On to-day's Order Paper, I asked the Minister for Lands:—
"If he is aware that By-law No. 495 of the Ballyshannon district, dated 3rd April, 1958, takes from the salmon fishermen of Ballyshannon and district the right which they established after lengthy and costly litigation in the Erne fishery case to fish in the tidal waters of the River Erne; and, if so, if he will take immediate steps to annul the said by-law, and to restore to the fishermen the rights given to them by the Supreme Court of Justice of Saorstát Éireann."
For generations, the estuary of the River Erne was the exclusive fishery right of individuals in the town of Ballyshannon, many of them absentees. Shortly after the establishment of this State, a number of the fishermen decided to contest the right of these absentee landlords to the exclusive fishery in the tidal waters and estuary of the River Erne. That case was one of the most lengthy and costly cases in the annals of our Irish courts. After many years of litigation, the Supreme Court decided that the public had the right to fish in the tidal waters of the estuary of the River Erne, and, ever since, some 30 crews were engaged there during the fishing season in the netting of salmon. In addition, the local anglers exercised the rights conferred upon them by the courts to fish for salmon and sea trout in the River Erne.
Thirty crews with an average of five persons per crew, in all over 100 people, were engaged in this progressive fishery. In the year 1945, an Act was passed by the Oireachtas, known as the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 1945, which gave to the E.S.B. the right to harness the River Erne. Section 15 of that Act gave the E.S.B. the right to acquire the fisheries on the River Erne and Section 18 gave to the fishermen and to all those engaged in the fishing trade the right to compensation, should the E.S.B. decide to acquire the fishery.
The E.S.B. proceeded to harness the river and, in doing so, they naturally destroyed the fishing beds on the lower reaches of the river. They also destroyed the fishpasses, as they had to do, in order to harness the river, but they never acquired the fishery in the tidal portion, and the fishermen continued to fish there. In or about the year 1951, on the switch-on of power in the River Erne on one particular night, thousands of salmon were found lying in the river bed, left high and dry when the water was diverted from the main river to the artificial channel. That switch-over took place without any notice whatsoever to the local board of conservators, and, as one of the inspectors admitted on oath during the hearing of evidence at the recent inquiry, thousands of fish were actually taken out of the river bed.
A submarine aqueduct was made to enable the fish to go up the river and the smolts to come down the river, but no provision whatsoever was made for the safe transit of kelts from the upper reaches of the river to the sea. During the course of the taking of evidence at the commission, it was admitted that on a number of occasions smolts were destroyed in the machinery. It was submitted also that all sorts of crude devices were used for the purpose of forcing the kelts to come down this aqueduct. It was also admitted that the beds had never been properly seen to since the fishery was taken over and it was further admitted that, by Order of the Minister on 23rd March, 1954, a few short months before Fianna Fáil went out of office, the Minister's predecessor made an Order enabling the E.S.B. to erect a weir without a fishpass and to take therefrom salmon. That is the only weir I know of in which there is no fishpass and this Order was made on 23rd March, 1954, and came into force on 29th March, 1954.
Out of the traps erected under this Order, thousands of salmon were taken each year and sold commercially by the E.S.B. The E.S.B. took no steps whatsoever to ensure that there were proper spawning beds on the lower reaches of the river. In addition, they took no steps whatsoever to ensure that a hatchery would be established on the River Erne, so that, ever since 1951, as a result of the accumulation of these four incidents: the spawning of the fish without proper beds, the erection of an aqueduct which is not suitable, there being no provision for smolts to get down the river and no provision for kelts to get back to the sea and no provision for the establishment of a hatchery, the fishery has declined from 1951 until the present day.
This year, on 12th March, at the behest of the Minister, an inquiry was held to inquire into the decline of the fishing on the River Erne and further to inquire into what steps could be taken to improve the fishery there. I and some colleagues of mine, on behalf of the fishermen and those engaged in the trade, pointed out that were the weir removed, a proper hatchery erected, a proper aqueduct, conduit or pipe-line established for the fish to pass up, and proper spawning beds reestablished there, the fishery would improve, and that, whether it did or not, it was one of the first steps the Minister should take as an experiment, to see if the fishery would so improve.
That inquiry lasted for two days. A number of witnesses for the E.S.B., the Department of Fisheries, the fishermen and those others engaged in the trade, gave evidence. Despite that and despite the amount of time that was required to transcribe the notes of the evidence given, despite the amount of time required to study the facts and to study the various suggestions made, the Minister on 3rd April made an Order prohibiting the taking of fish from the estuary of the River Erne.
During the course of evidence at that inquiry, it was admitted on all sides that anglers did not injure the fishery in any way. Notwithstanding that every person had agreed that legitimate angling did not interfere with the fishery, the Minister prohibited angling in the estuary of the River Erne. By virtue of that Order, by one stroke of his pen, the Minister annuls the decision of the Supreme Court of Saorstát Éireann and wipes out the rights established by those fishermen during the lengthy litigation to which I have referred. Furthermore, he throws out of employment all the fishermen engaged in fishing by netting and otherwise on the lower stretches of the estuary.
Ballyshannon is a dead town, unfortunately. There is no employment there. Economically and otherwise, it is the bearna baoil to the North and it should be the endeavour of all concerned to retain in employment those few people who have permanent employment there. Apart from these fishermen being thrown out of employment, there is the further fact that the E.S.B. have never acquired the fishery under Section 15 of the Electricity Supply Act of 1945. Not having put Section 15 into effect, Section 18 does not arise and no compensation whatsoever will be paid to these unfortunate fishermen and those others engaged in the trade, following the Order of the Minister. If the board had compensated the fishermen, I could understand his making the Order which he has made, or were he to accept the advice tendered to him by me and others, namely, to try to improve the fishery without in any way injuring the fishermen, then I could understand his later making an Order prohibiting fishing.
My colleague, Deputy Brennan, yesterday asked if the Minister would compensate these fishermen for the losses which they have sustained as a result of the Order he has made. The reply he received was "no". I suggest to him now that he should make a request to the board—and that he should annul this Order until such a request is replied to—to implement Section 15 of the 1945 Act and to implement Section 18 and compensate those fishermen for the losses which they have sustained, until such time as the fishery is improved. One can visualise what will happen, say, in three or four years' time, when the fishermen are off the estuary. The board will acquire the fishery and the fishermen will then seek compensation. For what?—for their loss of finance which they had not possession of for three or four years, a claim for something which they had not got. The Minister's Order will be trumped up against them and it will be said: "Sure, you had no fishing rights then. They were taken away from you by the Minister for Lands in the year 1958."
This is very bad policy. It is a dangerous thing to do. We want all the men we can possibly retain in rural Ireland, particularly men who are engaged in seasonal employment, as these fishermen were. Goodness knows, it is difficult enough to find employment for them, but when the Minister does what he has done, thrown 30 crews out of employment by one stroke of his pen, it is time we protested and protested strongly. I support my colleague, Deputy Brennan, when he asks the Minister to compensate them. If the Minister is going to take away their rights, at least he should compensate them for the loss and the injury which he has done to them.
A very small portion indeed of this river is in the Twenty-Six Counties. The remander of it is in the Six Counties. We are all aware of the fact that as a result of the action of the Six County Government, through the Erne drainage scheme, a considerable amount of damage was done to the fishery on the upper stretches through pollution and otherwise. The Minister is now ordering the unfortunate fishermen of Ballyshannon and district to assist him in undoing the damage done by the E.S.B. and those who carried out the Erne drainage scheme.
We are still in the early part of the season and it is not yet too late to annul this Order. I beg the Minister to annul the Order, to compel the E.S.B. to establish a hatchery on the river, to rake the hatching beds, to establish a proper conduit or pipeline to enable fish to go up the river, to leave a free gap in the weir, to compel them also to ensure that smolts have access to the sea from the upper stretches and that kelts will have a proper conduit or pipeline to reach the sea. If he does that, in three or four years' time, if the fishery has not improved and the Minister seeks an Order such as he has made now to abolish netting and angling in the estuary, he will have the full support of the House and of the fishermen. But, until that is done, a cruel blow has been struck to the fishermen in Ballyshannon.
The Erne was famous—I think in Europe—for its spring fish. Fish averaging 18 to 25 lb. were caught there each year by the thousand. But, since the development of the hydro-electric scheme, spring fish are not known to run there. In other words, it is not over-netting. It is a result of the direct action of the E.S.B. which has prevented the running of the large spring fish on the river. It is not due to the action of the fishermen and the Minister should not victimise or penalise the fishermen, fishermen who were already victimised on a former occasion by the present Minister when he asked them to pay 2d. per lb. on all fish exported before 1st June and 1d. per lb. on all fish exported after that date. That, in itself, was a very heavy penalty. The licence duty which they paid was a heavy one. The art of fishing is a dwindling art. For pity's sake, do not wipe them out completely. Leave them that little employment in Ballyshannon, and annual this Order.
