The Minister says that at the moment a personal licence is not required for trout and coarse fishing, and that the Inland Fisheries Commission, as far back as the mid-seventies proposed the introduction of a licence system for trout and coarse fishing. Despite the fact that that was proposed in the mid-seventies nothing happened perhaps due to the wisdom of the people at the time.
The Minister in his speech also said:
I am also proposing to reduce the number of classes of salmon angling licences from five to two — a 21 day nationwide licence costing £21 and a full season nationwide licence for £25.
That is a very small difference and for the sake of £4 I believe those figures should be the same — a licence fee of £21 to cover everything.
The Minister suggested that there would be about 50,000 licensed trout and coarse fish anglers yielding an annual income of £500,000. There would be many more than 50,000 trout and coarse fish anglers, so the income generated would be much greater.
I welcome the Minister's undertaking to retain the money in the fisheries boards for the development and conservation of fisheries and to control pollution. I hope the fisheries boards will be retained. The licences cannot be issued by the fisheries boards if they are not to be retained. The Minister said that no firm decision had been made as to the structure of the fisheries boards in the future. I am glad a firm decision has not been made yet as many people, including myself, would have things to say on the restructuring or abolition of the fisheries boards as they now exist.
On receipt of this Bill I read through the Title in an effort to find out what its purpose was to be. The Title reads as follows:
An Act to amend the law relating to fisheries and for that purpose to amend and extend the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1987, by amending the provisions for salmon rod ordinary licences and extending the provisions for ordinary fishing licences which relate to rod and line to include licences in respect of trout, licences in respect of coarse fish and licences in respect of salmon, trout and coarse fish, to limit registration under section 58 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, to sea anglers and to certain other persons and to amend and extend section 59 of that Act, to provide for other matters connected with the foregoing and otherwise to amend and extend the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1987.
There is no real indication in the Title as to the purpose of the Bill. This Bill was presented by the Minister for the Marine on 8 December 1987. I am surprised at the speed with which the Bill is being put through the Oireachtas.
When I studied the Bill on Wednesday, 9 December, I was not aware, nor was there an indication on the Seanad Order Paper even on Wednesday of this week, that the Bill would be dealt with in this session in the Seanad. I gave an assurance to a number of interested parties that I would have discussions with them about this, as I had assumed that the Bill would not come before the Seanad until after the Christmas recess. That was a mistaken impression. We have not had enough time to go into various aspects of the Bill because it appears to be the intention to have it enacted before the end of the year. Senators in my position have been left with very little time to consult various groups. I wrote to people on Wednesday undertaking to enter into consultations on the assumption that the Bill would not be taken at this stage.
I read through the Bill and found the punch line to lie in section 6 (a), which gives the real reason for its introduction. This is also indicated in the Schedule which states:
AMENDMENT OF PART I OF FOURTH SCHEDULE TO PRINCIPAL ACT
"PART I
Licence Duties in Respect of Fresh water Rod Ordinary Licences
Kind of Engine
|
Classes of Freshwater Rod Ordinary Licences
|
Composite fresh-water angling ordinary licences
|
Salmon rod (annual) ordinary licences
|
Salmon rod (twenty-one day) ordinary licences
|
Trout rod (annual) ordinary licences
|
Trout rod (twenty-one day) ordinary licences
|
Coarse fish (annual) licences
|
Coarse fish (twenty-one day) ordinary licences
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
(6)
|
(7)
|
(8)
|
Freshwater rod
|
£40
|
£25
|
£21
|
£15
|
£10
|
£10
|
£5
|
These are the charges which will be imposed if the Bill becomes law.
There should be no doubt that the introduction of licence fees will be resisted, especially in the area of Lough Corrib, the largest free fishing lake in Europe. It is promoted as such throughout the world. Galway angling and tourism interests are angry and will resist the introduction of these fees. A protest march is to be held tomorrow in Galway. People may be encouraged in this protest by the obvious success of recent parent protests about cuts in primary education which forced the Minister to back down. The federation of anglers' clubs in Galway are willing to take to the streets on this issue. The Galway Observer published last Wednesday contained an item which stated as follows:
Angry Galway anglers will take to the streets next Saturday to protest at the Government's plans to impose licence charges for trout and coarse fishing.
The anglers are furious that Lough Corrib, the largest free fishing lake in Europe, will lose its free status under the terms of the proposed legislation.
The Government proposes to license all trout and coarse fishing in a Bill which proposes fines of up to £20,000 and two years in prison for all breaches.
The Federation of Lough Corrib Anglers are expected to strongly oppose the legislation when they meet later this week, but already a number of individual angling clubs have rejected the move out of hand. Braith-reacht na Coiribe, one of Galway's oldest angling clubs, have organised a protest march through the city for Saturday.
A similar article appears in today's issue of the Connacht Tribune. Anglers are saying in effect that the Minister should tackle the real problems of poaching, pollution etc. Tomorrow's protest march is also mentioned in the Connacht Tribune article, which goes on to state that it will be followed by a mass meeting of all angling clubs in Connacht in Castlebar at 2 p.m. on Sunday. It reports Mr. Seán Beatty, a member of the Annaghdown angling club, as saying that he had fished on the Corrib for the past 40 years and found it hard to stomach that a charge could be imposed on him now. This gives some idea of the ordinary angler's opposition to this Bill.
The Minister is in a difficult position. The introduction of licence fees at this time will be seen simply as another means of collecting revenue. He has indicated that he expects to raise about £500,000 but I believe the figure will be much greater. A detailed study recently published by the ESRI has shown that there are 122,000 regular anglers in Ireland, while a further 200,000 tourist anglers visit Ireland each year. Those figures are small relative to the potential market.
If the new licences are to be accepted by anglers the Minister should make a provision in the Bill guaranteeing that the moneys collected in licence fees will be reallocated to the regional fisheries boards for the non-pay element in fishery protection, pollution control and other promotions. The regional fisheries boards are operating in conditions of severe financial hardship. They were established, along with the Central Fisheries Board, under the Fisheries Act, 1980. Their first year of operation was 1981, the year in which the first embargo on recruitment to the public service was introduced and cuts in public expenditure began. These new organisations, which were intended to give a whole new impetus to inland fishery protection and development and the promotion of angling, had to cope with progressive cuts in resources, manpower and finance in the following years, making it extremely difficult and often impossible to cope with the statutory functions given to them.
Financial allocations to the boards have declined seriously in real terms since 1981. With increasing wage costs, the money available for non-pay purposes and to keep the staff working productively has declined to a ludicrously low level. As a result, the full potential of inland fisheries has not been realised. To give some idea of the way moneys have been cut back over those years, I will quickly run through the budgets since 1982. In that year £3.1 million of the budget was spent on pay and £1.9 million was spent under non-pay headings. In 1983, £3.5 million was spent on pay and £1.7 million on non-pay elements. In 1984 those figures were £3.7 million and £1.1 million. In 1985, £3.9 million was spent on pay and £1.5 million on non-pay. In 1986, £4.4 million was spent on pay and £1.3 million on non-pay elements. This year £4.8 million was spent on pay, while non-pay elements accounted for only £900,000. It is obvious that since 1982 when the non-pay element of the budget was £1.9 million we have lost £1 million. To have the equivalent of the 1982 figure we would need a non-pay budget of £2.93 million today.
Despite the cutbacks, the boards have made significant progress in dealing with the tasks and functions given to them. They have been to the forefront in highlighting the problems of pollution. While in many cases local authorities have stood back from these problems, fishery boards have been actively tackling them. The record in relation to monitoring, detection and prosecution of offenders speaks for itself. In terms of prosecutions alone, records show that the boards have been many times more active than local authorities. The boards have no vested interest, as have many of the local authorities who may themselves be polluters.
In the western fisheries regional board, the area in which I live, successful prosecution has been taken against the local authority when a five figure sum in damages was awarded to that fisheries board. The protection of salmon, sea trout and molluscs has improved considerably compared with the position obtaining prior to the establishment of the boards. In 1981 there was a real danger that salmon stocks would disappear within a very short time. The work of the boards has halted their decline. Oyster fishermen's co-operatives now openly confirm that, without the protection services of regional boards, the potential of the important oyster fisheries in the areas of Kilkerrin, Galway Bay and Clew Bay could not be realised and indeed, would be endangered. The Western Regional Fisheries Board have tackled the important development of preserving the natural environment of the Corrib. A regional fisheries board is in the best position to undertake this task.
Promotion of the game angling resources of the region have been undertaken in a professional manner. The boards can point to other significant improvements also effected. The Minister has indicated elsewhere that he is now considering the abolition of the regional fisheries boards and to replace them with a national authority. I believe that would constitute a retrograde step and should be opposed because the democratically elected body with strong local representation — whose members act in a voluntary capacity — would be supported. The members of regional fisheries boards now act in a totally impartial manner. They can comment objectively on abuses, particularly in regard to pollution. The boards voice local interests in the protection and enhancement of the essential part of their local environment. The abolition of regional fisheries boards would not effect any real saving in public expenditure because the only cost involved is its members' travelling expenses. Probably many of the members of regional boards would be prepared to act even if they did not receive those travelling expenses.
In any event a centrally-sited body in Dublin might cost just as much, in terms of travelling expenses, for officials commuting to and from Dublin. I contend that any shortcomings in the past few years have not been the fault of the regional fisheries boards. Apart from lack of resources the greatest shortcoming in the past has been the absence of any policy in this area. What are needed now are the right policies to ensure that the State gets the maximum economic benefit from those important resources. Policy is a matter for the responsible Minister. The Central Fisheries Board endeavoured to contribute to the question of policy in its document entitled: Inland Fisheries — Strategies for Management and Development with inputs from the regional fisheries boards. That publication was acknowledged to be progressive and positive in relation to future needs and prospects. Yet, within a few days its publication, the board was threatened with abolition. Was this an indication of the general apathy to sensible planning or the inability of Government Departments to take decisions in the country's interests.
All of this work undertaken by the boards has come about despite a drastically reduced budget each year. Far from scrapping the boards, as was indicated, I believe their powers should be strengthened to tackle the problems of the development of inland fisheries, of pollution of poaching and of other problems.
A new problem has arisen recently on Lough Corrib and I believe also on the Erne. On Lough Corrib, in the Ballycuirke area, near Moycullen, a section of the lake has been taken over by roach, which could be an even more serious problem than pollution. It is believed, in the case of Lough Corrib, that the roach were introduced about six years ago, probably by German anglers using small roach as bait and then disposing of them in the lake. They multiplied so rapidly that, within four to six years, they had taken over in a section of the lake with millions competing for the food of other species. The presence of those millions of roach in a stretch of the Corrib will completely destroy other fish life because they eat all the food life wherever they habitate.
The western region fisheries board have done tremendous work on predator control and, up to this year, had taken thousands of roach from the Corrib. This year no money was allocated to this essential work because of the serious cutbacks. Again, the budget for the non-pay element of the Central Fisheries Board and the Regional Boards has been reduced over the five years by £1 million. Their allocation is now £1 million less than it was the year after the boards were established. How can the regional fisheries boards continue their work if they are starved of finance? How can they monitor and control pollution if their budget continues to decline each year?
In the western regional fisheries board, monitoring of possible pollution is done on a daily basis. The board has convened meetings with farmers and industrialists to educate them in the dangers of pollution from activities carried out close to waters. They have made great strides in that area; that is from the angling point of view only. Other interests represented on the boards would include eel fisheries, the fishery owners, the oyster section, drift net and draft net interests, angling representatives and salmon, trout and coarse fishing interests. There will be, and there is, great hostility on the part of the ordinary angler to the introduction of a licence charge of up to a maximum of £40 a year for a composite licence. There is great objection to it on the part of the Federation of Corrib Anglers Clubs, on the part of tourist interests, particularly in the Corrib catchment area. As an alternative — and I have spoken briefly only to some of them — the Corrib Anglers Clubs have said they would advance a £1 for £1 contribution to match anything central Government would invest in regional fisheries boards for non-pay development.
The angling and tourist interests in Galway, Connemara and Mayo have been complaining for the past two seasons that salmon are not reaching the rivers and lakes on account of severe poaching and illegal fishing, with monafilament netting, further up the coast and off the Donegal coast, in the area represented by the Minister of State. When will the Government take action in regard to illegal fishing. It is quite obvious to anybody in the western region that salmon just do not exist in the lakes and the rivers. How can they be there while there are miles and miles of net preventing them from coming up to their natural habitat to spawn. The tourist interests in Connemara, anglers who come there every year, have been complaining for the last two years that the fish are simply not there. Catch records bear that out. This question must be addressed seriously by the Government and the Minister. No matter who is catching the fish they are doing serious damage to the natural environment.
On top of all that without taking any steps to solve the problem of illegal net fishing — the Minister is proposing to impose a licence fee on angling tourists who, for the past two years, have been coming to Connemara catching practically no fish. The fisheries boards have put themselves out on a limb in supporting the introduction of licensing of rods. Therefore, the Minister must guarantee that the revenue raised from licensing fees will be allocated to the regional fishery boards for the non-pay element of their work. We must warn against any attempt by this or future Ministers, to repeat the stipulation that local authorities should raise revenue for service charges. Yet, when they did so — unpopular as it was in some cases — their capital grants were further reduced. If this Bill becomes law we must ensure that there will be a written guarantee that this Minister or any future Minister will not allow that to arise.
These safeguards should be written into the Bill. The revenue from licences must be allocated to the fisheries boards to finance the valuable work they are carrying out and in recognition of the responsible attitude they adopted to this Bill. Investment in fishing will be more than paid back over a number of years. Any money invested in developing fishing is economically justified and there will be a quick return on the capital investment.
In the present economic climate, there is now general agreement on the need to conserve and concentrate on the development of our resources. Fisheries have been especially identified by the Government as a growth area, and a target of 4,500 new jobs has been set in this sector. The present contribution of £50 million a year to the economy from inland fisheries as a whole is but a fraction of its potential and £30 million of the current £50 million total is attributable to tourist angling. This is an indicator for the future. In 1982 salmon angling contributed an estimated 50 per cent of the revenue to the State from the salmon industry from only 4.5 per cent of the catch.
Ireland's fisheries have a unique natural advantage. We are now widely recognised as one of the few countries in the world which still have the potential to provide high quality angling in abundance. The value of this natural resource has not been fully recognised or exploited. The current influx of tourist anglers is small, relative to the potential markets available. There are four million anglers in Great Britain. The angling holiday markets on the Continent and in North America are also substantial, with the potential of access by many millions of additional anglers.
Ireland does not have an industrial advantage comparable to its natural fisheries environment. It is reasonable to suppose that investment and promotional costs would be lower for jobs in fishing than for industrial jobs. To attempt to prove this in an abstract, generalised, way is unlikely to be very convincing as there are little data on which to base development costs. Individual cases are strongly supportive of this argument. For example, the Corrib-Galway fishery which was bought by the Government for £200,000 in 1978 has averaged a yearly surplus since of between £30,000 and £40,000 and would give a profit to the State of about £150,000 after clearing the purchase price.
Prior to the purchase of the Erriff fishery for £175,000, the average turnover for the previous five years was a mere £12,000 per annum. This was built up to £80,000 last year by the Central Fisheries Board and it is hoped to exceed £100,000 this year. The Moy fishery cost £300,000 and is expected to show a profit of about £50,000 this year. These figures reinforce the view that a well managed Irish fishery can make money. It is worth noting that investment in those largely self financing natural resources is durable and not mobile, and the jobs created are permanent.
Let us continue our investment in fishing. Let us halt the decreasing budget each year. Let us realise the potential benefit of investment. Above all let the Minister guarantee that if these licence fees are introduced — and we have an indication of that already — the money raised will be allocated to the various fishery boards.
Níl aon rud eile le rá agam ar an mBille. Ní dóigh liom go glacfar leis mar níl na hiascairí i gContae na Gaillimhe agus i gContae Mhaigh Eo sásta leis ná fóralacha atá ann.