Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Oct 1979

Vol. 316 No. 2

Fisheries Bill, 1979 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. Deasy

Before Questions, I was referring to the extensive amount of illegal drift-netting at sea which is taking place off our west coast, which we were promised more than two years ago would be eliminated and which has continued unabated and has led to reports this year of trawlers fishing extensive lengths of nets, and the owners and operators of these boats do not even have salmon licences. Instances of cases where lengths of nets were in excess of ten miles have been given to me. In one case the man has boasted that he has been fishing 15 miles of net and much of this is monofilament net which is a deadly killer of salmon.

There are reports also that profits in the region of £25,000 or £30,000 have been made in the past salmon season. All of this profit was made while the licensed salmon fishermen on the south-west coast could not get their expenses and when they were under the closest scrutiny from the protection staff of the boards of conservators. I am not complaining about their scrutiny but why has this extensive illegal fishing not been eliminated or at least curtailed? I do believe poaching will never be eliminated completely because it is like a disease with some people. Once they start they cannot stop even if they are brought before the courts on several occasions. I believe that in the past salmon season more salmon were caught illegally than were caught by licensed holders. I cannot prove that but I believe it has a good deal of substance when one considers the quantities of salmon landed at ports where there were no salmon licences.

Why are the fishermen in my constituency, in Deputy Hegarty's constituency, in Deputy O'Keeffe's constituency and in Deputy Begley's constituency being watched day and night and being brought before the courts for the slightest offence? Some of them are guilty only of leaving their nets in their boats for a few hours over a weekend, instead of leaving them on the quay side. This is happening while extensive poaching by trawlers continues along the west coast. The Minister gave a promise two years ago but it has not been fulfilled.

I now wish to refer to the method of allocation of licences to drift net fishermen. Under the terms of the new legislation does the Minister propose to have the issuing of those licences done in a more professional manner? It has been purely a hit and miss effort up to this. The holder of a licence could reap a handsome sum of money if there is a good run of fish in his area. The issuing of such licences should not be left to the members of a board who can come under undue pressure from relatives, friends and neighbours who are involved in the fishing industry. If a position is being allocated in any business there are stringent conditions attached to it and we hope that the best qualified people get those positions. No guarantee is given in the issuing of salmon licences under the present scheme that the most qualified fishermen get the licences. I know of a number of instances where the most qualified fishermen did not get licences.

Deputy Ahern said earlier today that business people and professional people have salmon licences for drift netting but genuine fishermen who should be entitled to such licences cannot get them. Perhaps the word "corruption" could be used in this context, but I would prefer to think that it is less severe than that. I hope if the system is changed and the members of the boards are not put under undue pressure by members of their families and their friends that things will be much better. The Minister must ensure that the present situation ends. A professional interview board should be set up to assess who is most entitled to a licence. A Department inspector should sit in on any meeting where applications are being dealt with and the local members of the board should be consulted with regard to any local knowledge they might have in relation to the credentials of the applicants.

We have had for far too long an uneven distribution of licences. I am not advocating that the number of drift net licences should be increased but the distribution of those licences should be done in a fairer manner. How can we justify in one area the issuing of as many as 200 drift net licences and in an adjacent area only as few as eight licences?

Mr. Lenihan

It is thanks to Deputy Murphy that this is happening in west Cork and Kerry.

Mr. Deasy

No. This mass allocation started during the term of the previous Fianna Fáil Government. The figures are there to prove it. I am not being flippant. There are hundreds and hundreds of inshore fishermen in Kerry. Why is their total allocation only eight? They are just as entitled to licences as people in adjacent counties and in adjacent fishing areas. There should be uniformity in the issuing of the 1,000 licences.

Mr. Lenihan

I agree. That area of mid-Cork, west-Cork and Kerry will be under one board.

Mr. White

It does not say that in the Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

It will be in the order.

Mr. Deasy

I referred to that matter because there is nothing about it in the Bill and there is no reference to it in the Minister's speech today.

Mr. Lenihan

There is power in the Bill to make an order to do that.

Mr. Deasy

There should be an above board distribution of licences. If one goes to any part of the country at the moment where they driftnet for salmon it can be pointed out that professional people have boats and licences and the ordinary fishermen have not. We have all had representations from salmon fishermen since the Minister in the earlier months of this year introduced regulations to curtail the driftnet fishermen. The season was shortened, the starting date was put back and, worse still, the closing date was put forward, which in some areas meant a reduction of 50 or more days for salmon fishing. As well as that, the fishing week was reduced from five days to four. I do not know of any other sector of the community which has had a cutback in its income without compensation of some kind from the Exchequer.

Three years ago, when the Celtic Sea was closed to herring fishermen we were told with a fanfare of trumpets that herring fishermen were being compensated for their loss in earnings. Not one herring fisherman in Ireland was compensated. On a Dáil question six months ago, I raised the same question in relation to salmon fishermen, and the Minister told me that there were no funds available for such compensation and that it was solely a matter for the Irish Government and did not involve the EEC. I should have thought that under the terms of the EEC and the regional fund for socially disadvantaged areas—as all these areas are where people driftnet because they are generally out on headlands where there is nothing but rocks and water—these people would be classified as being entitled to substantial compensation because their livelihood was curtailed, if not completely done away with. This has not been the case.

Under the EEC schemes to do with beef or milk, if there is an over-supply, people are immediately compensated if they get out of that line of production and into something which has an undersupply. Fishermen have not received any such benefits. There are dozens of small inshore fishermen who cannot meet repayments on their boats and no-one seems to care. How can the Department of Forestry and Fisheries, the Minister and Bord Iascaigh Mhara advocate people going into the fishing industry when they will not be allowed to fish? How many people have applied in the last five years for new boat loans from Bord lascaigh Mhara and find that they cannot fish? We know they cannot fish for herrings, for fear of prosecution. Their salmon fishing week has been so curtailed that they could not possibly make ends meet.

The Minister is probably aware of this, but for the information of others in the House, I explain that the salmon around these islands run in an anticlockwise direction, coming in to our shores somewhere along the Donegal coast, in the north-west. If people are allowed to driftnet for 15 miles, much of which is mono-filament net, how can licensed fishermen—and there are some 600 or 700 of them around the south and south-west coast—expect to make a living? On top of the chances of those fish being caught by these illegal driftnetters on the Shannon estuary and elsewhere, the season has been shortened, the week has been shortened. They are getting no compensation, no hearing. All they are being told is that it is in their own interests, it is conservation. What are they expected to live on, until such time as the stocks improve? They are not the people who are responsible for the decimation of the stocks.

Last year, I asked the Minister how many naval patrol inspections were made of salmon fishermen in the Lismore Board of Conservation area. The reply was that there were 13 such inspections, resulting in no prosecutions. That speaks for itself. These people fish according to the rules, but are paying for the fact that they do. The Minister has expressed no sympathy for their plight and has no solution and is not prepared to suggest how to balance the short-fall in their earnings. This would not be tolerated by any other sector of the community. Is the Minister surprised that they come protesting to the Dáil seeking to meet him as a deputation? They are reasonable people and I strongly suggest that the Minister, before introducing restrictions should meet the people concerned. No-one would work under the conditions these people are expected to work under. Their livelihood is chopped in half or more. Fishermen in Waterford and East Cork tell me their earnings have dropped by 75 or 80 per cent this year and that they can barely meet the expenses—some of them cannot—let alone make a living. They cannot meet their repayments for boats and gear and a number have asked me to make representations on their behalf for social welfare payments. What a sad state of affairs. We talk about conservation of fish but do not worry about conservation of people's jobs or livelihoods.

It is estimated that there are between 5,000 and 6,000 small inshore fishermen and the bulk of these have suffered a serious loss of earnings over the past year. Instead of an expansion of the fishing industry there will be a vast reduction. A maritime state, with a minute fishing industry and all we can report is reduction in catches and in the number of people employed in the industry. Why? It is not the fault of the legal fishermen. The damage has been done by the illegal drift-netters and by others from outside our country—our Common Market brethren, who fish to suit themselves and obey no rules.

Mr. Lenihan

They do not fish for salmon.

Mr. White

They certainly catch plenty of herring.

Mr. Lenihan

We are talking about salmon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister and Deputies, we are dealing with inland fisheries and nothing else in this Bill.

Mr. Deasy

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not here earlier when the Minister enlightened us in this regard. The Fisheries Bill before us today goes as far as the 12-mile limit.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is well aware of that, but we are getting into deep-sea fishing now. Keep away from that subject, please.

Mr. Deasy

I have confined myself solely to the salmon drift-netters, which is the major topic in this Bill. The Minister has stated that these foreigners do not catch salmon. Would the Minister cast his mind back three years to September 1976 when a huge Bulgarian trawler—if you could use the word "trawler"; a factory ship would be more like it—of some 6,000 tons——

Mr. Lenihan

That was when the Deputy was letting them in.

Mr. Deasy

I am making a point which the Minister has denied. When the catch on board that huge factory ship was examined, it was discovered that a considerable number of salmon were included. If the Bulgarians did it, we can be sure the Dutch and the French are doing it. We do not seem to be rigid enough or tough enough when it comes to speaking to these people. I am sure if the catches were examined of the Dutch trawlers which fish in July and August in the Celtic Sea, under the pretext of fishing for mackerel, a fair few salmon would be found as well. The Minister cannot expect personnel from the Irish Navy to look into the hold of such a huge ship. The place to have Navy personnel, or fishery protection officers, is aboard these ships when the catches are being made, or at the point of landing whether in Ireland or on the Continent. It is well known that these people are expert at hiding their catches.

I read a report in The Cork Examiner not too long ago about a Dutch ship which was brought into Cobh. It was discovered that, while the skipper pleaded he was fishing for mackerel, and had hundreds of tons of mackerel aboard, one-third of his total catch was herring. The figure is not supposed to be more than 5 per cent. Irish fishermen suspect that quantities of salmon are being caught in this manner. Why did the Minister give support to the IFO proposal earlier this year for the placing of fishery protection officers aboard foreign trawlers fishing within our limits? Why has that proposal not been implemented?

Mr. Lenihan

I have given full support to that. I had very constructive discussions at a meeting with the IFO the other day.

Mr. Deasy

It is taking a considerable length of time to implement it. I should also like to ask the Minister—when he has an opportunity to listen——

Mr. Lenihan

I am listening with my good ear.

Mr. R. Burke

That was not necessary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should make his speech and not ask questions. The Minister is not entitled to answer questions across the floor. He will have an opportunity to reply to the points being made.

Mr. Deasy

I am a reasonable individual as I assume everybody else is. It is very hard to address the Minister when somebody else is speaking to him. I made a point earlier today about our knowledge of our salmon stocks. I should like to know what communication the Minister has with the Danish authorities with regard to the amount of salmon being caught off the Greenland coast. It is fairly well known that the salmon stocks which thrive along our coast and in our spawning rivers emanate from the general area off the southern coast of Greenland, and that vast quantities of salmon have been caught there in recent years.

If anything is responsible for the reduction in the number of spawning fish going up river this could very well be it. I should like to know what steps are being taken to stop over-fishing in that region. Something like 120 tonnes of salmon, which may sound a small figure but it is a vast amount of salmon, were caught in that area in 1962. By 1971 the figure had increased to 1,446 tonnes, well over ten times as many. The quantities being caught have been enormous. As a fellow member of the EEC, Denmark should be spoken to and information should be obtained to find out if the Danes are the root cause of the reduction in numbers in our rivers and off our coast.

It is also relevant to mention the fact that the Danes seem to have got special concessions with regard to their fisheries off Greenland, not just for salmon but for every other species involved as well. I know that has to do with the granting of home rule to Greenland, but I do not see why a colony of a member of the EEC should get preferential treatment when that preferential treatment may be to the detriment of another member of the EEC.

I question the knowledge at the Minister's disposal. I wonder what inquiries have been made through the North Eastern Atlantic Fishing Commission which controls quotas and fishing for all species in that area. When I come across the shortages in staff of the Department of Fisheries, in the Inland Fisheries Trust and in the boards of conservators, I must question seriously whether we have people with the technical knowledge to find out the truth about these matters. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle may say it is a matter of no consequence.

Mr. Lenihan

It is a matter of consequence. I did not say it was not.

Mr. Deasy

I did not refer to the Minister. The livelihoods of 5,000 people, or very close to that figure, are at stake. It could be that in some cases we are depriving these people completely of their livelihoods when that need not be the case if our investigations were a little more exact. We are blaming the wrong things for the drop in salmon numbers in our rivers.

I have not mentioned up-river poaching because it is obvious that it has been going on since the year dot and it will go on for ever more. As long as there are salmon in the rivers, there will be poachers. I would hope that the staffs of the regional boards will be there in such numbers that a serious effort will be made to stop up-river poaching, particularly at this time of the year, from September to Christmas. The spawning salmon which are going up-river are being massacred all over the country despite the best efforts of the bailiffs, the reason being that there are not sufficient bailiffs. I would ask the Minister to spell out what improvement he hopes to bring about in this area. Can he promise us that we can expect to see spawning fish surviving? In some of the smaller rivers virtually no fish have survived. By their very nature salmon are slow-moving fish and are easily poached. A child could take them out of the river at times. Our tradition for poaching will continue unless we are more vigilant.

Probably I have gone on far too long and I apologise to some of my colleagues for keeping them waiting. I hope some of the points I raised will be put to use and not just thought about by the Minister. I could refer to many other matters but I do not wish to be argumentative. I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would not let me. I could go back to the Lismore No. 4 area where the Minister, on assuming office, waved a magic wand and gave them a depth of net of 45 meshes overnight as the result of an election promise in 1977. The following year he withdrew that concession without even apologising. That hurt very deeply. It would have been better if it had never been allowed in the first place. It was like giving a child a sweet and taking it from him before he could put it in his mouth.

There has been a good deal of inconsistency regarding the inland fisheries programme. There is much discontent among the people concerned. In particular those people along the south coast who depend on two types of fishing, both of which are based on drift netting, find they can no longer make a living, apart altogether from the repayments on the boats that they purchased at very high prices. Drift netting for salmon is something which cannot be overdone. It is a very effective way of killing salmon because salmon are caught easily by the use of this method. They are a slow moving fish so that the course of their journey is very easily plotted. Drift netting for herring is a harmless method of fishing but now the fishermen cannot even fish for herring. It is a sorry state of affairs. I urge the Minister to speak to the people concerned with a view to reaching some compromise solution because unless there is a compromise there is likely to be a situation in which either many fishermen will find themselves in jail or there will be a loss of thousands of livelihoods.

Mr. Hegarty

I compliment the previous speaker on his wide-ranging remarks. His contribution indicates the extent to which he has made himself conversant with the problems concerned. Deputy Deasy said that it was not his intention to cover the entire field but he has covered this whole matter quite well.

I shall confine my remarks to a few aspects of the industry with special regard to my role as spokesman for tourism for my party, from which point of view I see some very important aspects of this legislation. Hopefully, the new central authority will have enough muscle and finance to do what we should like to see being done. Tourism is a fairly substantial industry and it is related strongly to fishing. In their brochures many hotels concentrate on the local fishing scene, mostly on the coarse fishing situation. If one happens to be in Germany, for instance, and to raise the subject of fishing, one finds that invariably the Germans think in terms of fishing for pike. They are very pleased if when in Ireland they succeed in catching pike. They are able to make a delicious meal of a fish that we would be likely to throw away. On the mainland of Europe fishing is almost extinct so far as the lakes and rivers are concerned but thankfully that is not the situation here. This is an aspect of fishing that can be developed substantially here. Even in my own area, where there are a number of small inland lakes and rivers, the amount of effort put into stocking is minimal. When one raises this matter one is usually reminded that the question is one of money.

If we are to take into account the substantial spin-off in terms of tourism it is obvious that we should concentrate on improving our fish stocks. We should concentrate, too, on the whole question of the pollution of our lakes and rivers, but that is a matter that I shall refer to later.

The subject of aquaculture is prominent in this legislation, and rightly so. We have been told that this form of activity can be of tremendous help in overcoming the protein shortage in the world. It plays an important role in producing very significant quantities of protein and it has much potential for development. The present aquaculture fish production in the Community cannot nearly satisfy requirements. There are problems in relation to technology and so on, but this is an area that should be developed. Much research is needed.

Another Deputy raised the question about this whole aspect of stocking and suggested that the situation is not as successful as it might be. I am satisfied that the programme in this regard is successful. It is certainly very successful so far as the Blackwater is concerned where the policy of putting small salmon on the river is proving very worthwhile. Indeed, there has been a surplus there, some of which has been sold off.

I turn now to what is perhaps the most important aspect of this whole inland fisheries business, an activity that should rightly be the prime responsibility of the new board. It has been mentioned that the new board would not have direct responsibility for the control of pollution, that that responsibility would remain with the Department of the Environment. For the reasons given here today already, this responsibility should be transferred from the Department. I shall concentrate for the moment on Cork harbour. If one ventures out in a boat up the east side and into Ballinacurra one sees mounds of pollution on all sides. Perhaps some of this build-up of pollution goes back as far as the time of Brian Boru when we had the old primitive systems, but there is a situation now where it is intended to discharge the entire effluent from the town of Midleton and its hinterland with all its industrial complexes into the east side, into a most beautiful fishing and scenic area. This is a new scheme. There is a team of experts involved. Obviously, there is no problem in engaging such people, though they very often cost as much as would the treatment of a plant. These people tell us that this scheme will not be harmful or, as the Minister might say, that there is no problem; but the problem is there. The first duty of the new central authority, which will control inland fisheries, is to preserve what we have before it is too late. If we continue polluting our rivers, streams and estuaries we may forget about salmon fishermen. In the past the situation was not as bad as it is now because human effluent is not as serious as detergents and industrial waste. Recently I was told that small quantities of some detergents can be sufficient to wipe out all life in an estuary. This is becoming more evident to those who have boats and do a bit of fishing.

The most important function of the new board, and one which they have not been given, is responsibility for the control of water pollution. As somebody said here today, how can a county manager take himself to court? The situation is as stupid as that. The local authorities are the main culprits in this area. Instead of polluting they should be giving good example to everybody else. How can local authorities expect farmers to install treatment plant when local authorities are the major culprits? To install such a plant a farmer would have to borrow money. It is no argument for local authorities to say that they have not got the money to install treatment plants. The money will have to be found. Treatment plants are expensive but they are efficient. Clean water emerges from them, as I have seen for myself in America. They are a very good investment. We should remember that pike and coarse fish are as vulnerable as salmon and trout. If we are serious about tourism and about tackling pollution, we should seriously consider the control of all effluent and ensure that all local authorities install proper treatment facilities. In the past pollution was not noticed as much as it is now. It is heartening to note that people everywhere are now aware of the seriousness of pollution in rivers and streams. Even in the past few years day-trippers are becoming more conscious of the value of keeping beaches clean.

Deputy Deasy spoke at length of the plight of salmon fishermen. He made an excellent point when he said that everyone needs conservation. When I was a Member of the previous Dáil I accompanied a deputation of salmon fishermen to meet the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary. The fishermen agreed with conservation. If the rules are not applied around the coast, if the same vigilance is not taking place on the west coast as in my own area of Ballycotton in Youghal, then there is something wrong. I hope there will be as much vigilance on the west coast as there is in my own area.

Mr. Lenihan

No one wants the rules applied to himself.

Mr. Hegarty

If 15 miles of monofilament net can be used by trawlers on the west coast while the owners of small boats in Youghal harbour are being sat on, there is something wrong with the system.

Mr. Lenihan

The other fellows say the reverse.

Mr. Hegarty

Only small trawlers operate in the Youghal area. The Minister gave them back their 45 mesh and there may have been justification for giving it to them. I argued with the Department of Fisheries that it was a good compromise in that area where the water is deep.

Mr. Lenihan

Then the rest of the coast wanted it.

Mr. Hegarty

That is a different situation. No sooner had the election been won than the concession was taken from them. There is no justification for the shortening of the season or the shortening of the week. They are entitled to a five-day week and to a full season. The month of February was not very important but the last month was vitally important because in that month they usually made enough money to carry on and, as Deputy Deasy pointed out, to make repayments on their boats. I agree with Deputy Deasy that no other section of the community would take that sort of treatment from anybody, especially when they had kept the rules.

They have been a most responsible group of people in that area and, as the board of conservators down there will acknowledge, it was unknown for any fisherman to deviate one iota from the law. That was accepted in the Department. They were particularly good and the stocking of the Blackwater, as I have pointed out already, was carried out in such a way that the river was overstocked every season.

Therefore, if we are to consider these small people and their livelihood, they will have to be given a decent season. As well as that compensation must be found for them. They are not the speculators that were mentioned already. These are not business people in the game of making a lot of money. They are traditional fishermen who have worked for generations at salmon fishing and they are now left high and dry without a livelihood and for no good reason. I appeal to the Minister to look at the plight of these people.

The Minister met these people. He pointed out to them that he was more convinced than ever that they had their homework done and that they were doing things properly. If the fishermen in the estuaries all around the country can demonstrate that their rivers are fully stocked, that they are doing things in a proper manner, then the Minister has nothing to worry about. The Minister has said he has no problems but he has big problems because of the abuses. It seems that because some people abuse the system everybody must suffer. It would be much more in the Minister's interest to go after the areas where the rules are being broken in a big way and ensure that things are done exactly, as they are being done in the Lismore area. Then the fish stocks would be quite safe, because certainly they are quite safe in the Blackwater. The people in the Blackwater area are keeping the rules and doing things properly, but because other people are not, the people in the Blackwater with their small boats and their small short nets have to pay the price, and that is very unfair.

Deputy White mentioned some of the methods that might be adopted in the future. He referred to eels and shellfish generally. We have had some experiences in the past which have not been very helpful in this regard, but because of the advances made recently in Japan and in Russia I see no reason why we could not spend some money in developing along the lines suggested by Deputy White.

The important thing about fish in all its shapes and forms is to have adequate stocks. Dutch boats were mentioned here today. I was once on board a Dutch boat and what struck me most of all was the amount of immature fish on board that boat. I am convinced that it is these people, the Dutch and indeed most of the EEC countries and countries outside the EEC, who are really doing the harm to our fish around the coast and not the traditional Irish fishermen. It is the outsiders who are really causing the problems of scarcity. They have this massive equipment—factory ships and so on. As the Minister said already, the Navy should look in on them. But all they can see is a solid block of ice. One would need to have somebody on board the vessels or at the ports where they embark and unload to find out what they have because with their freezing and so on it is very difficult to examine the contents of these vessels when they appear at an Irish port or even when they are caught.

The first of the few points I wanted to make is with regard to tourism. We have a great industry with Bord Fáilte and all the people dependent on it. We have small hotels many of which are situated near lakes and rivers. In overseas advertising they can offer fishing in some shape or form. This is a great time to get visitors because we can really cater for them. From this on we will have people coming over for a little bit of fishing and shooting. Coarse fishing is something that we are losing sight of. It can and should be devolpeed.

The second point I wanted to make was with regard to pollution. The question of pollution should be in the hands of the new board and not in the hands of the Department of the Environment, who are the worst pollutors of all because they are doing it with the stamp of the Government and there is no redress. It should be handed over to the people who will at the end of the day be responsible for whether the water contains polluted material or fish, because both cannot go on side by side. That is the first thing that should be in the new legislation; it should be under the control of the new board.

Mr. Lenihan

A Water Pollution Act was passed which gives that power of control to the local authorities.

Mr. Hegarty

As things are the Department of the Environment have no function in that area because they are not doing the job.

The third point is in relation to salmon fishermen. The people who are keeping the rules, the small operators who are being responsible to the point of taking their nets out of the boats at weekends, should not be penalised for the sake of the big trawlers on the west coast, that Deputy Deasy referred to, who are still using microfilament nets. If the Minister cannot see his way to give these fishermen their 45-mesh nets, they should be compensated. In line with general EEC thinking, if somebody loses revenue, then he must be paid for it; because it will not be much good at the end of the day if we have a few salmon and all our salmon fishermen are gone. They are just as much entitled to their livelihood as anybody else and by acting over-harshly the Minister is putting them out of business.

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Lenihan)

I should like to thank the Deputies for the constructive debate on this Bill, which in principle commands general acceptance on both sides of the House. Obviously, there are matters of detail which can be considered on Committee Stage. It is primarily a Committee Stage Bill because each section is important and carries its own point that can be dissected here on Committee Stage.

In broad principle the main outlines of the Bill are acceptable. It is agreed that the present administration of our inland fisheries is antiquated and needs updating. The main purpose of the Bill is to abolish the 17 boards of conservators that have been there for over 100 years, taking on temporary staff on an ad hoc basis who have no professional training and are without superannuation rights. They have done their best but the administrative machinery obviously has been inadequate. The personnel of the Inland Fisheries Trust are not in a position to work with the personnel of the boards of conservators. The rational thing to do is to merge the whole system into one inland fisheries administration with seven regional boards and one Central Fisheries Board supervising and co-ordinating the activities of those seven boards. There is complete agreement on that important principle.

Mr. White

Where will the headquarters of the seven boards be placed?

Mr. Lenihan

The board covering the Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim area will be based in Ballyshannon; the board covering Mayo will be based in Ballina; the board covering Galway will be based in Galway and that covering the northern part of the Shannon basin area will be based in Athlone. The headquarters of the south-west area board covering Cork and Kerry will be based in Macroom and the board covering the Tipperary and Waterford areas—the present Lismore area—will be based in Thurles. The board covering the east coast area will be based in Dublin and the overall headquarters will be based in Galway. I am open to suggestions as to the suitability of these centres because this is not written into the Bill, but that is the outline of what is contemplated.

The important aspect is the status of the chief executive of each regional board and of the Central Fisheries Board and the staff who will be under them. A number of speakers mentioned the inadequacy of the present staffing situation and the importance of improving this aspect. Sections 24 to 32 cover this and set up for the first time a scheme of management and the institution of permanent established staff properly appointed and superannuated. I lay great stress on this because I believe many of the present problems in the area of inland fisheries are caused by the lack of efficient administration. Local government works excellently in this country and this dates to a large extent from the institution of the county management system in 1940 and the setting up of a proper staff structure in each county area. Something similar is required in regard to inland fisheries so that professional decisions can be made by officials who will not be swayed by personal and other considerations. Decisions will be made on grounds of reason and commonsense and advice will be available to the chief executive and his staff from an elected board representative of all interests. Heretofore the boards of conservators represented only a narrow sector of the fishing interests, almost entirely made up of salmon fishing interests, both rated occupiers and commercial fishermen. We are now broadening this to include the whole range of fishing interests, sea angling, coarse fishing and trout fishing so that the whole range of non-commercial, nonvested fishing interests will have representation through a panel system in which each fishery interest will be represented and due weight given according to the importance of a particular type of fishing in a given area. That is an important aspect of the Bill.

I would also stress the importance of that Part of the Bill which deals with the acquisition of fisheries and of rights of way to fisheries on both a voluntary and a compulsory basis. Sections 36 to 44 provide a built-in system whereby for the first time fisheries can be acquired by the State in the national interest and worked and managed accordingly. As I said in reply to a question during the debate, I did this in the case of the Galway commercial fishery on the basis that it was for scientific purposes and at present I can acquire fisheries only on that basis. This Bill will give the Minister statutory power to acquire on a voluntary or compulsory basis any fishery. Obviously they will not all be acquired overnight but gradually this provision will enable fisheries of consequence to come into the hands of the nation and be managed appropriately. I also place much emphasis on the compulsory acquisition of right of ways to fisheries because inability to reach fisheries has been a problem in the past.

The Bill also sets up for the first time a regime to cater for aquaculture and this includes mariculture. There is now a complete regime for the acquisition of waters for this purpose and the granting of licences to people in this respect. We are facilitating existing aquaculture licencees to come under this scheme without going through the same procedure as new applicants. It is essential to exercise control in this area in which interest is growing. Scientific opinions support the view that there are many inlets around our western, north-western and southwestern coasts which are favourable for this type of fish farming and it is right that we should develop it on a rational basis. However, I want to enter a cautionary note. It is a very difficult business and one disease can cause great problems and wipe out a whole farm. Throughout the world we are very much in the early days in ascertaining the full facts and there are serious veterinary problems in regard to the handling and management of such operations. Excellent scientific research is being carried on by scientists from my Department at Abbotstown who will be available to the regional boards, to the central board and private interests to give advice on aquaculture and the other fishery areas.

The financing of the whole operation requires a substantial financial commitment by the State. The way to get that commitment is to set up the administration because once that is there the financial commitment has to follow and so far as I am concerned it will follow. We are devising a substantial additional way of financing it by way of a levy on the first sale of salmon. Voluntary subscriptions from the angling community might not bring in a great deal of money but the levy on the first sale of salmon should do so and, of course, the State will have its own commitment in the way of financing this administration once it is set up. There are a number of other aspects of the Bill that can be dealt with on Committee Stage but I should like to go through some of the points that were raised. I shall deal in a general way with the Bill itself.

With regard to decentralisation to Galway, I wish to state that I defend that decision. The great proportion of the waters involved in the developments we want are in the north-west, west and south-west. It makes sense to decentralise an administration of this kind. We are not going to do it overnight; it will be done gradually in consultation with staffs who are based elsewhere. If this administration is to get off the ground, there will have to be a considerable amount of redeployment of personnel. That is inevitable, not just because of the decentralisation aspect to Galway but because of the nature of the new structure. There will be discussions with the staff association and the trade union concerned about the appropriate way to handle the matter. It will be handled on the basis of discussion and negotiation, as are all such matters. Deputy Treacy is not present and I do not want to go into details because of that but I can show to him reports of two meetings in my office, one with the Inland Fisheries Trust Staff Association on 29 May 1979 and another report of a meeting on 6 April 1979 with the ITGWU representing the various other grades of the Inland Fisheries Trust in which all of these matters were discussed and where the question of the transfer to Galway of the headquarters of the new board was also discussed. Any allegations to the contrary that appeared in the newspapers were not true. I hope what I have said will be accepted. My officials were present.

Mr. M. Cosgrave

The Minister mentioned this morning that he would meet them again. They have requested a meeting and they would like to see the Minister urgently.

Mr. Lenihan

Certainly I will meet them again. I would have anyway because it is part of the ordinary course of duty. I had two meetings with them in which these matters were discussed and I can have a subsequent meeting with them. I am not going into detailed negotiations with them because they can do that through their association and trade union. I want to assure the House that there is absolutely no difficulty about that. These matters will be discussed again and I will meet them again. A number of Deputies raised this matter. I want to point out to the House that by reason of the restructuring I mentioned there will be redeployment of personnel but it will be done on the basis of full consultation and negotiation.

I have said there will be elections within 12 months and I can guarantee that. I shall nominate the first central board and regional boards but there will be elections within 12 months when we get the panels for the regional boards established.

Mr. White

After the Bill is passed?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes. We will get into that immediately. There must be consultation and discussion with the various angling and commercial fishing interests with a view to working out the proper system of panels for each of the regional board areas. I can assure the House that the standard of nominee on the board will be as good as I can make it. I do not intend to do anything other than that.

Several speakers referred to the question of pollution. We have to deal with the situation as it is. Three years ago under the previous Government we passed the Water Pollution Act. There was much debate about where the responsibility for enforcement should lie and the local authorities were finally decided upon as the appropriate bodies. I spoke on the matter in the Seanad when I was in Opposition and I agreed with the Minister. I think local authorities are the only bodies to deal with the matter. They have the engineering expertise and the administration necessary. All local authorities have recruited specialists in this area and they have set up divisions in their organisations to deal with the problem. Under the Bill the regional boards will be the prosecuting authority. We will be in a position to take the prosecutions. Fisheries personnel, including my secretary here in charge of fisheries and scientists from the Department, are represented on the overall Water Pollution Advisory Council that is designed to co-ordinate the work of the local authorities having regard to catchment areas of rivers. It makes sense to give it a chance. It is only three years since it was established.

Mr. Hegarty

Can the board prosecute even a local authority?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes, that is the point I am making. The regional boards and the central board will be the prosecuting authority in each case. A regional board can take a prosecution against a local authority if that is necessary.

Mr. White

The main point is that local authority officials will not issue a summons against the local authority. We are suggesting it should be changed to the central board.

Mr. Lenihan

It is a separate job. The personnel in the various local authorities have been trained in the administration and we must give it a chance to work. I am told that it is working well. We have fisheries representatives on the overall council and so far there have been no complaints about the administration.

Deputy White raised the point about the percentage of driftnetting and draftnetting and so on. The correct figure is 93 per cent in respect of driftnetting, legal and illegal, with regard to the salmon catch. Draftnetting has decreased enormously. It is the big factor in regard to diminishing the catch and enabling greater escapement of salmon. What is needed is escapement upstream to the spawning grounds in order to maintain the salmon rate. The big factor we have to consider is the rate, scale and scope of driftnetting.

The measures we introduced last year, drastic as they were—and they could have been much more drastic but I minimised them—were designed to reduce the commercial fishing rate by 25 per cent to 30 per cent. That was the target. It has resulted in an increased escapement upstream so far as we can gauge it from counts. I will give one figure which illustrates this point quite well. As Deputy White said, last year the catch in regard to rod angling was 2 per cent but this year it was 3.47 per cent. It practically doubled in the past year. That is an interesting figure because it shows that more salmon are going upstream.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 October 1979.