Has the Parliamentary Secretary any further information in regard to Section 3?
Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1953—Committee (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Question again proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Deputy would state exactly what specific matter he wants to deal with. I think I explained the purpose of this section on the last occasion. It is a new device to replace the traditional free gap which cannot, of course, be utilised in electrical works such as have been erected on Lough Erne. In fact, as I stated the last day, this is a more efficient device than any free gap.
What was worrying me was whether this artificial stocking of the river above these weirs would interfere with the life of the fish. I was wondering whether it would be a healthy stock. Has the Department conclusive evidence that these trout will not contract some disease and die out? Has not the Department experience on that point already? Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what happened with regard to the new dam at Baltinglass in the neighbourhood of Poulaphouca, where trout were attacked by disease and where there was a wholesale death rate amongst them? Could he say whether that was due to the fish being confined in the lakes with no way out or was it due to some shortage in the feeding material? Did he consider that when he was introducing this thing of prohibiting a gap on this river?
I am afraid I do not quite see the very close analogybetween this section and the relevancy of the Deputy's remarks on the section. What happened in the Leixlip pass was, of cource, that there was a release of waters and a large amount of accumulated mud was let into the lower waters which had the effect of asphyxiating the fish there. There was no previous experience of the kind and close collaboration has been established between the E.S.B. officials and the engineers of the fisheries branch to ensure that such a happening cannot occur again.
With regard to this particular device, perhaps, I should explain it again to the House. The river, as Deputies know, is effectively dammed by the works that have been erected there and the problem of allowing the fish up was a very difficult one to resolve. The solution was found by erecting a passage by the side of the works enabling the fish to climb by stages to the upper reaches. At a certain point in their passage there will be a device which will count them automatically. An arrangement will be made between the Fisheries Branch and the E.S.B. to decide the proportion of the fish passing up that would be allowed into the upper reaches of the river for restocking and the balance will be taken by the E.S.B. and sold.
The device is different, of course, from what is in operation on the ordinary weir. I take it that it was the novelty of the device rather than anything else that made Deputy McMenamin and Deputy Morrissey on the last occasion rather inquisitive about it, but I can tell the Deputies that I have been assured by the engineers that this is, in fact, a better arrangement for providing for the restocking of rivers than the traditional method.
I do not know. What occurs to me is that the proposal is new and is unnatural, and I am highly sceptical about its success. Is it a question of cost so far as the E.S.B. is concerned, because, if that is so, I do not think we should give way on that point? I do not think we should permit the E.S.B., on the grounds of economy, to destroy the fishing in these rivers. As I say, I am doubtful of it because I do not knowof any precedent for such a practice, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can give the House any precedent for such a thing. Definitely, it is quite unnatural, and is going to interfere with the natural habits of trout. It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to take the risk but he certainly need not take me as assenting to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, has the Parliamentary Secretary anything to say with regard to the adequacy of it to protect rivers and lakes from pollution?
I think I can assure the Dáil that when this provision is enacted all possible causes of pollution of fishing waters will have been provided against.
I would like to direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) and to the words therein set out: "uses in any waters any deleterious matter for the capture, destruction or injury of fish". I take these words to mean actively putting in deleterious matter or polluting the water deliberately. I should like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to what may occur in the North of Ireland and in Cork, where people go in extensively for the growing of flax. They steep the flax in dams. The water from them, when it is released, may flow a distance of a mile through gripes until it reaches the river. It could hardly be said, I think, that the person who constructed the dam had used polluted matter.
On a former occasion I directed the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this section, which in my opinion is not adequate to meet the position that may arise. From the middle of July to the end of August there will be great trouble in protecting these rivers when the flax water has been let loose out of the damsin which the flax has been retted. The water will wander along its way through gripes in the field until it reaches the river. As we all know, that water is highly destructive. It will destroy the fish. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say that the word "uses" is enough to convict a man? In my opinion it is not.
I think that the section has been rather loosely drafted. Remember, we are dealing here with a matter that is used by people who are very subtle at this sort of thing. We are concerned here with one of the big problems with regard to the protection of rivers from pollution in different ways. In my opinion paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) does not cover a number of cases of this kind at all. The matter can be let loose by somebody until ultimately it gets into the river. Where that occurs, how are you going to convict a person under this sub-section? It strikes me that to attempt to do so would be utterly impossible. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware from the records in his Department and from the experiences of his officers and the officers of fisheries boards that this is an extremely difficult thing to deal with. It is one of the most subtle and dangerous things which those officers come up against. There is, as we know, the greatest trouble and difficulty in protecting rivers from pollution. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have dealt with this problem by recasting the section.
Pollution, as the Deputy suggests, can be caused by the positive action of, say, a poacher. It can also be caused by carelessness or even wantonness on the part of people who are not trying to get fish at all. One of the most potent causes of pollution is, of course, from industrial effluences. The effluences, we are satisfied, have been effectively dealt with under Section 29 in the Fisheries (Statute Law Revision) Act, 1949. For that reason, perhaps this section may seem to fall short of the minimum requirements for dealing with this. I think that if Deputy McMenamin will have a look at the section which Ihave mentioned in the 1949 Act, and construes it in connection with Section 5 of this Bill, he will find that all the possible causes of pollution known to the fisheries branch have been dealt with.
In my opinion neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of this Bill is sufficient to cover this problem. These paragraphs read:—
"(a) uses in any waters any deleterious matter for the capture, destruction or injury of fish, or
(b) has in his possession or control on the bank of or near any waters any deleterious matter with intent to use it in the capture, destruction or injury of fish."
We can quite well conceive the kind of thing that will be used on the bank of a river. Take, for example, a stick of gelignite in a bottle or chlorate of lime. If one is caught on the bank of a river with these things, the thing is quite simple. My trouble is that those who intend to do the damage can very easily shift themselves from the bank of a river and do all the damage they intend or hope to do by going to a gripe a quarter of a mile away and letting the material loose there so that it will eventually reach the river. The Parliamentary Secretary must remember that he can only convict people who are caught by the officers of the board on the bank of a river with any of these prohibited things in their possession.
If the Deputy will look at (b) of sub-section (3) I think he will find that if poisonous matter gets into the water in the way which he suggests, the offender could be dealt with.
What about (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) with regard to flax water—"(b) throws, empties, permits or causes to fall into any waters..."?
I am suggesting that that will meet the point which the Deputy has been making. The case of a person who removes poisonous matter a distance from the river butwho nevertheless so deposits it that it makes its way into the water would, I take it, be covered by sub-section (3) (b).
Why does the Parliamentary Secretary then say: "... shall, unless such act is done under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister under this section..."? Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will not issue a licence, under any conditions, for any of these things? Is that intended?
The Deputy will visualise that it might be necessary to carry out some process or other that would, in fact, be injurious to fish life but that the requirements of science or industry might require that the experiment be carried out. In such a circumstance a licence would be granted in respect of industry by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I take it that it would not be issued until full consultation had taken place with the fisheries branch.
Is it intended under any circumstances to issue a licence to do any of these things included in Section 5?
I do not want to be interpreted in that way. There might be some process to be carried out in the interests of industrial development the carrying out of which might be injurious to fish life in some particular river. In that case the process could only be undertaken under licence issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Did this right not apply to the river Foyle under the Foyle and Bann Fisheries?
No. Under the 1925 Fisheries Act a person who takes out a salmon licence can, on production of that licence in another fishery district and on payment of an additional sumof 10/- be given permission to fish in that other district. It has been decided that this reciprocal arrangement between the fishery districts was not applicable to the Foyle area as created by the Foyle Fisheries Act. This section is intended to remedy that position.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Could we have the remaining stages to-day?
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I move the following amendment to Section 2 of the Bill.
In page 2, Section 2, sub-section (1), line 22, after "lake" to insert "and" and after paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(c) the applicant satisfies the Minister that within 20 years before the 1st day of January, 1948, nets were used as of right in the lake for the capture of trout by members of the public who depended on such netting as a means if livelihood."
The discussion on the Second Reading gave rise to this particular amendment. Deputy Morrissey asked me to have Section 2 examined again with a view to seeing if we could not specifically name Lough Ree. Having examined the matter very thoroughly, we find that there are serious objections to that course. However, to meet the apprehensions expressed by Deputy Morrissey and, Deputy McMenamin, and to make the matter more water-tight, I am suggesting this additional paragraph.
I propose this amendment in deference to the views expressed by those Deputies who thought that this was a very dangerous proposal in Section 2. I think that this additional safeguardshould meet their point of view in the matter.
I am opposed to this entire section. The aim of every Government in this country was to put an end to fresh water net fishing. As it stands, this amendment is not equitable. It is almost certain that there were people in this area 20 years ago—people who have since died—who had a right in this connection. It may well have been a question of livelihood for them, and that being so, it is also a question of livelihood so far as the families of these persons are concerned. This amendment does not cover them. I think it is only just that the right obtaining 20 years in respect of a several fishery, and which was a means of livelihood to the possessor of that right at the time, should be considered in the light of successors-in-title. Net fishing was abolished in this country under the 1925 Act. There are bound to be many families of persons who had such rights and it could still be a question of livelihood with them. Possibly some members of these families have had to emigrate for employment in Britain. If you are renewing the right on the riparian owners generally then it is only just to look after the people whose right has lapsed by virtue of the fact that the persons on whom the rights existed 25 years ago have died. The successors-in-title would be debarred under this amendment. I consider that that would be creating an injustice.
I respectfully submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should consider this matter again in the light of what I have just said. We are reversing the policy adopted by the Department for the past 25 years and we are told that it is being done only in this particular case. I dislike net fishing in any fresh water. It was playing havoc with fresh-water fishing in this country. In many instances it was nothing short of loot. The upstream fishermen who were paying for their licences had not a chance of getting fish. If we are, apparently, looking after the economic well-being of the riparian owners of this lake then we should protect the interests of everybody concerned.
There is bound to be a number of cases in a lake of this size where there are very small farmers and the number of them who would be riparian owners would be extensive; and a great number of them must have died on whom the right would have subsisted then. Their sons are there and, perhaps owing to the abolition of net fishing in this fresh water lake, they have had to emigrate to seasonal work in Scotland, to the bothies, to earn a few pounds to keep them alive. These people should be looked after. I do not know—the Parliamentary Secretary should have the information to his hand—but it occurs to me that when we are taking this step—with which I disagree, but the Parliamentary Secretary is insisting on it—if we are doing it we should be just to the rights that subsist as well as to the rights that did subsist but have since lapsed owing to the death of the owner 20 years ago.
Deputy McMenamin reiterates his objection to any permission of netting. That objection has been expressed all round the House, but he knows from the discussion on the last occasion that this is dealing with a specific problem and Deputies on his side of the House as well as Deputies on this side and Independent Deputies have supported this particular claim. All we can do in the fisheries branch is legalise a certain method of fishing, and Section 2 proposes to do that. Deputy McMenamin referred to owners of several fisheries. He knows that the application of the right to fish in this way will, in fact, be in the hands of the owner, and in this case that is the E.S.B.
The Parliamentary Secretary means whoever is the riparian owner at the moment and is the successor of the man who was there 20 years ago?
It is not very easy to deal with the question from the point of view of riparian ownership. This is a very large sheet of water. It is by Act of Parliament vested in the E.S.B. They could not up to the present givepermission to these islanders who had been deprived of their traditional right and their long-established means of livelihood, namely, netting trout. The E.S.B. cannot give them the right to resume their livelihood until this provision becomes law.
All we can do is legalise the method of fishing. It will be then for the owners to grant or refuse the permission to fish in that particular way. I do not think we could provide in this Bill for the point raised by Deputy McMenamin.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That this Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.