Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1961

Vol. 192 No. 4

Foyle Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1961—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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.

I propose to be brief in dealing with this matter. May I say at the outset that we have no objection whatever to the Foyle Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1961. On the contrary, I personally take very great pleasure in welcoming this measure. I should like to say that from my own knowledge, the Foyle Fisheries Commission, which was set up in 1952, has done very valuable and very useful work. It has performed its duties in a very capable manner. Certainly, it has performed them in a very efficient way. When we come now to comment or pass judgment upon the workings of a Commission which is representative of the Government in the Six Counties and of our own Government, we can see that, with co-operation and with a spirit of friendliness and understanding, very valuable, useful and effective work can be carried out in the successful management of these fisheries which happen to be on both sides of the border—the Moville area, under the jurisdiction of the Republic, and the remainder of the fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Six County Government.

I think this is one instance we can view with gratification and admiration. Very excellent work was performed and undertaken by the representatives of both Governments who sat round a table frequently to deal with the progress, development and good management of the fisheries in general. The results have been very gratifying and the Bill, which the Minister is now asking this House to pass, is in my opinion a very reasonable one. It is one which we welcome and gladly support. If in the future we are going to work for the common good of this country with commissions, containing representatives of both Governments, I feel that if there is the same spirit of understanding, the same spirit of national uplifting and national progress we can do a good deal of work. A great example has been shown to the rest of the country and, indeed, for that matter, to the world.

We come here today to view the work of this Commission while at the same time there is probably before the Stormont Parliament a similar Bill under discussion at the moment. That shows that, with commonsense and understanding on both sides, we can do very good and valuable work which will be of great benefit to this country. I think that the Foyle Fisheries Commission, established in 1952, has served a great national purpose. It has brought about a spirit of understanding in relation to this very important fishery. The Foyle fisheries are, as we all know, probably one of the most important and most beneficial fisheries in the State today. I think that the powers which this Bill will give the Commission and the legislation which the Minister now recommends to this House are very reasonable.

He has pointed out very very clearly the very serious view taken by the Commission and by the State in relation to illegal fishing. That is why I want to repeat what I said on many other occasions in this House. Any action that is taken to prevent illegal fishing and prevent the activities of poaching our valuable fisheries deserves the wholehearted support and co-operation of everybody who has the interests of the fisheries at heart. Under Section 3 of this Bill the powers sought are, indeed, very reasonable.

I feel that there is one way in which we can stamp out illegal fishing and that is, apart from good protection staffs, by having the co-operation of the general public. That is why the co-operation of the public is so urgently needed not alone in this area but in all areas by everybody who has the interests of our fisheries at heart. I have always felt—and I feel it is still the position—that our courts and our district justices have been far too lenient with those who have been guilty of fishery offences. If we are to foster and develop our fisheries and if a greater measure of financial support will be given to those who are depending for their livelihood on fishing, I feel that by co-operation, by a spirit of harmony and by proper protection services being made available, it will eventually turn out that there will be a better type of fish and more fish available. There will probably be a better livelihood for those who have to obtain their living from those fisheries as a result of this measure.

I feel that this Bill is not being brought in without the Commission having had to examine very carefully the position in relation to poaching. Poaching is probably the lowest form of fishing that can be undertaken. Certainly, nobody has any respect for those engaged in illegal fishing. That is why I also am very glad to note that under this Bill the Commission will take steps to reorganise the protection staffs. I have often wondered why that has not been done, not only in the Foyle area, but in many other areas. I hope the Commission will not consider any question of expense in relation to providing a good protection staff. I have been always of the opinion that water bailiffs and those responsible for protecting our fisheries probably could not take a keen interest in their work when they were not properly paid for it. I hope the Commission, representative of the Governments of the North and South, will be an example and an inspiration to the rest of the country in relation to having a first-class protection staff.

I am not saying that the people who are engaged in illegal fishing on either side of the Border require additional vigilance in this regard, but I do hope, in the interest of the fisheries, for the safeguarding and improvement of the fisheries, the Commission will endeavour to increase its protection staff considerably.

I welcome very sincerely the provisions whereby the employees of the Commission will be catered for and their future safeguarded. I also welcome very sincerely the idea of the appointment of a whole-time secretary to discharge the duties of the Commission. That is something that is long overdue and which will put the work of the Commission on a firmer and sounder basis.

The pension scheme for officers and servants is an excellent idea and I hope and trust it will be an encouragement to them to discharge their duties with greater enthusiasm. At least, it will make their position more secure.

If there is a first-class supervisory staff and if there is the co-operation of the Garda Síochána, which we have had in this area, on both sides of the Border, the work of the servants of the Commission and those responsible for the protection of the fisheries will be made easier. With co-operation, there can be much better results.

I hope and trust that the general pattern of fishery protection throughout the country may follow the line set out in this Bill and that all the water-keepers and all those engaged in fishery protection may be given at some later stage the benefit of superannuation and pension schemes and much improved working conditions. It is very important to have a contented staff, who will be enthusiastic about their work and will know that they will be provided for on retirement. That is why I think this is a good Bill, which we on this side of the House very warmly support.

I know from my own experience that there is still a great outlet for the disposal of poached salmon to hotels, boarding houses, restaurants, cafés, and so on. There should be more rigid operation of the registration of purchases of salmon. Under existing laws, guesthouse owners and hoteliers are bound to keep a record of purchases of salmon but I do not think it has worked well or satisfactorily. There should be provision for a greater degree of supervision in relation to purchases of salmon. It is disgraceful that owners of hotels and business houses should encourage illegal fishing by providing an outlet for the poacher's catch.

I hope and trust that the measures taken in this Bill, at some later stage, may be enshrined in our general fisheries code so that, not alone in relation to fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Foyle Fisheries Commission but in relation to fisheries throughout the country, a very serious view will be taken of hotels, restaurants and boarding houses which, by providing a profitable outlet, encourage poaching and illegal fishing in defiance of those responsible for fishery protection. People who buy illegally-caught salmon display very poor citizenship. The laws of the land should punish very severely those who provide a ready market for illegally-caught salmon. That is why I welcome the provisions of this Bill in this regard. They are very reasonable.

There is one point on which I should like further explanation from the Minister. Section 4 refers to the unlawful use of tailers and snares. A tailer may be regarded as a somewhat elaborate snare and may, of course, be used as an auxiliary to lawful angling and provision is made to safeguard its legimate use. I should like to know if that could be made a little clearer. I should like to hear more from the Minister in that regard, because, as I understand it, tailers or these stone snares are commonly used in absolutely legal fishing. If persons engaged in lawful angling are discovered to have in their possession these tailers or suitable snares, are they to be penalised by the courts and a very serious view taken of it? I understand that, to a great degree, for lawful and legal fishing these types of snares are used by certain types of anglers. The provision should be made very clear so as to safeguard the use of these tailers and snares in legal fishing. I trust the Minister will be able to elaborate on this point so as to avoid confusion at a later stage.

I have read the Bill very carefully. I cannot say that there is anything in it with which I do not agree or with which we on this side of the House do not wholeheartedly agree. We feel that it is in the interests of the fisheries and in the interests of good, business-like working of the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

May I conclude by paying tribute to the former chairmen, the secretary and former secretaries of the Foyle Fisheries Commission for the manner in which they have always attended meetings, for the keen interest they have taken in the development of the fisheries? It is common knowledge that the fisheries have developed to a very profitable stage, due to the amount of hard work and enthusiasm of the Commission.

For that reason, I readily support this Bill. We in this Party have no objection to it. On the contrary, we agree with the terms of the Bill and wish its implementation every success.

The provisions sought are reasonable and warranted and deserve the support of the House. We readily give that support because we realise the great value it will be to the fishermen, particularly those in the Foyle area. This legislation is most desirable. The Party to which I belong have always been ready to co-operate with and to assist the Government in reasonable and worthwhile legislation that will be of benefit to the community. This is one example of legislation which is of benefit to the community and to the fishing industry and which will lead, in so far as the Foyle fisheries are concerned, to a greater degree of success and progress in the protection and development of the fisheries.

Is mian liom cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. First of all, I want to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill to Dáil Éireann and, secondly, I want to congratulate his opposite number in the North. Both Ministers met, discussed ways and means of improving the Foyle fishery and the fisheries in the Foyle area, and as a result of that co-operation and co-discussion, have arrived at these measures to protect the fishery and to improve it in the years to come.

Having said that, I also want to say that since its formation in 1952, the Foyle Fishery Commission has done a very good job there. There has been excellent co-operation, first of all, between the Ministers; secondly, between the officials of both Departments—the Department of Lands and Fisheres here and their opposite number in the North—and thirdly, the men on the spot, the different people in the area whose responsibility it is to carry out the provisions both of the 1952 legislation and the various Orders which have been made arising from that legislation.

This proposed legislation we are now considering is not before its time. I attended a number of meetings of both driftnet and draftnet fishermen last year and the year before, and it was clear from those meetings, and from my own knowledge of the Foyle area, that something should be done to restrict illegal fishing, especially illegal fishing on the rivers which form part of the Foyle fishery area. Suggestions were made at those meetings, and by other people who are interested in this fishery, regarding the restriction of anglers' licences. Since 1952, any restrictions imposed were imposed against the net fishermen, both the driftnet and the draftnet fishermen. We feel that those restrictions were very severe in some cases but those restrictions have been operated and I know from my personal knowledge that the net fishermen are playing their part and co-operating in every way, although they were the people who bore the brunt of any restrictions that were imposed up to last year.

The Commission took its first step last year in dealing with the anglers. I am not against the anglers. I know that there are a large number of genuine anglers, but there are others who are not genuine. There are anglers who use their angling licences as a blind for illegal fishing. That is quite well known, and it is also well known to the Commission that the number of angling licences in that area for the rivers Mourne, Faughan and Finn have increased four- or fivefold. Last year, the first step was taken to restrict the activities of the anglers by having the angling season curtailed by a fortnight at each end. I suggest that the alarming growth in the number of anglers is something into which the Commission should look. The measures which are set out here will, to a great extent, reduce the illegal fishing which is taking place every season on the rivers I have mentioned.

Illegal fishing on a river can be vastly more destructive than on the tidal sections of the Foyle. After all, if by any chance a boat fishes illegally —which happens very seldom—no damage is done to the remainder of the fish, but where illegal fishing takes place on the rivers, by way of poisoning, blasting, or the modern methods of destroying fish quickly and in large numbers, then very great damage is done to the fry and the spawn and no mercy should be shown to anyone found attempting to use, or using, these methods of illegal fishing. I attended a meeting of fishermen recently at which it was pointed out that even on the lower stretches of Lough Foyle, salmon fry were washed ashore during this fishing season.

The remedies to be taken will go a good way towards doing what the Foyle Commission has in mind, the building up of this very fine river, one of the best in Ireland. The steps it has taken already have improved matters very much, although it is surprising that last year and the year before were two very bad years for driftnet and draftnet fishermen. Indeed, fishing has not been too good either on some of the rivers. Previously, it was unknown for two such years to follow each other and it is felt that some new factor, as yet unknown, may be entering into the run of fish and the spawning of fish. For what it is worth, it has been suggested locally that the presence of a chemical factory, on the Derry side of the river, and also a fertiliser factory, may have something to do with that matter. I do not know whether there is provision in the Bill whereby the use by individuals of all sorts of poisons will be illegal, but I should like the Minister to find out whether these factories, or other industrial concerns in the area, are causing the damage which some local people say may be or is being caused.

The whole idea, of course, in this legislation, as in the 1952 legislation, is to improve and build up the fishery. The fishery is owned equally by both Governments, each having paid a purchase price of £50,000. I realise the measures being carried out to restock the river and carry on experiments are also costly. But I think the time has come when the Foyle Fishery Commission itself, as a step towards conserving the fishery, should cease operating the Derry stretch. That part of the river is fished solely by the Commission. It is fished by driftnets and, I think, stake nets. The Commission's annual returns show that the income from the fishery is fairly substantial. If it is not possible for the Commission—I know they must have an income—completely to abandon the fishing of the Derry stretch, as it is known, then at least they should very much curtail their activities there.

A good part of the £50,000 has now been repaid to the Exchequers of both Governments. I know these meetings between the Ministers and officials of our Department and their opposite numbers took place some time last year and that the whole question of the Foyle and the problems connected with it were discussed. I am glad to note it was not found necessary further to curtail the activities of these driftnet and trawl fishermen who earn their livelihood on the river as their ancestors have done for centuries. I strongly urge that in any regulations or orders made for the coming fishing season no action be taken against those men and that they be allowed to continue their much limited activities without further restraint. I am sure the Commission knows that the amount of illegal fishing by either of these categories is greatly reduced. Our main worry at the moment is the illegal fishing taking place in the rivers I have mentioned.

The Minister said a whole-time secretary would be appointed and stated there was a resident official in the area who dealt with matters on the spot. I should like to know where the offices of the secretary will be located, whether they will be in Dublin or elsewhere.

It is all very well to introduce this legislation to prohibit illegal fishing, but the passing of legislation is not sufficient. Are the Minister and the Commission satisfied that on the various rivers, the Faughan, Mourne and Finn, there are sufficient water-keepers to see to it that the provisions of this Bill will be carried out. That is highly desirable, because it is a difficult matter to deal with these rather long rivers in a territory hard to supervise. The problem is made more difficult because of the large number of people who have a legal right to be there by virtue of holding an angler's licence.

In regard to the provision which deals with hotels, I take it that it will not be confined to hotels in the Foyle area but that the Minister has in mind to apply it later to the whole country?

It would seem to be ineffective if it deals only with hotels situated within the Foyle area itself.

It is the whole area, I think. Would the Minister clear up that for us? Does it refer to every hotel in the State?

This Bill refers solely to the Foyle area. It is my intention to tell the House I shall be coming along in a short time with another Bill to deal with the rest of the country.

I am glad the Minister has clarified that point. The section would really be ineffective if it were left as it is, without further amending legislation to deal with the whole country. Everyone knows that fish caught illegally do not necessarily find a market in the hotel next door. They travel far and fast.

In regard to Section 10, I should like the Minister to explain the difference between the Moville area, as mentioned there, and the entire Foyle area. I do not think it is very clear.

I shall conclude by saying I trust the effect of this Bill when it becomes an Act will be an improvement in the fishery, that the provisions of the Bill will be strictly enforced and that those who damage the fishing stocks of the river by illegal fishing will be punished. This is a measure which has the support of this House, which will have the support of the fishermen who earn their livelihood in that area and the support of genuine anglers not only in the district but, I am sure, throughout the country.

While I accept the Bill as an indication of progress, I shall not be as complimentary to the Minister as the two previous speakers. As a representative of the fishermen of the Foyle area, and knowing their grievances, I feel that consideration should be given to the advisory body elected by the fishermen to spotlight the grievances they have, and perhaps at times they think they have. It is a known fact that the Commission refused to meet this advisory council when the Press were present. That suggests they had something to hide. Some provision should be included in the Bill giving some authority to an expression of views by the advisory council and, while I am on that point, I should like to recommend that a reform in the election of the advisory council should be initiated.

With regard to the fishermen and their catches, I understand there is a levy of 1d. in the 1b. on salmon catches on the River Foyle and 2d. in the 1b. on spring fish. That levy is payable by the Donegal fishermen only and does not apply to the Northern Ireland fishermen. The position can be explained by taking the example of two brothers, one living in Northern Ireland and the other in Donegal. Fishing the same river, they pay the same licence fee but one pays the levy of 1d. in one instance, and 2d. in the other, whereas his brother does not. There is also the question of the potential employment in Donegal in regard to the packing of fish. I recommend that this levy should be removed.

There is another point I should like to bring out. The Commission pays roughly £10,000 per annum to both Governments. I hold that the Foyle fisheries is one of the finest industries in Donegal and that it should receive more consideration. With the greatest respect, I suggest that if it were some other industry established by the Fianna Fáil Party, money would be ploughed back into it. This is an industry using home resources and employing Irishmen. Many poor fishermen make their livelihood in that industry, while this £10,000 per annum is paid by the Commission in repayment of principal and interest, I understand, to both Governments.

The licence fee of the poorer class of fishermen has been increased by 50 per cent, from £16 to £24 per annum. I believe the fishermen in the upper reaches of the Foyle are being given a raw deal, and I suggest that the money which is being paid by the Commission should be ploughed back into the Foyle fisheries industry to expand the spawning beds and to improve the rearing of the fry.

It is also remarkable to note that while the Commission increased the cost of the licence, they have total assets of £40,000. That again suggests that it is a profit-making concern. I should like in conclusion to ask the Minister if he would name the manager, as shown in appendix 1, page 18, of the 9th annual report. I should also like him to inform me of his complete functions.

The annual report of the Commission is completely out of order for discussion.

The Chair is aware of that but Deputy Harte is making his maiden speech and it is usual in those circumstances to allow a certain amount of latitude. The matter referred to by the Deputy does not arise on the Bill.

Very good.

The other point which I should like to make was touched on by Deputy Cunningham. It is a slur, to the minds of Donegal Deputies, to note that according to the Bill the hoteliers in Donegal are the only hoteliers who cater for and have truck with poached fish. I would ask the Minister to apply that generally to the country.

We welcome the Bill because we think it is a step in the right direction. Some speakers referred to the fact that there was co-operation between the Northern Ireland Government and our Government with regard to the Foyle Commission. I do not think we should be surprised that fellow Irishmen can co-operate. If there were a little more such co-operation, possibly it would be much better for the country both north and south.

I personally welcome the Bill because it introduces a new element. In fact, it has established a precedent which I hope the Minister will follow when introducing amending legislation. I refer, of course, to Section 9 (c) which provides pensions for the employees of the board. This is the first fisheries board in the country to provide pensions for its employees, its officials and servants, and I hope when the amount of the pensions is being fixed, we will not find what we found recently when under another pension scheme decent pensions were cut down by the Department of Finance, and men with over 20 years' service were offered pensions of between 15/- and £1 per week. I hope that when pensions are being given to these men, they will not be treated in the same way.

I should like also to see included— perhaps provision is made for it but it is not shown here—some method of dealing with the fishery protection staff. The fishery protection staff have a dangerous job, a job which weaklings cannot perform, which requires resourcefulness, courage and intelligence. Yet, in answer to a question which I put down this day week, the Parliamentary Secretary gave me figures showing that people in a similar type of job to that being done on the Foyle by the fisheries protection staff receive a rate of pay of from £4 10s. Od. to £7 per week. They are not people who clock in at 9 o'clock in the morning and clock out at 5 o'clock. I asked what were the conditions of employment of these people and I was told there was no record of them in the Department.

I am prepared to challenge the Minister to prove that those people and the people in the Foyle area are also required to work at least twelve hours per day for seven days of the week. There is no provision made for hours of work. There is no distinction made whether they work in the daytime or at nighttime. There is no provision made for Sundays, bank holidays, church holidays or even annual leave. The recent legislation dealt with the annual leave question, but the other questions are left wide open. I should like the Minister to have another look at this, particularly when he is considering amending legislation which will affect a very much wider range of employees and will cover employees of boards of conservators all over the country.

As regards what Deputy Harte said, there is a tendency to go near to the Border, to compare the good things on the far side with the bad things here. We seldom compare them the other way round. However, I am sure the Minister has this question in mind and that, when he is introducing his amending legislation, he will do something about it. I think also that Deputy Cunningham's point about the number of the fisheries staff must be borne in mind. We find from experience—I am a member myself of a board of conservators—that fishery protection staff is not nearly adequate anywhere in the country.

People are expected to be able to work miracles and the number required is usually governed by the amount of money available. From some of the figures here, I would assume there is an adequate supply of money available to provide for an adequate staff in the Foyle area and I hope that will be done. It would be just too bad if we had a continuation of the bad old system where three or four men are expected to do the work of ten, to work night and day, Sunday and Monday, and be paid the lowest wages of anyone in the country.

I am sure the people from the North who are connected with this, having a different set of wage structures before them, will put the question of a decent wage fairly high and I am sure when the Minister sees the rates, there will not be any differentiation in regard to wages and conditions between those who are from Northern Ireland and those from the South, that having had a look at what is being paid he will then apply it as far as he possibly can to a similar type of employment in the Republic.

I am grateful to the House for the reception this Bill has received. I think, too, I should place on record my appreciation of the way in which I was met by Lord Glentoran and his officials in Belfast when I went there to discuss this matter. I should also like to place on record my appreciation of the valuable work done, not alone by the Commission but by the advisory body that was referred to here. The advisory body is a statutory body under the 1952 principal Act and they have done very valuable work down through the years. They have given very valuable advice and help to the Commission in its work. I shall come back to that in a moment in view of something Deputy Harte had to say on the question of the advisory body vis-á-vis the Commission generally.

It is of course true, as Deputy Flanagan has stated, that a good protection staff is very necessary particularly in the protection of a valuable fishery of this kind. With regard to what has been said by Deputy Flanagan and other Deputies about the adequacy of protection, I concede that all the legislation we may conceive here will not be effective unless there is an adequate staff. I believe a far more effective way of protecting our fisheries is to educate public opinion as to the value of them. I have always felt that part of our difficulty in this field is due largely to our history and I believe that, as time goes on, our people will become more and more aware of the value of our fisheries, particularly of our inland fisheries. Indeed, the figures show that more and more of our own people are participating in this form of sport. Therefore outside the commercial aspects of fisheries such as these, there is a new awareness among our people that these fisheries must be protected in the interests of good sportsmanship, if for no other interest, and the more quickly we proceed and educate public opinion along these lines, the more effective will be our protection against poaching.

I should state that many other matters, indeed the whole administration of the Foyle Fisheries Commission since its inception, were discussed when I was in Belfast and these are just some of the urgent matters by way of legislation that we decided it was desirable to introduce as soon as possible. Poaching by way of poisoning has become a serious menace, particularly since the war. I think it came largely to the North of Ireland from Scotland and poaching of this type has been organised on a commercial basis with modern poisons and organised gangs.

It was therefore thought very urgent and necessary, particularly in view of the experience up there in some of the rivers—the river Fen, the river Faughan and elsewhere in the Foyle fisheries area—that immediate steps should be taken to tighten up the law and make the punishment fit the crime. We have gone in that direction here. More elaborate provisions on these lines will be necessary in the general law of the land to deal with this problem so far as the whole of our national territory is concerned.

It may not be understood by many members of the House, that the up-to-date 1959 Consolidation Act was specifically excluded from that area. Under this Bill, we are bringing all the provisions of that up-to-date law as specified in this Act to bear on the Foyle area, so that the Commission's hand will be strengthened, not alone by the specific powers we are giving them under this Bill but also by the up-to-date powers that are contained in the Fisheries Consolidation Act of 1959.

In regard to the work being done in the Foyle fisheries area on conservancy and the protection of fisheries, it was agreed at our discussions that certain conservancy measures should be taken and many of these measures are in fact already in force there. The time for fishing was restricted and indeed restricted by the Commission themselves voluntarily as to the time they would operate. We thought it only right, and the Commission thought it only right, that some restrictions should also be applied to the rod men. They also have been restricted in the times of their operation in the general interests of the fishery in order to ensure that we will get it to the stage that it will carry the fullest possible stock that the system can support. A survey of the system has recently been undertaken with a view to selecting sites for installation of suitable counting devices. Already an electronic counter for adult fish has been installed in the fish pass in the Campsie barrage on the River Faughan. Devices are also being planned for the counting of smolts on their seaward migration.

It is true, as Deputy Cunningham has stated, that results were disappointing in that area in the last year or two and in the system generally. I am afraid the complaint has been general as far as salmon fishing is concerned throughout the whole country and the results this last season have been equally disappointing.

It is not possible to put one's finger on the exact causes of the bad fishing in some of these areas during the past year or two. The suggestion by Deputy Cunningham that there may be some pollution by industrial effluent will be conveyed by me to the Commission. I am sure any possibility of damage from that source will be fully investigated by the Commission.

On the question of the funds at the disposal of the Commission, I should point out that outside the repayment of the capital invested by both Governments in this undertaking, there is also the question of an extensive improved programme of the fishery itself. That has been planned. Some of the engineering works are already under way. In the main, these works are aimed at giving potential spawning fish access to spawning grounds at present under-used. Improvements have been carried out at Newtownstewart hatchery and plans are in hand for the rearing of fry at a number of points on the system with a view to the stocking of selected waters with fingerling fish. On the whole, the prospects seem good for an increase in the stock of fish being supported by the Foyle system generally. The agreement that was reached on both sides for the conservancy of the stocks and the stopping of the restriction on the hours of netting and, indeed, the restriction on rod anglers, all have the one objective, that is, to get as many salmon as the experts believe the system can support.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan raised a question on Section 4 in connection with the use of a tailer. A tailer, as I have stated, is an elaborate snare— it is really a snare with a handle. I am aware that it is used by some anglers. I have not seen it in much use by anglers in my own part of the world but it is used in other places instead of a gaff in order to prevent damage in the landing of a fish. It is also used by some fishery owners for taking out stocks. I can assure the Deputy that there is an escape clause for a man genuinely using a tailer as an angler. It is contained in Section 43 of the 1952 Act.

Is a tailer not used to ensure the safe landing of a fish and so that the fish will not be damaged?

Nowadays, most rod fishermen, even on the banks of a river, use a net. Some of them still use a gaff. I am sure the Deputy has seen a gaff. It is stuck into a fish. Sometimes it destroys the tail. A tailer is slipped over the tail.

That is what I said—for landing.

Section 43 of the Principal Act, the 1952 Act, is now being amended by Section 4 of this Bill. Under subsection (3) of Section 43, it is provided:

"Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to the use, possession or control of

(a) a gaff"

—now also a tailer—

"used or to be used solely as an auxiliary to lawful angling between sunrise and one hour after sunset..."

Therefore, the lawful angler is protected under the law against prosecution under the section to which the Deputy refers.

Let me make it quite clear that the fact that I have included the section dealing with hotels, restaurants, and so on, is no reflection on the hoteliers, restaurateurs or boarding-house keepers in the Moville and Foyle areas or in any other part of this land. I am satisfied, irrespective of some of the offences that were committed, that the produce was not intended for local consumption but was intended to travel a very long distance indeed from the locus in quo. The fact remains that, on this aspect of protection, I consider that the law has been much too loose and, as I have informed the House, I have a further Bill nearly ready which I expect to introduce next session which will deal with this matter in a more detailed way.

Under some of the sections, it may be that there is sufficient power already to make inspections, but there was some doubt under the law, and I took this opportunity of clearing it up, so far as the Foyle area is concerned. I can assure the House that the expansion of the existing law, as provided for in this Bill, will be enshrined in the new legislation which I propose to bring to the House. Indeed, it may be necessary to go a step further as far as hotels and restaurants are concerned to ensure that the market for the poacher will be closed.

I should also say that I do not suggest that all hotels and reputable restaurants are offenders. I believe the offenders are a small minority of the trade. The fact remains that, just as there would be very little larceny without receivers, I am convinced there would be very few poachers, particularly commercial poachers, without people to purchase their catch. I feel one of the most effective ways of restraining poachers is by taking their market away from them.

I have stated that there has already been some limitation on the Derry stretch that has been mentioned here by the operations of the fishermen, including the Commission itself there. The Derry stretch has been drawn upon heavily to finance the whole operations of this Commission. The House will agree that the Commission must operate for the necessary funds to provide conservancy measures, watchers and the improvement of the system in the whole area which is a very substantial area. The Derry stretch is one of the main portions on which the Commission will rely for its income. Even to maintain the protection staff at its present level, if the commercial side of the fishery were not operated there as fully as it is now, I feel the Commission would be forced to further increase the licence of the fishermen. So, with their improvement programme and with the cost of their protection for the whole system, the cost of restocking and conserving, it is essential that they carry on the commercial side of the best of their ability. Indeed, we should congratulate them on the results they have achieved and on the fact that they have been able to pay back to both Governments a considerable proportion of the capital invested since the Commission was set up as well as carrying out fairly effective improvements in this valuable fishery as a whole.

Deputy Harte mentioned the advisory body which is a statutory body under this Bill. I should state that the proceedings of the advisory body, or the advisory council itself, have always been open to the Press. When however, the Commission meets the advisory council the Press have, as a matter of agreement, been excluded and the proceedings involving discussion on matters of policy in consequence have been more freely conducted than if the Press were present. I understand an agreed statement is always issued after such meetings. I explained elsewhere—I think in our discussions in Belfast—that, under the Foyle Fisheries Act, the Commission are entitled to attend any meeting of the advisory body.

There were some differences between them for some time but in my view these might not have arisen if they were meeting much more frequently. There is always this tendency. I do not make any reflection on the advisory body but when you have such a body they often feel that it is their advice and their decision solely that should be implemented particularly when they are a statutory advisory body as in this case. I am very glad to say that any disagreements that existed between the Commission and the advisory body—and which were more apparent than real—in my view seem to have largely evaporated and both bodies seem to be working in full harmony. Their interests are really the same and their objectives are the same but sometimes, from a technical viewpoint, the Commission's advisers might take one view as to the improvement of the fishery and some members of the advisory body might take another view.

It is correct that on some occasions the members of the advisory body were not ad idem as to what steps should be taken but all gave their views and it is not unusual among fishermen to find very many different views and arguments as to how fisheries should be rehabilitated and as to what conservancy measures should be taken. The advisory body is working very well now with the Commission and I have every reason to hope that climate will continue and that that body will continue to give the same good advice, assistance and help to the Commission as they have done in years gone by.

I think it was also Deputy Harte who said the number of rod licences had increased. Of course they have, and by a very large number, on this particular fishery. They have also increased throughout the length and breadth of the country and I shall have conveyed to the Commission the view, if further conservancy measures should need to be contemplated, that rod fishermen must bear their fair share of the restrictions in common with net fishermen and with others.

I think that would be only fair.

It is for the good of them all and I am sure the Commission will fully consider the views expressed here.

In regard to Deputy Tully's contribution I should say that the provision for the staff here had been contemplated for some time. People who are familiar with the history of this matter will realise there was staff there in the old Foyle and Bann days, which was taken over in the first three years when the Commission succeeded the organisation that was there previously. There was a period under the old Act when this work had to be carried on and some of the staff there at the time, employed by the predecessors of the present body, may still be there. If so, they are provided for in this Bill.

Some Deputy raised the matter of the secretary. It is contemplated, as I understand it, that the present chief executive officer who is there on the spot, and who has in fact been active as de facto secretary for a number of years, will be the man who will become secretary after the passage of this Bill. He is the man who was selected, after a very careful search, for this position and although the junior member of the Commission, as I pointed out in my opening statement, has been called the secretary down through the years, in fact the chief executive officer carried out all the duties of the secretary. I understand some questions were raised from time to time as to whether he had the authority of the statutory secretary as provided under the Foyle Fisheries Act. Taking it all round, in the light of experience, the Commission are satisfied that it is better that their chief executive officer should be appointed secretary. Then, should there be for any reason a vacancy at any time, until the vacancy is filled, the status quo comes into operation and the junior member of the Commission under the 1952 Act would still come back as secretary.

I think I have covered most of the matters raised in the debate, with the possible exception of Section 10, raised, I think, by Deputy Cunningham:

(1) The provisions of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, indicated in the Table to this section shall, notwithstanding section 325 of that Act, extend to the Moville Area with the substitution, for reference to boards of conservators, of references to the Commission and, for references to a fishery district, of references to the Moville Area and subject also to the modifications mentioned in the Table.

I agree that this type of legislation, having reference to different branches of the complicated fisheries code, is difficult to understand in this form. In simple language, the reason for this provision is to apply the consolidated 1959 Act to Moville area. Under former legislation, it was specifically excluded from the Foyle fisheries area by Section 325 and that section is now being repealed so that the modern general provisions as set out in all these tables and schedules from Section 10 of this measure on will come into effect in the Foyle area. So in addition to the new powers given under this Bill, the Commission and officers will be armed with all the modern fisheries protection legislation and other modern consolidated fisheries law provided for under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act of 1959.

I suppose there is no hope that as a gesture to the hardworking fishermen of the Foyle, the Minister and Lord Glentoran will see the levies on salmon abolished? The Minister would not think of putting in a little section?

The levy applies here —I am not familiar with the position in Northern Ireland—for the purpose of building up a salmon conservation fund for the benefit of the industry as a whole and it comes back to boards of conservators and others as a general benefit to the salmon fishing industry as a whole. I do not know whether they have a similar provision in the North, but here the levy, as the Deputy, I am sure, is aware, is for the benefit of the whole business throughout the land.

But the Minister does know that it is partly used to relieve the Exchequer.

Not here.

I do not agree entirely.

Question put and agreed to.

Would the Minister like all Stages of the Bill now?

I should be very grateful to the House if they would give me all Stages now. The situation is unusual in this way that the Bill is going through both north and south of the Border. They have their similar Bill going through, and it would be difficult indeed for me if amendments were proposed. The question of amendment does not arise as no amendment has been suggested.

We shall be only too pleased to facilitate the Minister in that regard.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Top
Share