Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoin dtairiscint seo. Is trua nach mbíonn níos mó ama again chun cúrsaí iascaireachta a phlé agus ath-bhreithniú a dhéanamh ar staid agus ar fhorbairt na hiascaireachta faoi na boird úra a cuireadh ar bun, mura ndéanamid é sin, ní féidir linn bheith sásta go bhfuil cúrsaí iascaireachta chomh ceart agus ba chóir dóibh a bheith.
As I said here on previous occasions, it is a shame that we do not have more time for discussions on matters of this kind. We are confined to the Estimates, and that is not a satisfactory situation. It would be much better if we had an opportunity tonight to review the whole working of the boards which were set up for the development of the salmon and oyster fishing industries. If we were to be honest about it the progress report on development would not be satisfactory. The Inland Fisheries Commission did a tremendous job in the report they prepared and finished in 1974. In page 88, paragraph 815 of that report on organisation they say
We are acutely consious that the success of the new organisation will depend on it being acceptable on the whole to the various and often conflicting interests with which it will be involved. Active participation by representatives of the interests being served is not merely desirable but necessary and in addition there must be continuous contact and a cross flow of ideas between the staff at all levels on the one hand and the fishermen, anglers and fishing interests generally on the other.
Anybody close to the scene will know that is not the case, that the boards are no better than the old boards and that the operation of the board itself is merely carrying on the work of the bailiffs as we knew them in the past. That is not a satisfactory situation and the wishes of the commission have not been met in that respect. I could relate many stories about what I know to have been happening over the years in relation to the work carried out by the board. It has not improved relationships between the fishermen and the officers of the board and we are often back to the situation which obtained when we had the landlords. We are not getting the right kind of effort from everybody concerned in order to conserve stocks and ensure that the industry will be properly handled. When the fishermen are harassed and molested in a way that brings conflict we cannot expect to see co-operation. The Inland Fisheries Commission in their report stated that in 1974 the amount spent was £348,975. I wonder if we can relate that to the figure spent today when we have £5 million from the State. Is there any worthwhile increase in the amount being spent or given to the board to enable them to carry out their duties. Various executives are getting salaries in excess of what they are entitled to. I saw an advertisement for a regional director and one for a schools inspector in the national newspapers and the salary of the director was £3,000 greater than the salary offered to the schools inspector. There is something wrong there because the qualification necessary for the jobs did not compare. Far too much money is being spent on that kind of thing and on travelling expenses and so on for these officials. The Minister should look at this and try to ensure that we get the best value for money.
I understood that the purpose of the board would relate to development and that they would make money available for things like spawning, watching our rivers, protecting the stock and so on. That is not what is happening. We have the same old situation where the bailiffs go out and do the job they have been doing over the years. I am not saying it is not necessary to do that but much more has to be done and it is not being done.
There has been dissatisfaction in relation to appointments made. The boards have been given autonomy, and this is good in its own way, but there is a recommendation in the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission that people already employed by boards would be retained as far as possible. This has not happened. I know a person who had worked for a long number of years with a board. He was laid off and later when a temporary vacancy occurred he was not considered, but a man who never had had contact with fishing got the job. It hurt the person very much. Not only had he facilitated the old board by giving them land at small cost which assisted them in their development plans, but he had done excellent work during the years. He was not given an appointment when it came up and he was forced to emigrate. That does not help local relations between the boards and the people in the regions. This man was treated most unfairly.
If questioned, the Minister can always refer matters back to the boards and say it is not his problem. It is highly unsatisfactory that there is not an appeal from the board's decisions. Like many other State boards, the fishery boards can kick back in the teeth of authority. Therefore, it is not a good idea that the Minister should leave all the power to the boards in many aspects of their work.
It is terrible that we should have this increase in licence fees following the disastrous year fishermen have had. Catches were down very much and some anglers did not even earn the price of their licences. I do not agree with people who say that salmon fishing is coming to an end. There seem to be cycles: 1983 was a good year with a good run of salmon but this was a bad year. Perhaps the good weather had something to do with catches, but this year the 15 per cent increase cannot be justified. If we were satisfied that the money would be used for the type of development I described earlier I would support this order but when I find that the money will be used to increase the salaries of people I spoke about at the beginning, I am not satisfied with the order.
The time has come, if we want to see our inland fisheries developed, when the Minister will have to get money and see that a proper job will be done. The potential is tremendous. We have the rivers and the lakes and tourism can benefit immensely if we do a proper job on them. For instance, we should look at the position in England where they have a river board in charge of planning. We must do something about pollution but there is very little the Minister can do without legislation that would cover many aspects of fishery interests which have been changing over the years.
I will return to my theme that if we do not have good relations between the boards and the fishermen we will be adding to our problems. It is a pity we do not have more time to discuss these important matters.
