Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Nov 1978

Vol. 309 No. 1

Elections of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1978: Motion.

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Lenihan):

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Elections of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1978, a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 19th day of October, 1978.

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 Elections of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1977, elections were postponed to 1978. I now propose to make an order postponing these elections to 1979. Before I may make this order, it must, in accordance with statute, be laid in draft before each House of the Oireachtas and a motion approving of it must be passed by each House.

This further postponement is necessary as it is considered inappropriate to allow elections under the old system to go ahead in advance of the new legislation designed to give effect to the main recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission. This legislation, which is entitled the Fisheries Bill, 1978, has already been introduced by way of long and short titles and the text of the Bill will be circulated shortly.

As Deputies are no doubt aware, changes in the existing structure of boards of conservators are warranted having regard to the fact that the present system, which has been in existence for over 100 years, still retains some of the unsatisfactory features of a 19th century type administration. Under the proposed new legislation the boards will be abolished and no further elections in their regard will arise. The boards and the Inland Fisheries Trust will be replaced by a central board and seven regional boards whose constitution will be suited to present-day requirements. The boards of conservators, whose existence this order will maintain, will cease to exist when, on enactment of the new legislation, the new boards are created.

Despite the handicap of their outdated structure, boards of conservators have for many years carried out invaluable work in the protection and conservation of inland fisheries. I wish to again express my own personal and my Department's appreciation of the great work done by the boards and by their staffs. This is all the more praiseworthy when one considers that members of boards give up their time and energy voluntarily.

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 when the new boards come to be constituted, we will see included many of the people who have given such loyal service down the years.

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

Mr. O'Keeffe:

On behalf of Deputy Deasy, our Fisheries spokesman, who is abroad at the moment, I have been asked to deal with this matter. In principle, it appears that we have no option but to agree with this Motion which provides for the further postponement of elections to boards of conservators.

In passing, however, I must comment on the delay of the Government in producing the long-promised Fisheries Bill. In a situation where a Fisheries Bill was needed to deal with foreign poachers again there were many promises and considerable delays and it was ultimately only as a result of Opposition pressure, and indeed a Private Members' Bill being put down by Deputy Deasy, that action on the part of the Government was forced. In this situation the only question I have to raise is how long more do we have to wait before this Bill is circulated? Will it be necessary for us similarly to put down a Bill to deal with this problem? On that point will we even be permitted to put down a Bill and have a Second Reading thereof, in view of the new restrictive approach of the Government, a dog in the manager approach which does not permit a Second Reading of a Private Members' Bill? We will be returning to that point on another day to insist on freedom of speech for the Opposition in the Dáil.

On the point before us we have a Motion to which we agree. However, when the Minister says that the Fisheries Bill, 1978, will be circulated shortly, what does "shortly" mean? Are we talking about a week, a month or another year? I ask him to give us a specific time on it.

Mr. Treacy:

I am quite surprised that the Minister is seeking further postponement of the abolition of the boards of conservators. We recollect quite clearly the manner in which he waxed indignant last year when he said that this was the last time he would be asking the House to postpone this legislation. In his opening and concluding speeches of 20 October of last year he was quite firm that this was the last time and that he would be producing the appropriate legislation in early 1978. Not only was he convincing in his approach to this matter but he reflected considerably on his predecessor because it had been necessary to have some two or three postponements. I quote from the Official Report of 20 October 1977, column 915, Volume 300:

Mr. Deasy: ... We did agree in the past year, or maybe two years, to postpone them for just one year.

This is the elections to boards of conservators.

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.

Again, in his concluding remarks the Minister was absolutely convincing that there would be no further need for postponement. At column 939 of the same Volume the Minister reiterates this point of view.

The Minister gave no cogent reasons as to why it was necessary to postpone this measure once again. Is it because there is difficulty in drafting it? Surely we are not expected to believe that it takes three or four years to draft a Bill in this House. Measures much more delicate, important and intricate have been dealt with in much less time. Is it because the necessary money is not available to back up the legislation? Perhaps that is the more certain reason.

My concern with postponement of this kind is that the important work affecting our inland fisheries is suffering as a result. The boards of conservators have been under sentence of death for the past four or five years. They have been clearly told that they were about to be abolished. In such a situation they could not be expected to continue their work with the same enthusiasm and devotion to duty as heretofore. Without reflecting on the members of the boards in respect of their duties, one could not expect a man who has been served with a notice of dismissal from his job to take much further interest in that job. Likewise, for the past four years we have had this dithering situation of an effete and sterile organisation which the Minister himself admits is outmoded by 100 years.

We have a serious problem to contend with in respect of inland fisheries with pollution of a massive kind in certain of our lakes and rivers, not the least of them the River Suir, which passes through my constituency and that of my colleagues in County Waterford. Here pollution has been rearing its ugly head time and time again in the main artery of the River Suir and its tributaries, and nothing positive has been done. When we raise these questions time and time again in this House we are told by the Minister that the boards of conservators are the responsible bodies for dealing with the problem of pollution.

In a situation where these boards have been sentenced to extinction it is hard to expect any initiative which would solve this problem. I do not blame the boards as they have neither the finance nor the expertise to carry out the work. One must not forget that the work which they perform is of a voluntary nature and that we owe them a debt of gratitude. I am not reflecting on the personnel involved, but I do say that in a situation where legislation is being introduced to put them out of business they cannot be expected to face up to their responsibilities. Indeed, they may well feel that they have no responsibility any longer for the important duties of dealing with pollution and poaching and the need to give back more and more of our inland fisheries waters to our people through the angling associations who are in dire need of extra fishing waters.

It is with regret that we observe a further postponement order being introduced here today. It sets back the good work which should be in train in respect of the things which we all know are wrong in our inland fisheries. It is a way out for the Minister. He can blame it on the conservators. They have been sentenced to death anyway. I ask the Minister to face his responsibilities. He has had to come in here today, despite his statements of this time 12 months ago, and eat humble pie. He waxed eloquent that it was the last time he would ask the House for a postponement and here we have it once again. How long is this messing going to continue? We were to have the legislation early this year on the Minister's say so. The year 1978 is fast dying and there is no sign of the legislation. Will we have it before the year is out? We will, the Minister nods his head. Could we have something on the record of the House, Minister? Will this Bill be introduced?

Mr. Lenihan:

The Deputy will have it in a few weeks' time.

Mr. Treacy:

Whom does the Minister blame in these circumstances? What is wrong? The Minister's office and all concerned with the massive back-up service which he possesses were aware of the very strong sentiments which he expressed this time last year. One would imagine that they were working exceptionally hard to ensure that the necessary legislation was drawn up. Is it a question of money?

Mr. Lenihan:

No.

Mr. Treacy:

All the boards of conservators have been doing in recent years, while this threat of abolition hung over them, is engaging in a holding operation, letting things tick over until such time as they are formally replaced by new legislation. Nothing tangible has been done. No initiatives have been embarked upon. Consequently, I contend that fishery interests are suffering as a result of this twilight situation.

We look forward to the new legislation because we expect that many of the anomalies and wrongs which are patent in our present system will be resolved; that positive steps will be taken to deal with pollution and to ensure that personnel and expertise will be quickly on the scene; that we shall have expert advice in dealing with it, in locating it and in punishing those responsible for it, whether the effluent be from industrial sources, farming sources or from our local authorities.

Perhaps our local authorities are the biggest culprits of all. Those of us who have been members of local authorities are only too well aware that it was not because of any indifference to their responsibility in the matter, any reluctance to face up to that responsibility, but purely a matter of inability to secure the necessary funds to implement the kind of treatment works and proper sewerage systems which we require to offset pollution of the kind to which I refer. There is indifference in industry. There is marked indifference in respect of farms, especially pig farms, the effluent of which is of a highly toxic nature. We need strong effective legislation to deal with these problems.

There is also a great need to replenish stocks of salmon and trout in rivers and lakes and for the setting up of an authority to be responsible for that work. We need to assist our angling clubs to secure extra fishing waters, which they are unable to do at the moment because of the exorbitant cost.

This may not be the appropriate occasion to do so, but I should like to ask the Minister if this type of postponement, this inactivity, will be allowed to prevail much longer. It is his duty to tell us what he can do to redress inequalities in relation to ownership of Irish fishing waters. He should bring rivers and lakes more and more into public ownership. It is sad to realise that in the matter of ownership of our inland fishing waters, the conquest of Ireland is still very much there 56 years after the attainment of our freedom. We have evidence that 90 per cent of our rivers and lakes are owned and controlled by private interests, that 25 per cent of our best salmon fisheries are still owned and controlled by the old ascendancy classes, the lords, the dukes, the earls.

I am not suggesting that we should deal with this in a rash manner. Although it is an emotive subject, it should be dealt with realistically and pragmatically. We should be seeking ways and means of bringing a vast number of these fishing areas into Irish ownership, especially to our angling clubs who are responsible bodies of people and who know how to treat fishing waters fairly and equitably. At least the Minister should be availing of every opportunity to purchase fishing rights when they become available.

Mr. Lenihan:

I happen to be the first Minister for Fisheries since the foundation of the State who has done so, in respect of the Galway Fisheries.

Mr. Treacy:

We should be ready, willing and able to purchase these fishing rights when they become available. Too often it is the people with the fat cheque books who get them and this has been creating a new Irish ascendancy class to replace the old. There has been very little change, and our angling clubs are still restricted to 13 per cent of our fishing area, and these areas are not the best. The best is reserved for those who claimed ownership as a result of conquest hundreds of years ago.

Therefore, it is with the utmost reluctance that I, on behalf of my party, agree to this postponement. There has been hiatus and inactivity in this important area. I ask the Minister particularly, and not for the first time, to have a look at the pollution situation in the River Suir with which I am most familiar. When I visited my colleagues in Ardfinnan last Friday they brought to my notice the condition of the river on which there was a thick dirty white scum. It had been there for some days. No one knew where it had come from, its nature, or how deleterious it was to fish life. These signs are evident in many of our rivers. There is also widespread inability to fish because of overhanging trees and bushes and because of lack of arterial drainage. There is a tremendous job of work to be done and I submit that this device of postponement is being used once too often. I hope the Minister will not come before us again to introduce motions of this kind, that the Government will honour their obligations in this respect.

Mr. Daly:

I welcome the announcement of the Minister that the new Bill will be circulated shortly to deal with the recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission. I do not think the Opposition can expect us to take them seriously when both the previous Minister, Deputy Clinton, and his Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Michael Pat Murphy, came in here year after year since 1974 with motions to postpone these elections.

Mr. Treacy:

They did not say "This is the last time".

Mr. Lenihan:

It was a matter of weeks.

Mr. Daly:

We all know and appreciate the efforts made by the present Minister, especially to deal with poaching at sea which has reduced our salmon stocks to a dangerously low level. We also know the neglect in the past four years in this respect, especially in regard to areas like the Shannon estuary. I compliment the Minister on his efforts to stamp out this form of poaching, and we hope that the pending legislation will deal with this matter once and for all because, as I have said, our salmon stocks are becoming dangerously low.

I was glad to learn this week that the ESB have decided to curtail their salmon fishing activities on the Shannon in an effort to conserve stocks. I know of the conservation problems facing the Limerick Board of Fishery Conservators in relation to the whole Shannon. They are the biggest board in the country but none of these fishery boards have been relaxing in their obligations or slowing down their activities, even now when their term of office is coming to an end. These boards realise that changes are necessary. The Limerick Board, as I have said, have not been relaxing their efforts to stamp out illegal poaching on the Shannon and the various pollution problems they have been faced with. There has been no relaxation by the board in their activities during the past few years. They recognise that legislation is necessary and they have been working closely with the Department and the Minister in an effort to get legislation that will be effective and ensure that salmon stocks are protected.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister today that new legislation will be introduced soon. I hope that it can be implemented quickly; otherwise the future for the salmon stocks is grim.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

When we had discussions on previous postponement orders they were of a wide-ranging nature. The debate on one of the orders con-tinued into the second day. It was a very wide-ranging one and covered not only inland fisheries but sea fisheries as well. I could give many quotations to the House of what was said by Members who were then in Opposition, including Deputy Daly.

We must go back to the root of the problem. When we took office in 1973 we found that the system by which boards of conservators were elected was, to say the least, repugnant. On examination I found that some board members got their entitlement to membership on an ex officio basis because they paid a certain amount in fishery rates. We had the peculiar system where some voters had four votes in the election of conservators. There was another rule under which other people were deemed to have two votes while the small man down the line had only one vote. Fianna Fáil were quite happy with the system and there was no mention of changing it until 1973.

When we took office we considered it advisable to change the system. I made it clear that so far as the Government and myself were concerned election to boards of conservators would never again take place under what I call the rotten system that obtained up to the last election. We devised legislation to cover the necessary changes. It was found essential to bring postponement orders to the House for approval, and that arose because the Government had in mind to bring forward exceptionally comprehensive legislation to cover sea fisheries as well as inland fisheries. When the postponement orders were discussed here many speakers did not confine themselves to the question before the House but they roamed over the entire fishery area. At that time our present Minister, Deputy Lenihan, unfortunately was not with us and he does not share any of the blame for what happened in the many discussions that took place here.

One assertion was made repeatedly, namely, that if Fianna Fáil were in office this type of legislation could be brought in almost overnight. Fianna Fáil speakers said that as soon as they got into Government we would have the legislation within a few weeks. Such assertions were made by people who are very prominent in the Government today. The contributions made by Fianna Fáil to the fishery debates were mainly made by what might be termed their front bench spokesmen. The Minister for the Gaeltacht, Deputy Gallagher, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Kennedy, the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Deputy Haughey, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Molloy, and some other prominent members of Fianna Fáil offered their views on how they could put forward legislative proposals that would ensure many advantages not only for our inland fisheries but also for our sea fisheries.

Some 16 months later we know what actually happened. We know from recent statements that Fianna Fáil tried to create as many difficulties as possible. I am a firm believer in criticism but it should be constructive. We know that Deputy Haughey and Deputy O'Kennedy offered their advice and financial help to the IFO not only to help them——

An Ceann Comhairle:

That does not arise on this motion.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

It was discussed in this House. We had discussions on previous postponement orders——

An Ceann Comhairle:

It may have been discussed but it is not in order under this motion.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

With respect, the Chair contributed to the debate also.

Mr. Begley:

Times have changed.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

The Chair contributed to the discussions and played a notable part in them.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Matters pertaining to deep sea fishing are not relevant.

Mr. Lenihan:

These people have control of deep sea fishing.

Mr. Begley:

They have not.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

Both inland and sea fishing are closely related.

Mr. Lenihan:

This motion deals with inland fishing.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

And with salmon fishing.

Mr. Lenihan:

That is so.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

Salmon can be described as being a sea fish, too, in the broad interpretation. However, I wish to recall what has transpired in regard to fishing in the past 16 months. We are all aware of the statements made by the man who now holds the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs and who is also a senior counsel regarding a 50-miles exclusive limit. The then Deputy O'Kennedy was positive that as soon as Fianna Fáil were returned to office only Irish boats would fish in an area within a 50-mile radius of our coast. We were told that licences would not be issued to fishermen from France, Spain or any other country and there was no question then of quotas. We were assured that in office Fianna Fáil would preserve a 50-mile area for Irish fishermen. One need only refer to any of several volumes of the Dáil debates to find these sort of assurances. However, the promises have not been fulfilled. Fianna Fáil won the votes of many of the fishermen by making promises which they knew were not capable of being fulfilled. It is no harm to make that point and to draw attention to the deceitful tactics in which Fianna Fáil engaged in debates relating to fisheries during 1975, 1976 and in the early part of 1977. But I shall not pursue that point on this measure as the debate is confined although when Fianna Fáil were in opposition they did not regard a debate of this kind as being confined. Perhaps when replying the Minister will broaden the subject and tell us what happened in regard to the promises his party made while in opposition. Regarding the sea fishing aspect of the industry——

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle:

Surely this motion has no relevance to sea fishing.

Mr. Begley:

It has, of course.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It has not anything to do with sea fishing.

Mr. Lenihan:

It deals with salmon and inland fisheries.

Mr. Begley:

Salmon is a sea fish, too.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy should not challenge the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Begley:

On a point of order, will the Board of Conservators have control of salmon caught in deep sea?

Mr. Lenihan:

This measure concerns the conservation of inland fisheries administration including salmon caught in inland waters.

Mr. Begley:

And salmon caught in deep sea.

Mr. Lenihan:

That is not so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The motion is not related in any way to deep sea fishing.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

To the best of my knowledge the rules of procedure in this House have not changed in any way. Therefore we must clear up this matter. Is the Minister asserting that the boards of conservators will not have any control regarding fish caught at sea?

Mr. Begley:

That is the question.

Mr. Lenihan:

They will be dealing with an area up to six miles from the coast but the Deputy is dealing in semantics.

Mr. Begley:

The Minister should educate the Chair in the matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy should not attack the Chair in this way. I am endeavouring to rule in accordance with the rules of the House. If the Chair were to rule strictly he would not allow any reference to fisheries because the motion deals with the boards of conservators. It has always been the habit here to widen the scope of the debate on that but the Chair is endeavouring to keep discussion within a reasonable limit. The question of a 50-mile fishing zone has no relevance so far as this motion is concerned.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

A perusal of the official reports in respect of previous debates on this matter will indicate that prominant members of Fianna Fáil regarded the 50-mile limit as being relevant then and they were not reluctant to broaden discussion and to maintain that salmon was a sea fish as well as an inland water fish. It was on that basis that discussion was broadened to include reference to sea fishing.

Mr. Lenihan:

The 50-mile limit has no relevance so far as salmon is concerned.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

At the time of these discussions the Minister was in another place.

Mr. Lenihan:

For my sins.

Mr. Begley:

He might go there again another time.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

I trust that the Minister will tell us something of what happened in relation to Fianna Fáil's assurances, not only regarding a 50-mile limit but in regard also to a licensing system.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Chair has pointed out that the question of a 50-mile limit may not be discussed on this motion and the Minister would not be allowed refer to it, either. The Chair has been giving the Deputy plenty of scope otherwise.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

The matter arose in the past when our respected Ceann Comhairle addressed himself to it at length.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The former Ceann Comhairle seldom, if ever, allowed any such breach of the rules.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

I have heard Deputy Daly refer to remarkable strides having been made by the Minister. I should like to hear from the Deputy as to what these remarkable strides are. Have they concerned the 50-mile limit or was the Deputy referring to the development of boat yards or harbours? Is he not aware that it is almost impossible to get money from the Department for such works? Apart from the system of election of the boards being repugnant, I have found from a small study I undertook long before I moved into the Department that many of our private fisheries were given to the descendants of the original owners by way of charters made by British monarchs, Charles I and James II being the most prominent in this regard. Under these charters the right to fish was taken from the ordinary Irish people. I mentioned that again and again down through the years in fishery discussions here. Some of the then Ministers for Fisheries got annoyed when such a question was mentioned. It is not necessary for me to repeat their names because they have left us. I always thought we should take steps to rectify that position and acquire fisheries on a compensatory basis. The State is entitled to acquire fishery rights, but how is the price to be determined?

Mr. Lenihan:

Why did the Deputy not do it when he was in power?

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

We were doing it. I was the first to mention this question. We laid the foundation stone.

Mr. Lenihan:

Why did the Deputy not do it?

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

I do not want to quote what some of the Ministers' Fianna Fáil predecessors said.

Mr. Lenihan:

Why did the Deputy not do it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy M.P. Murphy is in possession.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

I can see difficulties in determining a price. In my opinion the price should be determined by a State tribunal or an official with the necessary qualifications. I do not think it is right that we should have to pay big money for something that should always have been in possession of the Irish people.

Unfortunately, poaching was never regarded as a sin, certainly not as a mortal sin, in our way of life. That was a pity but it was mainly due to the fact that our lakes and rivers were privately owned and therefore the ordinary people did not see anything wrong with poaching in these waters. I have always maintained that poachers are fishing illegally and should be punished in the same way as people who break the other laws of the land. As a nation we must lay down laws and then we must ensure that they are adhered to. Those who conflict with them must be punished by the courts.

As I already said, I will spare the Chair and the House from quoting from numerous books because that is a practice I do not like. While we in this House are concerned mainly with the future, we cannot overlook what happened in the past. I hope that after 16 months hatching the Minister will bring in this measure in a few weeks.

Mr. Lenihan:

That is right.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

Twelve months ago the Minister said it would be introduced in a few weeks. It is very hard to measure what he means by a few weeks.

I have no hesitation in expressing the view that in this coming legislation the Minister should keep the whip hand. I am not too favourably inclined towards the view that if something is difficult it should be handed over to a board. I do not know how many boards have been set up—some were set up as delaying tactics and others to provide cosy seats for political friends. I do not believe in the farming out system. The Minister and the Government of the day should hold authority when establishing the inland fisheries board.

Mr. Lenihan:

I agree.

Mr. M. P. Murphy:

It is proposed to establish a national board and seven regional boards. I would not take issue if thE Minister kept authority and did not pass it to the board, but it could then be argued: why set up a board? A board with executive power of a limited nature could be very useful advising the Minister and co-ordinating the work of the seven regional boards.

At Question Time when Deputies are anxious to get information for their constituents on national questions they find themselves confronted with the statement by the Minister that he has no function in the matter and that "this is a matter for the board". I do not like that kind of reply. I believe all boards have too much latitude. We should be prying into the affairs of existing boards more than we are.

It is a nice kind of life for directors of state boards, from the financial side. They have no worry about where their pay cheques will come from. They know that whether the board is good, bad or indifferent, the taxpayers must pay their wages. It is very different for the man who is managing his own business, because if it suffers a setback he may not be too sure where his pay cheque will come from. We must bear these facts in mind.

I want to conclude by expressing a personal viewpoint. The Minister should hold authority and the national fishery board to be set up under the proposed Bill should be an advisory board, advising and assisting the Minister and his Department on legislative proposals for the development of the fisheries industry.

I wish the Minister well in formulating the Bill. I am sure it will be a rather complicated measure. If it contains the provisions we feel it should contain it will be of general advantage to the development of our inland fisheries and, to a limited extent, our sea fisheries. I hope the House will approve of it. On national questions like this I do not believe in opposition for the sake of opposition. That was the tactic employed by Fianna Fáil but two wrongs do not make a right. No matter what proposal was brought in by the National Coalition Government, Fianna Fáil tried to find some fault in it. That was their main stock-in-trade. The think-tank was working under the management of the present Minister for Economic Planning and Development with his agents. They were planning ways to smooth the road back to office. He succeeded, but there are serious difficulties so far as our fisheries are concerned, and there are other serious difficulties so far as other aspects of Irish life are concerned.

Mr. Begley:

I will be very brief. Like other speakers I am disappointed that the Minister has not honoured the commitment he gave the House 12 months ago to introduce this legislation in 1978. We can take with a grain of salt any suggestion that it will be introduced in 1978. Possibly we will see it in 1979.

The Minister comes from a fishing constituency. No matter what legislation he introduces, and no matter who he gets to enforce it, whether it is the army, the navy, the Garda or the water bailiffs, it will not be a success unless he incorporates in it power for the fishermen to protect our fisheries. There is goodwill in the fishing industry. I want to say strongly to the Minister that he should have confidence in the fishermen and give them a real say on the board he is setting up. It is the fishermen who must provide conservation in the heel of the hunt. He will spare himself an enormous amount of worry and an enormous amount of expenditure by the State if the fishermen are allowed to protect their own interests. The situation in Kerry is chaotic. Four salmon fishery licences have been issued for the whole county by the Kerry Board of Conservators while in Letterkenny there are 250 licences and in Dunmore another couple of hundred.

Mr. Lenihan:

West Cork?

Mr. Begley:

Another couple of hundred in west Cork. In Kerry there are many young men who are traditional fishermen and will be fishermen all their lives. It is regrettable that these young men who want to be genuine fishermen are not getting a chance to be involved in how their own future will evolve. The Minister's Department are not as quick off the mark as they should be. Not so long ago they had to be forced by Deputy Deasy, Deputy O'Keeffe and myself to bring in legislation to protect our fisheries from the Spaniards, and to increase the fines. Admittedly the Minister produced his own legislation after we showed him ours.

Yesterday the Committee on Procedure and Privileges decided by a majority vote that in future no Opposition Deputy can introduce legislation. From the point of view of democracy, this makes the Opposition completely irrelevant. It inhibits us from introducing legislation dealing with boards of conservators or anything else. I appeal to the Minister to expedite the introduction of this legislation and to have the fishermen involved at every level. Last Thursday I put down a question about the number of illegal nets seized by the navy and the reply was very lopsided. There were 13 seizures in Kerry and none in Galway. A direction was given to the corvette by the Minister for Defence to keep away from the Galway coast and to concentrate on Kerry. That is the reality of the situation, I repeat.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

That allegation should not be made.

Mr. Begley:

I make it again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It should not be made.

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Lenihan):

There is no basis for that suggestion. I should like to apologise unreservedly for the fact that we have not got the legislation ready for a Second Reading. It will be ready in a matters of weeks. There are a few small matters to be ironed out. I will have the Bill ready for publication before the end of this month and I hope it will have its Second Reading in the Dáil in this session. That is the objective. I was beaten on my commitment by a few weeks and I apologise for that.

I should like to emphasise that this is not just a small one or two section Bill. It runs into 200 pages with over 60 sections and complicated schedules. The main reason for much of the complication is embodied in what Deputy Treacy suggested. For the first time we are bringing in State powers of compulsory acquisition of fisheries, purchase of fisheries, and a system of compensation in relation thereto. In other words we are bringing in a Land Commission type system in relation to fisheries. This involves the whole question of title and ownership of fisheries. It is an entirely new departure and has to be viewed in a constitutional context. I can assure the House it took some time to prepare the Bill and this was the main cause of delay in drafting it. When it emerges, we want it to stand up to any constitutional scrutiny. In advance of the introduction of the Bill, I have already made one decision on a fishery which became available on the market, the Galway Salmon and Eel Fishery which has been acquired by agreement. The Bill will have stringent powers of compulsory acquisition where the acquisition of such fisheries is deemed to be advantageous from the national point of view.

There is no point in anticipating the Second Reading of the Bill. The whole structure and administration of our inland fisheries and fisheries up to six miles from our baseline is being re-organised. A completely new staff situa-tion is envisaged with the merging of the present Inland Fisheries Trust and the existing boards of conservators into a totally new organisational structure with substantial extra financing, with extra penalties for illegal fishing, and a whole series of new measures designed to ensure that in future we will have a proper system of organisation for the protection and the development of our salmon fisheries and our inland fisheries, and that the control both for protection and development purposes will be the very best and properly managed, not on an ad hoc casual basis such as we have had heretofore, but with staff properly remunerated and superannuated and organised. All these matters have been missing heretofore by reason of the casual ad hoc manner in which the administration of our fisheries has been carried on for over 100 years.

I will not say any more because it is only anticipating the debate. I hope we will have a constructive debate in this session on the Second Stage and that we can have a constructive Committee Stage debate as well because it is the type of measure that commands in principle a broad measure of agreement and we should be able to have a constructive and responsible discussion here in the House on the details. The motion itself of course is merely to ensure that the present regime continues. It will automatically terminate on the passage of the new legislation.

The only other matter I would like to refer to is the matter Deputy Begley referred to and I think it is worth taking up. It is the question of getting the fishermen involved in protection. I agree with him very fully here. Just to take one specific instance, that of salmon, I do not see any way of protecting our salmon in the long run without the co-operation of the legitimate small traditional inshore salmon fishermen. The sort of illegal fishing that we have to beat is not of their making. It is illegal fishing by much larger trawlers further out to sea—other Irish fishermen, by the way—using larger trawlers, illegal nets and taking away the livelihood from those traditional fishermen. I would like to see a system—and I have already had discussions with the Salmon and Inshore Fishermens Assocation—in which they can become more closely involved with the new board's protection staff and with the Navy whom we have now recruited in this endeavour and with the Garda in ensuring the protection of their own livelihood apart from the general interests, the angling and tourism aspect of our development. But essentially the protection of our salmon stocks can only be carried out with the goodwill and co-operation of the traditional inshore fishermen. These fishermen, by reason of their methods of fishing, are not really affecting salmon stocks. It is our own huge commercial operators—we cannot blame the foreigner in this instance— both at sea and engaged in distribution on land who are responsible for the depredation of our salmon stocks in recent years. In my view we can, with the co-operation of the angling interests and with the co-operation of the staffs of the proposed new board, the Garda and the Navy, sustain a real campaign—it was started last summer and will continue in the summers ahead—to ensure that we save our salmon stocks. That is literally what we have to achieve, to save a species that is in danger of extinction unless this co-operation takes place.

Finally, I would like to thank the other Deputies for their co-operation. I welcome the contribution of Deputy Treacy and I am certain that we can cover much of the ground that he covered in the debate on the Bill itself. The same goes for the contributions of Deputies O'Keeffe, Begley and Murphy. As a previous incumbent of the office of Minister for Fisheries. Deputy Murphy made one point with which I agree. He said that ultimately the power in this respect in the new legislation in dealing with fisheries administration will reside with the Minister for Fisheries. That is the way it should be. In an important matter like this the ultimate power should reside with the relevant Minister, because whoever is the custodian for the time being is the person who is answerable in this House. I agree with Deputy Murphy's views. I know they are on record in the Department and they coincide with my own.

Question put and agreed to.