An Estimate debate is an occasion on which to review aspects of the past year, in this case the development of marine issues generally. Regrettably, one of the main marine matters that springs to mind when looking over the past few months is the rod angling dispute. If the time and energy which has been invested in attempting to resolve the difficulties which the Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1987, has caused for angling tourism had been invested in a development plan for inland fisheries with the proper structures and financial investment, with pollution control measures and an honest attempt made to come to terms with the illicit drift netting which is devastating our stocks of wild Atlantic salmon, I believe the Government would not be facing the hostility of the anglers, which is but a symptom of a far greater problem — the serious and insidious decline in angling through the neglect by successive Governments of an industry which is capable of contributing enormously to our GNP through tourist revenue.
A recent report and statistical analysis carried out by the ESRI points out the potential a properly developed angling tourist industry could have for this country. Price Waterhouse in a recent report underlined the potential — the millions of anglers in the UK, Europe and the US, not to mention further afield — and our present paltry share of that angling tourist market. As a special activity holiday we have all the ingredients to put our inland fisheries on the world map: 8,600 miles of main channel river, 360,000 acres of lakes, the climate, the accommodation and a country which is relatively pollution free. We have what money alone cannot buy — an indigenous product that needs no imported raw material for priming.
I ask the Minister to put on record the Government's plans for the regional boards. What are the plans for the report of the Salmon Review Group, which was much awaited, now long since published, but as yet not acted upon? We have had submissions on that report, a report I welcome in so far at it goes. Will tagging and quotas for salmon be introduced for next year's season? How will these quotas be arrived at? Who will monitor this system? Answers to these questions are urgently needed. Will this report be destined for a shelf, to be relatively undisturbed in future years, like many previous reports on salmon? The report of the Fisheries Commission, 1933-35, is gathering dust somewhere. We had the report on the Inland Fisheries Commission, 1975; the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission on the Strategy for Management and Development, 1986; ESRI Papers 68, 75, 78 and 100, all of which direct their attention towards salmon; the report from the Committee on Public Expenditure, 1986; the Hunter Report, 1965, from Scotland; the Hansen Report, 1986 from Norway; the Salmon Management Plan, 1985, from Canada and the recent report of the Biarritz Salmon Conference, 1986.
We are not short of reports or recommendations, we are not short of direction on what we should do and how we should go about it. All of these reports have pointed out what needs to be done. At the very least, the bottom line is that there should be strict control of drift netting at sea. I wonder if this House has got what it takes to make the right decisions and follow them through?
The differences on these issues, to be quite honest and frank, are not party political; they are within each party. To date, no Government have recognised that time is running out. If our salmon cannot return to their rivers to spawn, there will be no tomorrow for the anglers, let alone the driftnet men. This is the real issue behind the present protest. The licences were the last straw to a group who had witnessed the insidious decline of their sport, a sport which they hold so dear. I ask again if the Members of this House have the political will to do what so many reports have told us is necessary?
Anglers, in particular in the West, fear the licensing system which was introduced last December. It was introduced on the basis of assurances from the Minister that the Coarse Fishing Federation and the Trout Anglers' Federation of Ireland supported the Bill — I quote the Minister's words — not supported licences in principle or gave conditional support for the Bill, but the Minister stated categorically that TAFI and the Coarse Fishing Federation supported the Bill. The Bill means the Bill in its entirety, the Bill as presented by the Minister. As we know, major difficulties have resulted from the Minister's interpretation of what TAFI and the Coarse Fishing Federation supported and this has been far from clarified to date.
Anglers fear the Bill because they regard it as a means of ultimately controlling where and when they may fish, apart altogether from being a revenue collection mechanism. A licence is seen as revocable by the licensor, or the Government in this instance, without any legal redress by the licensee or angler. The anglers fear that the Minister, or some other Minister at some stage, could use this system to preclude angling on our game lakes, for example, in Loughs Corrib, Mask and Cong, so as to make way for fish farming. I know the Minister's views on this but I am afraid the anglers do not trust us in this House. Even if I was giving the assurances the Minister is giving, I doubt if they would be received any better. The track record of successive Governments in relation to inland fisheries has been so bad that the Minister is mistrusted, and I imagine if any of the rest of us were in the Minister's position we would perhaps be equally mistrusted. The Minister is heading up this issue at present and I have to say quite frankly that the anglers mistrust his assurances or any statements he makes in relation to this matter because of the appalling track record over the years.
It is hard for me to express, or for any of us to appreciate, the depth of feeling that has been generated on this issue or to realise the bitter divisions and entrenchment that has taken place. To show their good faith, the anglers are now collecting money voluntarily from their members. I urge the Minister to remove the licence concept from the legislation and to replace it with a contribution system for trout and coarse fishing, a contribution which the anglers have already proved they are willing to pay. I have a Bill on the Order Paper which endeavours to do just that but because of the six-month rule I was prevented until this week from moving it. As this is the last week of Private Members' Time during this session it was not possible, even if the Minister and the Government were to agree to the First Stage, which apparently they were not, to get the Bill published and circulated in time for a Private Members' discussion at 7 p.m. on Tuesday last.
I, and I am sure many other Members of this House, will spend the summer months pursuing agreement with all those who care and understand the real issues, with those who bother to analyse the real issues rather than the politics of the situation, with those who want an honourable solution to this most destructive of disputes which is doing so much damage to our tourist economy, particularly in the west and in Munster.
I asked the Minister to indicate what he has in mind for our regional boards. I put it to him that the Government are reneging on their responsibility to the regional boards who are impotent in the face of organised poaching and vicious attacks on their members. Witness the appalling spectacle in Donegal last weekend where two fishery protection officers were savagely beaten and ended up being hospitalised. What steps has the Minister or his Department taken this week to ensure that this will not be repeated in the Northern Fishery Board area or in any board region? Is it true that but for the contribution of the Donegal Salmon and Inshore Fishermen's Association there would be no protection at all in that regional board area?
I turn my attention now to another matter that has caused many problems in the last year, that is our lack of success in relation to FEOGA applications under the new structures policy. In 1987, in the December tranche, for the first time Irish fishermen and fish farmers were let down badly by the Commission in relation to grants in the new structures policy, despite the fact that Commissioner Cordosa y Cunha, whom I had the pleasure to meet, visited Ireland last July at the invitation of the Minister. It may be coincidental, but it was a major shock to the industry subsequently to find Ireland at the bottom of the pile of recipients. From correspondence that I entered into and a response that I received from the Commissioner himself, it would appear that the EC's reasons for our lack of success were based on the rate of takeup of previous grants and, as the Commission view it, unfavourable cost-benefit analysis of Irish agricultural applications when compared with other applicant countries.
It appears that the Commission did not know that the technology being used on our west coast to stand up to the rigours of meteorological and tidal conditions was the most advanced in Europe. I refer specifically to those applications involving bridgestone cages. Apparently the Commission, instead of admitting that a comparative analysis was not possible, rejected our applications. It is obvious that proper dialogue, based on good communications between the applicants and the Commission, via the relevant sections in the Department of the Marine, was missing.
Again, in the April tranche for FEOGA applications we are bottom of the pile. We have but an 18 per cent success rate, the lowest of all applicant countries. I earnestly hope that this communication difficulty has now been resolved. I await the tranche of September of this year to see evidence of the Commission's support for this most important growth industry.
Commercial fish farming has shown phenomenal growth in the last few years. A huge increase in the tonnage of farmed salmon is perhaps the best known statistic, involving sea cages and land based water systems. Sensitive development, in sympathy with environmental considerations and other water-based users is essential, particularly in inland waters, close to the shore line and in bays and estuaries. Where the technology is available, areas of greatest water dilution should be chosen, especially the open sea.
I look forward to monitoring the progress of the very latest farm ocean cages for salmon which are built to withstand the rigours of the waves in the open sea. If this is proved to be the way forward — and time will tell — aquaculture will continue to make an enormous contribution to our GNP for a long time to come and will be most important from a socio-economic viewpoint, especially on our west coast. Aquaculture, or fish farming, is not all about salmon — important as that aspect is. We have rainbow trout, fresh water and sea water, oyster fisheries and oyster farms, extensive and intensive cultivation of mussels, eels, scallops and clams. I must pause to pay a special tribute to the Carna Research Laboratory for their enormous contribution to this industry through their extensive research and development on various species. Abalone, the most highly prized of all, could be the next for commercial farming. I am delighted that in recent weeks the difficulty of the uncertain funding of this laboratory appears to have been resolved. I ask the Minister to outline exactly how Carna will dovetail into his oft-heralded Marine Research Centre. Apparently, there will be no one centre as such, but a closer liaison between existing centres, including the Fisheries Research Centre at Abbottstown.
Excellent work is done at the Fisheries Research Centre, particularly in the area of disease control and fish pathology. Given the potential of this area in aquaculture especially, and the difficulties that arose in the last year in relation to the second outbreak of bonamia ostrea in Clew Bay — detected by French officials, not ourselves — we must question if sufficient resources, especially in terms of manpower, are being allocated. One fish pathologist has an impossible task, given the workload, and far more could be done if the manpower were available.
There is another aspect of FEOGA funding that is causing me concern, especially when taken in conjunction with the average age of our fishing fleet. It appears that the goalposts have been moved by the Commission and an arbitrary age restriction has been introduced for grants for refurbishing and modernisation of vessels. The age limit is difficult to determine, but appears to be between 15 and 20 years and any vessel over this age will not qualify for a grant. Given that the average age of our average sized vessel is 30 years, this is an appalling change in the ground rules. This fact, together with the failure of the Commission to allow any grant for new vessel construction at all until all states reduce their gross registered tonnage, augurs very badly for our fishing industry, which we claim has such potential, such a future.
I put the question to the Minister: with the penally restrictive quotas for the more important species, no grants now for new vessels and the decrease demanded in our gross registered tonnage of up to 16 per cent by 1991, with the age structure of our present fleet, with licences being issued on a basis of equivalent tonnage being sold out of State or, in the case of beamers not at all, with the ongoing difficulty of flags of convenience, what future has our fishing industry? The Minister's party claimed that they would resolve the quota restrictions as a priority on assuming office. We await action. They have failed miserably to keep their word. I was present when the Commissioner and the Director General told the Minister not to look for a greater percentage of the total allowable catch, on which our quota is based now, in 1992 or thereafter. It was not on.
