asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if the closure of the Erne fishery, County Donegal was brought about initially by agreement of the Erne fishermen for a period of only four years.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Erne Fishery Closure.
13.
The need for conservation of the salmon stocks in the Erne system was discussed with the fishermen concerned in February, 1972 following on which a bye-law was made prohibiting net fishing in the estuary. While not provided for in the bye-law, the intention of my Department, based on the scientific advice available to it, was that the suspension would be lifted as soon as a satisfactory escapement of salmon upstream had taken place. There was no agreement with the fishermen that the closure would be for a period of four years.
Did the fishermen at any time in the run up to the making of this bye-law have any say, or were their rights taken into consideration in the matter?
Yes. The latest position is that officers of my Department had discussions with the fishermen at Ballyshannon on 12th June. The fishermen requested that net fishing in the estuary should be allowed to commence as soon as 1,000 fish had been recorded as having ascended upstream. The proposal has been submitted for acceptance on the ground that the run of fish this year appears to show an improvement on that of recent years, and further that the fishermen have been very reasonable in accepting restriction on their fishing in the last three years. The Department is very impressed with the co-operation from the fishermen concerned. In view of that co-operation and the improvement this year in the run of fish it is my intention to sign an order once the 1,000 number has been reached, which I think should be at or about this time, allowing fishing there.
Could I further ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as I asked him in an earlier supplementary question, whether at the time of the discussions and the run up to the making of the bye-law the fishermen's interests were taken into account and what say, if any, they had in regard to their rights before the ESB moved in?
Prior to the making of the bye-law-this is the bye-law made when the Deputy was in office—the proposal was discussed with the fishermen by officers of the Fisheries Division. The minutes of the meeting contain no record of an agreement with the fishermen that the restrictions should apply for four years. The bye-law was renewed in 1973, 1974 and 1975. It was discussed with the fishermen in 1972. There seemed to be general agreement. It has continued since 1972 up to the present time, with 2,000 laid down as the appropriate figure. I am reducing that to 1,000 in this year and, as indicated already, the 1,000 mark should be reached shortly, as more than two weeks ago the number stood at 675.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to disregard the fact that the bye-laws may have been made by another Administration many years ago and to get for me the information I have been seeking as to whether in the run up to the making of the order the fishermen's rights, that is, to fish in the estuary, before the ESB interest became involved, were taken into consideration?
I have no hesitation in getting that information for the Deputy.
May I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that it seems a rather peculiar situation that 4,000 fish was the number first laid down, then it was halved and became 2,000, and now the Parliamentary Secretary says 1,000?
Now it is proposed to halve it again.
One would take from that that it must have been a pretty loose and inaccurate operation right through.
If there are any further details the Deputy requires, and I have the information, I will give it to him.
Recently I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he was satisfied that the type of pass was the most suitable to permit the salmon to go from the lower river through the tailrace to the upper reaches and he undertook to have the position examined. Has he got any information since?
I asked my advisers, and they claim that the system is quite in order. That is the information available to me and, as the Deputy will appreciate, I must accept the advice of those competent to advise.
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that in other hydroelectric schemes, such as Poulaphouca, the pass is different and seems to be more efficient.
The particular pass referred to here is deemed to be the most suitable. That is the advice given to me, and I am not competent to go against that advice and neither am I competent to evaluate the situation.
Buy a second opinion.
The Deputy's opinion is against the opinion of those well qualified in this particular field of actvity.
The pass does not work.