I move:
That Seanad 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 before Seanad Éireann on the 3rd day of December, 1976.
Salmon, Eel and Oyster Fishing Licences (Alteration of Licence Duties) Order, 1976: Motion.
The Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, enabled the licence duties in respect of salmon, eel and oyster fishing to be increased by order subject to a maximum increase of 100 per cent. The Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1976, removed this limit. Any order altering the licence duties must under the Act of 1976 be laid in draft before each House of the Oireachtas and the order cannot be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses.
I now 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 on the scale of duties was passing through the House. The new rates are set out in the schedule to the order.
The revenue from the proposed new licence duties will go to the boards of conservators to help them to meet the increasing costs of protection and conservation of our inland fisheries.
The increases proposed in respect of the duties on commercial fishing for salmon, and in particular the increase in the drift net licence duty, must be regarded as reasonable when one considers that most fishing licence duties have remained at the same level for many years and in the case of drift nets for over a century.
Increases are also proposed in the various kinds of salmon rod licences and I would point out that the existing duties on these engines have not been altered since 1958.
I also propose to increase the oyster fishing licence duty from £4 to £15. This duty was last altered 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 higher licence duties on eel fishing engines. The present licence duties on these engines are very low indeed.
While income from licence duties over the years has remained fairly static, the overall expenditure of boards of conservators has risen to the extent that the income of boards from licence duties now constitutes only about 8 per cent of their total running costs. The balance of these costs is, in the main, met by means of Exchequer grants, which have had to be raised significantly over the years to meet deficits of boards arising out of the expenditure involved in their operations on fishery protection and development. The amount of the Exchequer grant in 1976 was £390,000. Having regard to the greatly increased value of salmon we feel that there is a sound case for the increased scales of licence duties that are now proposed. Assuming that the same number of licences continue to be taken out, the total income from this source should reach approximately £152,000 in 1977 as compared with about £42,000 this year.
I accordingly recommend to the House that a resolution be passed approving of the draft order.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. Am I to understand that the present licence fee for eel and salmon is £3? It is not listed.
The drift-net licences are £3. If the Senator will comment on whether he approves of the licences or otherwise, I will be able to give any information I have subsequently. I think it unusual after completing my opening statement to repeat these, but if the Chair rules that I should do so I will be only too glad to adhere to the ruling. I mentioned that the drift-net licences will go from £3 to £50.
That information will do.
The ordinary salmon rod licences will go from £4 to £10; the salmon rod licence from £2.50 to £7; the salmon rod district licence from £3 to £5; a licence described as a salmon rod annual district licence, to which subsection (3) of section 68 of the Act applies, £1.50 to £2.00. These increases are relatively small in this field.
I am not too familiar with fishing. I fully understand the need for providing more money for the boards of conservators because at present they have not got sufficient money to protect our fisheries. Quite recently we had an incident in Tipperary, on the Suir, where whatever fish there were there for 20 miles were wiped out. We have still received no explanation of the cause of that disaster. The boards are entitled to more money but we do not agree that drift-net licences should be increased from £3 to £50. That is going too far. I understand that this will apply to every boat. I understand also that there is a great difference in the size of boats and that this will seriously interfere with the small man. There should be some kind of a graded scale. A much fairer way of collecting money for the boards would be the imposition of a cash levy on the catch made. That is all I have to say except to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that we are opposing that section as far as the increase in drift-net licences is concerned.
Unfortunately, I did not expect this Bill to be discussed today and I have not gone into the details. First of all, I should like to know what are the views of the different boards of conservators throughout the country. While the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the price of salmon has increased considerbly, I can tell him that unfortunately the quantity of salmon has decreased. People who once might have been able to afford an increase from £3 to £50 for a drift-net licence are not in that category of the wealthy any more. As Senator W. Ryan said, it will now become the domain of the wealthy whereas to date it has been a small man's industry. In my area some people are completely dependent on fishing. As Senator W. Ryan said there is also the problem of pollution: our rivers are practically denuded of their fish. We need a national policy for the protection of our rivers.
Local authorities no longer can afford the enormous cost. It is beyond any local authority's power to put up the amount of money needed for treatment plants for raw sewage and so on entering our rivers. It was all right 50 years ago when we did not have this problem. There is also the industrialisation of our countryside. Account must be taken also of pesticides and insecticides, all of which go into our rivers and which minute by minute kill our fish stocks. When there is a diminishing fish stock—for those whose livelihood it is and others for whom it is a pastime—this is no time to increase licences to this extent.
I do not see any reason to complain about the increases because salmon fishing is big business nowadays. People who have a drift-net licence can earn many thousands of pounds in a season at present. The old fee of £3 was really very little. I do not think they will complain about the fee.
Anything that lends itself to the better protection of the spawning rivers is to be recommended. I presume that the finance gathered from these increased fees will go in that direction. At this time of the year in particular, poaching is big business. Every step possible should be taken to wipe it out. More than anything else poaching threatens our salmon stocks. People have blamed the drift-netting at sea, but I do not believe that is a major cause of the decrease in the number of salmon being caught; rather it is the increase in poaching. We read alarming reports in newspapers from time to time about the scale of this poaching in places like West Cork and Mayo, not alone the scale of it but the violence attached to it. Numbers of bailiffs and water-keepers have been seriously assaulted. I would like to see the numbers of bailiffs increased and their powers increased. If this Bill goes some way in that direction, I welcome it wholeheartedly.
I remember the Parliamentary Secretary telling us here last year that he intended bringing in new legislation which would lead to the reconstruction of the boards of conservators and give water-keepers greater powers. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he hopes to bring in this legislation, as I feel it is long overdue. The present system of the boards of conservators is antiquated and is not able to do justice to an industry which is thriving at present. If we want to keep it thriving we must see that the agency which runs the protection service and the stocking service is streamlined.
The Minister introduced restrictions this year regarding the depth of salmon nets. Some fishermen are not at all pleased, and with good reason, because the licence fee has increased and their catching powers have been greatly reduced. I know the Parliamentary Secretary has made exceptions in the northern part of the country, I think in the Donegal region, where people who traditionally fished with up to two miles of nets at sea were given special consideration in this direction. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the same consideration to people who traditionally fished with deep nets on the south coast. I refer specifically to people in the Lismore fishery area who used a particularly large mesh with the resultant greater depth of net. Now, because they are using a smaller mesh net, the depth of net is to be curtailed. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make the same type of exception he made in Donegal, with regard to the length, to the depth along the Waterford coast.
I want to protest very strongly at the proposal to increase drift-net licence fees from £3 to £50. Once again the National Coalition Government are introducing measures which will directly affect the economic life of a section of the small people of this country. As each day goes by this is a section of the community most sought out by the Government.
Senator Deasy told us there is an income of several thousands of pounds from drift-net salmon licences. I do not know what the situation is in the south. Certainly, in Donegal in the River Swilly, the River Foyle and around the coast the people who engage in this type of fishing with these licences are those who for most of the year are unemployed, people who for most of the year are in receipt of unemployment assistance, who lose that during this fishing period and who spend the greater part of the night fishing in this manner. Indeed the stocks are such that for most of the time their efforts are unsuccessful. Senator Deasy expressed concern about poaching. I believe that this proposal will only accelerate poaching. Many people who up to now may have applied for a licence will consider it financially impossible to take this gamble because the income from it in many cases, except for a week or two in the year, may not warrant it. It will deter people from seeking licences at all and will certainly increase poaching. I am absolutely certain that for the small people I have mentioned this will be a hardship. An increase from £3 to £50 is much too much for them. The effects can only be disastrous.
It rather amuses me to hear the statement of the last speaker about the hardship likely to be imposed on what he earlier implied was an unfortunate section of the community, the holders of drift-net licences. The position, Sir, is that around our coast those who are fortunate enough under the regulations made by this House and Dáil Éireann to qualify for a drift-net licence are deemed to be an exceptionally fortunate and favoured section of the community. We know from the figures available in our Department from year to year what the licences mean. We know that the bulk of our salmon are taken by drift-net licences and that there is a good deal of, possibly in some instances, justifiable opposition to the extension of the drift-net system in this country. To come back to the assertions made by the last speaker—if I may begin with him—he tells the Seanad that an increase of £3 to £50 will be disastrous. The number of licences issued here is about 1,000. The income for 1976, even from the diminished stocks, is estimated at £5.3 million and that figure constitutes a sizeable percentage of our total fish catch, the subject of so many discussions here and abroad at present.
Is that estimate based on the same method as the estimate based on the Kilcummin pier, when a gentleman of the deputation told the Parliamentary Secretary that his income was £2,000 instead of £6,000?
It is as factual as we can get it in the Department. It is based on the report submitted to my Department. If there has been any variation it has been upwards. So far as Senator Garrett's remark on the Kilcummin pier is concerned—which is not relevant to this discussion—the people who land fish on that pier, if there is a discrepancy, are to blame. If the Senator's assertion is right, they deliberately misrepresented their catches for one reason or another.
On that deputation the fishermen told the Parliamentary Secretary exactly what their catches were. The Parliamentary Secretary should have contradicted them then as he did me a moment ago.
They told me that they deliberately depressed their catches in order to avoid payment of tax, possibly, in some cases and so that it would not interfere with their unemployment assistance in others. We want honesty from people in making their reports on their catches. We want accuracy so far as this particular species is concerned because it is to our advantage, so far as all types of fish are concerned, to get accurate figures. If figures are depressed from Kilcummin pier, or from any other pier regarding salmon or any other species, it militates against the industry generally, because when we go along to the Minister for Finance or to the Government seeking additional funds for our fishery development, that is the possible case that would be argued against us, the value of the industry.
While we are deeply concerned—at the declining quantity of our salmon takings from sea and rivers, we are mindful that it is a very valuable fish. We try to be as liberal as possible in making orders controlling the granting of licences of any kind. That is reviewable from year to year. But the main question raised here was the money one. I said in Dáil Éireann last week that this £3 for a drift-net licence was set down in 1848, 128 years ago. I am not sure as to the value of £3 at that time but I would hazard a guess it was a significantly large sum. I do not know what price salmon were fetching at that time but possibly it was a relatively small percentage of the price obtaining today.
What do we find? We find that the average price this year is £1.61 per 1b. A medium-size salmon can fetch £20 at 1976 price levels. Surely those people who are fortunate enough to qualify for licences in the first place and who earn this £5.3 million will not hesitate to make the relatively small contribution I am asking this House to approve this evening.
Let me say here, as I said in Dáil Éireann earlier, that I have met a substantial number of licensed salmon fishermen, particularly drift-net men, and they were only too willing to make a contribution towards conservation, provision of hatcheries, the improvement of services generally. Therefore, I am knocking at an open door. Many of these people came along. They felt the fee they were paying for the licence was absolutely ridiculous. They acknowledged that and wondered how they could make a contribution which would put more money in the kitty for the development of this industry. I regard salmon fishing as a very important industry.
A number of methods of collecting money were suggested. Senator W. Ryan mentioned a levy per pound. Perhaps it is a fair way of collecting money, for those who catch the most will pay the most. It is something I will bear in mind. In the current year the Exchequer through our taxpayers gave £390,000 to boards of conservators. We have collected, by way of licences, £42,000. If this order is approved by the Dáil and Seanad, that will be increased to £152,000, or a gross increase of £110,000, and that covers all types of licences.
I do not want to labour the House on the drift-net licence question much longer. This is what might be termed a narrow motion to increase licence fees announced by me earlier in Seanad Éireann. If one could visualise a situation obtaining in which licences could be bought, I do not know what price they would fetch because every Member of this and the other House and of local authorities throughout the country are approached again and again to make representations for a licence for this man or that man. Many of these representations prove to be deserving cases. But in cases that do not measure up to our criteria, or where they do, by virtue of the limitation on the numbers, they cannot be accommodated. Therefore, I fully stand over the increases being sought here. I have no doubt that those to whom they will apply will not hesitate to make the contributions demanded of them.
Senator Ahern mentioned the declining numbers. That is a source of worry to us. The orders are made from year to year. Our scientists think we are possibly adopting too liberal an attitude in drawing up the regulations embodied in the control of salmon for fishing orders. That is a point we review from time to time. Mention was made also of pollution. That was dealt in this House on the last occasion we discussed the salmon fishing subject. We are well aware of what harm pollution can do and steps are being taken, which I do not think it would be fair to the House to elaborate on today, to reduce the effects of pollution on our rivers.
Senator Deasy was worried about poaching, and rightly so. I agree that there is a great deal of poaching all over the country so far as salmon is concerned. I want to say here in Seanad Éireann that our Department will give every co-operation to the boards throughout the State to ensure that poaching will be arrested. I cannot say it will be eliminated because I think that that is an impossibility. We will try to achieve a substantial and sizeable reduction in poachers' activities all around our coast. This Department do not condone illegal fishing of any kind. We are particularly mindful of the damage being done by salmon poachers, particularly at this time of year—October, November and December—when the salmon move up the small rivers. We know the devastation that can arise so far as our stocks are concerned when, from the information at our disposal, we know various methods used to remove these spawning fish from our rivers. I can assure Senator Deasy that this is a question about which we are very worried and so also are the 15 boards of conservators and the two administrators.
Senator Deasy inquired also about new legislation. I expect to have that here early in 1977. The next question that arose was the mesh depths. This order, limiting meshes to 30, was introduced in 1976, intended for the 1976 season. Our advisers estimated it would result in a 10 per cent additional escapement of fish and that it was vital to have this kind of mesh depth if our salmon stocks were to survive. We have to take conservation measures and that was one recommended. Everybody here is anxious and desirous that this valuable source of income to our salmon fishermen, and which constitutes a valuable source of national income, will continue to develop rather than decline, as is happening at present. Naturally, with the decline, we have to take precautionary measures. In 1975 we had a return of £3,014,000 for salmon sold in outside markets. The implementation of that order limiting the mesh was deferred for 1976 in view of the widespread representations made, particularly from the southern coast. It is not being deferred any longer. I am aware that in Senator Deasy's area the fishermen are worried about it, as they are in my own area in south-west Cork. The advice at my disposal is that it is necessary, that their worries are not too well founded. Consequently it would be out of place for me, or for any other person holding this post, not to acknowledge the advice of our scientific officers and not to bring in a measure such as this particularly, as Senator Ahern mentioned earlier, at a time when our stocks are declining.
The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that in the Ardmore/Youghal areas traditionally they fished a deeper net than elsewhere. This is the case that they are making: that they should be allowed a concession because they always had 30 meshes at five-and-a-half inches per mesh. Now the traditional mesh is four inches, so they are being penalised by being reduced to 30 meshes. They were recently fishing 60 meshes at four inches a mesh. All they want is to be given at least what they originally fished: the equivalent of 30 meshes at five-and-a-half inches a mesh.
I am sure Senator Deasy will agree that salmon stocks are declining. If they are allowed to have their original mesh length, naturally it will mean that more salmon will not escape. This measure is to provide escapement. The case Senator Deasy put before the House was made on a number of occasions. A deputation was received in the Department to discuss it. In my area in south-west Cork I have had numerous salmon fishermen make the same type of case. Unfortunately, it is not possible to uphold it, taking into account the general position of our salmon stocks. The regulation must come into operation for the year 1977. As I mentioned already, we did defer it this current year in view of representations made that people had purchased meshes of particular depths in excess of 30. We agreed to defer it but it was quite clear as far back as April of this year that there would be no further deferment.
I recommend to Seanad Éireann the approval of this order.
Question put and declared carried.
I should like to disagree with you, a Chathaoirleach. I think there are as many heads on this side as there are on the other.
In judging the volume of sound the Chair uses a particular ear which makes certain assumptions. The assumption is that the motion is carried. The Senator can have a division if he wishes to prove the Chair right or wrong.