Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Oct 1977

Vol. 300 No. 7

Election of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1977: Motion.

Minister for Fisheries (Mr. Lenihan)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Elections of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1977

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 1st day of September, 1977.

Elections to boards of conservators, which under the Fisheries Acts would normally be held every five years, have been deferred by amending legislation since 1974.

Under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1976, the elections were postponed to 1977 or such later year as may be fixed by order. I now propose to make an order postponing these elections to 1978.

This further postponement is necessary as it is still considered inappropriate to allow elections under the old system to go ahead in advance of the new legislation proposed to give effect to the main recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission. I hope to be in a position to introduce such legislation early in 1978.

As Deputies are no doubt aware, changes in the existing structure of boards of conservators is warranted having regard to the fact that the present system, which has been in existence for about 100 years, contains many of the unsatisfactory features of 19th-century administrations. Under the proposed new legislation the boards will be replaced by seven regional fishery boards and a Central Fishery Board. In addition, the Inland Fisheries Trust will be integrated into the Central Fishery Board.

Despite the handicap of their outdated structure boards of conservators have carried out invaluable work in the protection and conservation of inland fisheries. I am very glad to have the opportunity to express my own personal and my Department's appreciation of the wonderful work done by the boards and by their staffs. I must also stress that this service by the members of the boards is a voluntary one which takes up a lot of their time and energy.

It is fortunate that our inland fisheries have had the benefit of the service of such dedicated people who have been willing to continue in office beyond their normal term. I have no doubt that the boards' statutory duties will once again be in good hands with the continuance in office of the board's members for a further year.

I accordingly recommend to the House that a resolution be passed approving of the draft order.

Mr. Deasy

I regret that these elections have been postponed for another year. We did agree in the past year, or maybe two years, to postpone them for just one year.

Mr. Lenihan

More, nearly three years.

Mr. Deasy

We agreed to postpone them previously, and it is a pity we have had to do the same again this year.

Mr. Lenihan

This is the last time.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister hopes to introduce the legislation early in 1978?

Mr. Lenihan

There is no question about that. We have it in hand and it will be ready for publication shortly.

Mr. Deasy

I am aware that the report from the Inland Fisheries Commission was passed on to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on 2nd July, 1975.

Mr. Lenihan

Earlier. It was three-and-a-half years ago and, for some amazing reason, it has been lying around since.

Mr. Deasy

That is the official date I have seen in publications. It has taken an extraordinarily long time to improve the situation.

Mr. Lenihan

Indeed it has.

Mr. Deasy

I am in favour of anything that will strengthen the hands of the boards of conservators and I am looking forward to this proposed legislation. There are very few areas which have been as neglected as the conservation of our salmon and trout fisheries. The board of conservators need to have their hand strengthened considerably. At the moment the money they get is completely inadequate and, as a result, the manpower is way below what it should be and the equipment they have to work with is entirely inadequate.

I have seen the conservators and their staff working at first hand and I have seen the great handicaps under which they are working. I have seen the enormous damage being done to our inland fisheries, salmon in particular, as a result of these inadequacies. The sooner we have a streamlined system whereby poaching is curtailed, the better. Poaching is taking place on an extraordinary scale at the moment. In recent statements the Minister has emphasised that it is his wish to have it eliminated or seriously curtailed. I do not think this can be done until a new system of boards of conservators is set up, and the sooner the better.

Mr. Lenihan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Deasy

The poaching to which I refer is a grave danger to the future of the salmon industry. It is occurring on a huge scale, from what I can gather from newspaper reports, on the west coast in places like Kerry, Mayo and Donegal. If it is not curtailed it is quite possible that in a few years time we will have no salmon industry whatever.

We have had a great deal of controversy in recent years over the issuing of salmon licences and drift netting at sea. If the drift net licences are maintained at the present level there is no danger to the future of the salmon fishing industry. However, if abuses of the regulations are allowed by people who have licences, and if the existing poaching which is being tolerated continues by people who have not got licences, this industry could very well die out and disappear completely.

In my experience the best behaved areas are those places where large numbers of licences are issued. For instance, the Waterford area has 250 licences, approximately, and the Lismore board issues about the same. The poaching which goes on in both areas is minimal because the fishermen have long recognised that it is in their own interests to curtail poaching. They have formed organisations within their own fishery districts and there is great discipline within the districts as a result of these organisations and the excellent work they are doing. The Minister should encourage the formation of associations such as these because no discipline is as effective as internal discipline amongst the fishermen themselves. This is obviously lacking on the west coast in the areas I mentioned.

I have heard a complaint that there are only nine licences in Kerry and very small numbers in places like Mayo and Galway. Great political pressure will be put on the Minister to have the number of licences in these areas increased. I am quite certain of that. He is probably under pressure already. I would ask the Minister to spurn any such requests because we cannot have drift netting at sea increased. It is at its maximum level at the moment. The Minister is under great pressure from certain political representatives who, in turn, are under great political pressure from people who have not got licences. The licences should be restricted to people who are traditional salmon fishermen——

Mr. Killilea

Hear, hear.

Mr. Deasy

——and not people who operate trawlers and find it much easier and more lucrative to drift net for salmon during the summer rather than go trawling. That type of thing should be discouraged.

We had a Bill before both Houses last year known as the Water Pollution Bill. I was really quite amazed and annoyed that the Fianna Fáil Party in opposition did not oppose certain aspects of it more strenuously because it had deficiencies. It will not be implemented as it should be implemented and I would ask the Minister to see that it is implemented. Many of our problems with regard to the extinction of our salmon and trout fisheries are caused by pollution. One of the greatest shortcomings in that Bill was that local authorities are still given far too many powers to allow effluent which kills fish life to go into existing waterways. The Minister should see to it that that practice is curtailed.

A serious defect in that Bill, as I said in the Seanad, was that local authorities were being given the power to licence people when it comes to permitting effluent enter our waterways. It seems ridiculous that local authorities should have such a power because they are the greatest polluters of our waters. It is like asking a poacher to become gamekeeper over night. Many of the rivers in which fish life has been killed off completely have been polluted by local authorities. Even this year a number of our rivers were polluted by local authorities.

In conjunction with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Fisheries should see to it that that practice is eliminated. He should see to it that a close watch is kept on local authorities. Officials of local authorities, under pressure from members of such bodies who are under pressure from the public, must endeavour to save money at every opportunity. One way of doing that is by not having sewerage treatment plants and allowing sewage straight into rivers and canals. They consider those as an extension of their own plants and a cheap way of getting rid of effluent. If they can get away with it they do not worry too much about the consequences unless the Ministers and his officials pursue them. Boards of conservators have prosecuted a number of local authorities but the fines imposed were minimal. I understand that elsewhere in Europe representatives of a local authority or industry found guilty of pollution can be jailed.

Two years ago the Department of Fisheries announced that it was intended to set up an aquatic environmental unit to deal with pollution of inland waterways. I should like to know if that unit has had any impact of pollution. Has the unit commenced operations?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but we cannot go over the whole spectrum of inland fisheries on this motion. I want the Deputy to relate his contribution to the terms of the motion.

Mr. Deasy

My fear is that the elections may not take place next year. A restructuring of these boards is essential. The Minister recently gave great lip service to what he intends doing in this regard and I am looking forward to his putting that into practice. I noticed in recent press reports that it is the intention of the Minister to increase the depth of the net from 30 meshes to 45 meshes in the Lismore fishery area. I understand that it is the intention of the Minister to introduce an order to that effect. In common with the fishermen in the area I am pleased at this move. One thing that surprises me is that there has been a change of heart in this regard. When we approached officials in the Department six months ago on this issue they told us this could not be done.

Mr. Lenihan

There is an excellent Minister for Fisheries now.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister is not the person to determine these matters; he does it on the advice of his senior civil servants.

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister has some say. That is what Ministers are for.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for his Department.

Mr. Deasy

The advice of the senior civil servants at the time was against any extension of the depth of the net. Has the policy of the Department changed or have the senior officials changed?

Mr. Lenihan

No, the Minister has changed.

Mr. Deasy

But surely the Minister is getting the same advice as the previous Minister. The advice the previous Minister got from his officials was that it would be detrimental to salmon stocks.

Mr. Lenihan

It is my privilege to make a decision on the advice I receive.

Mr. Deasy

Apparently somebody has done a somersault and I am wondering if it was the senior civil servants or if the Minister has gone against the advice of his officials.

Mr. Lenihan

No, it is all done in thorough consultation with the administration and with the fishermen concerned. Everybody is agreeable to this change. That is what is called persuasion.

Mr. Deasy

I hope the Minister is correct. Can we expect the Minister to issue the order increasing the depth of the net?

Mr. Lenihan

Only for that area. There is a particular situation in that area of which the Deputy is aware.

Mr. Deasy

There is a traditional way of fishing there with deep nets.

Mr. Lenihan

There are circumstances there. They are excellent and disciplined fishermen in that area.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would prefer the Minister to reply at the end of the debate.

Mr. Deasy

On the question of the discussions on the 50-mile limit, reports state that salmon are reckoned to belong to the State where they originate and that no other nation has a right to catch them.

Mr. Lenihan

Salmon relate to the coastal state. They do not arise here.

Mr. Deasy

With improved methods of fishing it is likely that salmon will be caught in the ocean.

Mr. Lenihan

They are excluded.

Mr. Deasy

I am glad to hear that. Last year I heard that a foreign trawler fishing some miles off our coast had among its catch some salmon. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind during the course of his discussions. The legislation which the Minister has promised for early in 1978 is badly needed.

Mr. Treacy

At first sight this would seem to be a relatively simple matter of procedure giving the Minister approval to defer the elections of conservators once again for a further period. The Minister I am sure is looking forward to a speedy passage of this motion. One would hesitate to oppose a motion of this kind. One understands fully the limitations under which the boards of conservators operate and the degree to which they are handicapped for want of financial resources, equipment and advice. One appreciates that they are dealing here with an archaic system which has been in operation for almost a century and that there are glaring defects in the system. Allowing for those defects and the lack of change over 100 years, I wish to join with the Minister in paying tribute to the members of the boards of conservators for the invaluable service they have provided in the realm of fishing. It is all the more creditable because they have done this work purely on a voluntary basis without recompense. Anything I say on this motion must not be construed as denigrating in any way this great voluntary effort on the part of individual members of the boards of conservators.

I am bound to advert to the fundamental principle giving rise to the establishment of boards of conservators and their continuation. Their primary function is to protect fish life in our rivers. In that regard it must be said that the boards of conservators, perhaps through no fault of their own, have been guilty of dereliction of duty in respect of the protection of fish life. When they were first established over 100 years ago it was probably with the intention of curtailing poaching, which was the main problem at that time. They did not have to contend with the advent of pollution. When the scourge of pollution appeared in so many rivers and tributaries it was to be greatly deplored that successive Governments did not give those boards the support, finance and expertise necessary to enable them to deal with this very serious matter.

Last Tuesday I asked the Minister by way of parliamentary question if he was aware of the recurring pollution of the river Suir and many of its tributaries which resulted in the massive destruction of fish life in these rivers and if he will indicate in detail the sources of that pollution and the steps he is taking to prevent such pollution in future. His reply is on the record. He laid the responsibility squarely on the Waterford Board of Conservators. He said that that board were responsible for the protection of fish life in the Suir, that their pollution officer was actively engaged in keeping the position under review and that the negotiations with various bodies concerned were achieving a solution of the problem.

No words of mine could adequately describe the feelings of anger, dismay and bewilderment with which the people of the counties of Tipperary and Waterford view the situation in the river Suir, which has won for itself the dubious distinction of being the most polluted river in Ireland. It is fast becoming a cesspool because of the inability of the Waterford Board of Conservators to grapple effectively with the problem. The Minister told me in his reply that within recent times, even within the last two years, there have been two major fish kills in that river and we have witnessed many kills in the tributaries of the Suir as well. In that kind of situation one could not blame me for hesitating to give to boards of conservators, and to the Waterford board in particular, an extension for another period having regard to their inability to cope with this serious problem.

The anger of the members of fishing clubs, the damage this is doing to tourism, the heart-rending sight of fish, their bellies turned up, being heaped on the banks virtually in tons—all this is a shame and a national disgrace. It is happening repeatedly in the Suir. The Minister's predecessors have been unable or unwilling to grapple effectively with this problem. I am demanding action. I say it is high time to sack and dispose of an archaic body of this kind which cannot resolve that problem.

I am entitled to ask the Minister —I had hoped he would have given me a more extensive reply—what action the Waterford Board of Conservators took in this matter and to what extent they pursued those who were responsible for the pollution of the rivers in that area. If it is industrial sewerage or untreated sewerage why were the local authorities not taken to task? As members of local authorities we have been aware that they were unable to deal with this problem because of a lack of funds. It was the State's responsibility to assist them to deal with untreated sewerage and eliminate pollution from that source.

I contend also that the pollution caused by effluent from industries and from farms, especially from pig farms, is a serious contributory factor. This motion will give boards of conservators a new lease of life for the next few months. The Minister may hope to have this more comprehensive measure ready early next year, but it may transpire that he will not be ready then and he will be seeking a further postponement and we shall have to live with this problem in the interim. I am appealing to the Minister to come to the rescue of the boards of conservators, the Waterford board in particular, and give them the resources they require to grapple effectively with this scandalous problem which has continued for too long in that area.

Normally we would give the Minister this motion without very much debate, argument or opposition. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Deasy, that poaching is a problem but it pales into insignificance when one considers the damage done by pollution. Something must be done to resolve this problem. It may seem parochial of me to mention the Suir in particular when there are other rivers and lakes with the same problems, but I do so because unfortunately the river beside which I was born and which flows through most of my constituency, has won for itself the name of being the most polluted river in Ireland.

Accordingly that river is entitled to special treatment to remedy the situation. I appeal to the Minister to vest in the conservators or to take powers himself to pursue the people responsible for pollution and punish them with the full rigours of the law. In other countries for mortal damage of this kind to a very precious amenity jail sentences are the order of the day. I do not ask for that, but too many people have got away with this shocking crime too often and it is time to cry halt.

I look forward to the more comprehensive legislation coming before us so that we shall get down to this business in a more detailed manner and try to do many other things which very much need to be done in the whole sphere of fishing. I wish the Minister well in all his endeavours for the protection of fish life and for the advancement of those engaged in the fishing industry. The Minister should pay attention to the matter I raised. While one understands my reluctance to condone his continuation of that system for a further indefinite period, I do not wish to reflect on individuals. They have been doing their best, I presume, in very difficult circumstances but it is not good to leave the clearing of this sorry mess to the responsibility of the board without the active assistance of the Minister and the Government.

Mr. Killilea

I welcome this postponement. It is important to note that at long last there is a move from the Department of Fisheries to do something positive by creating seven new regional fishery boards. What is far more important however is the system by which we will have a Central Fishery Board with responsibility for them. This should be set up within the next 12 months and it is something that everybody welcomes.

It is common knowledge that local authorities have been the biggest polluters of the inland waters. About three years ago the General Council of County Councils recommended to the Government that special amounts of money should be made available to the local authorities, who were creating most of the pollution, from the central fund to help to alleviate the problem. Water pollution had increased to such an extent that untold destruction was occurring throughout the country. We are not two weeks back in this House and the Minister is expected to have all, the answers. When the Government were asked for financial aid to alleviate this problem it was not forthcoming. The Inland Fisheries Commission Report remarked on that fact. It would have been wrong to expect certain ratepayers in certain counties to carry the burden: this was a national problem to be dealt with on a national scale. The Inland Fisheries Commission report came out three years ago, but only now is it referred to as being urgent. What has happened in the last three years? The Minister for Fisheries has given his time, patience and knowledge in this area. I welcome this legislation because it will enable a positive programme to be put forward.

The old boards of conservators had very little power but that power certainly had not the finance to back it up. In Lough Conn pollution is taking place at a rapid rate. We begged for financial aid to alleviate the problem. This lake is known as one of the finest fishing lakes in Europe for trout and salmon. I hope the Minister will take note of the pollution problem there and will help to alleviate it, so that it can remain a fine fishing lake.

In inland waters these days there is not much pilfering of salmon stocks because quite honestly the salmon are not there. The pilfering goes on at the points where the sea water meets the fresh water. It is not being done by moonlight poachers with flash lamps and spears; it is being done by men with seven and eight miles of drift-net, taking every size fish on their way to spawn or on their way back from spawning. The Minister's attention must be drawn to this. We all know that the fisherman is a hunter and that like all hunters, he will naturally hunt at a point where he will have a chance of catching the most fish. He knows exactly where the salmon stocks are to be found.

These people made not thousands but millions of pounds throwing out their nets, sleeping on board for an hour or so, hauling and then rushing ashore to make the salmon available at a port at an enormous price, then out again to do the same thing four hours later. That is where the problem regarding salmon stocks originated. It is all very well for Deputy Deasy to say that up to now the number of the salmon drift net licences has not created a problem. I flatly contradict that. At the Salmon Weir in Galway at one time one could walk over the bridge and see salmon waiting to be let upstream. I ask the spokesmen on behalf of the Opposition parties to bring their binoculars down to the Salmon Weir in Galway now and see if they can find a few salmon crouching waiting to go upstream. They have become a very scarce commodity and they have not been robbed or plundered inland.

The issue of the drift net licences warrants through examination by the Minister. There must be conservation at certain points along the shore, particularly in unpolluted rivers to allow salmon free entry to spawn. That is an absolute necessity. The time has long since passed when certain areas, such as those I have mentioned, should be banned from salmon fishing to allow of conservation and stocks to be rebuilt. That is not asking any great sacrifice of the multi-millionaires who have fished with drift nets. Indeed, had those licences been given to men known to the local fishermen in the last four-and-a-half years diminution of stocks would not have taken place to the same extent. However, that was not the position.

For the most part it was the city slicker who obtained the licence, the guy who knew there were many pounds to be made. I notice that the man responsible for issuing those licences is present in the House. I know of an instance in west Cork where a sixth generation fisherman, in a family who had fished a bay there, was refused a drift net licence while a man from Dublin city could go out into the bay and, having a drift net licence, fish day and night. That was a cruel and wrong decision. The Minister for Fisheries has an onerous task in respect of the conservation of salmon stocks and everything to do with salmon fishing.

Conservation is an absolute necessity. Authority must be given to the new central board. That must not be questioned. The Minister must keep abreast of the job daily because conservation is something that must be scrutinised, if not daily, at least weekly in regard to fish caught whether it be inland or at the mouth of many of our major rivers. I am sure the Minister's legislation will be adequate and appropriate because an enormous amount of knowledge has been gleaned in recent years. There was a time when I would not have known the difference between a trout and a mackerel placed on a plate before me. In the Council of Europe I was honoured by being a rapporteur on fish-the conservation of the living resources. Going through the documents concerned there I was amazed at the wealth of knowledge to be gleaned and the sorrow attached to the fishing industry in the last ten or fifteen years since it became highly mechanised. All of Europe today is looking towards conservation. I presented that report to the Council of Europe and got a unanimous decision on conservation.

I am glad to note that at long last our Minister for Fisheries has found the answer to the fishing problem—certainly it will be based on conservation in the legislation he proposes to introduce before 1978. There is an enormous amount of work ahead of him and a wealth of knowledge to be gleaned at the same time. I hope he will scrutinise closely the question of the salmon drift net licences, the conservation of salmon stocks and the areas where salmon are being caught. I know such stocks are not being diminished by poaching or pilfering inland. I wish the Minister well in his task reminding him that it will warrant his total concentration if he is to be successful.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

I appreciate the need for this measure. The Minister mentioned the setting up of a central board and seven regional boards in proposed legislation.

I should like to offer my opinion on the question of the central board. It has always been my belief that in this House we have delegated too much power to boards. I should prefer to see the Minister retain the full powers of his Department. If he establishes a central board, then I feel it should be solely an advisory one. I believe that the man selected by this House as Minister and by the people should hold that power. The view seems to be held that politicians are incapable of determining matters of any kind on an impartial basis or of making factual assessments and that, consequently, powers must be handed over to boards. I believe it would be detrimental to do so. Were the Minister to hold all of the power, then at least we could ask him questions here and discuss with him the question of inland fisheries. On the other hand, if he hands over his powers to some central body, not answerable to this House except in the most indirect way, we will be unable to obtain the type of information we need or have the kind of dialogue we would like with departmental people.

During my time in this House I have experienced the handing over of authority to various boards by Ministers and Departments. I do not know how many boards have been set up; in some cases their establishment was essential. Until recently—I think it was in 1976—there was no question of keeping an eye on boards or of prying into their affairs; they had too much autonomy and independence. It would be better for the personnel of the boards and all concerned if the House were able to scrutinise more closely the activities of the boards.

I thought the previous Government might have changed that trend but the majority were generally in favour of it. I am not saying that if the previous Government had changed the position the central authority would get more power. I do not know because the position was not finalised. I am telling the Minister to hold on to the power he has, the power of the central authority, the power vested in him by the people. As democrats we must accept the democratic voice of the people. The Minister and his team in the Department can make as good an assessment of the potential of the fishing industry, particularly the inland fisheries, as any outside group that may be appointed. It is quite in order to set up a central authority that will co-ordinate the efforts of the seven regional boards proposed but I should like to see that authority simply as an advisory one. I want the Minister to hold on to the maximum power in his Department. When power is handed over it is difficult to get it back.

Deputy Killilea raised the matter of salmon licences. It is quite clear he is not conversant with the system of salmon licences that has operated during the years. The boards will have applications from many people, many of whom can lay good claim to a salmon licence. Because of the recent increases in the cost of salmon good incomes can be made from salmon fishing. It is obvious that a board will not be able to grant all applications. Certain criteria must be laid down and applicants must measure up to the requirements of the relevant orders in order to qualify for a licence.

The 17 boards of conservators had the sole right to determine who would get a licence. That was their absolute duty and function and generally they discharged that duty reasonably well. I did not hear too many complaints from the Galway and Mayo regions on that score; in fact, the number of licences in Galway, Mayo and Donegal relative to the country was exceptionally high. It is completely out of place for a Deputy to come to this House, as Deputy Killilea has done, and cast a grave reflection on the administrator of the Cork fishery board when he said that someone came from Dublin, presumably with no entitlement to a licence, and got a licence while traditional fishermen had their applications rejected or were deprived of their licences. The administrator appointed in Cork was a man of the highest integrity. He made his assessments, as he was entitled to do, completely on his own and he made them having regard to all the facts. He granted licences to people who measured up to the requirements of the orders relating to salmon control which were approved by this House and he rejected those who did not measure up to such requirements. The same could be said of another administrator in Louth so far as determining applications for licences was concerned.

Mr. Killilea

That does not mean that the Dublin man did not get the licence.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

There was no such question. That is a load of rubbish. I appreciate that the boards had considerable difficulty in this matter. First, they were limited in the number that could be allowed under the control orders. Secondly, individual members of the boards were under pressure to get licences for people. They had to reject many representations. In the period when I was concerned with the working of the Department, generally speaking the boards and the administrators did their jobs quite efficiently. Naturally they were unable to satisfy everyone and the Minister will find out soon enough that it will be impossible for the new boards and for him to satisfy everyone.

It was alleged in this House that salmon licences were allocated on a political basis. But if one viewed it from the political angle with a view to getting additional support for oneself and one's party one would abolish drift net licences because for the one man who favours drift netting there are ten people against it. However, it would be wrong to consider it from that point of view. Many people around the coast have earned a substantial part of their livelihood from salmon fishing and it would be unfair to deprive them of it. In a way they are a privileged group; it is somewhat like the merchandise licences that were issued in 1934, where those who got them hold them and those who have not the licences find it extremely difficult to get them. It is not possible to hand out a salmon licence to everyone who applies, unlike the position that obtained until 1972. Up to that time all that was necessary was payment of the licence fee.

The Minister, with the help of his advisers, must examine the position from year to year. I cannot foresee the Minister or any authority making a long term plan for salmon fishing. This is a matter that must be reviewed from year to year. I do not know if the Minister was wise in moving from the order relating to the 30 mesh which we brought into operation. The strongest representations that could be made were made. Every avenue of approach was used to have that order rescinded but neither Deputy Donegan nor I rescinded it because we felt it was essential. We felt that in the long term it would be of benefit and that it should at least get a trial period. The Minister has now opened a door. Everybody knows when a door is opened it is very difficult at times to try to close it.

Mr. Lenihan

It is only in respect of one board area.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

A very strong case was made by south-west Cork to have this order abolished. Several supporters of mine asked me to do it but I refused because I felt I would not be measuring up to the requirements of my office if I agreed to their demands. Unfortunately reports in the Department indicated this was necessary and that we must do something about conservation. This order was brought in. It should have been given a trial period. Now that the Minister has changed it in respect of one board I see no reason why I, as representative for south-west Cork, should not ask him to give the Cork board the same concessions he is giving the Lismore board.

Mr. Lenihan

They will not get it.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

Why not?

Mr. Lenihan

Because there is a particular situation here.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

I am conversant with the situation so far as the Lismore and the Cork boards are concerned. They are similar. There is no justification for giving one preferential treatment over the other. Will the Minister give the Cork board the same concession because their pressures are just as soundly based, from the fishermen's point of view, as those from the Lismore board?

This is a limited debate as this order is just asking permission to postpone the election. I ask the Minister to hold on to his powers. If he decides to set up a central body let it be an advisory one and let the final authority rest with the Minister and the Department of Fisheries in Dublin.

Mr. O'Toole

I would like to draw the Minister's attention to one point in relation to his proposals on the election of boards. I refer to the great dissatisfaction being expressed at the moment by the inspectors on conservation boards. They have very unsatisfactory conditions of employment. They have no fixity of tenure. I understand they are appointed on a year-to-year basis. They have no right to a pension or gratuity. It must be admitted, when we consider the kind of work they carry out, that it would be impossible to quantify what they should receive, especially when one considers the amount of poaching going on at the moment in different areas. A considerable amount of poaching takes place in my area. The only suggestion I can make to help in this matter is that something be done similar to what is being done in the Waterford area where people get together and form a watchdog group to look after their interests. I hope the Minister can improve the conditions of inspectors and give them what is their right.

Mr. Daly

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Minister for Fisheries. He was Parliamentary Secretary in charge of fisheries some years ago and he has wide experience of inland fisheries, which is very important. I know that he will bring a new life to his Department. We have needed this for over four years. This should change the confusion, delays and uncertainty in relation to fisheries we had during the tenure of the Coalition Government.

I objected when a motion like this was brought in by the previous Government because I felt that this could mean the postponement of elections year after year and that this was a bad thing for fisheries. I still have those reservations. I can understand the confusion during the period of the previous Administration because I heard Deputy Deasy, who is now spokesman for Fine Gael on fishery matters, say at a by-election meeting that his party would take no action in relation to the Inland Fisheries Commission report.

Mr. Deasy

As regards the reduction of salmon drift net licences, which I also stated today.

Mr. Daly

At the particular meeting when I heard the Deputy speaking he said that he did not consider the Inland Fisheries Commission report significant and as far as he was concerned he would not place very much importance on it. If the Deputy has changed his mind since then I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Deasy

I was referring to the number of salmon drift net licences.

Mr. Daly

The reason given at that time for the postponement of the elections was that the Inland Fisheries Commission report was not in and the Minister had not time to consider the implications of it. I am glad that action will now be taken on the recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission. We have indicators, where counts have been taken in places like Ardnacrusha and the Thomond Way along the Shannon river, which show the decline in the number of salmon. The decline in the number of salmon passing through Ardnacrusha and the Thomond Way this year is catastrophic. The decline has been at least 100 per cent. The main cause of the decline here is the amount of netting taking place. I am not complaining about the licensed nets operating in the estuaries and on the coast but about the unlicensed salmon nets which are depleting the stock.

The salmon industry is being put in jeopardy by the unprecedented netting which took place outside Loop Head in my constituency. The mouth of the Shannon Estuary was blocked off by nets which resulted in the catastrophic drop in the number of fish running through the Thomond Way and Ardnacrusha into the Shannon. If the fish are prevented from getting into the estuary spawning will not take place and our salmon stocks will be depleted further.

This matter has to be looked at very carefully and some system will have to be devised to monitor the number of salmon landed here and also those sold by fishermen out of boats operating outside. Some of those fish may not come on our markets but may be sold to factory ships. I have heard reports during this fishing season of massive amounts of salmon being sold out to ships, fish which are not coming on to the market here. I feel that the Minister in the EEC might be able to set up some kind of monitoring system throughout the Community whereby a total figure could be put on fish landings in all EEC ports. In this way we could have an overall picture of the situation in relation to salmon stocks.

I should like to see great care being taken in the composition of the Central Fisheries Board. This board will be the key to the future development of inland fisheries. The Minister must ensure that the people appointed to the board will be of the highest ability, having the capacity to carry out the task of restructuring salmon fisheries.

I feel strongly about the conditions of employment of the staff of fisheries boards. In the past they have been poorly paid and had no guarantee of continuity of employment. They were employed on a year-to-year basis by the board and they could be hired and fired at the whim of board members. This system needs to be changed and I hope that when introducing the proposed legislation the Minister will seriously consider a proper grading and remuneration scheme for these people. There may be some hope of continuity of employment for those engaged as inspectors, assistant inspectors, head keepers and water keepers.

I am well aware of the good work that has been done by these boards in the past. As a member of the Limerick board I know that they have had enormous difficulties. The principal difficulty was that they did not have the financial capacity to carry out their task. From year to year the estimates submitted by the boards were curtailed and they did not have the resources to deal with problems of pollution or the enforcement of fisheries laws generally. Far more money will have to be provided to deal with existing problems. The Minister has the ability and capacity to do a good job.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Defence (Mr. P. Lalor)

The discussion we have had has been extremely constructive from a number of points of view. The motion before the House seeks this deferment because of the fact that the incoming Minister is not in a position to bring before the House the Bill to which he referred when moving the motion. The reason for this is that he took up office in early July and there would not be any possibility of his having got through the Bill by now in order to avoid the necessity of having this motion presented to the House.

There is a lesson to be learned in this regard. First of all, the lesson which is evident from today's discussion is the impossibility of Government by coalition. The former Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Murphy, sincerely and genuinely appealed to the incoming Minister in relation to the proposed legislation asking him not to hand over to a central fisheries board the powers he has at present or will have in the future. Deputy Murphy did not put it that way but he indicated that the buck stops at the Minister's table and that he should accept responsibility for decisions. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the outgoing Government preferred it the other way. It is quite clear that he, as parliamentary Secretary and endeavouring to do the right thing, found it impossible to get that message across to his colleagues in the Cabinet. Deputy Murphy promised in June of last year that the proposed Bill would be introduced before the end of that year or, at the latest, early this year. It was not possible to introduce the Bill simply because there was disagreement.

Deputy Deasy, the spokesman on behalf of Fine Gael, stressed and spelt out quite clearly that there must be more restriction with regard to the issuing of drift net licences. I am not an expert in this field; I am a midlander. However, I contributed to the debate on the last Bill which enabled the Minister today to ask for this postponement. Dealing with drift nets in reply to the debate on the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1976, the Parliamentary Secretary said:

That question came up during the term of office of the previous Government and they dealt with it in the way they thought necessary and essential at the time. As everybody knows, they imposed grave restrictions on drift net licences, and it was very difficult to measure up to the criteria laid down by my predecessor, Deputy Fahey, to qualify for a drift net licence. The Government and I felt we would take a more liberal stance and that we could do that without endangering our salmon stocks. As a result, we amended the order that existed in 1972 and changed the qualifications particularly for drift net licences and thus enabled fishermen who are to a large extent dependent on fishing for their livelihood, and many of them to a reasonable extent on salmon fishing, to acquire licences.

I am not criticising the Parliamentary Secretary in this regard but that was his view and he said that it was shared by his colleagues in Government. On the other hand, Deputy Deasy called for more restrictions. By way of interruption during Deputy Daly's speech he stated clearly that he was pursuing that line.

Mr. Deasy

I advocated that there should be more licences than Deputy Fahey was issuing. What Deputy Murphy did was in order and he has given the maximum number allowed.

Mr. Lalor

I am making the point that the Coalition Government changed the rules laid down by their predecessors.

Mr. Deasy

They were crude.

Mr. Lalor

It seems that Deputy Deasy, at long last, shares the views expressed by his colleague, Deputy Fahey, when he was Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Deasy

Never. The Parliamentary Secretary is misreading it.

Mr. Lalor

I am not misquoting it, but I may be misinterpreting it.

Mr. Deasy

Yes.

Mr. Lalor

I give Deputy Murphy credit for the fact that the more popular line to follow at that time was the line Deputy Deasy now follows because there are ten ordinary fishermen to one drift net fisherman.

Mr. Treacy

Are we to take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is engaging in a filibuster on this motion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is in possession and so far is in order.

Mr. Lalor

I propose to remain in order.

Mr. Treacy

He seems to be going into great detail and quoting extensively.

Mr. Lalor

I have only used one quotation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is in possession at the moment. There was one quotation which was rather long, I will admit. When we have long quotations the Chair will deal with them, Deputy.

Mr. Lalor

We would not have to be involved in this debate if the previous Government could have reached agreement. I was trying to draw attention to the commitments that have been entered into by the former Parliamentary Secretary. Last year I spoke on this debate and there was a guarantee given by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Murphy, that this legislation would be introduced before the end of last year. The suggestion that I am filibustering is upsetting. In his speech of 22nd June, 1976, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he had got the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission in August, 1975. Not that it is much of a debating point, but Deputy Deasy said it was 2nd July. The Parliamentary Secretary also said that not only would the legislation be ready by the end of the year but that we would have an opportunity of debating the fishing industry generally. We still have not had that opportunity. We did learn to-day the reason for the difficulty in reaching agreement. I share the former Parliamentary Secretary's view, though his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, wanted to take this power out of the hands of politicians. I do not disagree with Deputy Murphy when he says the Minister should accept responsibility and should try to hold on to power in this regard. No matter how much a Minister is maligned—and Deputy Murphy was criticised today by Deputy Killilea in relation to the appointment of an official in south-west Cork—I agree with him when he says that the Minister is the man who has been elected by the people and that he should hold on to his power. A change of Government from time to time is no harm because it makes people appreciate the responsibilities and the difficulties that arise for those in power.

Another thing we learned from the debate was that the senior civil servants of the Department had changed their policy, which is an interesting point. The Chair may be tempted to rule me out of order but we are discussing the policies of the Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

So long as we stay on policy we are in order. Civil servants should not be mentioned in the debate.

Mr. Lalor

The point I am anxious to make is that the remark can be taken as being of credit to the civil service on the whole. It has been traditional to think of civil servants as being the instruments of Government and those who implement policy. Deputy Deasy's comment that the opinion of the civil servants had changed between Ministers is to the credit of the civil service. On one occasion they were acting on the instructions of the previous Minister and on the next occasion he found they had changed their opinions because they were adopting the new Minister's line.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for the Department.

Mr. Lalor

I trust that when the legislation is introduced it will incorporate the much-needed power both for the seven regional fishery boards and the central fishery board and also that the Minister will assume responsibility for the problem to which Deputy Treacy referred, that is, the whole question of pollution and the provision of powers to deal with this problem. The legislation in this area is very much outdated.

Much work has gone into the preparation of the proposed legislation in the form of recommendations, advice and so on. It takes account of the recommendations that were made to the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries as far back as 1975. Having regard to all the effort that is being put into it, the Minister should be in a position to bring forward a satisfactory Bill. If the two groups who formed the Coalition had been in agreement on what is basically a relatively simple measure, it would not be necessary to have this motion before us today.

Mr. C. Murphy

I wish to intervene briefly to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and to wish him well in the work he is undertaking. Unfortunately, the previous Government did not take the initiative necessary to keep the situation under control in regard to fisheries but I have every confidence that the Minister will not fail in this area.

Minister for Fisheries (Mr. Lenihan)

At the outset I wish to assure the House that this will be the last motion of its kind to be presented here for discussion. It is the fourth motion of this nature and we have now had enough. The legislation is practically ready. There is some hold up while one or two legal aspects are being resolved. These relate to the proposed new powers in the Bill whereby there will be provision for the compulsory acquisition and voluntary purchase of fisheries by the Minister. These two innovations were key recommendations in the Inland Fisheries Commission Report. We hope to have the Bill published before the end of the year and to be able to introduce it during the first session of the New Year.

The debate has been constructive and has raised a number of points that will be elaborated further when the Bill is brought before us. In the meantime, I shall deal with the points that were of some constructive interest. Deputies Deasy and Daly referred to the inadequacies of the protection service. It is very important that we have an adequate protection service backed up by adequate enforcement facilities and powers and the necessary finance. In this regard the new legislation will be very important because it is proposed to establish personnel of the protection service on a properly established superannuation basis. At present they are recruited in a haphazard way without any guarantee of permanent service. Neither have they any pension or gratuity scheme. The antiquated method by which the boards are financed does not allow for their proper financing. In the legislation we are proposing that the board be financed properly by way of a combination of a grant-in-aid from the Central Fund both to the central fishery board and to the seven regional boards. In addition, we will be proposing certain levies on the industry itself, in particular, on the first sale of salmon.

What is important in the first place is to have a properly organised and properly staffed situation. This is the sort of situation that we are providing for in the Bill.

Many of the difficulties associated with our inland fisheries stem from the situation in which there are a number of boards around the country, each independent but also understaffed and underfinanced. Our intention is to centralise the whole operation and to have available the development staff and resources that are administered now by the Inland Fisheries Trust. It is proposed to integrate into an overall system the staff of the trust and the funds that are devoted to it.

I agree with what has been said in regard to the large-scale poaching that has taken place in recent years. This poaching must be stopped. To this extent I am serving notice of my intention to introduce stringent controls before the end of the year in this regard, control that will involve further regulation and which will result in stringent enforcement in order that we may preserve our salmon stocks and prevent the extinction of salmon stocks—something that is a real possibility unless measures are taken to deal with the problem. As Minister I shall not allow that to happen. In advance of the legislation proper I propose using the existing statutory powers to bring in the appropriate regulations and control before the end of this year so that it may operate next year. The legislation will include regulations and controls and provision for much stiffer penalties but in advance of the Bill I shall utilise to the full the existing powers in this respect. In addition, I shall use the powers at my disposal in the meantime to ensure the recruitment of adequate staff.

I assure Deputy Deasy that I will resist any pressure that might be designed to divert me from the course that I have outlined.

Mr. Deasy

The fear of most genuine fishermen is that their hours will be curtailed in the fishing week if poaching is not stopped. It is vital that it be stopped.

Mr. Lenihan

It is vital that illegal fishing be stopped. I would like to put on record that I have met with and consulted all the various legitimate interests in inland fisheries and I was very heartened by the constructive response that I received from the Salmon Driftnet Fishermen's Association. These men who depend on this for their livelihood are the people who are most aware of the importance of dealing drastically and severely with illega poaching.

Mr. Begley

That is a closed shop.

Mr. Lenihan

In regard to that aspect I suggest that Deputy Begley might address his remarks to Deputy M. P. Murphy.

Mr. Begley

A decent man is Deputy Murphy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, please.

Mr. Lenihan

Deputy Killilea referred to the Corrib. I am very aware that the Corrib is one of the most important salmon-rearing river and lake systems in the country. It is probably capable of tremendous development in the rehabilitation of stocks there and in respect of rearing salmon, trout and eels. I am having a close look at the Corrib with a view to bringing in positive proposals for the rehabilitation of that lake and river system.

Mr. Begley

Good.

Mr. Lenihan

Deputy M. P. Murphy mentioned the question of the central board. The board will be largely or entirely a developmental and advisory board and the Minister for Fisheries will retain for himself and be responsible to this House for the making of various regulations, orders, by-laws, the holding of public inquiries and determining the amount of licence duties and fishing rates. I propose that the Minister for Fisheries will be the person who will acquire either voluntarily or compulsorily any fisheries that may become available. I propose to reserve those basic powers to the Minister for Fisheries and have the central board as a development and advisory agency.

Mr. Treacy

That is as it should be.

Mr. Lenihan

Deputies Daly and O'Toole referred to the matter I mentioned initially, namely the staff structure of the board which is unsatisfactory and which I propose to put right.

I share Deputy Treacy's apprehension at the situation which has been allowed to develop in the River Suir. As he said, it has been forced by a combination of local authority pollution, industrial projects and farm activity. I and my Department are in the course of taking active steps on this matter. We have pressed the Irish Sugar Company who have been responsible for some of the pollution there, and they have spent over £100,000 this year in order to rectify the situation of effluent from their factory operations. In addition to that the Deputy might like to know that a number of meetings have been held with the various angling and fishery organisations as well as with various firms and bodies responsible, unfortunately, for effluent pollution. A further important meeting will be held in Cashel next Monday night at which my officers will be present with a view to adopting further measures. We are very conscious of this problem and we are pressing the Department of the Environment with their powers under the recent antipollution legislation. I will be in touch with the Deputy on the matter.

Mr. Treacy

I am grateful to the Minister.

Mr. Lenihan

The question of the Lismore district was raised. We are revising the bye-law in regard to the situation that exists there where a traditional type of fishing was always undertaken which does require a deeper net than the 30-mesh and it is suggested and proposed that the 45-mesh net be permitted.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

Why not include Cork as well?

Mr. Lenihan

We did have full discussions with drift net fishermen from around the coast. They were all present in my big office which the Deputy is aware of at the bottom of the big conference room. It was a very representative meeting with about 60 present, including Kerrymen.

Mr. Begley

What about the men who have no licence?

Mr. Lenihan

At this meeting it was agreed that the Lismore case by reason of the traditional fishing exercise there had special merit and that a 45-mesh net was applicable there. The rest of them from all around the coast were agreed on the 30-mesh requirement as being sufficient.

Mr. Deasy

We welcome the change.

Mr. Lenihan

I thank the Deputy. This was done by the agreement of the decent drift net fishermen from the other counties around the coast.

Mr. Begley

What about the men who were denied a licence?

Mr. Lenihan

If the Deputies will go back and consult with their respective drift net fishermen they might make some progress.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Lenihan

I do not intend to be diverted further by any rowdyism from Dingle or anywhere like that. I suggest that we have had a very constructive debate, apart from Deputy Begley's interruptions in recent minutes. I thank the Deputies who contributed constructively here. We can have a very full, non-contentious debate on the whole range of inland fisheries when the new legislation comes to hand for debate in this House early in the new year.

Mr. Begley

Time will tell.

Mr. Lenihan

I would welcome such a constructive debate if we can avoid noisy, contemptuous remarks from irresponsible Deputies. Sensible Deputies who were here during this trial run debate and who contributed to it——

Mr. Begley

The Minister is as slippery as an eel.

Mr. Lenihan

——will enlarge and elaborate and contribute still more constructively and responsibly when the legislation comes to hand. I would like to thank the House for the manner in which this motion has been received.

Question put and agreed to.