Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Oct 1979

Vol. 316 No. 2

Fisheries Bill, 1979 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister for Fisheries (Mr. Lenihan)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The object of this Bill, which was passed by the Seanad earlier this year is to give effect to the main recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission by securing the more effective development, protection, conservation, and management of inland fisheries through the reorganisation and strengthening of the existing administrative structure.

This will be done by replacing the existing 17 boards of conservators, which are responsible for the day-to-day work of conservation and protection of inland fisheries, and the Inland Fisheries Trust which conducts large-scale development work on brown trout, coarse fish and sea angling, by a Central Fisheries Board and seven regional fisheries boards.

The central board will be responsible for the co-ordination and, if necessary, direction of the work of the regional boards. It will also have planning, education, advisory and limited research functions. The chairman of the seven regional boards and four persons appointed by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry will make up the membership of the central board. The Minister will also appoint the chairman of the central board from among the members of the board.

Regional boards will have the function of identifying the fishery resources within their regions and of drawing up and carrying out programmes for the development and protection of these fisheries. The regional boards will comprise elected members with a limited number of members appointed by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry following consultation with relevant fisheries interests. The elected members will be elected in a democratic fashion by licence holders, ratepayers and trout, coarse fish and sea anglers who avail themselves of their right to be registered in the proposed Register of Trout, Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers on payment of an annual subscription. Voting in the case of licence holders and persons on the Register of Trout, Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers will be confined to such licence holders and persons resident in the State on a specified date.

The number of elected and appointed members on each regional board will be fixed by order. The size of a fisheries region and the nature of the fisheries therein will be factors in deciding the membership of the board. The rules governing the elections will be laid down in regulations and I have in mind a system of panelling the various groups and allocating a specific number of seats to each panel according to its strength in each region. Pending the setting up of the system of elections the Minister will nominate all the members of the first regional boards but these boards will be replaced by elected boards within one year. It would not be practicable to hold elections straight away as trout, coarse fish and sea anglers must be given a reasonable period to register and pay the voluntary subscription so as to qualify to vote.

Initially the staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust will be transferred to the central board and the staffs of the boards of conservators to the regional boards. There is provision in the Bill for movement of staff between the central board and regional boards. I have provided that these transfers will not entail any worsening of remuneration or conditions of service for any person; neither will any superannuation allowances to which a person was entitled prior to his transfer be reduced.

The central and regional boards are enabled subject to the approval of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry and that of the Minister for the Public Service to appoint such staff as are necessary to carry out their functions. I have included provision for the preparation of a staff scheme and a superannuation scheme by the central board for their staff and the staffs of regional boards. The staff scheme will provide for the regulation, control and management of staff and transfer of staff between boards, and will indicate the remuneration, tenure of office, qualifications for appointment and conditions of service in respect of different grades of staff. I consider that the introduction of more acceptable conditions of employment in the case of inspectors and waterkeepers engaged in the difficult task of developing and protecting our inland fisheries is an essential requirement for the success of the new structure.

Provision has also been made for the acquisition of fisheries and rights of way by agreement or compulsorily. These acquisitions will be subject to the payment of fair compensation and there is also provision for appeal against compulsory acquisitions. It is not envisaged that fisheries efficiently managed will be compulsorily acquired. While the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry is being empowered to sell fisheries or fishing rights vested in him, I do not intend to dispose of any fisheries owned by the State other than by way of transfer to the central board, if such transfer is considered desirable.

The main thrust I see coming from this Bill, is that of the increased emphasis which the Bill places on the development and expansion of our inland fisheries as distinct from the important work of protecting those fisheries which hitherto seems to have been the main objective.

As Deputies are aware, illegal fishing for salmon is one of the major causes of the serious decline in salmon stocks in recent years. Since 1975 landings of salmon have fallen each year from 2.1 million kilos in 1975 to 1.07 million kilos in 1979—a fall in catch of 49 per cent. Even more serious is the fact that the numbers of salmon reaching the spawning grounds are much reduced. Rivers that carried fine stocks of salmon at one time have been almost denuded of spawning stock. Every assistance will be given to the boards to stamp out illegal fishing and in this matter the boards will have the full support of the Garda and the Navy.

I have also included some new provisions in the Bill that will prove of great assistance in fishery protection. The most important of these is the increase of the penalties for fisheries offences to a realistic level. The Bill prescribes fines of up to £500 and/or six months in prison on summary conviction. For the more serious offences provision is made for trial on indictment and the penalty on conviction for such offences can amount to £2,000 and/or two years in prison.

It is provided also that the courts must disqualify any person convicted of a third or subsequent offence of a particular kind from holding a fishing licence for three years. I consider that it is only just that a fisherman should lose his licence if he flouts the law. The powers of protection staff at sea are also increased; they may now take to port a boat believed to have on board unlawfully caught salmon, detain the boat and its occupants until it is searched and use such force as is necessary in bringing the boat to port. I have included provisions which will enable a commercial fishing licence to be used only by the licensee or his nominee. This will help to eradicate the practice of transfer or sale of licences by licence holders and make the work of the protection staff that much easier.

The great potential of fish farming is recognised in the Bill. Briefly, the new provisions make it an offence to engage in aquaculture unless one holds the appropriate licence. The Bill enables an order to be made designating an area of the sea to be an area where aquaculture may be carried on, and licences may then be issued for the carrying on of aquaculture in that area. Such a designation order would be made following investigations, the prior publicising of the nature of the proposed order as prescribed in the Bill and, if necessary, a public inquiry. This procedure will obviate having to hold an inquiry in relation to the issue of individual licences. Implementation of the proposals in the Bill will, of course, require substantially increased expenditure. Perhaps I should better call this increased outlay investment rather than expenditure in view of the many ways the fisheries will benefit the economy.

At present those who benefit directly from inland fisheries development and protection—principally anglers and commercial fishermen—contribute by way of licence fees and fishery rates. The receipts from those sources are supplemented by an annual grant from the Exchequer. Obviously new sources of income must be found to meet a fair share of the greatly increased costs and greatly increased development envisaged.

To secure additional income the Bill provides for payment of a voluntary subscription by trout, coarse fish and sea anglers. This subscription will entitle them to registration in the Register of Trout, Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers and such registration will carry a vote in elections to boards. Quite apart from the financial side I consider this to be a very important provision of the Bill as it recognises the increasing importance of trout, coarse fish and sea angling and affords trout, coarse fish and sea anglers an opportunity to have a say on the boards which hitherto they were not afforded. The Bill also provides for the payment of a levy on the first sale of salmon which would be paid in most cases by salmon dealers or by hotels or restaurants.

I have no doubt that having regard to the development programme being implemented fishery interests will have no reservations about their contributions. Even so, while these provisions will provide increased revenue, the Exchequer will still have to bear the major burden of the cost. The Government gladly undertake this commitment knowing that, not only is the protection of our inland fisheries heritage an essential obligation, but that it also makes very sound economic sense.

Our inland fisheries provide very valuable employment in rural areas, particularly along the western seaboard. They provide exports of from £4 million to £5 million a year and add about £15 million every year to tourist earnings. What is particularly encouraging is that the opportunity exists for a considerable expansion of the resources available.

In conclusion I wish to pay tribute to the members of the Inland Fisheries Commission whose fine report formed the basis of this Bill, to the Council and staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust and to the members and staffs of the boards of conservators for their great work over the years in the development and protection of our fisheries. I recommend this Bill to the House.

Mr. White

This is a monstrous Bill, nearly 86 pages long, and I am sure the Minister appreciates as well as everybody else in the House that a lot of the homework on the Bill will be done during Committee Stage. It is absolutely impossible at this stage to cover everything in the Bill. It covers practically everything except the offshore fishermen. I hope, in my contribution this morning, to deal very briefly with some of the points which I see right and some of the points which I see wrong in the Bill.

I am sure the Minister will be glad to hear that this side of the House welcome the Bill. We have a few reservations, however, and we intend to put down some amendments which I hope when the Minister sees them he will take in the spirit that both of us intend, to look after the best interests of fisheries. We will not be putting down any amendments which are contrary to the working of the Bill. I have, however, come across some things which everybody interested in fisheries would like to see cleared up.

The Bill deals with inshore fishermen and inland waters. It is about time we adopted a proper policy to cover this very vast area. The Minister, first of all, quite rightly dealt with the major change that has taken place, as far as the boards of conservators are concerned. The 18 boards of conservators are now being cut down to seven and will be called regional boards and the overall body will be the central board. That is one of the first things I intend to deal with. The Bill also covers conservation, protection, fish management, research and development. Those different headings cover the major aspects of what this Bill is about.

The Bill then divides up the different sections and deals with agriculture, river and lake fishing, shore and sea angling, the inshore salmon fishermen, the estuary salmon fishermen, commercial fish farms and acquiring fisheries. We could speak for half an hour on any one of those headings. That is why I said it is quite impossible to deal with all of those headings on this Stage in the depth we would like to deal with them.

I would like to deal with the new seven regional boards and particularly the central board. There are many questions we need to ask in relation to some of those boards. I understand that the intention is to locate the central board in Galway rather than in Dublin, that is, to decentralise the central board and locate it in the west. I welcome this as it is a step in the right direction. About three-quarters of the fisheries we deal with are situated in the north-west, the west, the south-west and the midlands. It is about time some of the boards were decentralised.

The Minister has given a guarantee to the employees concerned in regard to remuneration and pensions. I would also like a guarantee in regard to disturbance money, the difference between moving from one house to another, and in regard to facilities, particularly research laboratories, to ensure that they are moving into better accommodation than they have in Dublin. This is a very important point. Naturally, a married man with a family, living in Dublin, is worried when a Minister makes an announcement about a move from Dublin to Galway and rightly so. Most people would be satisfied if they got a guarantee that they would be better off, rather than worse off, in housing and research facilities. The Minister is very good with words but we need action as far as this point is concerned.

The Minister stated that the number on the regional board would be left to him. If he could decide now on the actual numbers it would be helpful. The numbers could vary from, say, six to 24. Anyone interested in a proper regional board must concern himself with the numbers to be appointed. Too large a board is not workable. We all want a board that will sit down in a businesslike manner and discuss fishing problems and come to some decision. It is hard for five or six people to come to a decision, but if the boards are unwieldy they will not work well.

I realise that the Minister will nominate the people onto these regional boards for the first year and I take it the House will get a guarantee that after 12 months there will be an election to ensure that the proper people are appointed, in case they are not already on the board. I hope the Minister will listen to me when I say that I hope when he nominates his regional board members they will be people who are genuinely interested in and have a worthwhile knowledge of the fishing industry. I am talking about exactly what this Bill is all about—the inland fisheries. For too long in the past, and this applies to both sides of the House, when a Minister could nominate, the wrong people were sometimes nominated, perhaps for their political allegiance in the past. This does not necessarily mean that these people have a worthwhile knowledge of the fishing industry. If the Minister nominates people for that reason, I intend to go to town on that particular point. I understand the Minister has contacted some of the organisations and asked for nominees. Everyone on these seven regional boards should be nominated for his ability and expertise.

As far as the research laboratories are concerned, we are years behind countries like Norway and Sweden. By comparison, our poultry business here is ahead of everywhere, because we have had the right research. As far as fishing expertise is concerned, we have not spent enough money on this. When we are building laboratories, which I take it we will be doing in Galway, I trust the Minister will ensure that these are the finest research laboratories in the world. I hope the Minister will take into consideration that we are an island nation and much of our livelihood comes from fishing. I may have missed the point when reading the Bill, but I think the Minister has not stated how often these regional boards will have an election. He did state that in the first year there will be no election, that the members will be nominated.

Mr. Lenihan

That is correct.

Mr. White

Has the Minister stated how long there will be between elections?

An Ceann Comhairle

Through the Chair.

Mr. Lenihan

Five years.

Mr. White

So, the position is that we will have an election every five years. We welcome the Election of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1979, whereby these elections will be postponed until the Minister nominates the people for the first year.

Dealing now with the central board, the Minister has stated that the chairperson will be appointed by him and that the remuneration of the chairperson will be left to the Minister's discretion. In other words, the Minister has not laid down the salary of this important person. I am certainly not in disagreement with the Minister nominating the chairperson and I can see the reason for that but again we want to see one of the top brains nominated. This is a very important central board, dealing with a large number of areas and the nominee should have the right knowledge of the fishing industry. It is only right that the salary of this person should be talked about and that the Minister should give us some idea of the salary scale he envisages. We are not talking about £5,000 or £1,000. We want the right person to do the job and to get him we will have to pay the right salary.

Regarding anglers votes on the regional board, I understand that an angler has to be registered and that a register will be set up for each of the regional boards and that an angler has to be registered for three years before he has the right to vote. If I am reading this complicated Bill correctly, in the first election after the first year all anglers will have the right to vote, including all the anglers who are now registered with the inland fisheries, otherwise no angler will have the right to vote for the first three years.

Mr. Lenihan

We will have that worked out after the first year. This is part of the reason for the postponement for the year, to work out the electorate.

Mr. White

On Committee Stage of this Bill we shall have to hammer this out; an angler should have the right to vote.

Mr. Lenihan

He has, automatically. That is in the Bill.

Mr. White

Any angler who pays a subscription for the first year and the first year only should have the right to vote at the election.

Mr. Lenihan

That is exactly what this is all about.

Mr. White

Good. There is another point. As far as the Inland Fisheries Trust is concerned there is such a thing as life membership.

Mr. Lenihan

That is correct.

Mr. White

Anybody who pays £20 or so is automatically made a life member.

Mr. Lenihan

That has been retained. As far as they are concerned, they hold that right into the new situation. They will automatically be life members.

Mr. White

I understand.

Mr. Lenihan

Without the payment of any further subscription.

Mr. White

The Bill mentions that the regional board can be researched and can have the expertise to man the different rivers. It is only commonsense that the central board should have the expertise and that they should do the research. If any of the regional boards want advice the regional board should send the top man down.

Mr. Lenihan

That is the way I envisage it working.

Mr. White

I am glad to hear what the Minister has said regarding election every five years. He has stated that there will be a panel system for the election. It is important that all the different interests should be involved—aquaculture, the river and lake fishermen, the inland fishermen, the sea anglers, the estuary fishermen and the commercial fish farms all should have a voice on this board. I know this is the Minister's aim but he will need to phase this panel-type scheme in such a way that each of these interests has at least one nominee to the board.

Mr. Lenihan

That will be difficult but I am trying to achieve it. The reasons differ in character so the weighting must necessarily be different in each respect.

Mr. White

I appreciate that but it is a very important point.

Mr. Lenihan

I agree.

Mr. White

In the past the old boards of conservators consisted of some people whose knowledge of fish and fishing was negligible. Many of them were on the boards for prestige purposes. Perhaps that was one of the reasons for the boards not working properly. On the other hand, there were some very worthwhile people on these boards. However, at this stage in the development of the industry we must have a professional approach to this whole area and that is why the boards must consist of people who know what they are talking about. Our fishing industry is yet only in its infancy. There is much to be done in relation to its further development. I shall not dwell further on this aspect but I am sure that we shall have the opportunity of teasing out all the various questions on Committee Stage. There does not seem to be any disagreement between the Minister and this side of the house on the legislation.

I should like to deal briefly now with the position in regard to lake and river fishing, usually trout and coarse fishing. It is worth mentioning that for 1980 it is estimated that about 197,000 tourists will participate in coarse fishing here while about 127,000 people are expected to engage in game fishing and 227,000 people in sea angling. In 1977 there was spent here £17 million by people from outside the country who came to Ireland for the purpose of fishing. I am not taking the Six Counties into consideration. Perhaps in 1980 the corresponding figure will be in the region of £25 million. Obviously, then, this activity provides us with a source of much revenue from the people who come here from Britain and elsewhere to engage in fishing. Consequently, we are talking about what is a very big industry.

I must compliment the Inland Fisheries Trust on the good work they have been doing in respect of lake and river fishing. I understand that they have been operating separately from the Department of Fisheries and that as a result of this new Bill they will operate as part of the central board. This will mean a big change in attitude so far as inland fisheries are concerned. These people have proved their worth in the past in this sphere. It is possible that up to now there was not enough money at their disposal to enable them to do more work. The trust have two fish farms, one outside Mullingar and the other outside Roscrea, and at each place tremendous work has been done in regard to re-stocking lakes and rivers, particularly with trout. They have done wonderful work, too, in relation to the control of perch and pike. We all know that these latter two species eat the small trout. The trust, too, have been very active in relation to the cleaning up of rivers and also in regard to preventing poaching of the rivers under their control.

When these people are brought within the ambit of a central board they must be given more money for spending on research. In that way they will be able to prove that we are as good in the field of research and in regard to re-stocking as is any other country in the world. Much more can be done in regard to the rivers. There is much to be done in the area of pollution, for instance. It is unfortunate that lakes such as Lough Sheelin, for instance, which was one of the best fishing lakes in the country, have been practically denuded of fish because of pollution. There are people who think that the only pollution is that which results from slurry or from septic tanks, that these are the only sources of poison in the lakes and rivers, but anybody who has studied this question knows that this is not accurate. While we welcome the setting up here of new factories we must be vigilant in regard to their siting in order to ensure that effluent from them does not reach our lakes and rivers. Not many people may realise that sawdust, for instance, is a pollutant that can kill fish but many sawmill operators are allowed dump sawdust into lakes and estuaries. In this context it might be useful to quote from a report entitled Irish Salmon a Future? where on page 17 there is the following paragraph;

Many industries consider a nearby river as a convenient disposal unit. This is especially true of industries which are not considered polluters in the accepted sense (i.e. sand and gravel, saw mills, etc.). However, it must be borne in mind that anything introduced into a river which is not naturally found in that river is pollution. Sawdust, strictly speaking, is organic pollution in the same way and with the same effect as agricultural effluent.

Obviously, there is a need for much more control in this area. We must ensure that this type of pollution will not occur in the future.

Regarding anglers, the Minister has told us that any angler who wishes to have a vote in respect of the regional board can do so by paying a voluntary subscription. The present position in that regard so far as the Inland Fisheries Trust are concerned is that an angler wishing to fish in waters controlled by the trust pays a £3 subscription or a life subscription of £20. I am glad to have a guarantee from the Minister that anyone who has paid a life subscription will be entitled for life to vote in respect of membership of the new board. The Minister is of the opinion that if the subscription were other than voluntary there might be some objections to it but I think it would be fair to provide for a statutory subscription to be paid by anybody who wishes to fish here and to fix the amount at, say, £3 or £5 because a voluntary subscription could be as little as 10p. I trust that the Minister will refer to this point when he is replying.

Mr. Lenihan

We will be fixing the figure by way of order.

Mr. White

Before Committee Stage?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes.

Mr. White

That is fine. We will be teasing these things out on Committee Stage.

Mr. Lenihan

It is very much a Committee Stage Bill.

Mr. White

Unless I tell the Minister these things he will not have answers for me.

Mr. Lenihan

I appreciate that.

Mr. White

As the Minister said, the subscription will not be voluntary. It will be a subscription. That is different.

Mr. Lenihan

Except that we are not compelling anglers to pay the subscription. If they do not pay it, they will have no vote. To that extent it is voluntary.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will continue without dialogue across the Dáil.

Mr. White

We are trying to tease out this very complicated Bill. We will be dealing with the subscription. The point I am trying to make is that we will have a minimum subscription for anyone who has a vote. It does not make any difference whether it is £3 or £5. We should encourage more people to pay this subscription because they will have the benefit of fishing in rivers and lakes as well.

It is interesting to note that 227,000 people will be coming here for sea angling and shore fishing in 1980. We talk about attracting more tourists. With proper advertising and promotion, many more people could be brought here as tourists and anglers for the four different types of fishing we have: lake, river, shore and sea fishing. Travelling around the country, and particularly along the west coast, it is tremendous to see some of our boats going out to look for skate, shark, and so on, but it is absolutely nothing compared with what we see abroad where four or five charters are leaving daily from small ports with a population of perhaps 100 or 200. Tourists go out for a full day to fish for shark or skate. When the new central board and the regional boards are set up, they should be encouraged to spend money on advertising our different types of fishing.

Another important point crops up. The Minister mentioned the subscription of £3 or whatever the case may be. This takes in sea anglers and shore anglers and any anglers, not necessarily lake or river anglers only. It takes in angling right across the board.

Mr. Lenihan

That is right.

Mr. White

This is very important. Our angling industry is in its infancy. We should try to bring people from all over the world to fish in our waters which are unpolluted compared with some of the waters in Europe and all over the world. I welcome the fact that, under the new central board and the regional boards, we will be dealing with aquaculture, probably the newest form of fish farming here. We can divide this into two regions: fish farming and inshore shell fish type of farming in which fishermen will be fishing extensively for mussels, scallops and oysters. It is worthwhile to do such fishing on an intensive scale. This has been going on in other countries for quite some time, particularly in some of the Scandinavian countries.

As I said, the Bill is very complicated. I understand that people at present engaged in aquaculture will automatically be given a licence under the Bill. People engaged in this type of fish farming have the right to a licence. It is high time that a Bill was brought in to license these people and give them the right to fish in their own waters. There is no point in people spending money and investing in mussel farming and oyster farming, and then finding that some neighbour has a claim over the offshore part of their fisheries.

It is very important that we keep our estuaries clean. We must try to ensure, if at all possible, that there are no oil spillages anywhere around our coast. The Minister should ensure that the regulations are such that we will not have a recurrence of what happened off the Brittany coast when so many mussel and oyster beds were ruined. Most Irish people do not realise how nice mussels and oysters are. It is good in one way that we export so much of our shell fish, but it is a disappointment to me to see in our restaurants so many continentals and so few Irish people eating this type of sea food. When you go to France or other continental countries, one of the rarest foods you can eat is sea food such as mussels and oysters. We are in our infancy so far as this type of farming is concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving out to sea a bit.

Mr. White

I am inshore rather than offshore. More money should be spent in advertising those types of foods of the sea. The Ceann Comhairle knows we have some farms in Donegal dealing with aquaculture. We have two types of trout fish farms run by the Inland Fishery Trust, one in Mullingar and one in Roscrea. It is interesting to note that the Scandinavian countries have gone in for intensive salmon farming, and that it pays them to do so. They have done something like what they did in the poultry business. They have brought different strains of salmon together. They have a bigger salmon. Admittedly, there is a difference between here and Scandinavian countries because their fish go into the Baltic and our fish go into the Atlantic. I hope when the research centre gets going in Galway, money will be made available to our experts in this field to see if we can develop a proper type of salmon—as they have done in Norway—which will suit our waters. We have made great developments in agriculture and there is no scientific reason why we should not develop a fast-growing salmon.

Recently I read an article which contained some alarming figures in relation to salmon. The article stated that in seven years' time we shall be eating Japanese salmon because we will not have sufficient salmon for our needs. Many experts would agree that that is true. If it is true, it is time that we considered this matter in order to protect our salmon industry.

In regard to the acquisition of fisheries and fishing rights, I am delighted that the Minister has recently acquired a fishery in Galway. Many landlords of fishing rights would, if approached by the Minister, be willing to sell their rights through the central board. There are also many people who have salmon fishing rights in our estuaries. If they were encouraged to sell their rights to the Department through the central board I am sure that they would do so. Our rivers and estuaries should be under the control of the Department or the central board. Our people should have the right, under licence if necessary, to fish our rivers, lakes and estuaries as long as they keep within the regulations.

We are not trying to promote the rearing or farming of eels. When I was growing up there was an eel farm near my home town. The export of these eels made a lot of money. This summer in the same estuary Germans were catching eels. When one of the Germans was asked why he was catching eels he said that eel is an expensive food in Germany, that they intended to take them home and deep freeze them for later use. Perhaps we should be spending some money to encourage the central board and the regional boards to develop eel farms.

The Minister has a grave responsibility in relation to salmon fishing. It is estimated that our salmon stocks fell by half between 1975 and 1978, which is an alarming drop in three years. A great deal of thought will have to be given to this problem. Ninety-three per cent of the salmon caught is caught by either drift or draft net fishermen. It is worth mentioning that only 2 per cent of the salmon caught is caught by anglers. We are imposing too many limits on anglers instead of encouraging them to come here.

More money will have to be spent on research in order to develop a special type of salmon. The restocking of our rivers with salmon will also have to be considered. According to the ESB fishery report of 31 March 1978, the two rivers which they have restocked—the Lee and the Shannon—have not shown a drop in salmon numbers. The stock of salmon in rivers which have not been restocked has fallen dramatically. That is a terrible indictment on Ministers for Fisheries since the early sixties. Under the heading "The Salmon Stock Position", the ESB fishery report reads:

The ESB again voices its concern, as it has done consistently over recent years, for the future of the Irish salmon. An increased fishing effort has reduced declining salmon stocks to a critical level. If they are to be conserved, urgent action now is imperative.

The position in regard to the Shannon is not as bad as it was. In 1977 the estuary catches were 53 per cent of the previous ten-year average. In the late sixties thousands of salmon passed through the Erne. In 1978, 801 salmon went through the fishery pass. In 1979 between 300 and 400 salmon went through the fishery pass. In 1977, 133 salmon went through the fish pass on the River Clady.

We should all be concerned about the critical level of our salmon stocks. The Minister for Fisheries is now in the hot seat in relation to this matter. The problem must be faced. If the problem is not solved we shall soon be eating salmon from every other country except Ireland. We should try to tackle the problem by producing a special breed of salmon for our rivers.

We should also give serious consideration to putting young smolts into our rivers. We must get a proper hatchery policy throughout the length and breadth of this country and every river in it. Nothing has been done. I had a question down a couple of years ago regarding a hatchery that was lying idle in the River Erne and I was told at the time that it would be reconsidered. I am not at all happy that the ESB should be running the salmon stocks in the rivers at all. In introducing this Bill the Minister should have considered that the fishing rights in the ESB rivers should be taken over now by this new central board. The ESB are there for the purpose of generating power; they are not there to replenish salmon stocks and basically have no interest in the salmon stocks in our rivers; their commitment is to try to ensure that the stocks will be the same now as they were when they took over the rivers. But this has not been the case. I would like to see all this section of the ESB, the fishery area, the staff and so on taken over now by the Department and this should be incorporated into the central board as the Inland Fisheries Trust is now incorporated in the central board.

The time is ripe for us to give serious thought to the restocking of our rivers. This is the number two priority. Until we do this the situation will get a lot worse. The River Erne is probably the second biggest river here. Only three or four hundred salmon went through the fish pass last year where there used to be 15,000 or 16,000 salmon going through. It has got to the stage where the situation is critical and unless we do something about it there will be no return to the salmon stocks that we were used to. I have no doubt about this and it is high time something was done about it.

I know the Minister will say—and none of us can disagree with it—that probably the most vital factor affecting our salmon stocks is our drift and draft net fishermen. I know the Minister is going to say that he has curtailed the time, that he has curtailed the nets and that he has curtailed the length. But after all 93 per cent of the salmon caught here are caught by either drift or draft net fishermen. These fishermen must realise that if they are going to continue to fish on the scale that they have fished in the past there will be no salmon here. They and the Minister will have to give serious thought to the way salmon fishing is being conducted here at present. I particularly stress the problem of poaching some of the estuaries. Anybody who lives along the west coast, as I do, knows that this poaching is going on. The day has come for the fishermen to help the Department to see that this poaching is stopped. It was all right 20 years ago when we had plenty of salmon stocks here, but now the salmon stocks are at a low ebb and something drastic is going to have to be done. Otherwise we will not be talking about salmon here because there will be none.

These are the three roots of the problem. I am not an expert but I am convinced that we can restock our rivers if we open the hatcheries and do it on a proper scale. There is a report in the publication Irish Salmon, a Future and it makes very interesting reading. One of the things mentioned in the report is that this restocking took place in Sweden and that they are getting a return of 10 per cent on the amount of smolts they are putting into the rivers. The report goes on to state that a survey has been done on the Lee and that they are getting about 5 per cent but it has not taken into account the salmon that are being caught before they come into the estuary. The estimate there is that the return could be as high as 8 per cent. The report also says that if we invested £1.5 million we could be reaping about £4 million in three or four years.

We have to get down to it. We have to study the salmon stocks here and decide what we are going to do to ensure that this time next year the stocks will not be half what they are now. The time for talking to the salmon fishermen is nearly over. Let us be blunt about that. We want action; we want the right leadership and we want ways and means to bring back our salmon industry.

The only other source of income that most of the salmon fishermen have is crab and lobster fishing. A lot more research could be done in this area. Relatively speaking, the fishing industry here is in its infancy. But it is nearly 20 years old and very little research has gone into the crab and lobster industry. We must give serious thought to how we are going to increase these sources of livelihood. Most of the boats used for this type of fishing are very small—we are not talking about big boats—and research is needed. The Minister spoke about naval protection and the increase in fines, which in some cases can be as much as £2,000. I am certainly not going to object to this because if people break the law it is right that they should be punished. The Minister also mentioned that anybody who breaks the law three times consecutively will lose his licence. Again I do not disagree with the Minister at all. I am sure the Minister is surprised at how much I agree with him today, but I will not agree with him in two years' time unless he takes action. We need action now. The Minister's actions in the last week or so reminds me of Herod and Pilate. If he knows anything about the Bible he will know that Herod put the blame on Pilate and Pilate put the blame on the people. The Minister seems to be running away and seems to be responsible for nothing. But he is now responsible for the Department of Forestry and Fisheries. I will give him every co-operation I can but I certainly will not allow him to do a Herod and Pilate act on the people and the fishermen here.

Mr. Lenihan

That is a contradiction of what the Deputy said earlier on.

Mr. Treacy

I welcome the main features of this Bill. It is a measure we have looked forward to for a long time. It has been advocated consistently and persistently on this side of the House. At the same time the party I represent has serious misgivings and reservations about the usefulness and the effectiveness of this Bill. We have waited a long time for such a measure and we were entitled to expect that it would be an effective Bill designed to deal with the problems of inland fisheries. But this Bill falls very short of the ideal measure required to resolve the many problems in this area.

For many years the inland fisheries regime operating in the Republic has been the subject of criticism and there have been various demands for reform. Just before the parliamentary summer recess last year the Minister promised that legislation would very soon be introduced to give effect to certain proposed reforms and reorganisation. In the event the Fisheries Bill, 1978, was not published until January 1979 and was then quickly replaced by this Bill which was processed through the Seanad and is now before us. The 1979 Bill can be viewed as the outcome of a process which began about nine or ten years ago when the then Government set up the Inland Fisheries Commission. This Bill should be very much concerned with the report of that commission and should comprise in the main the recommendations of that body. The report was the outcome of an official commission of inquiry into the state of the inland fisheries industry which has been plagued continually by major problems such as over-fishing, disease and pollution.

The terms of reference of the Inland Fisheries Commission were as follows:

To examine all aspects of inland fisheries (i.e. those for salmon, trout, eels and coarse fish) including their tenure, development, management, administration, optimum utilisation and anti-pollution measures and to make recommendations.

The commission took a long time to deliberate. They sat for some five years and produced three interim reports, one in 1971 and two in 1972. The final report was published in August 1975. The unique feature of these very protracted deliberations was that the recommendations contained in the report were unanimous. To my knowledge, there was no minority report. As a matter of interest the cost of the inquiry was estimated to be £79,000. One has a right to expect that having regard to the time, cost and expertise involved in the compilation of such a report it would find its way in very great measure into the Bill before us. There are signs of it there but certain basic factors are missing. The work of the commission was extremely comprehensive, as is clear from this final report. The recommendations are detailed, comprehensive and specific and form the basis for an enlightened policy in regard to inland fisheries now and in the future.

The principal administrative institutional reforms recommended were, firstly, the replacement of the fragmented set-up at national level, the Inland Fisheries Trust at local level, some 17 boards of conservators throughout the country and, in addition, certain of the semi-State bodies which have an interest and an effective say in fishery matters such as the ESB, the Salmon Research Trust and so on, with a two-tier national fisheries authority, a central authority and seven regional authorities. Secondly, they recommend the establishment of a separate co-ordinating and directing Department of Fisheries at central government level.

The report is important to us in the Labour Party for a variety of reasons. The matter on which I have commented most often and which is frequently mentioned by anglers is that of tenure of fishery rights and the inability of clubs and fishermen to gain access to the best fishing waters. All of us know that these rights are still in the hands of people whose predecessors acquired them by conquest. We were looking forward to this report in the hope of a major breakthrough in the matter of the acquisition of fishing rights. We hoped that the Minister and the Government of the day would facilitate the acquisition of more and more fisheries to enable our angling population to utilise their skills in the best places. I agree that the report of the commission did not recommend anything like nationalisation. They recommended against outright nationalisation, but on the other hand they recommended that the proposed fishery authority be given powers enabling them to obtain, by consent or by compulsory acquisition where necessary, with payment of reasonable compensation, such rights of access, easements, land and water rights as may reasonably be required for the purpose of developing and conserving fish stocks. I expect the Minister to follow that recommendation to the utmost. I know there are provisions in the Bill in respect of this matter and we want to see them utilised to the full. The Minister has already used his powers in a minor way and I compliment him on that, but I hope he will utilise his powers more extensively and more often when the Bill becomes law. I would ask him to comment in his reply on the extent to which he or the board will intervene directly when fisheries come on the property market and whether he will directly assist clubs to acquire these fishery rights themselves by way of grants, aids or loans.

The commission went on to make extremely detailed recommendations in relation to species of fish, major attention understandably being given to salmon and sea trout and also to other questions such as licensing, marketing and other issues in reference to the vexed question of arterial drainage and pollution—matters I shall advert to again before I conclude my speech—and their effects on inland fisheries.

Forward planning and programming of expenditures are necessary aspects of the management of any organisation or institution. The commission recognised this and recommended that "the authority should be in a position to draw up short- and long-term programme budgets on a realistic basis and to justify the expenditure proposed in fairly precise benefit terms".

I have referred to the question of arterial drainage many times in this House. It is my strong desire that arterial drainage of the River Suir and its tributaries be carried out as a matter of great urgency. During the past years I have informed the House by way of question and debate how important it was to eliminate recurring flooding of the River Suir and its tributaries in order to help us gain access to many extra thousands of acres of rich land in the Golden Vale. This comprises an extensive part of my constituency.

I am pleased to note that, as a result of constant pressure, the arterial drainage of the River Suir is now number one in the order of priority. The only thing stopping the commencement of this important work is a shortage of expert professional staff. This is a matter of astonishment in a country that has an exceptionally high incidence of chronic unemployment among the professional classes as well as the working class. I want to see the drainage work started. It is a very controversial matter in respect of inland fisheries. Desirable and urgent as it is, arterial drainage can and does damage fisheries. We know this to be true. The Office of Public Works, the people responsible for arterial drainage, are exempt from compliance with the Fisheries Act. We know they have a liberal approach to this question and that they co-operate with the fishery authorities. Nevertheless much more requires to be done.

The fact is that the arterial drainage schemes carried out in recent years by the Office of Public Works and by local authorities pose a very serious threat to our game and coarse fisheries and this Bill should do something positive to remedy the problem. In the case of salmon fisheries, the schemes as presently carried out remove all barriers, natural and man-made, that impede the free passage of water. In the course of these works spawning gravel is removed and pool areas are destroyed. The level of the river bed is lowered, fish food organisms are destroyed either by removal from the aquatic environment or by siltation of one kind or another. Weed removal from coarse fisheries also affect the spawning and feeding of fish. By lowering still further the depth of the slow-flowing sections of coarse fisheries, light penetration is impaired which, in turn, affects the annual production of fresh water flora.

The Minister and the new board will have to contend with these problems. The coarse fisheries problem is further aggravated by the fact that only limited experimental artificial rearing of coarse fish is carried out in Ireland. Therefore, there is no recourse to this method of improving the stock numbers in affected sections of rivers.

I have said that I realise the intrinsic worth of arterial drainage from the point of view of the elimination of flooding and the reclamation of land which is of such tremendous value to our country today. However, there must be evidence of the closest liaison between the Office of Public Works and the various fishery agencies not merely when the work is being carried out but from the commencement of the planning stage of drainage so that the least possible harm is done to fish life. There is no such evidence of liaison and co-operation in this Bill and I urge the Minister very strenuously to look at the matter very carefully.

Having completed a drainage scheme it is normal for the authority carrying out the work to become involved in maintenance. The original work is carried out by heavy machinery of a most powerful kind. On land or water this can do irreparable damage and this causes further disruption to the ecology of a river. I am suggesting that, instead of utilising this ultra-modern plant and machinery, so far as possible work on our rivers should be done by hand. That may seem to be asking the Minister and the Department to put the clock back. I am no Luddite; I am a pragmatist but, at the same time, I believe that much of the damage being done in the matter of drainage could be eliminated if more human hands were used rather than heavy machinery. This has been proved in areas where the Office of Public Works or whoever were responsible were good enough to recognise the social need and obligation to put more and more people to work and to recognise that machinery displaces people. It might be economically wise to use machinery in certain instances but I question it from a social point of view where men or women can do the job better. That is why I am suggesting that more of this work be carried out by hand. This would have the dual advantage of boosting local employment, which is so important, and being significantly less harmful to fisheries.

Another factor that must be taken into account in the area of drainage is the location of the drainage spoil. This is normally piled up on banks of rivers and in the case of larger rivers these mounds can be up to 30 feet high. From the aesthetic point of view these mounds of stone and rubble are most unsightly. This is also true from the point of view of tourists. The angler no longer has access to his river. From many points of view it makes efficient angling impossible. An effort should be made to distribute the spoil over the adjoining lands rather than have it piled up in a huge mound along the river.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will agree that we can only discuss the angling point of view under this Bill. Precise matters concerning drainage are matters for the Office of Public Works. I agree that as far as it damages the river for angling the Deputy is quite in order.

Mr. Treacy

I am adverting to precisely an angling matter in relation to this spoil. I thought I had made that clear.

The report of the Inland Fisheries Commission to which I referred commented on drainage. It said:

...in the past the interpretation of the arterial drainage provisions has been too narrow, with the result that remedial works were confined to rectifying some aspects of specific damage rather than allowing also for general fisheries improvement works to offset the effects of admitted general interference with the fisheries. The present co-operative approach between the Commissioners, the fishery authorities, and the fishery interests is a welcome development which we support, but in the interests of all concerned we feel that it should rest on a more positive basis, and that it should be translated into statutory requirements of a specific nature.

The commission recommended:

...that the Commissioners of Public Works be given statutory powers and finance to rectify damage to fisheries at whatever stage it is done, including the shortcomings of completed schemes, and that they be obliged by statute to conserve the aesthetic and fishery value of waters on which they operate.

I call for liaison between the Minister's Department and the Department of Finance who are responsible for the operation of the Office of Public Works so that the least damage will be done to our fish life.

The whole question of water use, water research and management, and pollution control is of obvious relevance to those concerned with the administration and management of the inland fisheries. There were also positive recommendations from the commission that the fisheries interests be represented from the earliest stage in the planning of any proposals which would affect fishery interests, that responsibility for control of pollution in our inland and coastal waters should be entrusted to an autonomous national authority which would be responsible for the management of water resources, and which would be obliged under statute to have regard for the safeguarding of fishery interests and that the proposed national authority would represent relevant Departments and interests, such as industry, agriculture, tourism and so on. It is essential that the fishery authority be given a degree of participation in any alternative pollution control structure to ensure that fishery interests are safeguarded, if such an autonomous national authority is not established.

The main powers for controlling pollution at the moment are vested in the Department of the Environment. There is need for liaison and co-operation between that Department and the Department of Fisheries. Many people feel that the onus for the elimination of pollution of our rivers should be the responsibility of the Department of the Minister with us today.

Mr. Lenihan

We are fully represented on the water.

Mr. Treacy

I am fully aware of that. Something which worries most of us in public life, especially members of local authorities, is that we are aware that the local authorities under the aegis of the Department of the Environment are the main culprits in respect of pollution by discharging raw sewage into our rivers. Coupled with that there is an incidence of pollution from industry, particularly from pig farmers. We are all concerned about the recurring fish kills on our rivers and tributaries. Many have occurred on the River Suir and I have raised that matter a number of times.

I hope the Minister will avail of this unique opportunity of ensuring that this Bill contains the most stringent measures to ensure pure waterways and to penalise in a very severe way those found guilty of polluting our rivers, whether it is the local authority, local industry or the local farmer. There are dozens of other recommendations in the report to which I have referred at length, many of them extremely detailed and specific.

The report is an excellent basis for discussing and formulating policies and programmes for the future. This extensive and comprehensive report should have been followed up since 1975 by a Green Paper and a Government White Paper which would have provided the basis for the drafting of this legislation. A far more effective Bill would emanate from the Houses of the Oireachtas if this procedure had been followed. That was not done and it is to be regretted. Never before in the history of the State did such an excellent report deserve discussion on the basis of a White Paper and a Green Paper, but that was not done.

Mr. Lenihan

I would prefer action to that.

Mr. Treacy

I agree that action is very important but in a matter of this kind I would prefer to make haste slowly and after due deliberation of all the things involved.

Under section 10 of the Bill the new board are expected to report once a year to the Minister. Many of us feel that this important area would be far better dealt with if each year the central board submitted a plan, not a one-year plan, but a four- or five-year plan, in order to provide a basis for proper planning. A year is too short to enable the board to plan ahead properly.

I hope the Bill will be amended to enable the boards to conform to their rolling plan method. The four- or five-year time span would mean that the board's planning would be completely in phase with that of the Government, who at the moment operate a four- or five-year plan. The planning process should be public and in order to ensure this I suggest that section 18 (1) be reworded as follows:

The Central Board shall as soon as may be after the commencement of each year make a report to the Minister of its proceedings in the preceding year and those of each regional board in such year, as reported to the Central Board under subsection (2) of this section, and its programme and those of each regional board in respect of the four or five consecutive years and the Minister shall cause copies of the reports to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I hope the Minister will see the sense of not restricting the board in their operations to an annual report and planning basis but rather grant them the additional scope involved in a minimum of a four-year plan, but preferably a five-year plan.

I do not want to go into very much detail at this stage because we will soon have the Committee Stage but the Bill departs substantially from the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission. It is doubtful if any approach other than that adopted in the Bill was possible given the decisions taken in 1977 to go ahead with the approach enshrined in the 1977 Act. Given this situation, the board ought at least to have representation on the Water Pollution Council and I hope the Minister will see to that.

I want to touch briefly on research. Regretfully this Bill does not deal with research, or if it does, not to any worthwhile extent. This is an important limitation and should be rectified by the introduction of a section which would provide the legislative framework for the development and promotion of research of all kinds, biological, ecological and socio-economic, into our inland fisheries. The commission recommended:

(a) ...that all inland fisheries research work be placed firmly under the control of the Fishery Authority. The Authority should take over the research work for the Fisheries Division, the Veterinary Research Laboratory and the Inland Fisheries Trust; also the Minister's functions in regard to the salmon Research Trust.

(b) ...that arrangements be made to co-ordinate research work undertaken by the Fishery Authority and the Salmon Research Trust with the fisheries research work of the Universities. We suggest that a committee be set up for this purpose and to advise on the allocation of such studentships or other funds as may become available.

I feel that that kind of principle should be given effect in the Bill and fully implemented. I would ask the Minister to comment on that in his reply.

In essence, the Fisheries Bill 1975 according to the Explanatory Memorandum set out to do certain positive things—from which one would not expect any deviation in the present Bill—to dissolve the existing 17 boards of conservators and the Inland Fisheries Trust and replace them by seven regional fishery boards and a central board; to prescribe the functions of these boards; to provide for the election of members of the regional boards and for the constitution of the central board; to transfer the staff and property of the boards of conservators and the trust to the regional boards and central board respectively; to empower the acquisition by the central board of fisheries and rights of way to fisheries either by agreement or compulsorily, subject to the right of appeal and payment of fair compensation; to provide for a system of registration of trout and course fish anglers; to provide an up-to-date legislative framework for the promotion of aquaculture; to increase penalties for fishery offences and to provide for the payment of a levy on the first sale of salmon. I have serious reservations about the usefulness and effectiveness of this Bill as it stands and we shall be putting down amendments at a later stage.

I now want to refer to staff. I hope the Minister will enshrine in this Bill the right of representation on the higher echelons of the board. The Minister will agree that in recent times worker participation in the management of both State and semi-State enterprises led to an improvement in management/worker relationship and we want to see that enshrined in this Bill. We want to see it made possible to have representation there for all classes in industry.

The basis of the new fishery authority is seven regional boards and one central board. The workers in these areas will experience different problems with regard to fishery development and it is essential that they can bring these problems to light not alone at regional board level but also at central board level where final policy decisions will be formulated.

I hope this Bill will have a subsection under which the Minister will appoint such members of the central board as shall be elected by virtue of the application of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977. It is surprising to note it is not already included in the Bill. I regret to say that the Minister's approach to staff leaves a lot to be desired. I cannot allow this occasion to pass without adverting to the cavalier fashion, indeed the dictatorial manner, in which he directed the staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust to take flight from Dublin and go to Galway. I personally believe in decentralisation but I also believe that to ask somebody to leave employment in Dublin and go elsewhere in the country can be a very harrowing and traumatic experience for him and his family. It is very worrying for us to realise that the Minister without consulting with the officers concerned or their spokesmen or union representatives issued an order that they must be prepared to transfer themselves to Galway. The House and the country will be surprised to learn that the first the staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust heard of this matter was when they saw it in a press release issued by the Government Information Services.

Mr. Lenihan

That is not true.

Mr. Treacy

The Minister will have a chance to reply.

Mr. Lenihan

I just want to nail it here.

Mr. Treacy

My information is that the first they heard of it was in a press release. I have evidence to that effect in my hand from the union concerned.

Mr. Lenihan

The Deputy will have to take my word for it—that is not true.

Mr. Treacy

I am also here to represent the viewpoint of the employees of the Inland Fisheries Trust headquarters' staff who tell me that they were not——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Matters of this kind would be better teased out on Committee Stage. We are getting into Committee matters now.

Mr. Treacy

I can assure the Chair that I will not do that, but I am entitled to comment on this matter. It is vital to this Bill that there shall be good staff relations between the Minister and his employees. That was not the case in this instance.

Mr. Lenihan

It was. The Deputy will have to accept my word for it.

Mr. Treacy

Not to the extent that we expect, not the kind of consultation that should take place before such a serious step is taken, not the kind of consensus which the Minister should aim for among his staff. That was not the case. There was no proper consultation, no agreement. That bodies ill for the relationship we would all hope for in industry. I am sure the Minister for Labour will be concerned as will the Taoiseach that this was not the case. It is no surprise to us in these benches that the real problems, the real element of strike, lock-out and disputation still continue to exist in the State services, the ESB and so on. Now, we have signs of it in the Department of Fisheries because the Minister is acting in this cavalier fashion without going through the proper process of consultation and agreement.

If it is a hard and fast decision I hope that at least the Minister will compensate these officers and their families fully for the tremendous upheaval involved in digging up roots and leaving their homes in Dublin and finding alternative accommodation in Galway. The Minister should make amends for his omission in regard to consultation by being generous to the staff and their families in assisting them to re-establish themselves in Galway. He owes this to himself and to the future good relations among all concerned to do that and I hope he will do it.

In section 7 (1) (a) I think an amendment could be made at a later stage to ensure that the Minister appoints a scientific and technical committee to advise on, monitor and assess the scientific and technical policies of the regional boards. The reason for this is obvious. The Central Fisheries Board will represent both commercial fishing and angling interests. Much of the work of the central authority will be of a highly technical nature and an advisory committee of technical people could play a valuable part in advising on the formulation of work schedules, monitoring the progress of technical research and development programmes and assessing the quality of the work in progress. Such a committee should be composed of representatives from the major bodies with executive and professional responsibilities in the fisheries field. I hope the Minister will find it possible to include something on those lines before the measure leaves this House.

It is appropriate to pay tribute to the members of the old boards of conservators and it would be remiss of me if I did not avail of this opportunity to do so. Many members of these boards that are about to be abolished gave long service. They have done a good job. They were very much handicapped in regard to expertise and particularly in the matter of finance. When originally established I suppose their primary function was to deal with poaching but the task became very involved as time passed. The incidence of pollution and other developments were matters with which the boards of conservators were clearly unable to grapple. We found our rivers and lakes polluted to an alarming extent while the boards, with the best will in the world, were unable to deal effectively with the matter. They have been there for over 100 years and most of them work on a voluntary basis. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their devotion and interest and for all they did to try to preserve the basis of our waterways and fish life.

The Minister should ensure that the staffs under his charge are properly recompensed, that their salaries and conditions are adequate, that they have a proper superannuation scheme. Many people I know who did most to preserve fish life in our rivers at great personal risk to themselves worked under appalling conditions and for extremely low wages. That situation can no longer be tolerated. The House expects that all employees under the Minister's charge will enjoy a high standard of living, good conditions of employment, a decent salary scale and security in sickness, infirmity and in old age. If that has to be enshrined in this Bill, we will endeavour to do so. I know that it is an inland fisheries Bill but the House and the country would wonder in astonishment if I did make a heartfelt appeal to the Minister to resolve the problem which now affects fishermen on the south-east coast.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Bill has nothing to do with deep sea fishing and the Chair must put its foot down at this stage. Deputy Treacy knows the rules of the House better than anyone. If I allow Deputy Treacy to raise this matter every other Deputy in the House is entitled to do so. I would ask Deputy Treacy not to do so on this Bill.

Mr. Treacy

I am not going to embarrass the Chair. That is far from my thoughts——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has started on something that has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Treacy

I will conclude by asking the Minister, for God's sake, to call off the gun boats——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have asked the Deputy not to proceed on those lines. I will call the next speaker. If the Deputy wants to proceed on those lines the Chair is in trouble straight away.

Mr. Treacy

I am making a plea for people who are fighting for their——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot make it on this Bill.

Mr. Treacy

I am asking the Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise on this Bill. Deputy Treacy can get another opportunity to raise it and he knows that.

Mr. Deasy

You have been well advised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Deasy

I withdraw it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Do not repeat that kind of remark about the Chair. The Chair knows what it is doing. Deputy Deasy knows as well as Deputy Treacy that it is an inland fisheries Bill and has nothing to do with the matter now being raised.

Mr. Treacy

It is very closely related to fishing in this country. It is impossible to discuss fishing without being conscious of the plight of these people to whom I have referred——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not to continue on those lines.

Mr. Treacy

I wish to comment on it——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not on this Bill. Deputy Treacy can get plenty of opportunities to do that.

Mr. Treacy

None of us want to see the law flouted——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot flout the rulings of the Chair. Deputy Treacy never allowed anyone to do so when he was in the Chair. I do not like having to make that remark but it applies fully to the Deputy.

Mr. Treacy

If the Chair adopts that attitude, and it is entitled to do so, I must say that as Chairman I always gave a certain amount of liberality in a matter which was so close to the subject matter of debate here this morning. I will not pursue it. If the Minister feels as I do, that this is a great national issue and of grave public concern he should comment on it at the earliest opportunity in this House. This is the time and this is the day. Resolve that problem otherwise it will get out of hand. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to resolve it by affording these people a traditional means of livelihood which they have been denied at present and which has compelled them to take the stand they are taking now.

Mr. Daly

I welcome this Bill and wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his energetic attitude since he was appointed to this office. It contrasts very sharply with the frustration, inactivity and delay which we had during the period of the previous administration. The Labour Deputy, Deputy Murphy, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Fisheries at that time, was constantly in the House postponing the fishery board elections and stalling on action in relation to inland fisheries. I am glad the present Minister has been active and particularly so in relation to inland fisheries. Everyone recognises the value of inland fisheries. It is necessary for us to have legislation and a framework which will ensure the conservation necessary for the further development of our inland fisheries.

Coming from a constituency which is almost an island with the Atlantic on the west coast, the Shannon estuary on the south and Lough Derg, I am very conscions of the problems. I shall speak about the Shannon fisheries and Shannon salmon in particular. The Shannon is 214 miles long. The catchment area is over 4,000 square miles. In some respects the Shannon has been lucky in that the whole catchment of the river was the responsibility of the Limerick fishery board during the time of the workings of the fishery boards. The Limerick fishery board was able to have a critical examination of the Shannon undertaking because it treated the whole catchment as a unit. In some respects, the new legislation will not have a great impact in the Limerick area because the Limerick board have had responsibility for the Shannon catchment over the past number of years.

I have been a member of the Limerick board for the past ten years. Looking over the history of the Shannon, we saw the decline of fisheries in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s because of the development which took place at Ardnacrusha, the hydro-electric scheme. If there is a lesson to be learned from the history of the Shannon it is that we must be conscious of developments on the estuaries and the impact of industrial development in rivers like the Shannon to ensure that when a major development is taking place in an estuary, sight is not lost of the potential fisheries value and catchments. It is for this reason that I am concerned.

At present in the Shannon estuary there are major industrial development projects such as the development at Aughanish, the Tarbert generating station, the major coal-burning station which is presently under construction at Moneypoint in Clare, the possibility of a smelter at Ballylongford, the development at Foynes and the off-shore oil development which is taking place off the Clare coast. It is necessary for a consultancy group to be established which would exchange views and information with the various fishery interests, the planning authorities and the regional fishery boards.

This group should be established as a matter of urgency. This was recommended by the Irish fishery industry in a report to the Government in 1975. It is urgent now in view of the major developments taking place in the estuary, the increased traffic and so on. Problems could arise in the future and now is the time to plan and take necessary action to avoid them and to have liaison between the various Departments involved so that if there are problems they will be dealt with speedily.

The discussion which has taken place over the years with regard to the issue and non-issue of salmon licences has, to some extent, clouded the grave danger to estuaries or catchments from pollution. Pollution is most serious and damaging and poses as big a threat to salmon and trout fishing as any fishing legal or illegal. The co-operation of all interested parties is desirable and necessary to ensure that dangers from pollution, especially pollution from new agricultural enterprises, are minimised. I should like to see an educational campaign mounted with the co-operation of the farming bodies which would bring home to farmers the dangers that can arise from extensive farm enterprises which are becoming more and more common today and which are in many cases a serious threat to fish life. The farming organisations recognise that there is a problem in this regard. Many farmers are members of angling clubs and the Inland Fisheries Trust and consequently are conscious of the dangers that can arise in this regard. The President of the IFA in the course of a statement about a year ago pointed out that farmers were well disposed towards an unpolluted countryside and that in nearly all cases would make an effort to put things right if it was pointed out to them that their farming practices were at fault. He said that in most cases, with the exception of fertiliser run-off, bad farming that pollutes costs money.

Farmers are conscious of the problems that can arise and are willing to help to ensure that fish stock are not damaged. We should utilise the goodwill and co-operation that exists with the farming organisations. I recommend that an all-out effort should be made to co-ordinate the work of farming organisations, fishing interests, those involved in development programmes, the fishery boards, the planning authorities and Department of Agriculture officials concerned with grants, into a consultative committee.

Drainage is a problem in many areas but with the speeding up of arterial and field drainage it is time that it was brought home to the people involved that drainage at certain times of the year can seriously affect fish stocks. It should be remembered that salmon can spawn in small side drains and drainage carried out on them at certain times of the year can be serious. The Department officials and development associations should be made aware of the importance of fish spawning in small drains and rivers.

The issue of driftnet licences has been the cause of some controversy over a number of years. Legal netting when it occurs right into the estuary of a river can have serious consequences on stocks. In the Limerick district the board recognised that it was vital to keep the mouth of the Shannon free of nets for the simple reason that if the mouth of the estuary is blocked the river is being killed slowly. It was as a result of the decline which took place in the fish stocks in the Shannon in the thirties that a regulation was introduced in 1935 limiting the number of driftnets to 70 at the Shannon Estuary and limiting the number of draftnets to 25. I understand that only seven licences were issued in respect of an area off the Clare coast, for fishing in Dunbeg Bay, a traditional fishing area. I understand that only one licence was issued in respect of Liscannor at the mouth of the Inagh river. The board also investigated the question of licences in respect of the river Feale. In fact, the board introduced strict controls over the issuing of the licences. As far as possible they endeavoured to issue licences to those with preferential rights under the Acts and to traditional fishermen, those with low incomes who were dependent on salmon fishing for a livelihood.

In the sixties the board refused to issue licences to hoteliers, big business people and big farmers in an effort to conserve licences. However, the efforts of the board in this regard are being frustrated because those who possess licences issued in other board areas are free to fish into the mouth of the Shannon Estuary. That had serious consequences on salmon stock.

On the one hand, the board responsible for the area exercised strict control to keep the mouth of the estuary free of legal fishing while on the other hand fishermen from another board area could obtain a licence to fish there. Something should be done to resolve this problem. The boards should have a common approach to the issuing of licences throughout the country under the guidance of Department officials to ensure that the problems I have outlined do not continue. A licence should only entitle a person to fish within the limits of the area of the licensing authority. If such a licence holder encroaches on another board area he should be subject to the rigours of the law.

Some thought should be given to the introduction of a special retirement scheme for net fishermen. An imaginative scheme could be introduced under which a traditional fisherman would extinguish his right to fish. That would be availed of by many fishermen who are experiencing difficulty because of a decrease in returns. It would also help to reduce the number of licencees entitled to operate on estuaries like the Shannon Estuary resulting in an improvement in fish stocks. I should like to compliment the ESB on the work they have done on the Shannon. Reports of the board show that between 1966 and 1969 some 200,000 one-year-old salmon smolts were released into the Shannon annually. They came from the board's hatchery at Parteen.

The major improvement in the Shannon fisheries was a direct result of the research, development and protection work carried out by the Electricity Supply Board. I should like to compliment them on this work. Even though the Shannon has been built-up considerably from the state it was in the 1950s and 1960s nonetheless it is at present in a serious state in relation to stocks. This has been pointed out continuously by the Electricity Supply Board who say that in 1977 the estuary catches were 53 per cent of the previous 10 years' average and that the number of fish counted at Ardnacrusha was the lowest there since 1963. This admission is very serious for the Shannon and for the entire situation in relation to salmon in that whole catchment area. The Electricity Supply Board have done magnificent work at the hatchery at Parteen under their general fisheries development programme. I should like to compliment the people who represented the Electricity Board, the ex officio members who represented the various fishing interests on the Limerick Fisheries Board and indeed on other boards for their dedicated work in the interests of fisheries generally. The Electricity Supply Board Fisheries Section have done tremendous work in the whole area of fisheries development. I should like to see the ESB represented on the regional boards not only in recognition of what they have done already for the development of fisheries but bearing in mind also that they will have a very important role to play in the future.

The Inland Fisheries Trust have been very active in my county in the development of lakes and of fisheries generally. Indeed anybody who examines their reports over the years can glean the volume of work they have put into brown trout waters. I should hate to think what our brown trout fisheries would be like at present were it not for the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust, the coarse fishing they have done, sea angling and biological research. They have been in the forefront in the development of our coarse and trout fisheries. This is something I should like to see continued. Indeed in the past they were very considerably hampered by lack of equipment and facilities. I welcome the establishment of the new central fisheries authority, the powers given by the Minister under this Bill and the fact that more finance will be available to the authority to press on with this development. There is need for new equipment and for the adoption of modern methods to deal with the problems arising in the various catchment areas. This must be carefully examined over the next few years.

I am aware that quite a lot has been done in relation to research. The Inland Fisheries Commission contended that very little has been done in the exploitation of sea trout and that a special effort should be made in this regard. I am aware that Dr. Fahy of the Department of Fisheries has done quite an amount of work on the tracing of sea trout generally. It is now necessary to identify areas to be used for the development of sea trout fisheries. Here there is vast potential and the Inland Fisheries Commission have mentioned this also. I should like to see this being a priority of the new central fisheries authority—that work on sea trout and on other forms of aquaculture be speeded up.

There has been quite an amount of controversy about the method of "put and take" whereby trout are reared to fishable level in artificial conditions, then put into lakes and released for anglers. This would constitute a very valuable tourist attraction in respect of which a lot more work could be done. It is a costly business but I think anglers generally would be willing to pay for this type of facility being made available. That is another area warranting further examination by the regional boards. There are quite a number of inaccessible small lakes where this type of activity could be undertaken.

I welcome the provision in the Bill for proper working conditions for the staffs of the various fishery boards. Having been a member of a board for the past 10 years and been involved in fisheries in one way or another for a long time I am aware of the conditions under which staff have had to work, the dangers to which they have been subjected from time to time and the generally unhealthy state of the terms of their employment, something which could not continue to be tolerated. I welcome the provision in the Bill for the introduction of superannuation schemes in respect of the staff employed by these new boards. Even at present it is to be regretted that senior inspectors, clerks, head waterkeepers and waterkeepers do not have the prospect of security in their employment. They are employed on a year-to-year basis. They have no pension scheme and generally their conditions of employment are very bad. Any effort that can be made to implement the speedy introduction of a proper superannuation scheme for all staff of the fishery boards, and especially the new ones, will be welcomed and is something I thoroughly endorse.

Throughout the years the fisheries boards have done tremendous work in very difficult circumstances. Like Deputy Treacy I should like to express my very sincere thanks to the members of the boards for their work—carried out without even having received travelling expenses—for their patience and competence in dealing with the various problems arising in the different catchment areas they represent. I thank the members of the boards elected by the fisheries owners and the ex officio members of boards, hoping that when the new boards are established the work they have done and the expertise they have shown over the years will not be lost. I do not know how this can be achieved under the method of election to the new boards but I should like to see some people who have been in the forefront of fisheries conservation and development over the past couple of years playing an active part on the new fisheries boards. Generally I welcome the Bill. It constitutes a definite step forward and I urge the Minister to press ahead to ensure that its provisions are speedily implemented.

Mr. M. Cosgrave

Like other speakers, I welcome heartily the proposed Fisheries Bill and congratulate the Minister and his staff for their diligent pursuance of this important legislation. I agree with its overall outlines and recognise that it contains many excellent features. However, there are some points of concern to me and I feel that my submissions will help both to enhance the Bill and to clarify some relevant aspects of it.

It is not merely a salmon Bill. I have heard this word thrown around quite a lot, but the Bill embraces more than that. It has a particular interest for the saltwater angler and I wish to dwell on that aspect. For the last twenty years the Inland Fisheries Trust have been the only body carrying out this research on sea angling and sport fishing. Most of the fish species concerned here are of little or no commercial value in the overall catch of professional fishermen. However, to judge by the statistics of Bord Fáilte, marine sport fishers make a definite and worthwhile contribution to the State's economy amounting to something like £17 million as tourist revenue in 1977. If the new Board are precluded from carrying out such research it is unlikely that this essential work will be continued. Naturally, commercial species such as herring, mackerel and cod will have precedence over non-commercial species such as shark, skate and ray. The instigation of a sea angling development programme as suggested in the Bill under the functions of the board make little sense if the fisheries authorities cannot engage in their own research in this area.

The sea angling aspect of fishing, and of course other angling, yields in the region of £17 million to the economy and this figure could be doubled. If we look at the east coast from the Boyne down to Carnsore Point we can see that there is a lot of room for development here. I quote from the Annual Report of the Inland Fisheries Trust, 1978:

The unsuitable weather during the summer adversely affected sea angling and many days were lost due to the frequent gales and persistent high winds. When conditions suited, general bottom fishing was good, with some excellent catches of pollack, ling, rays and conger being reported. Business, however, was generally brisk with all centres reporting an increasing demand. There was no shortage of anglers and anyone operating a boat in a professional manner did well. Boats are now making money and some skippers reported up to 137 days' business....

That brings me to my own constituency. I represent Dublin (Clontarf) which embraces the Howth area. Howth is a major port on the east coast. It is used mainly, I agree, for commercial fishing but if, say, Aer Lingus would employ a small specialised staff they could promote Europe's sea angling by bringing more anglers to the area and thus give a spin-off to hotels and guest-houses and to others who cater for the tourist trade.

I am sure the Minister will allow me to mention that the boats used by sea anglers use the harbour at Howth. The Minister is aware that there is a very big programme of development there and a new pier is being erected between the East Pier and West Pier. This is already well advanced and it is something of a danger to both commercial fishermen and boatmen who cater for sea anglers because of the way it is left. It is constructed on general rocks and this is dangerous to boats entering and leaving the harbour. I ask the Minister to look at the possibility of having this pier faced and generally made usable for commercial fishermen and boatmen who would be bringing anglers out to sea. I would appreciate it if the Minister would make a special note of that.

I have said that many anglers would use the east coast if it were properly developed. I suggest sign-posting of the area such as I witnessed on holiday in Clare this year. It was very easy there for an angler to find an angling spot because such spots were marked properly. One can call to the tourist office and get maps there which I understand were produced by the Inland Fisheries Trust, and the angler can know exactly where the fish are. This is very helpful for tourists, and some of them complimented the tourist office on having such maps available. It is not only the west coast that caters for angling tourists. More people use the east coast than use the west coast but I have yet to see a sign indicating a fishery on the east coast. I hope that the Minister will look at that in the overall context of the Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

That research work is continuing.

Mr. M. Cosgrave

I appreciate that. Will the Minister comment on the works at Howth?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes.

Mr. M. Cosgrave

There is another small item which the Minister could take note of. The Wheelchair Association cater for disabled anglers. For instance last year a group of handicapped persons came from England and fished in Cavan. Stands were made available there for them. This is very useful, and the Wheelchair Association should be circulated and informed of where handicapped persons can be accommodated for either shore angling or inland fishing.

Having paid my compliments to the Inland Fisheries Trust I would like to say a little about water pollution. I would like to see the enforcement of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. Primary control is vested in the local authority. The sanitary authority is the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry or a board of conservators. The new regional boards will be empowered to proceed under this Bill when it comes into force. In the past the boards of conservators have been unable to get professional biological evidence of pollution. The new regional boards will not have the necessary expert staff to obtain this evidence and, in view of that, the central board staff must be available and empowered to carry out the work. In relation to pollution investigation the regional board officer should be advised and supervised by and have the full back-up of the central board's specialists. It should also be possible for the central board staff to examine samples and analyse material for the central board who would be authorised persons under the Act. I am sure the Minister will accept that.

Section 47 should be amended to include "any other persons". The reason for this is that the Principal Act of 1959, section 309, included "any other persons". The exclusion of "any other persons" is a diminution of the right of any individual and bars persons from taking legal proceedings. Angling clubs and conservation bodies such as An Taisce and so forth are similarly impeded.

The Minister must be aware that there is a lot of disquiet among the staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust. The newspapers over the past few days have reported several comments regarding the uneasiness of the staff at the moment. If a person employed by the Inland Fisheries Trust has to move to, say, Galway that means that he has to sell his house in Dublin and buy another house in Galway. From research carried out in this field I understand that it would cost a person about £8,000 to change house from Dublin to Galway. I have complimented the Inland Fisheries Trust for the work they have done over the years. They have done some excellent surveys. Every consideration in this move should be taken into account. I understand that they have asked to see the Minister and I would be obliged if he would consider meeting them.

Mr. Lenihan

I have seen them already and I will see them again.

Mr. M. Cosgrave

I hope the Minister will allay their fears.

Mr. Lenihan

I am always willing to do so.

Mr. M. Cosgrave

I thank the Minister for that assurance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will have an opportunity of replying later to all the points raised.

Mr. M. Cosgrave

I beseech the Minister to meet those Inland Fisheries Trust people as quickly as possible. Those people have children at school and the Minister should take into account that it is not a very pleasant experience for them to be uprooted from Dublin and sent to Galway. I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that he will see them again because they are probably better able to put their case than I am. I look forward to the results of the meeting between the Minister and those people.

Mrs. Ahern

Is mian liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo an Bille Iascaigh, 1979. Bille ilghnéitheach isea é agus mar sin is deacair dul isteach i ngach a mbaineann le tionscal na hiascaireachta in aon oráid amháin. Mar sin, ní dhéanfaidh mé ach tagairt do phríomh aidhmeanna an Bhille.

The Minister in his speech this morning, has highlighted the most important aspects of the Bill, the setting up of new regional boards plus the co-ordinating body of the central board. He has also outlined how the members are to be elected. I am glad that everybody from the rod fishermen to the net fishermen and those who do any other type of fishing will get an opportunity of having a say in the election of the board members. For far too long we have had criticism that so many people were imposed on them and assigned to the boards by various Ministers. The Minister has given an extra year, which is a very reasonable consideration, so that the people who are interested in having a say in the elections will have time to register as voting members.

I am glad that with regard to those who have served well on the staff of the present boards, everything possible is being done to see that they will not suffer in the reshuffle and that their transition from the old system to the new system will be made as smooth as possible by the Minister. Reference has been made to the expansion and development of the fishing industry. We all welcome this because for far too long the fishing industry has received very little consideration. It took too long to have fishing divorced from agriculture and given a Minister of its own. I am quite confident that under this Minister and with the new shake-up the fishing industry will go from strength to strength.

A lot has been said about the depletion of fish stocks in spite of the fact that only the surface of the industry is being scratched. I believe we have very wrong ideas about how this depletion is taking place, especially in our rivers. I have always found that the small fisherman, whether he is a drift, a draft or a rod fisherman, is as interested as the Minister is in the preservation of fish stocks. In most cases it is his livelihood. Whilst I believe he is the most closely watched by baliffs, preservationists and so forth he is not the only culprit. I believe it is the fishermen at the mouth of rivers and on the high seas who are doing the greatest damage. I am sure that in due course those people will be caught and that the small fishermen will not get all the blame for the depletion of stocks.

Another controversial point is the opening and closing of the fishing seasons. I have found in discussions with fishermen that a blanket rule cannot be made with regard to the closing and opening of the seasons. The currents and tides are different in each area and also the fish habits. The dates of opening and closing of seasons should not be made without consultation with the fishermen of the different areas. I have seen over the last 20 years the habits of the fish in an area close to me, in the Cashen, change completely. I hope that when the opening and closing of the season is being decided in future—this applies not only to the Cashen area but also to other areas from Kerry to Donegal—more discussions will take place between the local fishermen and the new boards.

The Minister referred to the potential of fish farming and aquaculture. There is unlimited potential in this area. I look forward to seeing the Continental Shelf and the farming of the seabed yielding as much wealth to our people as they are now reaping from the Golden Vale. I am also glad to see that the Minister is ensuring that the areas of our seabed which will be farmed will be designated areas and licences will have to be acquired to farm in those areas. It is good to see that he is acquiring fisheries and rights of way by agreement or compulsorily. This is very necessary because there is always a great danger, especially now when the potential of fishing is becoming more apparent, that those rights of way and those fisheries could get into the wrong hands.

With regard to all those who are interested in fishing and who will now get a vote in relation to those they want to see on the new boards, the Minister said that they can give a voluntary subscription. I do not believe that he will have any problem in getting all those interested in the fishing industry to pay a subscription.

Deputy Daly gave a very constructive and informed contribution. This is what one would expect from him because he and his father have given long and faithful service to the fishing industry in the Shannon Estuary. The most important point he made was that we will have to have far more consultation between industrial development and our fishing industry. I believe there is a great lot of mistrust in this field. The only way to get rid of this is to have more consultation and more co-operation between those two bodies, because there is no need to have conflict between one industry and another. If the fishermen are convinced that proper precautions are taken with treatment plants and so on and have access to these plants and are given not just verbal assurance that the equipment is the best but are given access to the plants to see that they are run properly, they will be reassured that the river is not polluted.

Much of the success of the Bill will depend on those elected and appointed to the various boards. Each one must be highly knowledgeable on all aspects of the fishing industry—the fish movements, tides and currents in the various areas and the idiosyncracies of the fish, tides and currents in each area. I agree with Deputy Daly that there should be some way of ensuring that the expertise of people who have served on the fishery boards for so long and who have accumulated a wealth of knowledge is not lost, and that when their names appear on the voting papers, the new voters should not lose sight of this.

Another point that Deputy Daly made needs restatement, which is that in far too many cases traditional fishermen, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents held fishing licences—drift or draft—have been overlooked. Professional and business people have been given licences and it is very unfair that these traditional men who have lived by the sea, who live by the sea and from the sea should be skipped over and professional and well-off people get licences, particularly since the former so badly need the income from the sea.

Is mion liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille agus go gcuirfidh Dia rath air, ar an Aire agus ar na hiascairí go léir.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill. I was beginning to think that we would never have this chance because it was postponed so often. I was beginning to despair that it would ever come to the Dáil. When it passed through the Seanad before the Easter Recess, I assumed that we would have it immediately afterwards, as promised. I do not know the reason for the delay, but it did not come until today.

I was surprised by a notice circulated last week that the election of conservators had been postponed for a further year. On the passing of this Bill, which I am sure will go ahead, the Minister could immediately set up the new boards.

Mr. Lenihan

That is right. This is to cover the interim period between the end of this month and that happening.

Mr. Deasy

The implementation of any measure by this House is not effective unless it is backed up by the necessary will on the part of the Minister and the necessary financial subvention by the Government as a whole. This financial subvention would need to be considerably greater than that supplied at present. The Bill will be worthless unless money is pumped into the development of our inland fisheries, which covers something like 350,000 acres of inland lakes as well as over 8,000 miles of rivers—a huge quantity of water. A vast potential for development exists, with the long-term objective of attracting tourists and giving pleasure to sportsmen in the country itself. Would the Minister contradict or confirm the figure which has been given to me of £60 million as revenue directly related to income from angling in our fresh waters, be it coarse fish, trout or salmon?

Mr. Lenihan

That is right.

Mr. Deasy

£60 million, and at the same time our input is a mere £2 million. I am told by people employed in the boards of conservators, and particularly in the Inland Fisheries Trust, that there should be a considerably greater amount of money put in, that these people could work wonders and vastly improve the amount of fishing available if they were given the money to develop these rivers and lakes. £2 million of input for £60 million of income seems to be an extraordinarily meagre sum indeed. I hope the Minister can get that type of commitment from his colleagues in the Cabinet and, in particular, from the Minister for Finance, so that the new structure will be properly financed. The new structure is highly interesting and it will be found that we on this side of the House will give the Bill our backing — perhaps with a little reservation on certain aspects — but, generally, we will give the Bill the backing that we consider it deserves. It sets up a new structure to replace a very antiquated structure, dating back to the last century, totally inadequate to meet modern day needs.

According to the Bill, the seven existing boards of conservators will go out of existence and will be replaced by seven regional boards which, in turn, will be controlled by a central board, consisting of seven regional chairmen, four nominees of the Minister and a chairman, also nominated by the Minister. That seems quite a reasonable reorganisational structure and I sincerely hope it works.

I re-echo the sentiments expressed by Deputy Treacy in paying tribute to the present employees and members of boards of conservators who have operated under dreadful conditions. I do not know how any civilised society could have tolerated the situation which has existed. Firstly, the members of the boards were expected to travel considerable distances to meetings, without there being any provision for payment of expenses. These men deserve our gratitude for having done a wonderful and thankless job for no return whatsoever. Secondly, the employees of those boards, as Deputy Treacy pointed out, worked in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions, the conditions becoming more dangerous as the years went by because the commercial end of the fishing industry has become so lucrative that people have gone to great lengths to secure fish by any means, fair or foul, and the bailiffs or waterkeepers — whichever title you prefer — had to deal with these people in the most dangerous situations. There are some very graphic descriptions of incidents which have occurred in recent years, such as in west Cork and Kerry and on the river Moy, County Mayo, where bailiffs have been attacked savagely and put into a very difficult position. In addition the conditions of employment of the boards' employees were very unsatisfactory and would not have been tolerated by any other organised group. These people were employed on a temporary basis. Consequently, they were not entitled to superannuation facilities. Neither was there any provision for pensions for them. However, all those inequities are being redressed in this long overdue Bill. Another adverse factor in relation to their employment was that in respect of travel in the course of duty the expenses allowed were miserable and did not cover the expenditure involved. But all these wrongs can be rectified if the necessary finance is forthcoming from the Government. I should like the Minister to spell out what increase in the financial subvention is envisaged. The whole point of the Bill will be lost if there is not available adequate finance to ensure that the legislation is effective.

The methods of election to the various regional boards have given rise to concern but in this regard I am glad to note that the Minister is introducing a panel system so as to provide for the representation of each sector concerned. The driftnet fishermen in particular feared that they could be outnumbered substantially. However, the system proposed by the Minister will ensure a fair representation for them and for all of the other interests concerned.

Reference has been made also to the affairs of the Inland Fisheries Trust who are to be incorporated in the new regional boards. The trust have expressed fears on a number of points. Perhaps in terms of conditions of employment their situation was a good deal more reasonable than the situation of boards of conservators employees in terms of secure and pensionable employment. However, they believe that they should be compensated for having to move to the new headquarters in Galway, or to whatever other centre they may be directed to as a result of the change. Perhaps the Minister will refer to that point also.

In addition, the Inland Fisheries Trust employees consider that there is need for a greatly increased number of staff to continue the work of restocking and of the development of inland fisheries. They tell me that the numbers engaged in this work are totally inadequate. Again, the problem is one of finance but I should like to hear from the Minister whether he intends increasing the staff.

These employees, too, wish to have representation on the new regional boards. It has become a modern concept in semi-State bodies that employees are represented on the boards. Last year, for instance, the British & Irish Steam Packet Co. Ltd. appointed four employees to their board. Such representation is very good in terms of worker-employer relations. I should like to hear the Minister's views on this. Has he any such plan in relation to these regional councils?

The Bill encompasses a number of very interesting suggestions, the majority of which came from the Inland Fisheries Commission who were set up in June 1970. That commission proved very sensible in respect of their overall findings. Consequently, I must agree with most of what they say. The only regret is that it has taken so long to take action in relation to those findings. The commission were a rather unwieldy body and took five years to issue their report but that is understandable in view of the complexity of the matter. The report is both extensive and exhaustive in terms of research. It contains a clear message regarding the urgency of bringing about a new structure so as to ensure that fish stocks are not damaged or exterminated. The delay in taking action on the report cannot be laid at the feet of this Minister alone, because other Ministers have been involved during those four years, but it is regrettable that there has been such a delay.

One of the points in the report relates to the acquisition of privately owned fisheries. I was surprised to read in the report that as much as half our estuarine fisheries were owned privately. It must be a matter of concern that such a proportion of our fisheries are not accessible to the general public. Usually the private owners are absentee landlords who are extracting rents or fees annually from those native fishermen who operate in the areas concerned. We should move in the direction of acquiring as many as possible of these privately owned fisheries. In this regard I compliment the Minister on some of the steps he has taken in recent years, such as the acquisition of the Galway fisheries which has proved to be such a success. However, if a private fishery is being managed properly and is of much benefit to the public it would be only right that it should be allowed continue to operate but where there is any indication of abuse the Minister should move to acquire the fisheries, if necessary by way of compulsory purchase order.

In reply to a Dáil question about a year ago the Minister supplied me with some additional information regarding the number of driftnet licences that were issued and he itemised the number in each fishery district. In the letter accompanying the additional information I was informed that in addition to the licences for public fisheries the boards of conservators are required to issue approximately 178 licences each year in respect of various fishing engines in private fisheries. That is something that is pre-Victorian. It might well be described as belonging to the Elizabethan era. It seems highly irregular and, to say the very least of it, highly undemocratic that, in these days, absentee landlords have a right to obtain 178 licences, while genuine fishermen all over the country, be they driftnet, draftnet, or snapnet fishermen, are crying out for these licences and are qualified for them, but they are not available to them.

I could give thousands of instances. I know a case in Inistioge in County Kilkenny where traditional fishermen have not got licences and will not be granted licences because there is a certain quota and it has been used up. In the same area private fishery interests are catching more salmon than all the native fishermen put together. Surely that type of inequity must be put right. I should like the Minister to explain how a native Government can justify the issuing of that many licences to people who are millionaires, and most of whom probably do not even reside here. I do not know how much use the Minister has made of the compulsory purchase powers he has got in respect of these fisheries.

Mr. Lenihan

I have not got them yet. These are the powers in the Bill.

Mr. Deasy

I was under the impression that the Minister had compulsory purchase powers under existing legislation.

Mr. Lenihan

Only for scientific purposes. I got around it by making the Galway acquisition one for scientific investigation. I was stretching it a bit but the law will be quite clear after this Bill is enacted.

Mr. Deasy

We will all be watching with interest to see in the case of these private fisheries which are being abused, or which are being used against the interests of native fishermen, whether the Minister will step in and acquire them as soon as the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Lenihan

That is the purpose of the section.

Mr. Deasy

We will back the Minister to the hilt in that regard. I have no doubt about that. The inland fisheries sector is overshadowed by the controversy, the public debate, which is going on about the drop in catches and the curtailment of the season involving salmon fishing. Because of the emotive issues involved, we lose sight of the more important developments in the interior. I refer to coarse fishing and brown trout fishing. The tourist potential of that sector is vast and is not being stressed sufficiently.

The Inland Fisheries Trust employees tell me they could work absolute wonders if they were given a little more leeway, a little more resources in the form of finance, stores and staff. If they could employ more staff and spend more money they could make facilities available which would attract thousands of extra tourists. The spin-off from that type of development is so vast that it should be encouraged and promoted at every opportunity.

I cannot over-stress how important it is that this sector be developed. I cannot over-stress how strongly I feel that it is not being developed because of the publicity given to the salmon fisheries particularly around our coast line. I would ask the Minister to pay special attention to that sector. These areas are being badly neglected not just from the point of view of development but because arterial drainage is being allowed to go ahead without consideration being given to the detrimental effects it is having on our inland fisheries. That is the one point in the Inland Fisheries Commission report which is not implemented in the Bill before us today. That sticks out a mile. It is very stark. It is the major point which is not included in the Bill.

I am told—and I believe it because I have seen it myself—that the suggestion that there is consultation between the Inland Fisheries Trust people, the Department of Agriculture, the Office of Public Works and whoever is involved in carrying out the work, before any work is done is a lot of rubbish. I am not getting at the Minister unduly on that point because his information may be incorrect. There is a breakdown somewhere down the line and there is not proper consultation. If the Minister wants to verify that he should go and speak to the employees of the Inland Fisheries Trust. They are most annoyed that while the legislation, which goes back to the 1959 Act, points to the fact that there must be consultation, quite often there is no real consultation. More often than not the consultation is in the form of telling the fisheries people what they are to do and that is the end of it.

Agricultural development comes first and foremost and to hell with the fisheries and their destruction. That is happening wholesale around the country. Where we had meandering streams and rivers which were well sheltered and gave refuge for fish to shelter in and to spawn, after the bulldozers, the JCBs, and so on, we were left with nothing but straight canals bereft of cover and provision for spawning or fishing grounds. The result is that fish life, which was previously prolific in many parts of the country, is now extinct or virtually extinct. I should like the Minister to go into that point in greater detail. It is made rather graphically in the report and it is virtually ignored in the Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

That would be separate legislation, arterial drainage legislation.

Mr. Deasy

It is dealt with at length in the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission and there is no reference to it in the Bill. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that, and I should like him to ensure that the consultation is of a proper kind and that it is beneficial to our fisheries. In Britain and on the Continent, when such type of development is carried out, there is a very rigid rule that consultation must take place on the spot and, if natural habitats are destroyed, they must be replaced by artificial habitats to provide fish with refuge and with spawning grounds. No effort is being made here to perform a similar task.

Mr. Lenihan

That is not true.

Mr. Deasy

According to my reports that is the case.

Mr. Lenihan

I shall reply to the Deputy.

Mr. Deasy

I am not blaming the Minister because I believe the breakdown is further down the line. Invariably agricultural interests are seen as first and foremost, and most important. Anything else is secondary. Anything else is ridden over roughshod, which should not be the case. The tourist potential of our fisheries is incredibly vast. They should be conserved because in years to come it may be too late. I am told many of our rivers are virtually dead, especially the tributaries of the Shannon.

That brings me to another point which has been raised time and again about the Shannon. It involves Bord na Móna. When they cut bogs and make turf mould into briquettes, considerable quantities of turf mould and dust are blown or pushed—I do not know which—into the Shannon tributaries causing the extinction of fish life. Remember that four or five years ago Senator Liam Whyte from North Tipperary raised this point in a fisheries debate in the Seanad. He pointed out that fishing rights in his part of North Tipperary, adjacent to the Shannon, had become virtually extinct and that the bottom of the river at that point was covered by a layer of several feet of turf mould.

Within the past year I saw a report that Bord na Móna had realised that there was a problem. It shows that the problem should have been looked into four or five years ago when it was brought to public notice during the Seanad debate. A large area of that river has been denuded of fish life, whether deliberately or accidentally, I do not know.

Mr. Lenihan

It is the milled peat operation that does it.

Mr. Deasy

It gets into the river system and does untold damage. Fish are expendable and our waterways are regarded as an extension of our sewerage systems. Pumping it into the river is the easy way to get rid of something like that. The Inland Fisheries Commission's report deals extensively with the problem of pollution. We are called the dirty Irish and we earned that reputation. Our habits are not the best.

Mr. Lenihan

The Deputy should not make the mistake that Princess Margaret made.

Mr. Deasy

God help her. In 1975 when the Water Pollution Bill was going through both Houses a bad mistake was made. The Minister was a member of the Upper House at that time. I felt that his party were very negligent in not opposing the legislation from the point of view that its enactment was left in the hands of the Department of Local Government. I spoke at length during that debate and pointed out that the pollution problems in our inland waters would never be solved if the bodies designated to control pollution were the very people who polluted the rivers themselves. By that I meant the local authorities. Even at this late stage I again appeal to the Minister to have consultations with the Minister for the Environment to change the legislation to ensure that control passes from the local authorities to the new regional boards. At that time I advocated that the control of pollution should be a matter for the boards of conservators because they are primarly concerned with the standard of cleanliness in our waterways. If they control fish life they should surely be the people to control anti-pollution measures.

Day after day we read in our newspapers cases where rivers have been badly polluted. This summer was no exception. This problem generally arises during the summer when the oxygen content of rivers is low and any serious effluent discharge will absorb the small quantity of oxygen and result in a big fish kill. This summer we had more reports of such cases than ever before, despite the introduction of legislation three or four years ago, which proves the point that local authorities should not attempt to manage this legislation. Urban councils and county councils have sewerage schemes all over the countryside whose effluent is eventually discharged directly into our fresh water systems. In recent years the tendency has been to install treatment disposal plants in new sewerage schemes. However, all the old systems are discharging directly into our waterways.

I am quite sure that, until local authorities are given financial grants to provide sewerage treatment plants, pollution will continue. I cannot see any county manager prosecuting himself for polluting because he would be the laughing stock of the country. In effect, that needs to be done at present. It is the duty of our urban and county councils to stop the pollution of our waterways. A county manager would be considered a proper clown if he prosecuted himself as the chief executive of a local authority. I cannot see the system working. The Minister should tell me if he thinks it can work. If he thinks that it cannot work, I should be glad if he would admit it and suggest alternative arrangements.

Throughout the summer the national daily newspapers have been carrying reports of fish life being killed. In stretches of the River Suir there is the same problem. The problem arose in the Cootehill area, in Kanturk, in Midleton in the Owenacurra river. Those are some of the reports that come to mind; I am blue in the face reading these reports. The people responsible for the pollution, the local authority, are brought to the local district court and fined £10. The damage done could cost thousands of pounds in a good salmon and trout river like the river Suir. That type of fine is not a deterrent to a local authority or to an industrialist who has taken the cheap way out. Industrialists have to answer to their shareholders and if they can get away with cheap methods of discharging effluent they will do it and to hell with fish life. That is happening and we are not as vigilant in that regard as we are expected to be by the people who elect us, that is, those members of the public who have civic minds and spirits. The Minister's Department have employed monitoring officers to help identify sources of pollution. That was a very good move but the number employed is not enough.

Mr. Lenihan

We are taking on more.

Mr. Deasy

We would need hundreds in a country like this. I implore the Minister to pay attention to the legislation brought in by the Coalition Government. This legislation should have been opposed by the Fianna Fáil Party not because it was bad legislation but the enactment forces were all wrong. It was said in the Seanad debate that it was like the poacher summonsing the gamekeeper, and that is what it is. At that time I did not think the Minister knew what a fish looked like because he did not take part in the debates.

Mr. Lenihan

I spoke in that debate too. I have a good memory.

Mr. Deasy

I regret I missed the earlier part of Deputy White's contribution but from what I heard the extent of his knowledge surprised me because he has only recently taken over this spokesmanship. He made an excellent contribution.

He mentioned a matter which is very thinly treated in the inland fisheries report and very minimally dealt with in the Bill as well and that is the development of our eel industry. There seems to be a feeling in the report and in the Bill that eels are insignificant and not worthy of development. As Deputy White pointed out, eels are a delicacy; they are an extremely valuable commodity and obviously our inland waters are ideal for that type of development. I would like the Minister to tell us what proposals he has for this area. There does not seem to be any provision at all; it is virtually ignored. There were eel traps in a number of our rivers over the years and many of them have fallen into decay, so there is obviously a neglect of these eel fisheries. If they were there years ago they surely can be resurrected and restocked.

The Minister has people to tap to get the necessary information. I do not have that facility and therefore I am always puzzled to know the extent of inland fisheries, where sea fisheries and inland fisheries meet. As the Minister would say in his no problem manner of speaking, this is a very grey area.

Mr. Lenihan

Salmon is one example of how grey it is. They are both.

Mr. Deasy

Am I right in thinking the jurisdiction extends to 12 miles?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes.

Mr. Deasy

That embraces a whole lot of other types of fisheries, primarily sea fisheries. The one which has the greatest potential for development is mariculture, aquaculture or fish farming. I was glad to see that there have been a number of seminars and conferences held here in recent times. The virtues and the merits and the potential of development of these fisheries have been extolled in no uncertain manner as recently as some two or three weeks ago. At the end of last year or early this year there was an international conference in Leenane in County Galway. The international experts were very adamant that the indented western seaboard of this country was probably one of the best locations not alone in western Europe but in the whole world for the development of such fisheries, for the artificial cultivation of a whole variety of shell fish.

While the Minister and his Department and the EEC are making generous grants available for such development there is not sufficient interest being shown by private business interests. There seems to be a reluctance here to invest in the fishing industry.

Mr. Lenihan

Guinness's are going into it very substantially.

Mr. Deasy

I am glad to hear that. They have been in the development and re-stocking of salmon for a considerable number of years. They are a major company and they have this philanthropic type of approach to help out the State. I wonder why we cannot encourage more business men—I mean individuals—to get involved in what should be a good money spinner.

Mr. Lenihan

The Deputy would need to know his facts.

Mr. Deasy

We probably have a bias against things we do not understand. It is very natural, but as Deputy White was pointing out it is a matter of education. We are not sufficiently knowledgeable at this stage and as a result we are not prepared to invest our money in something we do not fully understand. The developments which are being carried out in Norway and Japan are of immense proportions, and the Norwegian climate in particular would not compare with ours on the western coastline. The warm Gulf Stream or North Atlantic Drift provides a wonderful climate and the sheltered nature of the coastline provides a perfect habitat for this type of fish life. I read some time ago that by 1990 the Russians expect that the bulk of fish consumed by them will be cultivated artificially. They consume an enormous quantity and something like 80 per cent of what they hope to be eating at that stage will be artificially cultivated.

Again I suppose it is a case of money. We have to put money into it and if people like Guinness's and even State agencies such as the ESB and other bodies got involved and showed the way to the private interests then it could become an industry compatible with its potential. At the moment it is only a drop in the ocean compared with the scope that it has.

Also of interest is the fact that not just oysters and scallops but lobsters can also be developed in these conditions. I wonder if we have adequate research facilities here to determine what can be developed and to what extent. I have yet to visit the new laboratory out in Abbotstown. As Opposition spokesman last year I thought the Minister would have invited me out to have a look at it.

Mr. Lenihan

We will arrange that.

Mr. Deasy

Deputy White is the man to be asked out. It is a considerable boon to the further development of our fisheries and I would like us to see for ourselves if it is extensive enough to meet the demands which should be placed upon it.

Mr. Lenihan

That will be arranged.

Mr. Deasy

Obviously education in and an explanation of what is involved is badly needed. I do not know how that can be got across to the public. It is hard to teach it to the children when the school teachers have only a vague idea of it. We are just not orientated towards the waterways of our country. It is a big gap in our system that our curriculum does not cover nature study of that type on a sufficient scale to make it useful in life afterwards.

I have a whole lot of figures here about fish landings and so on but I want to see if I can glean any other points from the inland fisheries report before I go on to that section.

Another matter mentioned in the commission's report is the abstraction of water from rivers. I should like to know how intensively the Minister's Department look into cases where councils abstract large quantities of fresh water from rivers. I suspect there are cases where too much water is being taken and there is a detrimental effect on fish life. In Waterford the corporation and the county council have applied for permission to extract a vast quantity of water from the Rivers Mahon and Clodagh, both very good salmon and trout rivers, and local anglers feel that the quantity proposed to be extracted is far in excess of what should be allowed. I know that a public inquiry can adjudicate on such matters, but in the light of what I have said about the arterial drainage and pollution problems I am afraid that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry may not take sufficient interest. The local board of conservators were asked their views and were quite disinterested and in those circumstances the onus would fall on the Department. What is the involvement of the Department in such matters? This will be a growing problem as the demand for water increases and some rivers will be allowed to run down to a dangerously low level.

Ten years ago in my own constituency I saw an example of how unscrupulous people can be when it comes to the killing off of rivers and of how disinterested local authorities and fishery boards can be. The river in question was the Dalligan in which a few dozen salmon spawn every year. An industry was set up which needed a vast amount of fresh water in its manufacturing process and this river was deemed to be a suitable source. The result was that a solid dam was built across the river with no provision whatsoever for a fish pass. Being a member of the county council I raised this matter at a meeting and was told by the county engineer that he thought the provision of a fish pass was too expensive to be considered. That is an example of how callous and indifferent people can be. If the Minister's Department are not sufficiently staffed and sufficiently interested in this matter, the killing off of rivers will happen again and again. This river was also the habitat of the lamprey eel, a very rare species, which exists in few other places in this country.

Mr. Lenihan

That was illegal under existing legislation. We could stop that if we were notified.

Mr. Deasy

I was dissatisfied with the attitude of the local authority and approached a member of the staff of the local board of conservators. He thought about the matter and said it was not of great significance because there were not that many salmon in the river. People in the neighbourhood who were interested in nature study and fish life were appalled that this could be allowed to happen, as I was myself. In relation to such matters the Minister and his staff could not be too vigilant.

Mr. Lenihan

I agree.

Mr. Deasy

That bias against fishing and fisheries and ignorance of the environment generally lead to such situations.

Mr. Lenihan

Hopefully these boards will be more professionally organised and this will meet the point.

Mr. Deasy

Awful things are done in the name of progress and they are not deeds of which we can be proud.

I should like the Minister to clarify the definition of the new fisheries areas. Perhaps he has a map available showing the proposed jurisdiction of the seven new boards.

Mr. Lenihan

I have not such a map but I will get one and have it circulated.

Mr. Deasy

All Members would be extremely interested to know what areas will be covered. I assume they cover the natural catchment areas of the major river systems.

Mr. Lenihan

That is correct. I will give details when I am replying and I agree that a map would be very helpful.

Mr. Deasy

That brings me to one of the faults in the anti-pollution measures of 1975-1976. Whereas in fishery matters the controlling board deals with the catchment area of a river, in the case of water pollution control could lie with 16 or 17 local authorities and this makes the whole system crazy. There could be 10 or 12 urban councils and six or seven county councils on that river system. Most of those could be doing their job but there might be a few niggers in the woodpile who would destroy the whole purpose of the legislation. What steps have been taken to see that there is uniformity in these matters?

Mr. Lenihan

That is the purpose of the advisory council.

Mr. Deasy

They synchronise the whole system.

Mr. Lenihan

That is what they are supposed to do.

Mr. Deasy

That is another reason why the fishery boards should be in total control of matters relating to pollution.

I am told by fishermen, up river in particular, and also by drift netters on the coast about lack of money for the development of hatcheries. Many hatcheries have been allowed to decay and fall asunder and no attempt has been made to modernise them or keep them in working condition. Salmon is one of the very few species which can be restocked and regenerated artifically and there should be a very extensive network of hatcheries on our river systems. That is not the case at present. Several years ago I wrote to the Department asking them to do something about the hatchery on the River Nore at Inistioge in County Kilkenny. I have been approached by members of the staff of the Waterford Board of Fisheries who felt it was a shame that the hatchery was being allowed to fall asunder and I received a letter from the Department——

Mr. Lenihan

The job has been done.

Mr. Deasy

Perhaps I pricked somebody's conscience.

Mr. Lenihan

I will be opening the biggest hatchery in Cong in a few weeks' time and the Deputy will be invited.

Mr. White

Many more need to be opened.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should continue. The Chair does not like dialogue. It is a bad precedent.

Mr. Deasy

The reply from the Department was that they did not place sufficient importance on the hatchery concerned to do anything about it, but I am glad to hear it is being done. At that time they showed complete indifference to the retention of that hatchery. I should like to know how extensive is the network of hatcheries on various river systems throughout the country because that fact is used consistently by driftnet fishermen in their argument as to why they should be allowed to fish more extensively than they were allowed this year. They make the point that salmon is a species that can be restocked, that can be artificially stimulated. If the hatcheries were enlarged and if more were provided they could fish without shortening the season.

Mr. Lenihan

The ESB experience on the Shannon was bad.

Mr. Deasy

We would also like to know, and this is where the experts can help us, why has there been such a poor return from the restocking of rivers from hatcheries.

Mr. Lenihan

Illegal fishing.

Mr. Deasy

I am talking about the percentage success in restocking. It is comparatively low and the results are not as good as they should be.

Mr. Lenihan

They were excellent on the Shannon if they were let up but they were caught illegally at the estuary.

Mr. Deasy

I am talking about the actual production in the hatcheries. It is not as good here as elsewhere in the world. I do not know if there is some technical deficiency or if it is climatic conditions.

Mr. Lenihan

The ESB returns are very good.

Mr. Deasy

From the commission's report it appears that the percentage that we produce is very small. They reproduce much more prolifically in the wild state than in captivity.

Mr. Lenihan

There is no doubt about that. The natural environment is always better for rearing salmon.

Mr. Deasy

I should like to know from the Minister how extensive is his knowledge of salmon stocks not just in our rivers but in the sea around us. On what scientific evidence does he base the restrictive regulations which he introduces periodically and which are becoming more and more rigid with the result that people are not able to earn their livelihood? I know that there has been over-exploitation of salmon. All of us know this and we would be telling lies if we said otherwise. We know there is far too much illegal fishing not just at sea but on the rivers. My view which is shared by most fishermen is that there are plenty of salmon for them to earn their living if the illegal methods were abolished—this is unlikely—or even if they were seriously curtailed, which should be possible. The fishermen think that the evidence at the disposal of the Minister is haphazard and is not conclusively based on scientific fact. They point to the fact that there was a better run of salmon on rivers this year than in previous years. The Minister may say that the shortening of the fishing season and the type of net was responsible——

Mr. Lenihan

They helped.

Mr. Deasy

The fishermen say there were more salmon going up the rivers than ever before, taking into account the fact that they were in a position to catch more in previous seasons.

Mr. White

It was only on some rivers.

Mr. Deasy

I am very sceptical about the scientific evidence the Minister has at his disposal. My opinion is that quite often it is a guess and as a result of a series of questions that I have asked during the past two years that opinion has been reinforced. We know very little about fishing stocks off our coast — we have no idea of what is happening ten or 15 miles off our coast. The estimates of the scientific advisers of the Minister could be completely wrong. I should like the Minister to specify more clearly the evidence on which he bases his findings.

Salmon come and go. Their numbers are not constant. In the fifties and the early sixties the run of salmon up our rivers was very small and there was little or no driftnetting at that time. In the late sixties and early seventies there was a tremenduous increase in numbers. These good and bad periods come in cycles. I think the scientific evidence quite often is just a stab in the dark.

Mr. Lenihan

That is a worldwide phenomenon in regard to salmon. We are really only learning about the implications.

Mr. Deasy

Fishermen do not think that their livelihood should depend on educated guesses. There should be something much more concrete and they have a point. I should like the Minister to comment on this matter because I think he agrees with me. This summer it was dreadful to watch licensed fishermen in the south who were not able to meet their expenses because of a curtailment of the season. They felt they had a right to earn their living but were not allowed to do so.

On the other hand, catches of salmon on the west and north-west coasts were never so great. Fishermen came to me with information of trawlers on the west coast, particularly off the estuary of the Shannon, fishing as much as 15 miles of nets and they did not even have a licence. They were not apprehended but the legal driftnet fishermen in east Cork and Waterford were constantly harassed by the boards of conservators in those areas. Perhaps the "harassed" is not the right word but their fishing effort was constantly under scrutiny while trawlers without a licence could fish miles of net—much of which was monofilmed which the Minister knows is deadly because the salmon have no chance of escape. We want to know why these people were not apprehended, why some people who did not even have a licence could boast about making £25,000 or £30,000 in six weeks. The Minister can easily verify those figures if he asks a few questions along the west coast. At the same time, licensed fishermen on the south and south-west coasts could not even meet their expenses or pay for the nets and the mountings which they had to put on the nets, never mind make a living. I should like to know from the Minister what happened this summer. Despite the promises we had in 1977 that illegal driftnetting at sea was going to be abolished, it continued unabated right through the 1977, 1978 and 1979 seasons.

Debate adjourned.