I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. In August of last year I had a full discussion in a cordial atmosphere in Belfast with Lord Glentoran, then Minister of Commerce, on the general policy and operations of the Foyle Fisheries Commission. We reviewed the work of the Commission and the results achieved since its establishment in 1952. On examining the law for fishery protection we agreed that the existing legislation may be inadequate in some respects. We arranged for further consideration of the question of introducing amending legislation for the purpose of increasing the severity of penalties for the poisoning of fish. Our valuable exchange of views has led to the present Bill.
This short amending Bill has one unusual characteristic in common with the principal Act of 1952, namely, that a measure in closely parallel terms has been introduced in the Belfast Parliament and, I understand, is receiving its Second Reading there today. The two Bills are, in fact, the fruit of collaboration between the draftsmen of both Parliaments.
If Deputies will refer to the notes circulated showing the effect on the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952, of Sections 4, 6, 8 and 9 of this Bill, they will see how the various insertions and substitutions fit in. For Section 10 of the Bill the notes show the side titles of the provisions of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which are to apply in the Moville area instead of corresponding provisions in their pre-1959 form. Perhaps I should explain that the Moville area is the part of the Foyle area within the State.
Taking the sections of the Bill seriatim, the first section calls for no comment beyond saying that it establishes the link between the 1952 Act and the modifications in the Bill.
Of the definitions contained in Section 2, all but that substituting the Minister for Lands for the Minister for Agriculture in consequence of the transfer of functions which took place in 1957, have reference to the provisions in Section 3 relating to use or possession of deleterious matter which is defined to include an explosive. There was no definition of deleterious matter in the 1952 Act and the present definition is somewhat more comprehensive than that in the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959.
Coming to Section 3, we now have a single section in substitution for Sections 41 and 42 of the 1952 Act which deal with the use or possession of explosives and the use or possession of deleterious matter for the capture, destruction or injury of fish. The maximum fine under Section 41 is £100 and that under Section 42 is £50. In place of the existing penalties, we now propose—
(a) on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £100, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both such fine and such imprisonment;
(b) on conviction on indictment, a fine not exceeding £500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both such fine and such imprisonment;
The application of the Probation of Offenders Act is also to be excluded. I might say here that, should the gravity of the offence warrant the taking of proceedings by way of indictment, the usual procedure of the criminal justice code would apply and should the offender, at the District Court hearing for the purpose of taking depositions, elect to plead guilty, it would be competent for that court to deal with the case summarily, subject to the consent of the Attorney General.
When the insertions to be made by Section 4 are read with the aid of the note already circulated, it will be seen that the tailer and the snare are added to the list of devices which it is an offence to use or possess for the purpose of taking any fish. The tailer, which may be regarded as a somewhat elaborate snare, may, of course, be used as an auxiliary to lawful angling and provision is made to safeguard its legitimate use.
The new provision in Section 5 makes it an offence to use a boat or vehicle as an aid to the commission of any other fishery offence and applies penalties on the same scale as in Section 3. While, at first sight, it may seem excessive to provide for proceedings by way of indictment in respect of the new offence, it must be borne in mind that the value of the vehicle or boat involved may be such as to place the proceedings outside the jurisdiction of the District Court. In the case of a vehicle, however, automatic forfeiture as a statutory consequence of conviction shall not apply but, where a conviction is obtained on indictment, it is left to the discretion of the Court to order that the vehicle be forfeited.
Section 6 is to amend subsection (1) of Section 64 of the 1952 Act which sets out the powers conferred on an authorised officer for inspection, examination and detention as required for the enforcement of the Act.
The first amendment adds "any hotel, guest house, restaurant or other premises or place at which board and lodging or meals are provided for reward" to the various places to which an authorised officer is to have access. The need for this addition speaks for itself: it is unfortunately only too common that hotels and other catering premises offer convenient outlets for the poacher's catch. Purchases of salmon by the owners of such premises have been kept under surveillance but doubts have been expressed as to whether the existing wording extended to hotels and the like; this matter is being put beyond doubt by adding the new category.
The next amendment to be made by Section 6 inserts "the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959" in a paragraph which then empowers an authorised officer to seize fish in respect of which there is an offence or suspected offence under that Act: the existing power is related only to offences under the 1952 Act. A possible defect in the powers of seizure is thus removed. The final amendment to be made by Section 6 is consequential on the creation by Section 5 of the offence of using a boat or vehicle as an aid to the commission of a fishery offence: it authorises the seizure of such a boat or vehicle.
Section 7 is also consequential on the creation by Section 5 of the offence of using a boat as an aid to the commission of a fishery offence and consists of a substituted section for Section 65 of the 1952 Act which is confined to disposal of fishing engines seized. The new section indicates in paragraph (a) the circumstances in which the District Justice shall order forfeiture of a boat. Paragraphs (b) and (c) relate to fishing engines and are to the same effect respectively as paragraphs (a) and (b) of the existing Section 65, while paragraph (d) provides for the residual instances in which it becomes the duty of the District Justice to order the return of the boat or fishing engine to the person who appears to be the owner thereof. Provision is not made for application to the Court in respect of a vehicle used as an aid to the commission of an offence for the reason that the ownership of the vehicle could readily be ascertained and its use would usually be the subject of proceedings under the new provision inserted by Section 5.
Section 8 which is also consequential on Section 5 inserts a boat among the articles automatically forfeited as a statutory consequence of conviction.
The next group of amendments—in Section 9 of the Bill—will have effect on the Third Schedule to the 1952 Act which relates to the constitution, powers, procedure etc. of the Foyle Fisheries Commission.
The first of these amendments makes good an important omission by enlarging the powers of the Commission so as to enable it to take legal proceedings for the enforcement within the area, of any law relating to fisheries— and not merely the law under the 1952 Act. This enlargement of the Commission's powers is, of course, in keeping with the extension of the powers of its authorised officers effected by paragraph (b) of Section 6 of the Bill.
The next insertion to be made by Section 9 relates to the Secretary of the Commission. There are four members of the Commission—two appointed by the Belfast Ministry and two by me. The existing provision is that the Secretary shall be the junior member who was appointed to the Commission by the authority other than that by whom the senior member who is the Chairman for the time being was appointed. Since 1957, the Commission has employed an executive officer resident in the Foyle Area with responsibility for the day-to-day working of the measures of administration and control of the fisheries. In the light of experience, it is now proposed that the Commission should be empowered to appoint a whole-time Secretary to discharge the statutory duties of that office. Subject to Ministerial approval the Commission would have power to appoint or remove a Secretary and, if the post of Secretary filled under that power is at any time vacated, the position will be that the Secretaryship will, for the time being, be held as originally provided by the appropriate junior member of the Commission.
The final amendment to be made by Section 9 is the insertion of provisions to enable the Commission to make a pension scheme for its officers and servants. The Commission, in common with statutory bodies generally, feels obliged to make provision for superannuation of members of its staff—pensions and gratuities for a permanent establishment of administrative and supervisory staff and retirement gratuities for long-service members of subordinate status. The provisions to be inserted follow, in the main, the conventional pattern of enabling clauses for a superannuation scheme. I might mention that the Commission hopes to be in a position to finance the proposed pension scheme out of its own resources.
Briefly, the effect of Section 10 of the Bill is to take note of the enactment of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, and to extend to the Moville Area the provisions of that Act which are listed in the Table. The present position is that the corresponding provisions in the various Acts consolidated for the remainder of the State in 1959 are in force in their pre-1959 form in the Moville Area since they were not repealed in respect of that area by the Consolidation Act. Some of these provisions will fall to be amended according as the Consolidation Act is brought up to date and it is, therefore, necessary to adopt them in the Moville Area in their consolidated form so that future amendments of the 1959 Act may also apply to that Area.
Section 11 contains the usual provisions as to short title, collective citation and commencement. When this Bill and the parallel Bill in Belfast become law, arrangements can be made to fix the same date for bringing both of them into operation.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that I am fully satisfied that the extensions of the powers of the Foyle Fisheries Commission proposed in this Bill are fully justified in the light of experience and that, while some of the new penal provisions may appear somewhat draconic, they cannot be held to be unwarranted, considering how valuable are the fisheries, the welfare of which has been entrusted to the Commission. In sponsoring this legislation it is my wish to signify my complete confidence in the Commission in carrying out the difficult task imposed upon it; and it is on this note that I recommend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House.