Let in Captain Birdseye himself.
Fisheries Bill, 1979 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The original red herring.
We have had a very constructive Second Stage debate on this Bill. In the course of the debate a number of practical points were raised and I propose now to deal with any of these that I had not referred to on the last occasion.
Both Deputies White and Cosgrave raised the whole matter of research and the relationship of the new central board to the area of research particularly in regard to sea angling. I assure the Deputies that so far as sea angling is concerned there is no intention in regard to this Bill to remove sea angling in any way in terms of research, development and management, from the responsibility of the new Inland Fisheries Authority. To strengthen that point I propose to bring in an amendment on Committee Stage to make it quite clear that the existing work being done by the Inland Fisheries Trust in this area will be continued by the new central board and that the full research facilities available in Abbotstown will be there as a back-up to the new central board. The research facilities of the Inland Fisheries Trust will also transfer to the board. Research into various sea angling fish or commercial fish will continue.
The other point made by Deputy White was in regard to eel development. I agree with him about the possibilities of the development of eels. We realise the important contribution this development can make. As far as the Galway fishery, which the State has acquired, is concerned the original purchase price will have been discharged within three years—which is not a bad investment—last year, this year and next year at the present rate. A main contributor to that has been the commercial viability of the eel fishing involved.
Strong comments were made by a number of speakers, particularly Deputy Treacy, in regard to drainage and its relationship to fisheries. In this Bill we are not concerned with arterial drainage. The basic section in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, that deals with this matter, section 10, is working very well in practice. That is the section that makes it obligatory on the Commissioners to take such precautions as the Minister may consider adequate for the protection of and avoidance of injury to fisheries. The Commissioners must take such recommendations from the Minister into account in the pursuance of any such arterial drainage scheme. We have set up a permanent working administrative arrangement between the Department of Fisheries and the Office of Public Works which ensures—it is becoming more effective as co-operation continues—that the Department, through their engineering and scientific personnel, are in on the early planning stage of any drainage scheme. We are implementing this section to the fullest extent.
I am aware of the concerns expressed by Deputy Treacy. There is the fullest co-operation and co-ordination between the engineering personnel in my Department and the planning personnel in OPW. I share with the Deputy concern in this respect. This aspect was perhaps not fully attended to over the years but I am satisfied that it is now and that there is an awareness of the importance of it.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance. It is a welcome development.
The other point made by Deputy Treacy was in connection with staff. He was not present when I assured the House on the last occasion that as far as the staff organisations are concerned—the staff association and the ITGWU—I am prepared to meet them to discuss the inevitable redeployment of personnel that will be involved arising out of this legislation. Apart from the decentralisation move to Galway, because of the merging of the staff of the boards of conservators and the Inland Fisheries Trust there will be redeployment of personnel across the board. I met the staff association on 29 May and the ITGWU on 6 April and discussed these aspects with them. I shall be seeing them in the near future to discuss the implications vis-á-vis conditions of service and so on arising out of the redeployment of personnel that will occur. There is no question of anything being opposed. The fullest discussion will take place as regards that aspect.
The whole thrust of the Bill is designed to ensure that we will have a more professional staff concerned with protection and development of our inland fisheries. It is arising from that that I see the main benefit of the Bill: instead of having the ad hoc recruitment system we have at present through the various boards of conservators there will be a properly established system with properly trained, graded, paid and superannuated staff concerned with the protection, development and management of our fisheries.
Deputy Daly raised the question of the issue of licences. Licences will continue to obtain on a regional basis under the new arrangement. He made an interesting suggestion about a consultative committee of all interests in the Shannon area. I shall take that up with the new board in that area when it is established. Some Deputies, including Deputy White, seem to think that it would be an advantage if the ESB waters were acquired. Deputy Daly rightly paid tribute to the ESB because they, as an organisation, have put substantial money into the Parteen hatchery and have embarked on a highly progressive policy in regard to the Shannon area. They have set up a division within the ESB and have developed spawning in the area. The only spanner in the works as far as they are concerned is the illegal drift netting, which we are now tackling, off the Shannon estuary. This brings me to the point raised by Deputy White regarding hatchery policy. One cannot have a hatchery policy run by the proposed central board or regional boards or by the ESB in the Shannon area—this has been the ESB's experience and they are pioneers in this area—unless illegal fishing outside the estuary is tackled. We must get our priorities right. There is no point in the State, through the central board, ploughing millions of £s into promoting hatcheries, organising spawning grounds and so on if at the mouth of the estuary the end product is decimated by illegal fishing.
I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Defence and the Irish Navy for their part in co-operating with the protection staff of the Board of Conservators last year and this year and with the Garda in trying to make an indentation on the problem of illegal fishing. Last year we had over 200 prosecutions for illegal fishing mainly monofilament net. We had over £¼ million of such nets confiscated and we hope to get orders, through the courts, for their destruction. Blatantly illegal netting has been the cause of reductions in salmon stocks and makes nonsense, as it has done to the ESB's hatchery programme, of any hatchery proposals, however wellintentioned, in which the State may engage.
Deputy Ahern spoke about the various regulations made last year in regard to opening and closing times of the salmon season and the extra 24 hours mid-week closing and asked that the matter be treated more flexibly, which we propose to do in this Bill. It is proposed, to adjust the position from year to year. Heretofore, once such regulations were made, they were tied to a three-year period. We now have a more flexible arrangement, whereby we can look at the situation as it affects the different areas, and adjust accordingly, from year to year. The regulations, however, have worked very well in the past season.
I made one point when closing on the previous occasion, which illustrates how successful the operation was in the interest of salmon stocks and, of course, in the interest of fishermen, both commercial and angling. Deputy White rightly said that the figure for rod catch for the year before last was 2 per cent. We estimate that the rod catch for last year was 3.47 per cent, which is nearly double the previous year's. That is a very good barometer and indicates a greater escapement of salmon upstream to the spawning grounds, therefore greater breeding possibilities and probabilities. We regard the rod catch as a basic indicator of success in curtailing commercial catching—which, candidly was the whole purpose of the exercise—probably, and entirely, to allow a greater escapement of salmon. The very fact that the rod catch upstream has almost doubled this year on last year is an indication that more salmon have come upstream, which should help in the revival of salmon stocks.
Deputy Deasy made a number of in teresting points, some of which I have already dealt with. He is right that the financial commitment of the community to this new fisheries structure and the professionalism of the new structure will be all important. We have a new means of financing, by a levy on the first sale of salmon, which will help, coupled with an increasing Exchequer commitment to fisheries protection and development.
Deputy Deasy referred to Bord na Móna. I assure him that there is a new attitude, in that Bord na Móna have now established a specific division within their organisation to deal with the whole question of pollution from their operations. It is known that in the early days of milled peat development there was undoubted damage caused to fish life, particularly in the whole midland region adjacent to Bord na Móna operations—the Shannon and its tributaries, the Brosna, the Suck and so on. That at least is now being investigated and controlled to some extent and Bord na Móna have set up a scientific division to seek answers to a difficult problem. I am not pretending that all the problems have been solved, they are still in the course of investigation in that area.
Aquaculture has been mentioned by a number of speakers, particularly Deputy Deasy. For the first time, in this Bill we have an administrative regime to cater for the acquisition of waters, the licensing of operators and the whole control of the aquaculture scene—aquaculture under the Bill including mariculture. That is a specific part of the Bill, Part V.
Deputy Deasy raised an important aspect concerning salmon stocks, that not alone have we problems controlling the situation off our coasts and in our waters but this is true of the whole North Atlantic, particularly Greenland, where there has been heretofore a certain lack of control. I agree with the Deputy and this matter is on the agenda of the Council of Ministers, who will meet next Monday, and will be one of the items under discussion. The American Government have taken an initiative in this respect and have got the agreement of the Canadian Government. There will be representatives from the American Government speaking on behalf of the whole North American interests in Europe here early next month. They will meet the Commission and various member country Ministers and myself here in Dublin, with a view to working out a regime of control in regard to the whole run of salmon in the North Atlantic. The idea is to set up a convention or treaty between Canada, the United States, Greenland and the Community whereby a regime be established and a permanent commission established, representative of both sides of the Atlantic and their interests, to secure some control and regime in regard to salmon. This is very long overdue. Over-fishing off Greenland has been a contributory factor in the reduction of salmon stocks on this side of the Atlantic.
I think that covers most of the specific points raised. Deputy Hegarty raised the point concerning factory ships and their effect on Irish stocks. I emphasise that since 1 January 1977 we have had an exclusion of the worst of these ships, the Japanese, Russians and East European countries to outside the 200-mile limit. They are the main participators in that sort of fishing and their exclusion has been beneficial to our fishing stocks. The regeneration of mackerel stocks in the past two years has been largely due to the exclusion of these factory ships.
I emphasise that this is basically a Committee Stage Bill on which on each section there is scope for a full debate. If I have omitted any aspects raised in the course of the very long discussion on Second Stage, they can be dealt with fully on Committee Stage. Everybody in the House is agreed in principle on the Bill, but there are matters of detail in regard to specific sections which can be discussed on Committee Stage. This is a comprehensive Bill which, overall, is in the national interest and if we can tease out matters on Committee Stage, so much the better. There is general, broad agreement with the main principles and thrust of the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 13 November 1979.