I move:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the introduction of Bye-Law 582 and Bye-Law 584 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Fisheries and calls for their immediate withdrawal.
The bye-laws in question relate to drift-netting on the south coast principally and as a result of their enforcement fishermen who up to now used a net 60 meshes deep are being asked to halve the depth of net to 30 meshes and thereby they are severely restricted in the traditional way in which they have been carrying on the fishing. This type of fishing has been carried out on this part of the coast for a considerable time and it has come as a severe shock to fishermen to find their efforts restricted in this way.
The argument of the fishermen is that because of the type of boats they use—small boats ranging from about 20 feet to 32 feet—they are confined to fishing during daylight. If the fishermen found it possible to catch salmon with the short type of net, then it would be in their own interest to use that kind of net. However, from experience they have found it necessary to use the deeper type of net because during daylight salmon do not swim towards the top of the water. They are inclined to swim deep and they are caught in the bottom portion of the net.
With this new order the fishermen are placed in the position that they might as well stay at home. Already the increase introduced in the licence for drift-netting from £3 to £50 is pretty harsh and tough on these men who are, in the main, part-time fishermen and who depend entirely, apart from what they receive in social welfare, on the earnings they get from this type of fishing. One might say that they need to revert to night fishing as is done on parts of the north and north-west coasts. On the south coast the volume of shipping would mean that the fishermen would find themselves in the shipping lanes. We are all aware that at present many large boats and many large trawlers use the automatic pilot, which means that there is nobody on watch and it would be suicidal for fishermen to attempt this type of fishing during the hours of darkness. Furthermore, the boats they have are unsuitable for conversion to lighting. Again, having their boats properly lighted for this kind of fishing would impose a great deal of extra expense and hardship on the fishermen. In most instances it would not be possible to have the boats fixed up with the necessary lighting that would have to be used if they tried to do the drift-netting during the hours of darkness.
The whole position of the part-time fisherman is, indeed, most unsatisfactory. He is regarded as a self-employed worker and is not treated as most industrial workers are. He has not the privilege of being allowed to put on an insurance stamp like a worker who is employed on buildings and so on. At the end of the season he has to give an account of his earnings to the social welfare officer and in most instances the social welfare officer does not accept the word of the fisherman in relation to his earnings, which means that every part-time fisherman along the coast is drawing unemployment assistance at a very much reduced rate. I know this applies on the Mayo coast and right along the whole coast, and it simply goes to show that this type of fisherman is not getting a fair deal from the Department of Fisheries and he is also being hampered by restrictions from the Department of Social Welfare.
The fishermen involved have a very important part to play in the whole of the fishing industry. Experience has shown that many of our larger boats are owned by men who started with small boats, with half-deckers, and tried to make a few pounds for themselves until eventually they could realise their ambition to become full-time fishermen. Any restriction on their earnings is going to hamper them very much in their efforts to realise this ambition.
The decision here has hindered fishermen more than anything else introduced in the last few years. The net result is the fishermen are annoyed and frustrated. Indeed, they are prepared to take drastic action to try to maintain something they regard as a traditional right. The Parliamentary Secretary, his Minister and the Department acted hastily in arriving at this decision. One of the things this Government have boasted about is that they have open government and are prepared to consult. In this particular instance everybody was consulted except the people directly involved. Although they have made representations—I understand they have seen the Parliamentary Secretary and officials, but I cannot say whether or not they have seen the Minister—the fishermen have been given the deaf ear. One would expect that some notice would be taken of their request.
The fishermen were prepared to compromise. They were prepared to accept a reduction of 15 meshes in their nets. They were prepared to fish with 45 mesh nets rather than 30, as suggested by the Department and, when they were prepared to go so far, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department should have been more generous. The chairman of one of the biggest boards of conservators was prepared to accept this compromise. Before the end of the season I believe the Minister will see that it would have been much wiser to have compromised and taken more heed of the fishermen's suggestion.
We all accept there is need for conservation to preserve salmon stocks. On the rivers there are weirs, nets, traps and all sorts of devices for catching salmon. No restriction that I am aware of has been imposed and that makes the case worse as far as the commercial fishermen are concerned. Today I asked the Minister what restriction, if any, had been imposed on the legal catching of salmon, other than by rod and line, in salmon rivers since 1966 and the reply the Minister gave did not relate at all to the question asked. He said:
The principal measures introduced since 1966 imposing restrictions on commercial fishing for salmon were the Control of Fishing for Salmon Orders which limit the number of net licences that may be issued in each fishery district, by-laws limiting the length and depth of drift nets and a by-law prohibiting the use of monofilament nets.
In addition to the foregoing restrictions which are on a national basis, various by-laws have been made restricting fishing in specified areas. These by-laws relate mainly to length of fishing season, weekly close time, etc.
There is not one word in that answer about restrictions on the catching of salmon in rivers. To me, it is quite obvious that the Minister and the Department are concerned only with protecting the rights of the landlords. This is most unsatisfactory and most annoying as far as the fishermen are concerned. After all, if one drifts for salmon on the high seas the chances of escape for the salmon are very great indeed. On the other hand, salmon entering the rivers in which nets and traps and weirs are used have absolutely no chance of escape. There is no comparison at all in the way the fishermen have been treated and in the way the landlords are being protected by the Minister.
In reply to a question of mine in relation to commercial fishing in the rivers a note at the end of the reply given today states:
Details of the catches by the fishing traps in the freshwater portions of rivers are confidential and may not be published.
We make a great deal of play about the increased amount of fish being caught by drift nets but we are not prepared to give the figures for commercial fishing in our rivers. Every fisherman with a licence has to give a return each year stating the amount of salmon he caught. Those who use the rivers for commercial fishing do not have to make this kind of return. It is argued they are private companies and the details cannot be published. One could apply the same argument in the case of the fishermen. A boat in many instances may be owned by a company. Why is there one set of rules for the ordinary fisherman and another for the landlord? I find it very hard to see the logic behind this particular regulation. This is a matter that should be cleared up and it is one I shall continue to probe until I get a satisfactory answer.
Another factor which creates a big problem for the fishermen drift netting is weather conditions. It is well known that fishing on a calm day in fine weather is of no benefit to the fisherman. He might just as well tie up his boat because the salmon will not mesh when the weather is fine. The best time for drifting for salmon is when the seas are choppy and when the fisherman may be undecided about fishing because of weather conditions. This means that in many instances the fisherman may fish for only half of the the season because of weather conditions. On the west coast there may be heavy seas in the middle of summer when even large trawlers are tied up.
Briefly, that is the case we are putting in relation to this motion. We consider the Minister's order is too drastic coming as it does when the cost of the licence has increased. In addition, the people involved are part-time fishermen and for a considerable part of the year they have to exist on small social welfare allowances. We think the Minister should have compromised, that he should have been more generous when dealing with this matter.
There is one other point worth mentioning in relation to the question of salmon being caught at sea and the amount of salmon going up the rivers. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence to prove that fishermen are not doing a good job by catching salmon at sea. It is well known that rivers can feed a certain number of fish but if too many salmon go up a river many may die because there is not sufficient feeding in the river. There may also be a problem at spawning time where too many salmon come to the salmon beds. There are people who argue that drift netting is doing a good job in helping to have better stocks of salmon in our rivers.
This whole matter should be examined. It should be possible to have co-operation between all sections, where the boards of conservators, the Department and the fishermen would have regular consultation about the preservation of stocks and the amount of fish that should be caught. A few years ago the Federation of Fishing Co-Operatives tried this method of having more consultation between the boards and the fishermen. At the time the chairman of the national board and others met the co-operatives and there was some discussion and some element of agreement in relation to what might be done but unfortunately the matter was not followed up closely enough. Now we are back to the old situation of one group bashing the other, the fishermen bashing the boards of conservators and the boards and others bashing the commercial fishermen.
Another point worth mentioning is the anomaly that exists in relation to development of the fishing industry, where BIM provide grants for boats but where the Department try to restrict the use of the boats. It is a rather strange situation; the fishermen are given substantial grants by BIM but the Department tell them they cannot use the boats for this kind of fishing. Apart from fishing for lobster and crayfish it is the only kind of fishing they can do. The fishermen find it difficult to make the repayments on the boats because of this restriction.
In this motion we ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept a compromise. We ask him to meet the fishermen more fairly than has been the case so far. There is plenty of trouble in the fishing industry and we should not do anything to aggravate the situation of the inshore fishermen. We should not try to impose any further hardship on them by way of orders that may be introduced.