge being imposed for Lough Swilly while its fishermen would not have the same scope as their counterparts along the west or north-west coast. Perhaps the Minister would consider a lesser figure for the Lough Swilly licence than that for the west or north-west coast.

All of us appreciate the tremendous work undertaken stocking our rivers by local organisations. With the greatest respect to the fishery boards concerned and those people responsible for stocking our rivers, I would say that were it not for local anglers' organisations the industry would be a lot poorer. Greater grant aid should be available to them in this work. The Minister will accept that their work is of vital importance and that they do it for absolutely no reward. Surely out of an expenditure of £5 million on the part of the State and income from licences of something in the region of £280,000, a small percentage — if only 1 per cent — made available to such local organisations, would constitute money well spent.

We must also ensure that there is careful monitoring of pollution in our rivers. In Donegal last year there was an over-spill of slurry into the rivers there. That could happen in any part of the country and we must be extremely careful or it could mean an end to our river fishing stocks.

Mr. Wilson

Would the Deputy put in a word for Lough Sheelin and the slurry scare? I have not time.

Mr. P. Gallagher

I am sure that is stitched into the record already.

I referred earlier to an indication of our existing stocks. Perhaps it would be possible for the Minister to give us now or at some later date an indication of the stocks obtaining, the amount of salmon we should take out each year whether by way of drift net, draft net or the various other methods, the bag net, snap net, the loop net or any other. We should have some definite indication of the amount of salmon which can be fished each year thus ensuring that this area of fisheries is maintained. Otherwise a hit and miss situation will obtain.

Debate adjourned.