Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Mar 1977

Vol. 298 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Salmon and Trout Fishing Bye-Laws: Motion.

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.

We have had a number of discussions on fisheries in the past few months and tonight we are dealing with the most important species, namely, salmon. Figures indicate that the value of salmon catches for last year and for 1975 are more than 50 per cent of the value of all the other species caught around our coasts. Salmon is the most important species. There is a particular obligation, naturally, on whoever is Minister for Fisheries and on whichever Government are in power to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the conservation of our salmon stocks.

The question of conservation is an ongoing one. It was first brought to light very forcibly in 1972 when Deputy Fahey was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons also addressed himself to this question. They expressed their deep concern about drift-netting around our coasts. The number of licences issued in 1972 amounted to 1,156 and they claimed that if that upper trend were to continue our salmon stocks would disappear altogether within a short period. Formidable action was taken. This gave rise to a great deal of resentment by our salmon fishermen. The figure of 1,156 drift licences issued was reduced for 1973 by 507, which brought the figure down to 649. It was indicated quite clearly then that more drastic measures were in store for our salmon fishermen if, as the then Government said, they were going to conserve our stocks.

The position was so serious then that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries took time off during the 1973 election campaign to issue a statement on our salmon stocks. This statement is dated 15th February, 1973. This statement was issued ten days after the dissolution of the Dáil. Naturally Deputy Fahey was out of office then. The Minister must have been deeply concerned when he took time off from his election campaign to speak about this question of salmon conservation and to make the position, so far as he was concerned as Minister and so far as the Fianna Fáil Party were concerned, quite clear to the salmon fishermen.

What did the Minister say? He said:

The reasons behind these limitations have been evolving over a number of years past and they have an international as well as a national aspect. Because of the vastly increased exploitation of salmon stocks there is concern everywhere for the survival of this species. This has led to the adoption by international agreement of strict limitations of salmon fishing seasons and the declaration of certain closed areas to cut down exploitation on the high seas. Commercial fishing for salmon has been banned altogether in some areas.

This is what the Minister for Fisheries had to say on the 15th February, 1973. He continued:

In this country a considerable amount of commercial salmon fishing is carried on by drift nets at sea and in river estuaries. Rod fishing accounts for only about 5 to 10 per cent of the total catch.

I asked Deputy Gallagher to bear that in mind because one would think from his statement tonight that it is the rod fishermen who are mainly responsible for the decline in our salmon stocks. Deputy Gallagher referred to fishermen as some kind of a landlord group. That is not true.

On a point of order I made no reference to rod and line fishermen. I referred to commercial fishermen. I do not regard rod and line fishermen as commercial fishermen. The Parliamentary Secretary should withdraw the statement he made.

If I misinterpreted the Deputy I will certainly withdraw it because I do not want to misrepresent the Deputy's view in any way. I understood him to refer to landlord fishermen. He also mentioned that they were the rod fishermen. Deputy Gallagher was not in the House in 1972 but he was a member of the Inland Fisheries Commission which submitted two interim reports to the then Government. They were mainly responsible for the order made by Deputy Fahey in 1972 and the statement made by the Minister during his election campaign in 1973. This was the importance attached by the then Minister and Government to those reports.

Is Deputy Gallagher's recollection reasonably good? Can he say to me in the House that one of the recommendations made by the Inland Fisheries Commission in their reports was to do what this by-law has done quite clearly? They said that consideration should be given as a conservation measure to a restriction on the depth of net used in drift netting for salmon. That was a unanimous recommendation of the Inland Fisheries Commission, of which Deputy Gallagher was a member.

So much for the viewpoint of the then Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on the need for conserving our salmon stocks and on the need for drastic reduction in the availability of drift nets. Fianna Fáil regarded them as the villians of the piece. Fortunately, so far as our fishermen were concerned, the people made a change on 28th February, 1973. The new Government had a fresh look at this whole question. Whilst it was agreed that conservation of our salmon stocks was of paramount importance at the same time it was generally felt that the panic-stricken Fianna Fáil group in the issue of their statements and in the order made by Deputy Fahey in 1972, went too far and that some easement of the situation should be provided.

The Government set about easing the situation by giving many of our fishermen an opportunity to acquire licences. We got a great deal of criticism from the Inland Fisheries Commission, and as far as I remember from Deputy Fahey who put his name to this motion. They said then that this change was detrimental to the conservation of our salmon stocks. We made it perfectly clear in the order of 1973 that the reviewing of the control of salmon fisheries would be an ongoing one. In the 1973 order it was clearly implied that if circumstances warranted a change in that order the change would be made. I need not remind the House of the many additional fishermen who got a share in the income accruing from salmon fishing. We confirmed that order in 1974. I know the scientific advice which I have is first class and it is highly rated by both myself and the Minister. It indicates that we must take more measures if we are to conserve our stocks and Deputy Gallagher was informed of some of the measures we have taken in reply to a parliamentary question today.

The making of this order for 1976 is alleged to be a hurried decision. It was published widely in the summer of 1974 and we had a departmental meeting in October, 1974, and all the advice available to me at the time was that this order should be put in force for 1975. Taking into account that it would be rather too drastic at that time I held my hand. Many of our salmon fishermen around the coast were in complete agreement with this measure. It was brought in in 1976 for the purpose of giving a better escapement to our salmon. It would be grand if salmon were so plentiful that there was no danger to stocks. The Government would not sponsor or approve of any by-law that would be detrimental to the interests of our fishermen. We were trying to conserve stocks for future years. We did not want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

In relation to the continuance of the order into 1976, representations were made by a number of fishermen along the southern coast that they had bought 60 mesh nets, that they were unaware of the order, and taking all the circumstances into account, with the approval of the Government I deferred the implementation of this order until 1st January, 1977. That was very fair and reasonable, but it was made quite clear then that it would come into force on 1st January, 1977. We felt it was necessary to prevent our salmon stocks from being depleted, such as is now happening with the herring stocks.

Fianna Fáil seem to change like the wind. Their approach to fisheries generally has changed very much. With the exception of this outburst in 1972 in relation to salmon, we heard very little about fisheries generally during their term of office from 1957 to 1973. In 1975 our fishermen, according to the official departmental statistics caught 2,188,305 kilograms of salmon. In 1976 the figure was 1,491,582. That is a drop of 32 per cent in salmon catches from 1975 to 1976.

What figure is the Parliamentary Secretary quoting?

I am quoting for all types of salmon.

Is that salmon caught in the rivers and salmon caught at sea?

Yes. The drift net salmon accounted for 1,046,102 kilograms. The rod men that the Deputy is so worried about accounted for only 43,624.

Are the Parliamentary Secretary's figures for the commercial fishermen in the rivers?

Yes, I gave that.

The Parliamentary Secretary gave figures for the rod and line but not for traps and weirs.

This is a limited time debate.

The drift net is the one at issue here tonight and the 1,046,102 kilograms caught by them was valued at £3,722,256. The anded value of our salmon catch for 1976 was £5,301,737 which is a marked increase in the value from 1975. The average landing price for salmon, large and small, sold last year was £1.61p per pound. That is helpful for our economy because we export a great proportion of our catch. No ordinary person in this country could possibly have salmon for dinner, because the price has gone beyond his reach. We are dealing with depleted stocks of a valuable species that represent about 50 per cent of the value of all sea fish catches which was the subject of so much discussion here and elsewhere during the past number of months. A 32 per cent decline is a very serious one and the Government would be neglecting their duty if they did not take some measures. The measures taken are, in our view, essential, fair and just. They were drawn up by our scientific staff who consider that this by-law is necessary as one of several measures aimed at the conservation of our diminishing salmon stocks.

We are making every move possible in regard to restocking and if our stocks increase, as I hope they will, and if more salmon is available, I would like to see additional licences allocated around the coast, because a drift net licence today is very valuable. There are many qualified applicants, crewmen who have served their apprenticeship, to whom we have given the right to acquire a licence but they cannot get one by virtue of limitations on the numbers allowed to be issued by boards of conservators. The bulk of the £5 million-odd is confined to a relatively small number of people, many of whom, particularly trawler owners, should be very thankful to this Government because they would not be sharing this money if Fianna Fáil were in office. This is quite clear even from their statements issued at that time.

The Waterford people seem very annoyed at this measure and we met them in the Department and gave our reasons for it. We would only be too pleased if it were possible to accede to their request, but we must take a long-term view, and I am surprised that some of our fishermen do not adopt that view too. We must think of 1978, 1979 and of 1985, 1986 and following years. I may add that the legal length of net for the Lismore district was increased from 200 to 800 yards when regulations were changed recently. This improvement in Deputy Fahey's new constituency increased the permissible area of net from 4,680 square feet to 16,320 square feet at a depth of 30 meshes. It would be completely unreasonable to ask us to double that amount. According to departmental records fishing with a 60 mesh is a recent innovation. Our information is that along the southern coast whatever netting was done was mainly carried out by the 30 meshes. As well as that, this measure will benefit not only the conservation of stocks by an estimated additional escapement of 10 per cent but will benefit draft net men also. Some of them are complaining that the drift netters are picking up the bulk of the salmon and that there are very few left for them.

Therefore, over the past five years, from 1972 to 1975, the conservation of salmon has engaged our close attention. Once mention was made of it, and made very formally by the previous Government in 1972, we have watched it carefully and closely. We have been as liberal as possible. There are new techniques coming in every day for catching salmon more easily and more effectively than in days of old. Unfortunately, we cannot allow these new techniques to be utilised because in the not too distant future we may have no salmon to catch. That is the question at issue. Someone asked me: Why do you ask a man to spend two days fishing when he could catch that fish in one day with deeper nets? That question might be reasonable if one added this question: why not reduce by half the high season for salmon? Some step like that would have to be taken if deeper and larger nets were allowed.

I want to repeat during the few minutes I have left that generally around the coast this bye-law has been welcomed by many drift net men. The Minister has indicated since he took office that it is laid down for 1977 and in the light of what happens it can be reviewed. As I made very clear this question of salmon orders is reviewable; it must be. We do not know what the position will be when the 1977 season closes. However, we know how the herring stocks declined in Dunmore. Possibly we were too lenient. Possibly we did not like bringing in measures which were necessary. I would agree that maybe I made blunders in that respect, but I did so because of fishermen's representations. The claim was made that if they were not allowed to catch the herrings they could not repay BIM for boats.

We must take cognisance of advice, and this Department is well advised. Deputy Fahey knows all the people attached to the Department of Fisheries and I am sure he will agree with me that they are first-class men and women who are interested in their work and who have given this House and the Government the benefit of their advice. It is our duty to make a fair assessment of that advice and act reasonably on it. The action we have taken in regard to salmon over the past four years is fair and reasonable. Unfortunately it is essential to have this bye-law in accordance with the recommendations made to us in order to ensure that our stocks will continue not only this year but next year and for many years to come.

In rising to support this motion I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House have not changed our attitude as regards the need to conserve salmon stocks. As mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, we brought in an order restricting the number of licences being issued, but we did protect the traditional salmon fishermen. Because of the scarcity of stocks, we thought it only right to keep out people who had other means of livelihood such as doctors, business people, veterinary surgeons, gardaí and so on. We realise that quite a large number of people depend for their livelihood over a number of years on salmon fishing. One of the main provisions of that order was that it was necessary to be a member of a crew fishing for salmon for three out of the preceding five years. This was a clear indication of our interest in conserving salmon stocks.

We have this motion down this evening because this bye-law is interfering with the livelihood of traditional salmon fishermen. This leans very heavily on a small section mainly along the south coast; the west coast is not affected. That is the reason why there have not been protests from that latter area. My own area, off the Waterford coast, is one most affected, particularly Ardmore. I shall not refer to its effects on Ballycotton and Youghal; I shall leave that to Deputy Brosnan. I want to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that Ardmore is an area with a long tradition, going back almost 100 years, of fishing with the 60 mesh net and that anything less—certainly 30 meshes deep—is absolutely useless. The reason for this is that such fishermen fish in very deep water off the Waterford coast. It is at night-time that one can catch salmon at the top, when 30 meshes would be quite effective. However, this area is peculiar in that they fish mainly with small boats. That is their tradition. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that they have not found any new-fangled ideas for catching any additional salmon and that their methods have not added in any way to the great loss that has taken place in salmon stocks. They cannot fish at night because they would then be fishing in the shipping lanes going in and out of Cork harbour which would be of great danger to themselves and their equipment. Therefore, it is out of the question that they fish at night. Were they to abide by this bye-law their catches of salmon would be reduced by at least 75 per cent. They have already been restricted by way of cutting out weekend fishing and so on.

We on this side of the House consider it altogether unreasonable to introduce a bye-law affecting traditional salmon fishermen to that extent. This bye-law was brought in without consultation with those people. I believe that if any other section of the community had its livelihood taken away in such a manner there would be a far greater outcry than there is from the salmon fishermen in Ardmore and its surrounding areas.

We are all perturbed by the fall-off in salmon stocks. We would dearly wish it was otherwise and that restrictions were not necessary. Neither do I like any implication or attempt to divide between rod and line men and drift net men, or any other type of salmon fishermen because, where there are fallen stocks, they are all affected. I suppose it is reasonable to aim at a target of cutting them all back by 10 per cent if such were feasible. But it falls too heavily on this small section of fishermen; they are being asked to make far too great a sacrifice.

I wonder also are we doing enough about restocking of our rivers and could we do more in regard to salmon hatcheries. The amount of money being spent in this very important field is very small and goes no way towards creating sufficient salmon from the hatcheries for the restocking of our rivers so vital to the whole question. One can go so far with the introduction of restrictions to preserve stocks but we should also go as far as we possibly can with regard to the building up of our salmon stocks. I know it is a slow process, that it calls for a lot of effort but, where there is any possibility of doing so, we should explore that line.

I wish the Minister well in his new appointment in which I hope he will be successful. I would ask him to apply himself to that question of restocking and have his Department do likewise. The Minister must be aware of what this bye-law is doing to a small section of our salmon fishermen. I am sure he has sympathy for them. I was glad to note that the Parliamentary Secretary said the position would be reviewed at the end of 12 months. I interpret that as a sign that there is some rethinking within his Department on this issue. However, I believe it to be more urgent than that. I would ask that this bye-law be waived once more. It was done last year and we appreciated that fact. I believe it was waived because the hardships entailed were foreseen. Unfortunately, it came into being this year and I would ask that it be reconsidered.

There must be some confusion involved because, in a reply given me by the Minister dated 28th February, there was a paragraph saying that the bye-law came before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Of course, we know that the bye-law did not come before both Houses; bye-laws do not; orders come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not know how many people received that reply, signed by the Minister, but quite a few people who did felt that we had approved of it in this House. That placed us in a very false position on this side of the House. Those people affected said: "If you people approved of it, what are you moaning about now?" I know that when I put down a question enquiring as to the date on which this bye-law came before the House the question was disallowed. Subsequently I received a letter from the Minister apologising for the error involved. There seems to have been some attempt by the Minister to gloss over the issue in this case because I do not believe that any official within that Department made such an error. During the time I was in charge of that Department I found the officials conscientious, competent, co-operative and really outstanding so far as service to their Department was concerned. Therefore, I take it that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead and wrong-foot us on the matter.

I am glad I have a letter from the Minister admitting it was a mistake. I would wish that it was because it would clear the issue. I should like the Minister to refer to it when he is speaking in this debate. In fairness to us it should be cleared up.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the large trawlers and the mopping up of the salmon stocks. This is something we deplore. We are mainly concerned with the small traditional salmon fishermen. We want to protect their livelihood. That is why we put down this motion. When we brought in that order restricting the issuing of licences we succeeded in taking out of the industry those who made their livelihood elsewhere. Unfortunately, when the Cork board was abolished, instead of being reduced, the numbers of licences issued escalated. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary comes from that area must be seen to have something to do with it. This brought protests and dissatisfaction from the other areas around the coast.

That is a piece of fiction.

I am particularly concerned about the Waterford coast. We have evidence of fishing for salmon with 60 mesh nets going back over a long number of years. I should like to say again how unjust and savage this bye-law is. The small fishermen who fish from those small boats draw unemployment assistance during the off-season and wait for the salmon season to come around again to go to work and earn money for themselves and their families. They have the respect of the inland people and other people as well. This was indicated quite clearly in Ardmore when they went out to fish, despite the bye-law, as a protest. A large number of people turned out to support them on the pier. One would want to be there to witness the support they got. People realised how they depended on fishing for their livelihood.

Does the Deputy favour illegal fishing?

The Government increased the licence fee to £50. Those small-time traditional salmon fishermen did not protest against that to any great extent. They accepted it even though they had to borrow the money from people to whom they intended to sell the salmon in order to pay for the licence. They were willing to do that if they were allowed to fish as they did in former years. Having paid that huge increase in the licence fee, they now cannot catch salmon if they have to use 30 mesh nets which have been tried off Ardmore on several occasions but without success. If anybody can show that 30 mesh nets can be successful in deep waters the fishermen will accept that.

So desperate were they that they offered to compromise on 45 mesh nets. This was turned down ruthlessly by the Department and by the Minister. With a little more thought and a little more knowledge of the area I do not believe the Minister would turn down this request to compromise. Having paid the huge licence fee it was only right that the compromise should have been agreed to. If the weather is not suitable there are long periods in which the drift net men cannot fish. They have long lean spells which should be taken into account especially off areas like Ardmore.

Dunmore East and other areas are affected. Let me say that in case I should be taken as mentioning Ardmore too often. In Dunmore East only about nine boats are affected, whereas all the boats fishing out of Ardmore are affected. If these men are forced to fish with 30 mesh nets they will have no choice but to go back and fish in the mouths of the rivers where already there is overcrowding and where the effects on the salmon stocks will be all the greater. They will not be able to use the 30 mesh nets to effect in deep water. If they are forced to do this it will have the opposite effect from what the Minister desires.

This is worth having another look at. If the Minister has another look at it and concedes, I assure him it will not be looked upon as backing down in any way, or as a victory for any section. It will be regarded as common sense having prevailed and it will be appreciated by the people concerned, not only by the fishermen, but by all the people who live in the areas affected and who realise what it means to the fishermen. Only a small section of the coast is really affected by the bye-law. It does not affect the west coast. Mainly the Cork and Waterford coasts are affected and the Cork coast only in a limited way, and very little even on most of the Waterford coast. The entire fleet fishing for salmon out of Ardmore will be affected. Helvick will be affected to a lesser extent.

We on this side of the House, and particularly myself, have not changed our opinion one iota about the protection of salmon stocks. Having served in the Department I realise full well the seriousness of the position. I have a perfect understanding of it and of the need for conservation and all that goes with it. We put down this motion because we believe this leans far too heavily on a minority section of salmon fishermen. We put down this motion in their interests and the interests of fair play. It should be seen in that light. It should be understood by everyone concerned that we are at one as regards conservation. We may differ on the means and ways of achieving it but we can all see the need for it.

There should be no attempt by anyone to draw a divide between the rod and line men and those engaged in drift net or any other means of salmon fishing. People who poach salmon or indulge in illegal salmon fishing should be shown no mercy and this practice should be stopped. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this.

Those entrusted with the job of protecting our fishermen are not on a sound footing because they are not permanent, full-time, pensionable officers. This must be put right. I realise Fianna Fáil can be accused of neglecting many of those matters but that type of argument will not get us anywhere. When I got that position I did my best. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has a responsibility to do his best as he sees it. We would be only too happy to co-operate in any way we can.

The restocking of our rivers and hatcheries is very important. The Inland Fisheries Commission have issued their report. We would like to see their recommendations examined in detail and accepted.

The Opposition complained that we were not implementing the recommendations of the commission but this is one of their recommendations.

I said the recommendations should be looked at and examined thoroughly. This recommendation was accepted without being examined in depth. There are many recommendations which are not being put into effect, but this recommendation, which is having a severe impact on the livelihood of traditional fishermen, is being put into effect without a proper assessment being made of its effects on our fishermen and their families.

The cost of boats and gear has soared. The traditional salmon fishermen who are affected by this order, cannot be described as wealthy. They draw unemployment assistance in the off-season because they must provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families. These people, who are the hardest hit by these increases, are being put out of business. If they were to fish with the 30 mesh nets their catches would be reduced by 75 per cent.

That is not so. There is no evidence of that. Our information and advice is that the catches would be reduced by 20 per cent which in the circumstances would be desirable. The Deputy got the figure of 75 per cent off the top of his head.

A local survey has not been made. If it had, the Parliamentary Secretary would have to accept that the catches would be reduced by approximately 75 per cent. These men who are not well off would have to cut the size of their nets in half to comply with this bye-law. A compromise was suggested that they cut the size of their nets to 45.

We all know that small fishermen are never sure of their salmon markets or when they can go out to fish because of weather conditions. They have to borrow from their prospective customers to pay the licence fee of £50 and this puts them at the mercy of some of these merchants. This is not what they want and, therefore, they are dissatisfied. Nevertheless, they did not protest too much, although other sections of the community would protest if anything like that increase in licence fees had taken place.

The Department and the Minister refused to accept the licence fee in instalments and this has caused hardship. This concession should have been made in view of the exorbitant increase that has taken place in just one year. The Duke of Devonshire has made a concession and offered to take fees in instalments.

There has never been trouble with the fishermen off the Waterford coast. They are very easy to deal with—the easiest and most decent people live there. They do not want any trouble. We do not want any trouble but these fishermen will be up against it if this bye-law stands. I do not think anybody will quibble with the Minister if it is withdrawn or even abandoned until next year. In the meantime, the matter could be investigated and the Minister could have consultations with the fishermen concerned because so far there has been no consultation between the Minister and the people who are vitally involved.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 23rd March, 1977.
Barr
Roinn