We were half way through discussing this section the last day when business concluded. The Minister had made a number of statements and I should like to refer to some of them. In reply to a Dáil question about a year or 18 months ago the Minister stated that he would not prohibit the sale of monofilament nets because, despite the fact that they were used on a wide scale for illegal salmon driftnetting, they could legitimately be used for other types of fishing. I should like the Minister now to state why his attitude has changed in the meantime.
Fisheries Bill, 1979 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."
That is my privilege. We shall come to section 67 later in the debate. I have an amendment dealing with this problem and I am advised that this is an effective way of dealing with it: prohibiting the sale and distribution of filament net.
For any purpose?
We will come to it later.
The Minister made the point when speaking on section 36.
I know that.
It is nice to have a full day debate on this Bill. If ever anything proved to me that Bills should be taken in Committee this Bill does because it is ridiculous that we have been talking about this Bill for the last few weeks. When the Minister was speaking about the acquisition of fisheries I asked him would all fisheries be taken over by the new central board. I take it that the Galway fishery which is now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry automatically comes under the central board.
The Galway fishery is owned by me and I can transfer it to the central board.
The Minister intends to do so?
Yes.
It is hoped that this Bill will pass within the next week and that being so we can take it that the new boards nominated by the Minister will sit in March or April of next year? The Minister has not given a definite commitment as to when they will sit.
I hope it will be early in March.
Can we take it that the new boards will be sitting by March?
Yes.
I would prefer that there would be no dialogue between the speaker and the Minister.
Deputy Treacy raised the question of unclaimed stretches of water and Members on both sides of the House contributed to this. The Minister said that he had considered it but he was afraid to bring in a section in this Bill in case he would find it hard to claim unclaimed waters. I suggest that there should be a section to state that the new central board could take over or could claim unclaimed stretches of water not being used at present. By that I mean the vast areas of rivers that nobody seems to have any legal title to and where weeds are growing could be developed by the new central and regional boards. There are also many lakes in the country. In the north-west there are lakes where weeds are growing. These lakes are not being utilised at all and the farmers have no claim on them and do not wish to claim them. We would be missing a very important part of this Bill if the Minister does not include some section to deal with that. I am asking him to include a section to provide that the central board could take over unclaimed stretches of water.
I hope to have Report Stage next week and I will look into the possibility of putting in an enabling section of the kind suggested by the Deputy. But there are practical difficulties in implementing such a section—for example, constitutional and legal aspects of title, property rights and so on. If the House will bear with me I will devise some form of enabling section between now and Report Stage and have it here next week.
Unfortunately, when we were half way through this discussion on section 36 the House adjourned and we were left with a lot of unanswered questions, so I am going to go over some of the ground again.
It was pointed out to the Minister that in the Inland Fisheries report, which is the basis of this Bill, it is asserted that 50 per cent of the best salmon rivers and estuarine salmon fisheries here are still in private ownership and that a great proportion of these private landlords are absentee landlords. Have the Minister's Department made any assessment of the percentage of these privately owned fisheries which are not being maintained to the required standard? Have the Department made any assessment of what it will cost to acquire these fisheries by compulsory purchase order? That right is given in this Bill and the Minister has often referred to it. It is extremely important that we have some assessment of these figures. Of course, the key point of the whole Bill is not worth the paper it is written on unless the finance is made available and unless the Minister can give us some guarantee that the finance will be available to acquire the fisheries in question.
I have shown evidence of my bona fides in this matter by already taking over the Galway salmon, trout and eel fisheries. As I mentioned here on the last day, I propose to take a similar attitude with the powers here in section 36 in regard to other commercial fisheries. But it is not appropriate to start bandying prices about here. This will depend on hard-headed negotiation and bargaining. We will try to purchase voluntarily and, if we fail to do that, we will purchase by way of compulsory acquisition. Therefore, I do not think I should mention compensation prices here in the House.
Has the Minister made an assessment of what proportion of the 50 per cent is not being properly utilised at present?
The fact that they are all being utilised on a commercial basis is not desirable. It is a natural resource. We have made a success of the Galway fisheries, which will be paid for next year. But it is not the commercial element that would primarily motivate me as Minister for Fisheries. Research and development are the important aspects in regard to these fisheries and they are not really utilised in that respect at present. They are purely private enterprise commercial ventures and I would like to see them move towards the developmental aspect in the national interest. That is the way we are approaching the Galway fisheries without taking from the legitimate element of commercial development for the State as well.
The Minister seems to be missing the point. I am not speaking about that. The Minister continuously refers to compulsory purchase orders included in this Bill and how he is going to make use of them. Has the Department made any assessment of what proportion of these private fisheries are not being utilised in the national interest at present?
None of them is. They are all commercial ventures.
A lot of them are not being utilised properly.
That is what I am saying. I agree with the Deputy.
The Minister mentioned that the Cork fisheries are doing so much better under State control than they were in private ownership.
I agree with the Deputy. None of them is being really worked in the national interests.
Is it the Minister's intention to acquire quite a few of them?
That is the whole purpose of this section. It gives me, or whoever is Minister, power to deal with this matter. In the case of the Galway fisheries I was able to do it on the basis of research and scientific investigation and, to be candid, I was stretching my powers at the time. It was not quite clear whether I was really fully entitled to do this or not. But this section makes it quite clear that whoever is here as Minister for Fisheries can acquire any fishing rights here for the State either voluntarily or compulsorily.
Can we assume that the Minister is going to acquire the bulk, if not all, of these fisheries.
In the course of time. Money will be an obvious constraint or restraint in the matter, but that is the intention.
Has the Minister made any estimate of the finance involved?
I do not want to get into that at the moment.
Will the Minister be handing over the Galway fisheries to the central board or will they be retained by his own Department?
No. I would prefer to hand them over to the central board. At the moment I control them, but when the central board are established I would propose to hand them over to them and the weir lodge that we acquired on the fishery location will become the headquarters for the new central board.
May we take it that the Minister is going to hand the Galway fisheries over to the central board?
Yes.
I would like to thank the Minister for his commitment in relation to unclaimed waters. Following on what Deputy Deasy has said, I think what the Minister is really saying is that the intention behind this Bill is gradually to take over all these estuary fisheries that are not being utilised and that if landlords want to sell any of their fisheries to the central board, these will be bought up. Certain landlords have approached me about this and quite a few of them would prefer to sell to the central board so that the central board could run them. There are also some fisheries here that are being managed and utilised very well and I take it that there will be no such thing as compulsion in relation to these. But we should try to take over any of the estuary fisheries that are not being utilised properly and, of course, we should take over in any case where there is a willingness to sell. I agree with the Minister that money could be a very big matter here and that it will be during a period of three to four years that we will take over the fisheries, but eventually we should have a situation in which most of the estuary fisheries would belong to the central board.
I would agree with the Deputy. Each case will stand on its merits in relation to its necessity from the national point of view. We will not go willy-nilly into the purchase of fisheries but where after an economic assessment a fisheries is considered valuable from a national point of view we will take it over.
Perhaps the Minister would let us have a list of the privately-owned estuary and salmon fisheries so that as time passes we may take note of the fisheries that have been acquired. I am a pessimist by nature and, consequently, I suspect that the rate of acquisition will be very slow, much slower than we would wish.
I will furnish the Deputy with that information.
The Minister might include in that list the rateable valuations of the fisheries concerned so that we might estimate their value.
I will take a note of that.
I am not satisfied with the commitment given by the Minister regarding the ESB. The Minister has told us he is satisfied with the work being done by the ESB in regard to fisheries in respect of the waters controlled by the board but I do not think that they are doing enough or that what they are doing will be sufficient when this legislation comes into operation. The whole essence of this Bill is to stop illegal fishing in bays, but we have heard repeatedly from the ESB that there is no point in their developing a hatchery policy if the young stocks are to be fished illegally. Hopefully, this Bill will eliminate illegal fishing, but I have not had an assurance from the Minister to the effect that the ESB will devise a proper hatcheries policy in regard to the rivers under their control.
I should like the Minister to assure us, too, that the Department and the central board would welcome at any time the handing over to them of any fisheries controlled by the ESB. I shall not be happy until such time as everything in relation to fisheries is under the control of the Department of Fisheries. The Minister has told us that last year the fisheries division of the ESB lost £250,000 but this amount is very small in terms of the fishing industry as a whole. I am not satisfied that the ESB are the proper body to operate these fisheries. We could do a much better job if all aspects of fisheries were under the control of the Minister.
I observe that the right of acquisition by the central board is subject to an appeal to an arbitrator and that under section 43, the arbitrator must be a barrister of not less than seven years standing.
That relates to a later section.
Is the Minister satisfied that the power he is taking here in section 36 is constitutional? Would it not be safer to provide for some form of appeal to the court in the event of dissatisfaction by a person whose fishery rights were being acquired?
My advice is that the provision is constitutional. It is on all fours with the Land Commission procedure vis-à-vis the acquisition of land. We have gone into this matter very thoroughly and have not found anything unconstitutional in it. It contains proper compensation provisions and a provision in respect of tribunal assessment. There is nothing more unconstitutional about it than there is about the exercise of acquisition powers by the Land Commission.
My concern in this area is not allayed by the assurances of the Minister in regard to the analogy of the Land Commission because under this Bill the arbitrator is somebody appointed by the Minister whereas in the Land Commission situation there are the lay commissioners who are appointed statutorily. In addition, there is provision for an appeal from a decision of the lay commissioners on a point of law to the High Court and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court. While I agree fully with the intentions of the Minister in regard to acquisition—if possible by agreement but otherwise by order—of private fisheries, it would be regrettable if this power were to fail on the grounds of its not being constitutional. Is the Minister totally happy on the constitutional point?
The Deputy is talking about sections 42 and 43. Subsection (8) of section 42 provides that the official arbitrator for the purposes of the section would be the arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
My point relates to the exercise of powers.
That really comes in under section 42.
If we were to debate the point at this stage, we could have repetition later.
I am not here for the purpose of engaging in a personal vendetta with the Minister, but I wish to refer back to a reply which he gave on the last occasion to a point raised on section 36, when he told the House about the huge amount of illegal nets that had been seized, especially off the Shannon estuary. The figure mentioned in terms of value was of the order of £500,000, but I replied sharply that it was a pity there had not been more concentration on the west coast during the last salmon fishing season than there had been in my part of the country, in the Lismore and Waterford fishing areas. I am concerned and also very annoyed because of the concentration of fishery protection forces in an area where, traditionally, the law has been adhered to while seemingly scant attention has been paid to the west coast where this damage is being done to our salmon fisheries. The Minister in his reply mentioned the Shannon Estuary. I know of people with trawlers who for seven or eight seasons past, and in particular for the last season when the Minister had vowed that he was going to eliminate illegal drift netting at sea, have boasted and have proved by their landings of fish and their financial gain that they have fished ten miles of illegal drift net much of which was monofilamant net and they have fished not 40 meshes but as much as 60 or 90 meshes deep.
We are discussing section 36.
The Minister made this speech when he concluded on the last occasion and we did not get an ample opportunity to reply. It is a disgrace that these people have got away with it scot free again this year. Every fisherman on the coast knows who these people are and surely the Minister must be aware of who they are. Why was it allowed happen again? The landings of salmon on the west coast this year were a record. They were higher than ever before. The national landings were not a record because the fishermen in west Cork, east Cork, Waterford and Wexford made catches which were extremely low. How could it be otherwise when the fish never got to that part of the coast? The fish run in an anti-clockwise direction around the coast, from Donegal, around Kerry and up towards Wexford. The landings in my part of the country were so low because that illegal fishing seemingly is being condoned and not merely allowed. I cannot understand how the Minister can strut in here like a peacock and boast of the considerable work he has done in this field. It is not funny. I know a man who could not meet his repayments on his boat, nets or gear and he has been in a mental home for the last four months. That might sound funny to the Minister, but it is a fact.
I know dozens of traditional salmon fishermen who could not make a living this year and have had to have recourse to the local relief officer for social welfare in order to make ends meet and to feed their families because the illegal fishing on the west coast has not been eliminated. The Minister has not even attempted to eliminate it. He says that he has but there is no visible sign that it has been reduced. There is not a decent income to be earned on the south coast because of the restrictions introduced by the Minister and the continued wholesale poaching on the west coast.
This is a broad discussion on the Bill which would be more appropriate to Report Stage.
That is the trouble.
I am merely replying to the Minister's statement. Could he reply to what I have said?
We could talk all day about this because this is connected with enforcement and its importance. These measures which I have taken for the first time are to try to make the fishery protection laws and regulations of this country real, creditable and genuine. I have gone to the extent of bringing in stronger regulations to ensure this and I have invoked the help of the Naval Service to assist the Garda and the staffs of the boards around the country in efforts to stamp out illegal fishing. I have made a complete policy commitment for the first time to stamping out illegal fishing as a prerequisite to any national inland fisheries development in this country. Unless we have the resource we cannot develop the resource. That is elementary and it is not necessary for me to spell out the fact that I have made this commitment over the past two-and-a-half years and have done something about it for the first time. We have not by any means succeeded to the extent that I would like to succeed. We have made only a start, but at least there is now the commitment by the fisheries administration in this country to this objective. We now have the disciplinary forces of the State available to help us achieve this objective. We have the law under this legislation and under the Fisheries Act, 1978. For the first time we have the penalties to help the courts in dealing with the situation.
However, over so many years and generations illegal fishing, unfortunately, has been treated in a tolerant manner by the Irish public, the Irish courts and Irish law enforcement agencies. There has been a nod and a wink type of attitude towards it. Really it is the attitude of mind that we need to change and no amount of legislation or regulation can deal with this situation unless it is taken really seriously by everybody in the community. Not only salmon but all species of fish are in danger of disappearing unless there is management of the resources, unless we commit ourselves to that management in the way of legislation and regulation and their enforcement and, above all else, unless we educate public opinion which is the most important aspect of all. We must get the people themselves conditioned to the point of view that this is too important and far too fundamental to be treated on a nod and a wink, casual basis.
Why is there selective surveillance? Why is there harassment?
I allowed Deputy Deasy to make a point on the grounds that he was replying and I allowed the Minister to reply to it. We will now get back to section 36. If there is to be any general debate, Report Stage is coming up.
I am raising one point which was not replied to by the Minister and I am asking him to reply to it. Why is there selective surveillance? Why is there harassment of the fishermen of west Cork, east Cork and Waterford and why is illegal fishing on the west coast being ignored deliberately?
That does not arise under section 36.
Every Deputy in every constituency, no matter what party he belongs to, thinks that it is selective against him. It is not selective and I assure the House that it is not.
I am not being argumentative, but it is well known that trawlermen from the south coast go up the west coast because they know they will be allowed to fish there unhindered.
The Deputy is saying that the Irish Naval Service and the law enforcement agencies of this country are selective in the administration of the law. That is not true. I am very proud of the Irish Naval Service. I am very proud of the Irish police force.
The direction given seems to point to the fact that the people on the south coast are being discriminated against. The landings on the west coast prove that point.
This debate is not appropriate to section 36.
I want to make one thing quite clear. I am not a law enforcement agency of this State. The law enforcement agencies of this State in regard to the fishery laws are the Naval Service, the Garda Síochána and the various fishery boards around the coast.
And the Fianna Fáil Party.
It is left entirely in their hands to proceed with the enforcement of the law. I can make the resource available to them. Theirs is the decision. I repudiate absolutely that there is any selectivity or discrimination in their administration and enforcement of the law.
Did members of the Minister's party tell the fishermen in Kerry to go ahead and fish even though the season was closed?
That is not appropriate to this.
It is very appropriate. These fishermen were encouraged by members of the Minister's own party to go out and fish because, they were told, the season was still on. Will the Minister reply to that allegation? His silence is enough. That is the proof of the pudding. He did tell them.
There will be no further discussion on those lines.
It is a public scandal.
Order, please. It is not the business of the Chair to decide whether it is a scandal or otherwise.
The Minister told his own party members to go out and fish.
There will be other opportunities on Report Stage to discuss this.
He thought that the rest of the country——
This is not appropriate to section 36. Unless there is further appropriate discussion I will put the question.
A very serious allegation has been made on this side of the House and there should be a reply to it.
I am trying to keep to section 36.
I am still waiting for a reply about the ESB.
On the ESB, I made it clear in my reply on section 36 on the last occasion that there is nothing in the section to preclude the Central Fisheries Board from acquiring from the ESB any of the fisheries now controlled by the ESB. The ESB stand in the same position as any owner of a fishery right. I want to make that clear. What I did say was that the ESB record to date had been excellent. I went to some pains on the last occasion to defend them in that respect and to thank them for the investment their fisheries division have made in developing hatcheries, particularly in the Shannon area at Parteen. They have some excellent technical staff, some of the best fishery scientists in the world.
Is there not a case that they should all be amalgamated?
That is a matter that can be considered. The section does not preclude that from happening and that is the main point I want to make. That can be done. If for some reason in the future the ESB lost interest in this development, we could move against them and acquire the fisheries. At present they are doing a good job and I see no reason to disturb the situation.
I am just a little happier about it but the Minister has still given no commitment that the ESB will engage now in a further hatchery policy and see that all rivers under their control will be restocked. Can the Minister give us this commitment, that this will take place when this Bill comes into operation?
The Deputy can have that assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."
This is the right of way section and it is much more important than many people might think.
I agree that it is very important.
I understand that at present fishermen have what is called "reasonable access" to the shore. How would the Minister describe "reasonable access"? Does it mean that if somebody had a trout farm one mile from the main road and there was no other road and he had to go across three or four farms, he would have the right to cross these farms to his fishery? For example, if the trout farm needed a JCB digger to clear an estuary for his new farm factory, would that fisherman have the right to bring machinery across the three or four farms? We must describe "reasonable access" not only as far as the Bill is concerned but also as far as the fishermen are concerned. Many people at present do not know what "reasonable access" is.
As regards sea angling, earlier I raised the question of having signs indicating where fishing was available for rod anglers. Where there is no right of way to a beach, will this section empower the Minister to tell a farmer or landowner adjacent to the beach that there is a right of way across the land and that anglers may cross it? How does the Minister intend to get over that problem?
The section is fairly clear. I agree with Deputy White that it is a very important section. There is not much point in talking about fishery development unless one can get to the fish. Subsection 1 is the nub of the matter. The central board or a regional board may apply to the Minister for an order effecting the compulsory acquisition of a right of way by a particular route over any land. After considering the application under subsection 3 I have to be satisfied that the right is required to enable fishermen to gain access to fishing waters and that it is reasonable. I may consider it on these two criteria and allow or refuse the application. There is provision for appeal to an arbitrator who can decide on the merits of the decision between the applicant, that is the central or regional board, and the Minister.
I know what is in the Minister's mind but I do not know how it will work. The Minister is saying he can take this right compulsorily—on behalf of the fishermen, I take it, because it might not be the central board who might want the right to cross to an estuary or shore; it might be a fisherman.
I am not getting into the area of private rights. I want to emphasise that I am only introducing here the right of the central board or regional board to apply to me for the compulsory acquisition of a right of way required by them in the fishery's interest. I am not interfering with private rights that individual fishermen may have. That is outside the scope of this measure. I would not dream of entering the whole area of private rights.
The point raised by Deputy Cosgrave to my mind is not cleared up regarding rod sea angling and access to beaches. Can the Minister now provide that the public can gain access through farm land?
That is the purpose of the section.
I have some reservations about the public because of knowing what can happen as regards damage to crops and so on. I have reservations about giving access wholesale through farm land where there might be vulnerable crops such as barley.
That is a point of view, but the purpose of the section is as I have said.
But surely the Minister has said that only the central board or a regional board can get that right?
Yes. The right only resides with the central board or one of the regional boards.
And their employees. And it ends at that.
No, it does not end at that. I understand that as a result of an order made by the central board and the putting up of a necessary sign at some stage, they can give the right to the public to gain access through a farm.
Yes, but the action has to be taken by either the central board or a regional board. Nobody else has that right.
Yes, but in some areas I think it would still be a matter of grave concern.
What the Minister now says is that the board could pass on to the public this right of way, that in the long-term the public and not just employees would have the right of way.
That would be the purpose of the exercise, to allow people access.
I am surprised that the Minister did not give the stock answer. In the case of wild life the general answer we get is that everything is subservient to agriculture which comes first and nothing else matters. I should have thought that where there was a field of barley or corn, if it was a case of somebody wanting to go fishing, the farming community would have complete control——
We are taking new powers under this Bill.
I think that if this were known to the IFA the Minister would be on retreat before the end of the week.
We had better pass it quickly.
Will the Minister state if it is proposed to develop rights of way?
I would envisage that as part of the operation of the regional board. It is the intention that the board would carry out development work, provide proper access and so on.
All of us know of stretches of beach that may not be very good for bathing but where the shore fishing is excellent. In many such cases the access path may be in a very poor state. Will the Minister be able to improve access in such a case?
That is precisely what I have in mind. That is what is envisaged in the section.
If Deputies bring specific cases to the attention of the Minister, will he ensure that they are examined?
Yes.
I am very glad to hear that. In addition to carrying out development work, it appears that the Minister is going to delineate certain rights of way to the land. A landowner may have a mile of road frontage leading to a river and people wishing to get to the river may break down the fences. Under the Bill there is provision to delineate certain rights of way, to put up stiles and fence in the right of way from the road down to the river.
Yes that is correct. It is proposed to carry out such development work in order to improve the fishing resource.
That will be a major undertaking.
I agree with the Deputy. I regard the section as very important.
It is also proposed to fix lanes and roadways, as well as to carry out the necessary signposting?
Yes.
I am much happier about the section now. To take the point a little further, in a situation where there is no access except through crops, would the board be prepared to purchase a corridor sufficient to give proper access? That would satisfy me. At the moment when the public wish to get to a river they may have to go through fields of crops. My suggestion regarding the purchase of a corridor of land which could be fenced and where stiles could be provided seems to be worthwhile.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."
Does this mean that any rivers or lakes on land owned by the Land Commission will be handed over by them to the central board?
That is dealt with in section 40. Section 39 deals with the transfer of fisheries from the Office of Public Works to the central board and section 40 deals with the same matter so far as the Land Commission are concerned.
I am asking if the Land Commission will hand over such fisheries antomatically to the central board.
This is an enabling section and that is the purpose of the section.
There is a difference in enabling somebody to do something and the intention to do it.
That is the intention of the section. It meets the point of view expressed by Deputy White and other speakers.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."
A major point arises with regard to the section. Do the Land Commission even know the fisheries they own? I raise this question in the context of having attempted to investigate the ownership of a fishery in my area in south-east Cork. It was almost impossible to ascertain who was entitled to the ownership of the fisheries on certain sections of the river in question. I should like to know the Minister's answer to my question whether the Land Commission really know what fisheries they own.
The Land Commission have a schedule of fisheries—a printed list which I can get for the Deputy if he wishes. They advertise fisheries for letting on a regular basis. I am informed there are about 100 such fisheries in the possession of the Land Commission. They are managed by the commission and are let to angling bodies, hotels and others. The income from the lettings is in the region of £5,000 per year. We are taking power in this Bill to get the fisheries from the Land Commission. This section will enable the commission to transfer the fisheries and related rights to me or to the central board.
Perhaps the point I am raising is not quite clear. I appreciate that in cases where the ownership is clear the Land Commission will transfer the fisheries to the new board. What concerns me is where the ownership is not clear, where the Land Commission may be the owner but do not know it. Will the Minister consider the situation that applies in some parts of the country where fishery rights were exercised by some landlord 100 years ago, where there was acquisition of certain lands in the area by the Land Commission and where there is confusion as to whether the fishery rights were transferred to the commission or are owned by the adjoining occupier. Is there any way of getting such matters resolved? I am referring to cases where the ownership of the fisheries is unclear. Has the Minister any power in the Bill to have such a situation resolved by way of acquisition by the central board, with some form of public advertisement and an entitlement to a claimant to claim compensation if he can prove title?
The Deputy has raised an important point. I have here the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission and they refer to this aspect under section 2.8.2. It is under section 45 of the Land Act, 1923 and provides that on the vesting of any lands in the Land Commission under that Act all fisheries appurtenant to the lands vest in the Land Commission subject to any existing lease. Section 4 of the Land Act, 1929, provides that the Land Commission should make a declaration as to whether fisheries did or did not vest in them. There is a provision under the land legislation for this purpose.
Deputy White and other speakers raised the question of unclaimed waters to which there is no title. I have said that between now and Report Stage next week I shall bring in an enabling section on that aspect. It is a legal tangle and it could also be a constitutional tangle.
I think the Minister is getting to the core of the problem. It is important for the Minister to remember that these appurtenant rights will probably not be listed in many cases by the Land Commission because they will not even know they have them. To a certain degree those rights may fall into the area of unclaimed rights. There must be some general power to acquire these with compensation powers.
We will try to draft something along those lines.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Question proposed: "That section 41 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Minister covered every conceivable Act in the section?
I have, yes. What has the Deputy in mind?
These are certain fishing rights in Dingle Bay going back to 1908. How will they be covered? They are under the old British regime.
I will inquire about that. The section applies only to rights vested in the Minister.
Perhaps there could be some enabling provision such as the Minister said he might introduce on Report Stage.
I will have a look at. it.
Surely we dealt with Deputy Begley's point earlier. The Minister has the right to acquire any fisheries.
That is under section 36, which is a global section.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 38 is related to amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 36 is consequential on amendment No. 38. Amendments Nos. 37 and 41 are related. The Minister will move amendment No. 22 and we will discuss amendments Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 41 with it.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 38, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "or 38" and substitute ", 38 or 51".
This is consequential on amendments to section 51. Section 43 deals with the arbitration procedure.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 43, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I want to reiterate a worry I referred to earlier in regard to the constitutionality of this procedure. It would be a pity if the purpose of the Bill were to be negatived because the procedure adopted was not constitutional. I observe that the arbitrator is to be a barrister of not less than seven year's standing. He will be without judicial standing. He is appointed by the Minister and there does not appear to be any right of appeal to any judicial body from the findings of the arbitrator. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with rights to property which are protected under the Constitution. I wonder whether the procedure envisaged in the Bill will stand up. Would it be wiser to have some sort of appeal from the decision of the arbitrator to the courts? Normally that is sufficient to ensure the constitutionality of any measure which gives powers to a non-judicial person or body.
The person under this section is not exactly a non-judicial person. It is specified that he shall be a barrister of not less than seven years' standing.
It could be the Minister.
He has higher things in mind.
He might get side-tracked.
It is a similar type of provision to the requirements for a judicial appointment. These are specified for a District Court, or Circuit Court, or High Court appointment. The person must be a lawyer of a number of years' standing. A specified legal person can hear the appeal. When the Minister receives the notice of appeal under the section, he may appoint a person who shall be a barrister of not less than seven years' standing. That person is then referred to as the arbtirator. It is separate from the compensation aspect. I am quite satisfied that we cannot go any further on the legal and constitutional aspects than that.
I appreciate the point raised by Deputy O'Keeffe that this is an important matter. We are talking about property rights, the acquisition of property rights, and the transfer of property rights. I do not see how I can go any further than to appoint a person with that type of qualification to hear the appeal. On balance I am satisfied. As the House is aware, there is residual right of appeal to the courts, the basic right of anybody to go against any order made. There is no interference with that residual right which everybody has ultimately to go to courts.
I accept that the person appointed is a legal person. My worry is that a legal person will be appointed and not a judicial person. I want to make sure that the powers which are to be exercised under this Bill will not be found to be unconstitutional. I suggest the Minister should check this with the Attorney General or somebody else to make sure that the procedure being followed is constitutional.
I will do that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Question proposed: "That section 44 stand part of the Bill."
What does the Minister mean by "Sale by the Minister of certain fisheries..."? Does he intend to sell fisheries? I thought it was intended to buy them rather than to sell them.
I am taking this power, but I envisage that the whole thrust of the Bill will be the other way. This could arise. It enables the Minister to sell any fisheries, fishing rights and businesses incidental to the operation of a fishery. It is an enabling power. I agree with the Deputy. I do not envisage its being utilised to any great extent.
I hope we never reach the stage where we have to sell any of our fisheries.
I hope so, too.
Does the Minister think we are so broke that we may have to sell off our fisheries?
Has the Minister any fishing deal in the pipeline?
No.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Amendment No. 24 is consequential on amendment No. 23. The Minister will move amendment No. 23 and we will discuss amendment No. 24 with it.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 38, subsection (1), lines 24 to 26, to delete all words from and including ", and the provisions" in line 24 to the end of the subsection.
This amendment deals with subsection (1) of section 45, which is the enabling section to allow for a trial on indictment, and the indictable provisions, which are the trial by jury provisions, of course, are in addition to and not in substitution for existing provisions which provide for summary hearing. We are now making provision under this section and by those amendments for a more serious view to be taken of fishery offences by providing for substantial penalties as set out in the section and providing that, if necessary, and if a serious case warrants it, the prosecution can take place in the higher courts giving rise to penalties of up to £2,000 and two years' imprisonment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 39, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) The provisions of subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this section are in addition to and not in substitution for section 309 (1) of the Principal Act (inserted by section 47 of this Act).".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 45, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There are a few things in this very important section I am not happy about. We are dealing with certain offences which may be on indictment. In page two of the Principal Act section 45 states that certain minor offences could be brought before the court and, if a person has more than three offences, this could disqualify him from holding a licence. If there is no number on a boat and there is no tag attached to his nets, this could disqualify that person. I suggest that the different offences whereby a person may lose his licence should be divided up.
Does the Deputy mean that there be a grading?
If a person fishes illegally and is caught more than three times he certainly deserves to lose his licence. A person could be caught three times for not having a number on his boat and under this section that man would automatically lose his licence. He could lose his licence if he had been caught three times without a tag attached to his nets. If a person is disqualified for three minor parking offences he does not automatically lose his driving licence. There is a difference here between the drunken driver and the parking offence. We will have to define exactly the cases in which fishermen may lose their licences. If somebody has a court case pending, what happens? Is it the Minister's intention that all fishermen will start with a clear sheet on 1 March when the new central and regional boards will come into operation?
Amendment No. 30 to section 49 relates to the disqualification. This matter comes up on a later section, section 49, which deals with conviction on a third fishery offence and gives rise to the disqualification mentioned by the Deputy.
Section 49 deals with the forfeiture of licences and consequential disqualification orders. We will discuss the matter on section 49.
We were told we could speak at some length in this section in relation to fishery offences. The Minister gives us to understand that he would like the public to believe that we are having a go at the fishery protection service, which is completely untrue. We are fully behind the Irish Navy and the staffs of the boards of conservators in their attempts to eliminate illegal fishing. I particularly resent the continuous introduction of my brother's name into Dáil discussions——
It was not meant that way.
The Minister did it.
It should not happen.
I apologise.
The Chair has never pulled up the Minister and it happened three or four times. I am very proud of my brother's involvement and of his work. I am also very proud of other members of my family who are in other sections of the Defence Forces.
The Deputy's family should not come into the debate in any way.
I am sure the Minister is very proud of the service given by his own family in our national Army in troubled times during the twenties.
The Minister's family should not come into the debate either.
There was a switch since then.
The Irish Free State Army were a very fine reputable body. Nobody should be ashamed of them. In regard to the offences listed under this section, there is discrimination now, as there has been for many years, between the manner in which people looking for salmon in the South of Ireland and on the west coast are being treated. This policy is motivated by political reasons.
The Deputy should not make charges either, no more than refer to members of his family.
We can back it up with figures.
Deputy Begley has facts and figures to back it up. The bulk of the licensed drift salmon fishermen are on the south coast, in the Waterford area, the Lismore fishery area, the west Cork fishery area or in the Donegal fishery area in the extreme north-west. In between there are very few drift net salmon licences, for various reasons. In Kerry there is blatant discrimination by the law as it stands against a traditional fisherman getting a licence. There are only about eight or nine licence holders in County Kerry. In the areas where the traditional fishermen have licences they have to put up with undue surveillance. There is no need for that because they are fishing within the law. They are no more law abiding fishermen than those on the south coast. The list of fishery offences proves that. There are no cases of fishermen in that area being fired at from patrol boats. They feel, with justification, that they are being harassed to an undue degree.
The bulk of the salmon is caught off the west coast and this is being caught illegally. What does the Minister intend to do about this? We have been told since the Minister came into office that he would eliminate this illegal drift net fishing off the west coast. More salmon were caught illegally off the west coast this year than ever before. They were caught by trawlers with miles of net and none of those boats has a salmon licence. Will the Minister concentrate on this area in future? The salmon stocks in the country are being decimated because of this illegal fishing. It is not because of any over-fishing by the drift net men off the south coast. What they caught this year would not give them a decent living. Many of them are depending on social welfare payments to make ends meet because they had such a bad season. In spite of that I believe more salmon were caught around our coast last year than in recent years. There was not a decline as has been stated so often. The bulk of the salmon caught was caught illegally. If it was caught by those who sold the salmon some of them could be correctly labelled as millionaires. Obviously, they were funnelled from the illegal fishermen through the limited number of licences in the area thereby escaping detection. What is the Minister doing to eliminate illegal drift net fishing? What is he doing to stop the sale of such salmon which are being sold illegally?
I endorse what Deputy Deasy has said. The Minister is aware that the Lismore-Youghal area consists of the most law abiding people along our coast. That was accepted by officials of the Department who are well known to those fishermen. There was no need for surveillance. The local fishermen made their own laws and rules and superimposed them on the existing regulations. If the Minister insisted on the same type of surveillance on the west coast one would have a clearer picture of salmon catches and the so-called disappearance of salmon. If illegal salmon fishing was stopped life could be a lot easier for those who have been stocking the Blackwater at their own expense for a number of years. In fact, they stocked it so well that they were able to sell surplus stocks this year. Those responsible people put their own money into stocking that river but they are now on the dole and unable to meet repayments on their boats. That has occurred because of the tough and unfair regulations which were brought in. They were not necessary. Fishermen in that area could lawfully fish a full season in a responsible manner and without any damage to the fish stocks but because there was chaos on the west coast and breaches of the regulations the fishermen in that area are the victims. If this Bill corrects that situation the Minister, in the new year, can have another look at the problems of the Youghal people and offer them a decent season's fishing.
The Chair has allowed this matter to be raised but it cannot be pursued. The section deals with future offences and penalties for such offences. What has been raised concerns last year.
If the Minister wants the Bill to be effective he will have to see to it that justice is done and seen to be done. It is clear that there is a strong feeling of discrimination amongst fishermen on the south coast, from Lismore to west Cork and into Kerry. The Minister will have to make it clear that selective surveillance and particular harassment of those areas will cease and that there will be an even-handed distribution of justice along the coast. It is not sufficient to say that some of the people in the Naval Service are doing this. Those people are carrying out instructions; they are going where they are told to go and it is no answer to attempt to pass the buck to the Naval Service. The whole purpose of the fishery legislation would be lost unless all fishermen see that justice is done. It is clear to me that justice is not being done.
Even though the penalties look good on paper they will not have any effect once the fishing becomes a bread and butter issue of a family. I appeal to the Minister to recognise that if he has not the goodwill of the genuine fishermen who are earning their living from the sea, like their fathers before them, these sections will be treated with contempt. In a part of Kerry we have a minimum number of licences but if we look up or down the coast we can see hundreds of licences held by people who are not genuine fishermen. This is the crux of the matter. For years fishermen have had respect for the Naval Service, the Garda and so on and there is no point in having open conflict between the fishermen and law enforcement officers. That conflict can be avoided if there is good consultation with the fishermen and a genuine compromise reached. It must be remembered that those who will see to it that these regulations are enforced are the fishermen because it is a bread and butter issue with them. Last year I asked the Minister for Defence the number of nets seized by the Naval Service around our coast and the reply I received was alarming because one section of our coast was not touched. Of course, we all know the Minister for Defence is from that area.
The Deputy should not make charges against any Member of the House.
There was not one seizure in that area.
It is sufficient to say that without making any charges against a Member of the House.
It is not a charge; it is a fact.
It is not in order to make charges against any Member.
If the Minister makes by-laws he should enforce them. It is not good enough to have Oireachtas Members of the Minister's party telling fishermen in County Kerry to go ahead and fish because Brian had told them to go ahead and they would not be touched.
I do not know of any Brian. The Deputy should refer to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.
Minister Brian. I am finding it very difficult to make my contribution because of interruptions by the Chair.
I am not cutting in on the Deputy; it is the Members on the Deputy's left who appear to be more interested in something else that is going on in the House.
There is no point in making provision for penalties if the Minister can tell his party members in Kerry to go ahead and fish. Was the Minister involved in that exercise?
No.
Is the Minister saying that he did not give authority to anybody to fish once the season was closed?
At this stage the Chair must insist that we come back to the section. We are dealing with future penalties and offences.
I am very glad the Chair mentioned offences. Did the people who fished for the fortnight commit offences?
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.
The Minister said that he did not send any word to Oireachtas party members or to Fianna Fáil members of the Kerry County Council to go ahead and fish.
The Deputy is now making charges against people who are outside the House.
The section deals with fishery offences, penalties and aiding and abetting. The Minister should be the first man in the dock if there is a question of aiding and abetting.
The Chair must try to keep the House on the section. We cannot debate anything that happened in the past.
I want the Minister's solemn assurance that he will never again be involved in such a disgraceful exercise.
The Chair must say to Deputies that charges of that kind cannot be allowed.
A serious situation could arise in relation to the protection staff. There could be physical confrontations between the staff and fishermen. Does the Minister intend issuing the staff with uniforms so that they will be identifiable?
The matter hardly arises on this section.
The section is a broad one. The fishery protection staff should be easily identifiable. Will they be issued with uniforms and firearms? Fisheries is an emotive subject and there could be confrontations between illegal fishermen and the protection staff.
The provision of uniforms is a good suggestion and I will bring it to the notice of the incoming board. Whether or not the staff would go along with the suggestion is another day's work. The matter can be considered and there is nothing in law to preclude that development.
As far as I am concerned, there is nothing selective in this area in regard to law enforcement. It is understandable that Deputies will make cases for their own constituents. The enforcement of the law relating to fisheries has nothing to do with me. We have made a policy decision for which I am responsible.
As there have been confrontations between illegal fishermen and water bailiffs, how does the Minister intend to protect the staff?
The protection staff have the power to enforce the law. In addition, as a result of our policy decision, they have the aid of the Navy in the estuarine and sea waters adjacent to our coasts. The combined effort of all concerned—the Navy, the Garda Síochána and the protection staff—has led to the intensification of law enforcement in this area in the past two years, an area which was neglected for many years. The legislation was not being enforced because of an attitude to the protection of fisheries. This attitude affected the courts and the various law enforcement agencies, and the public tended to look upon fisheries in an indulgent manner. Only in the past few years have people realised that this natural resource could disappear. We have not yet improved the situation to my satisfaction, but I am firmly convinced that we have strong penalties under this section and under last year's legislation. The policy decision stands in relation to the intensification of enforcement and will continue in the season ahead.
A serious point which the Minister should bear in mind is that the Bill does not appear to provide for penalties against local authorities. As local authorities are mainly responsible for pollution, why are they excluded from the provisions of the Bill?
We are now talking about pollution.
I am talking about offences and penalties. Perhaps the Minister would like ten minutes silence?
Please, Deputies, we are dealing with the Fisheries Bill. The other matters will come up at a later stage.
Apparently, they have come up.
We would like the Minister to be present.
If Deputy L'Estrange would let us get on with the Bill, we would be doing well.
Perhaps the Minister would be able to attend the meeting. Rare things are happening at the moment.
Great things have happened in the past and will happen in the future. If we stay at fisheries we will do all right.
We are trying to be helpful to the Minister.
Would Deputy L'Estrange go out and get some other sort of news to keep the House occupied?
If the Deputy would look at the schedule to section 48, it is all there.
I do not think it arises on this section.
It does not. The Deputy can be assured that the power still remains with the local authority to prosecute.
We had better wait until we get to that section.
With reference to what the Minister has been stating, the group of us here today may represent certain coastal constituencies, but I do not think that we are being parochial in what we have said.
No.
No.
We are not happy, and have not been for several years with what is happening on the west coast in regard to drift netting for salmon. This is a national issue. Salmon stocks are being absolutely wiped out by this illegal drift netting off the west coast to which I referred before. We cannot be accused of being parochial in making that point. There were never more illegal salmon caught than in this past season.
The Deputy has already said that twice.
Your chance of being caught stroke hauling, or trying to snatch a salmon from any of the tributaries of a salmon river, is greater than if you have ten miles of net from a trawler off the west coast. That is a highly unsatisfactory situation. There is no point in the Minister saying we are looking after our own little corner; he should do something about that illegal drift netting off the west coast.
Finally, on this section, the Minister has mentioned the £2,000 fines which we welcome. However, there is a difference between £2,000 fines and the will to prosecute, particularly as far as the north Kerry fishermen were concerned, who were fishing illegally, over and above their time.
They were told to fish.
Even though they were told to fish can the Minister give this House some guarantee that these fishermen will be prosecuted? There is no point in bringing in these big fines, unless the Minister has the will. The Minister has said that the Navy is a separate body, but it works in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries. Unless the Minister has a strong will to put the new Act into force, we are wasting our time discussing this. It is for the Minister to see that anyone caught fishing illegally will be prosecuted.
The Minister is not going to touch Kerry with a 40-foot pole.
One matter which shows our determination to deal with law enforcement as regards our fisheries is that during last season almost £½ million worth of nets was confiscated.
That is a start.
Where were they confiscated?
The Minister should be allowed to make his statement.
I regard the confiscation of illegal and monofilament nets as being a more effective deterrent than fines and imprisonment.
Where were they caught?
They were caught right around the coast, in all parts of the coast, in all areas.
We will get the right reply.
I am satisfied that the law was enforced impartially and fairly, but in a determined manner. It will be so enforced during the coming season until we stamp out any form of illegal fishing, or over-exploitation on an illegal basis. The factor of greed in regard to over-commercialisation that has developed, particularly in regard to salmon fisheries in recent years, defies description. This was allowed to continue under the Coalition Government.
And under the present Government.
I am glad the Deputy said that.
The Chair must again intervene. Neither the Minister nor the Deputies opposite can raise matters which are over and done with. We are dealing with legislation which is not yet enacted. We are only trying to get it through the House. It is for future penalties and future offences. Will both sides of the House speak on it?
I agree fully that section 45, which we are discussing, deals with the future penalty regime, as far as offences to be tried on indictment are concerned. There are substantial increases which, together with the new stringent attitude providing for trial on indictment, show the seriousness of purpose with which we view this whole area.
With reference to the Minister's statement on the £½ million fines, am I not correct that the vast bulk of those illegal nets were seized off the west coast?
All around the coast.
The vast bulk, I have ascertained, were around the west coast.
Could I ask one question? Will the fisheries protection staff be backed up by the Garda Síochána, or the Army, or who will back them up?
The gardaí and the navy. We had very fruitful discussions last year, at the start of the season, between the three bodies concerned. There was a co-ordinated drive to stamp out illegal fishing in which the boards, the enforcement staff, gardaí and navy, all cooperated, meshing in together.
They will not be armed?
No, they will not.
Let us hope there will be no loss of life.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 46.
Question proposed: "That section 46 stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the Irish jurisdiction and mentions the district court area. Am I correct in thinking that when we are talking about jurisdiction we are talking about a 12-mile limit?
That is correct.
No, that has gone.
No, not at all. From the base line.
We are talking about a 12-mile limit, as far as this Bill is concerned. I understand that the Minister will be discussing, shortly, a new fishery policy as far as the EEC are concerned. We are talking about a 12-mile limit here but we should be looking for a minimum 12-mile limit for fishermen off the coast. The EEC themselves have a right to come within our 12-mile limit at present, which is absolutely ridiculous. It is high time that the Minister took a very tough line on this. We are discussing now a 12-mile limit in the Irish jurisdiction. How have the EEC the right to come in within our 12-miles?
That will be a separate matter, dealing with sea or marine fishing.
We are dealing, in this Bill, with inshore fisheries only. The question raised by Deputy White would concern sea fisheries.
I am making the point that this Bill refers to a 12-mile limit.
That would be on some other Bill.
We had a very full meeting on that subject in Brussels.
What happened?
It is on-going. There will be further meetings in January, with a view to reaching finality.
The point I am making is that I am not talking about a 50-mile limit. I am talking about a 12-mile limit.
What was the decision on the Dutch boycott?
That does not arise on this section.
If a foreign boat from an EEC country caught salmon five miles from the Irish coast, would it be breaking the law?
That is the question.
They do not fish for salmon.
The Minister is in the clouds.
If they did—and they have, because they have been found amongst their catch—would they be breaking the law?
They have to be licensed under our code.
But they let the salmon pass by and ignore them.
As far as Irish law is concerned salmon fishermen must have licences, and that includes salmon fishermen from wherever they come, from the North Pole, from the South Pole or from Ireland—I must license them and, unless they have a salmon fishing licence, they cannot fish for salmon; it is illegal fishing.
But they are fishing for salmon without licences, even Irish fishermen.
Are there any reciprocal arrangements under which a Dutch man with a Dutch licence—if there were such things as Dutch licences—could fish in Irish waters?
The only salmon fishing licences I issue are to Irish nationals.
What happens if a Dutch boat is caught with salmon within this 12-mile limit? What happens to them? Is the boat confiscated?
It is illegal.
Is his boat confiscated?
Oh, yes. he can be prosecuted with the full weight of the law.
In other words, we can now prosecute them within our 12-mile limit.
Yes, and we have done——
We should for all fish, not just for salmon.
Not for catching salmon.
Not for herring.
That is under separate legislation, which Deputy Deasy and I teased out here last year.
We are now dealing with something else altogether. Section 46——
Have many Dutch boats been searched for salmon by the Irish navy? Has any Dutch or French boat been searched?
They have; they have all been searched from time to time.
The Minister must be joking; he is having us on again—selective treatment.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 39, before section 47, to insert the following new section:
"47.— (1) Where in any proceedings for an offence under Chapter II of Part XIII of the Principal Act there is evidence from which it appears to the court that the sea-fishing boat to which the alleged offence relates, or on board which such offence is alleged to have been committed, is either of a foreign character or of foreign origin or that at or about the time of the alleged offence such boat——
(a) wore no flag or wore a flag other than the national flag, or
(b) had marked on her stern the name of any place other than a port mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Merchantile Marine Act, 1955, or
(c) had on board any books, papers or other documents from which it so appears that the boat was not an Irish ship,
then, until the contrary is shown, such evidence shall be sufficient to prove that such boat is a foreign sea-fishing boat.
(2) Where in proceedings for an offence under Chapter II of Part XIII of the Principal Act it is proved that the sea-fishing boat to which the alleged offence relates, or on board which such offence is alleged to have been committed, wore at or about the time of the alleged offence a flag other than the national flag, the presumption raised by subsection (1) of this section, in so far as it depends on that proof, may be rebutted by the defendant proving that the flag so worn was not a flag distinctive of nationality.
(3) The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in substitution for, those of section 19 (3) of the Act of 1962 (as amended by section 67 of this Act).".
Under existing legislation it is necessary, when a foreign sea-fishing boat is being charged with an infringement of fishery legislation, to obtain certificates from each of the 12 registrars of ships around our coast to the effect that the vessel in question is not registered as an Irish sea fishing boat. This procedure, involving compliance with the requirement, is often difficult and the resultant delay often causes problems for the State in regard to effectively prosecuting the people concerned. This amendment will eliminate the need for such certificates except in the unlikely event of the defence insisting on their production.
Briefly what I am doing is making it easier to prosecute foreign boats. This will eliminate the need to produce a particular form of proof which, added to the confusion in bringing prosecutions, places an undue burden on the State in securing convictions against foreign boats. It makes it easier for us to successfully prosecute foreign boats.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 47.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 39, line 54, after "Act" to insert "or any other person".
This amendment seeks the addition of simply four words to the section, words that are of the utmost importance: "or any other person".
Subsection (1) states:
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, an offence under any provision of the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1979, other than a section specified in Table I to section 2 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1978, may be heard and determined in a summary way by a District Justice upon the complaint, verbal or otherwise, of a member of the Garda Síochána, the Central Board, a regional board, an officer or servant of a board or a private watchkeeper within the meaning of Part XVIII of this Act.".
My amendment seeks to add to that the words: "or any other person". I want the House to realise that those words were contained in the Act of 1959. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that they should be deliberately removed now. The exclusion of those words clearly is a diminution of an individual's rights, precluding him from taking legal proceedings in a district court. On that basis many important persons would be precluded from taking appropriate action in the courts, for instance, our angling clubs, conservative bodies, indeed such important national bodies as An Taisce, bodies concerned with the environment, the preservation of our fisheries and so on.
Here clearly citizens' rights are involved, individual rights are involved and persons who would have a genuine grievance are precluded from taking the proceedings outlined in the section. I am not concerned with "do gooders", as such. I am concerned with all those well meaning people associated with our fisheries who are debarred from taking such proceedings by the deliberate removal of the words "or any other person". I want these words reinserted. Their exclusion will impede all those people who can and wish to play a role in the preservation of our fisheries. An individual member of an angling club who feels he has a legitimate complaint to make should have the same right before the courts as anyone else. The conservation bodies should have access to the courts. There are a few categories of persons only mentioned in the section—the Garda Síochána, the Central Board, a regional board, an officer or servant of a board or a private waterkeeper. That is not sufficient. I want the Minister to say why it was thought fit to remove the words "or any other person" which were contained in the 1959 Act. Their exclusion leaves this Bill less democratic than the old Act, and we are all concerned about democracy. I want those words reinserted so that all those people genuinely concerned about our fisheries and their preservation will have the same access to the courts as they had in the past.
The section as it stands is too restrictive, should be broadened, made more democratic and reinstated as it was in the 1959 Act. The people who drew up that Act were wise, far-seeing and democratically-minded and were as much concerned with fisheries as we are today. I know of no good reason why those words should be deleted from the section.
I support Deputy Treacy on this amendment. If the Minister is agreeable to the amendment, there is no point in our debating it. I think it is good that the words "or any other person" be added because they widen the scope of the section.
I will go along with that amendment. I did not intend, and it was not the intention of the draftsman to interfere with the right. My advice is that the words do not have to be there, that the right is there basically anyway, the right of any person to prosecute under the Bill. But in order to make it definitive, positive, so that there can be no yea or nay about it, I will put them in and I will make a commitment now to bring in an amendment precisely on those lines for Report Stage next week.
I am grateful to the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
If the Minister is now accepting the amendment before the House I take it there is no need to bring in an amendment on Report Stage.
Indeed, that would make it easier.
I understood that is what we are doing. The Minister said he would bring in an amendment on Report Stage.
I do not want to accept the amendment in case there is some legal difficulty. If I bring in an amendment it will be on those lines and it will have the precise purpose envisaged by Deputy Treacy.
That is different as far as the Chair is concerned. Is the amendment withdrawn?
Yes, on the Minister's assurance that those words will be contained in the Bill on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 47 agreed to.
SECTION 48.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 41, Part I of the Table, to delete "306" and substitute "306, 323" in the entry in column (2) opposite reference number 2 in column (1).
This amendment increases the penalty from £25 to £200 for refusal by a witness at a public inquiry to take an oath, produce a document or answer a question. This increase was overlooked at an earlier stage and it is in line with the general type of penalty increase we are introducing across the board in this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are related and we will discuss them both together.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 42, Part I of the Table, to delete "£5" and substitute "£10" in each of the entries in column (3) which are opposite reference numbers 9, 10 and 12, respectively, in column (1).
Section 48 provides for the revision of certain penalties under the Principal Act, the 1962 Act. There is provision for the payment of £500 plus £50 for each salmon and £5 for each other fish involved in respect of offences against certain sections. This amendment increases the fine for each other fish from £5 to £10.
Will the Minister define the other fish?
Brown trout is one of them.
Is it only trout?
Any other fish, but it will be mainly trout. It is ancillary to the salmon provision. Brown trout is the obvious one.
What about monsters?
There are enough of them here.
That is a new fish.
(Interruptions.)
I am not joking. I listened to a programme on RTE 1 last Friday or Saturday morning which lasted for two hours and employees of the Inland Fisheries Trust among others were quoted as people who believe——
As far as the Chair is concerned, a monster is not a recognised fish.
What about Nessy? If the Minister likes we will deal with it under aquaculture.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 42, Part II of the Table, to delete "£5" and substitute "£10" in the entry in column (3) opposite reference number 2 in column (1).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 49.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 43, line 21, to delete "third" and substitute "second".
The section as drafted contains provision for disqualification for three years of a person holding a commercial licence on conviction for a third fishery offence of a prescribed character. There was some reference to this at an earlier stage. The proposed amendment has the effect of disqualifying a person following conviction for a second offence of a prescribed character. I am making it tougher to provide for a second offence of a prescribed character rather than a third one. A lot of representation on this aspect of the matter was made to me by angling bodies. They were very strongly of the view that we should toughen up the penalties. I am making it two offences instead of three.
Has the Minister defined the matter?
If the Deputy looks at subsection (3) (a) of the section, he will see that the offences are listed. They refer back to the various sections. I am informed that those sections to which reference is made there are all sections relating to serious offences. Deputy White was concerned that some sort of casual offence, like not having a licence number on a boat or something like that, would be included in those sections. I am informed that this is not the case. The sections refer to serious illegal fishery offences to which reference is made in section 49.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 49, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
When I spoke on Second Stage I suggested that we should have prosecution after two offences rather than three and I welcomed the amendment which the Minister brought in. I also welcome what the Minister has just said. I do not know what all the offences under sections 65, 69 and 73 are but I take the Minister's word that it does not cover the numbers on boats, the tagging of nets and small little things like that and that it just covers all the major fishing offences.
Those are illegal fishing activities.
I take the Minister's word that those small offences are not covered here. The Minister suggested earlier today that this Bill will come into operation in March. What happens if people have already one offence against them? We spoke about the north Kerry fishermen. What happens if there is a prosecution against them? They could be prosecuted now but they could also be prosecuted in April or May of next year.
It is only from the date of the Bill.
Has everybody got a clean sheet from the time the Act will come into operation?
Yes.
Does it mean that if the Bill is passed on 1 January everybody starts with a clean sheet from that date on?
Yes.
I welcome that. There are two other points I would like to mention. Is there a right of appeal under this section to the central board if, for instance, somebody feels he is entitled to a salmon licence and has not been given it? If I have an uncle who has a licence, he has stopped fishing, he hands in his licence and I intend to take over his boat and gear and to fish and I apply to the regional board for that licence and I am not granted that particular licence, it means that I have no licence even though I have my nets and my boat. Does the Minister envisage that there is a right of appeal available to a fisherman applying for that type of licence? I suggest that on Report Stage an amendment could be brought in to ensure that there is a right of appeal in a case like that.
I will have a look at it but there is a general right in the person to go to court against all these decisions. That is a basic legal right people have.
I am talking about the allocation of licences.
If a mistake is made by the regional board in relation to the non-allocation of a licence, the person has his or her right to go to the courts to appeal against the matter. There is no specific appeal procedure written in if that is what the Deputy is talking about. I will have a look at the matter between now and Report Stage.
If a man is refused a licence by the board of conservators, at the moment he has the right of appeal.
We are not changing that situation.
Under the new regional boards there should be a right of appeal to a higher body, such as the central board. If a fisherman feels aggrieved in relation to a regional board decision, he should have the right of appeal to the central board.
We will have a look at the matter and I will report to the House next week on that aspect of the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 43, before section 50, to insert the following new section:
"50.—(1) (a) Where a court imposes a fine or affirms or varies a fine imposed by another court for an offence mentioned in subsection (4) of this section of which a person was convicted, it may, at its discretion, on the application (made before the time of such imposition, affirmation or variation) of any person who was summoned as a witness on behalf of the prosecution in the proceedings in which the fine was imposed and who suffered loss or damage resulting, wholly or partly, from the offence, provide by order for the payment of the amount of the fine or of a specified part of it as compensation in respect of the loss or damage to the person making the application.
(b) An application shall not lie under paragraph (a) of this subsection in respect of any loss or damage if proceedings claiming damages for the loss or damage have been instituted in any court.
(2) If a person is convicted of an offence under section 51 (16) of this Act or section 253 of the Principal Act by reason of his having taken away oysters or other fish from an oyster bed or other place, if the oysters (or any of them) or the other fish in respect of which the offence was committed have or has not then been sold, they or it, as may be appropriate, shall, as a statutory consequence of conviction, stand forfeited, and the court may direct their or its delivery to the owner or occupier of the oyster bed or other place from which they or it were or was taken or the person to whom the relevant licence was granted or who is entitled to the benefit of such licence.
(3) Where pursuant to this section the whole or part of a fine is paid to a person and the person is awarded damages by a court in respect of the loss or damage to which the payment relates, the payment shall be deemed to be in satisfaction of so much of the damages as is equal to the amount of the payment.
(4) The offences referred to in subsection (1) of this section are offences under section 51 (16) of this Act or section 253 or 265 of the Principal Act."
This is a new section. Section 50 (1) (a) provides for the payment of part of fines imposed by a court as compensation in respect of loss or damage suffered by witnesses for the prosecution in connection with interference with or trespass on a fish farm. Paragraph (b) provides that payments under (a) are not allowable if proceedings claiming loss or damage are being instituted in any court. It goes on to provide in subsection (2) that as a statutory consequence of conviction, for the return to the owners or occupiers of fisheries of unsold oysters or other fish that have been taken illegally. Subsection (3) provides that a portion of a fine imposed under subsection (1) of this section is allocated as compensation for damage. The amount recovered from damages awarded in any subsequent civil action should be the sum awarded for damages, less the amount allocated for a fine. Subsection (4) lists the sections of the Bill and of the Principal Act which are covered by section 50 of the Bill.
This amendment was brought in after I received representations from aquaculture people who are very keen that a compensation element be introduced in regard to any interference, trespass or damage caused to their fish farm. This would be a stronger form of deterrent than the fine provision. Having listened to what they had to say, I was convinced that anybody with a fish farm is in a very vulnerable position.
I welcome this very good section. Aquaculture farms are in a very vulnerable position because of vandals.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 43, paragraph (a), line 44, to delete "salmon" and substitute "fish".
We are now dealing with the original section 50, an amendment of section 301 of the Principal Act which sets out the various powers of authorised officers. This section gives additional powers to authorised officers. Section 301 of the Principal Act refers in all cases to fish. The extra section indirectly refers to salmon. This should be fish. This is a technicality to include fish rather than salmon and to make the wording more global. The power given in the section will be utilised primarily for the protection of salmon stock but it may be used in relation to other species. I do not want to be caught on a technicality by merely mentioning "salmon". Other fish, such as brown trout, can be included under "fish".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 43, line 59, to delete "person" and substitute "officer".
The amendments to section 301 of the Principal Act which are incorporated in section 50 refer in various places to "an authorised person or persons". This should read "an authorised officer or officers" as these are the descriptions used in the Principal Act. This is really a technicality.
Would the Minister define "fish"?
It is defined in the Principal Act.
We have disposed of amendment No. 32.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 44, line 16, to delete "person or persons" and substitute "officer or officers".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 44, line 17, to delete "person or persons" and substitute "officer or officers".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I take it there is no principle involved in the amendments to this section, such as the contention I made on a previous amendment concerning the insertion of the words "any other person"?
No, there is no relationship. We are talking here about officers.
I have very strong reservations on this section, especially as there is a question of loss of life involved. Subsection (a) (db) reads:
he may for the purpose of exercising the power conferred on him by paragraph (da) of this subsection use such force as he may consider necessary and in particular, if an order given by him to such boat to stop is disobeyed or disregarded, he may, after first causing a gun to be fired as a signal, fire at or into the boat;",
That is a drastic power to give to the Naval Service or to anybody. It means we can have loss of life at sea for the sake of a few fish. In no circumstances should that power be given. There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it. To give unlimited power to the Naval Service to fire at an Irish fisherman and sink his boat because they are suspicious and he does not stop, is very wrong. The Minister should reconsider this because he is putting into this legislation a provision which could lead to loss of life. This is the first time in the history of this State that such almighty powers are being given to the Naval Service. Again I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this because no fish is worth a life.
First, I want to talk about the power of authorised officers—I am talking now about the officers under the old board of conservators in the last few years—many officers were not equipped to deal adequately with the situation. The illegal fishermen had faster boats and many of them were armed. With the best will in the world, these officers were not equipped to deal with poachers. I want the Minister to assure the House that money will be spent to ensure that these people have the right kind of gear and boats—they might need a speedboat or a power boat. We must face the fact that in 1979 the old methods of trying to discourage poachers will have to be reconsidered.
I agree with Deputy Begley on this. As regards firing into or at a boat, there are two categories involved. The Minister brought in something about foreign fishing trawlers but they do not really come under this Bill. We are talking here about Irish fishermen, and their boats are usually between 20 feet and 40 feet. They are small boats. The position is that, if a naval corvette is in that vicinity, it might be able to fire across the bow of a boat but it should not fire into or at an Irish boat, whatever about foreign vessels.
The Minister might say he is only putting this in in case it might ever have to be acted on but that the instructions are that it will not be acted on. In the last year we had a few ugly scenes. If somebody lost his head he could quote this Bill and it would be legal for him to fire into or at the boat. I am not running down the Navy in any way. Our naval protection vessels have a difficult task. They are working in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and it is wrong for the Minister to say that he has nothing to do with protection. I was Shadow Minister for Defence before taking up this portfolio and I know that the Minister's Department and the Navy work in conjunction with each other. The Minister might say that he has no direct authority but they do work in conjunction with each other and that is as it should be.
I asked before for heavier fines and asked that the three years should be cut to two years, but when we are considering firing on or at one of our own fishing vessels we are going too far. The crack officers are given money to have the right equipment and the naval authorities are also given money to have proper equipment but to allow them to fire at or on a boat is going too far.
We are talking of situations where the boats are numbered and their destination is just around the corner. It is very easy to talk to them in a civilised manner when they come into the pier. There is no need for firing across the bows. With the best will in the world they might intend to fire across the bows but in the high seas their accuracy might not be what it should be and somebody could be killed. I seriously request to the Minister to remove that.
I join with my colleagues in appealing to the Minister to delete the highly dangerous reference "fire at or into the boat". That is the ultimate. I hope the kind of situation would never arise where it would be found necessary to fire at the boat and conceivably sink it and all therein.
The Bill is full of penalties and this side of the House have supported the Minister in regard to them in order to eliminate unfair practices in fishing in the inland waters and around our coasts. The penalties prescribed are sufficient in respect of fines and jail sentences rather than going so far as to invite gun-boat war around our coasts. We would have an estrangement between the Minister of the day and the fishermen. We would have grievances to contend with and sometimes angry scenes. Tensions would be high. The mind boggles at what could happen in an angry scene as a result of investing such power in the captain or officers of any boat. Such scenes can occur and indeed have occurred in recent times. It is too severe a stipulation. It is fraught with the most serious and dangerous repercussions. It is not necessary to empower any of our protection boats and crews to fire on or at a boat and conceivably sink it. There is sufficient scope in the Bill to deal with such a situation.
My colleagues who are closer to the area of fishing would know better than I, but I cannot conceive of a situation where the skipper of any fishing boat or the crew would flaunt the law to such an extent that, when they are ordered to stop and a demand is made to search them, they would deliberately disobey and place themselves in a position that they must be fired on. The stipulation is unnecessary in Irish circumstances and I hope that that type of contingency will never arise. If it does arise there are sufficient powers invested in the Navy, the protection service, the Garda and so on to deal with it.
In section 50 (db) it states "use such force as he may consider necessary". Perhaps that covers it and we should stop at "after first causing a gun to be fired as a signal". Everyone will be satisfied with that and perhaps we could get around it in that way.
I appeal to the Minister, because in my area shots were fired at the fishermen in a confrontation which took place which should not have taken place. If the shots were low the boats would have sunk.
What I suggest might get around it.
Situations have arisen and they are not just kindergarten situations.
I said that when I was speaking.
The reason we put it in was that a tough situation must be dealt with in a tough manner. I can see the apprehension involved and nobody wants that kind of thing. If it remains, it will be a last resort in a situation where firing at or into a boat would arise. I take Deputy White's point about such force as may be considered necessary and perhaps we might leave that as the formula under which, in extreme cases, shots may have to be fired. But, if it can be done under the formula suggested by Deputy White rather than specifying it in the subsection—I take it that is his point?
Yes.
I will look at it between now and Report Stage and come back to the House on it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 51.
Amendment No. 36 has already been considered with amendment No. 22.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 46, subsection (9) (b), line 26, to insert "(other than licences under subsection (15))" after "section".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 47, subsection (10) (g), line 17, to delete "an aquaculture licence" and substitute "a licence under this section".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37 (a):
In page 47, subsection (10) (h), to insert "fishery" after "oyster" in line 22.
This is just a technical amendment to correct an omission in the Bill as drafted. The word "fishery" was omitted in the description of an oyster fishery in the 1959 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 48, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following new subsection:
"(15) (a) A person who immediately before the passing of this Act was engaged in aquaculture may apply to the Minister for a licence under this subsection and the Minister shall if he is satisfied that the person was lawfully so engaged authorise, subject to such conditions as the Minister considers appropriate and specifies in the licence, the person to carry on at the place or in waters at or in which the aquaculture was so carried on (which place or waters shall be specified in the licence) the operations in relation to aquaculture in which the Minister is satisfied that the person was so engaged (which operations shall be so specified).
(b) (i) Subsection (10) (a) of this section shall apply to a licence under this subsection as it applies to an aquaculture licence.
(ii) Subsection (10) (e) of this section shall apply to a licence under this subsection but for the purposes of the foregoing shall be construed as if for `Subject to paragraph (d) of this subsection, an aquaculture licence shall, as may be specified therein be perpetual or terminable' there were substituted `a licence under subsection (15) of this section shall be perpetual'.
(c) Any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Minister for a licence under this section may, not later than thirty days after the day on which the decision is given, serve on the Minister a notice of appeal to the Arbitrator against the decision, and the Arbitrator may on such appeal confirm the decision with or without modification or reverse the decision."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 48, subsection (16), line 25, to delete "£500" and substitute "£500, or at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or both such fine and such imprisonment".
The sections to which these amendments relate are the aquaculture sections. As drafted at present there is provision in section 51 (16) which deals with offences for trespass or interference with a fish farm and a fine of £500 on summary conviction and £2,000 on conviction on indictment. Following consultation with a number of fish farmers I am satisfied that provision should be made for a jail sentence as well as a fine in both summary and indictable cases. The Bill already provides for jail sentences on conviction for other fishery offences. This is a type of offence that unfortunately is likely to arise in future because of the increasing number of licences we are now giving for aquaculture and it is important that the holder be fully protected. This is a type of development that could be very fruitful and could give considerable employment in future years.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 48, subsection (16), line 27, to delete "£2,000" and substitute "£2,000, or at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years or both such fine and such imprisonment".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 48, subsection (18), line 41, to delete "an aquaculture licence" and substitute "a licence under this section".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41a:
In page 48, subsection (18), to insert "fishery" before "(1959 Act) order" in line 46.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 51, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This is surely one of the most important new sections to come before the House. We are dealing with the salmon levy and with aquaculture. At this time there are tremendously exciting possibilities for aquaculture or fish farms whether oyster, mussel, scallop, salmon or trout farming. So good are the possibilities that I am beginning to worry. Should we not have some legislation to provide for watching very carefully some of the multinationals to ensure that they do not walk away with the largest share of the national cake, so to speak? There is talk of oil and gas fields but this is a field where there are tremendous possibilities. Perhaps I should first deal with what the Minister has in mind regarding a salmon levy. I take it that for every salmon caught in this country there will be a levy on that salmon's head. That being so we must have a tagging system. If we are to collect money we must have some means of collecting it and knowing on what it has been collected. That can only be done by a tagging system.
There are two kinds of tagging systems. One could give so many tags to the fishermen involved and you could tie that in with a quota whereby fishermen could catch so many fish against so many tags given by the regional board. The regional board in turn can check in the Dublin market; they can go into hotels, restaurants and so on to see that the salmon are properly tagged. Alternatively, the Minister could consider a tagging system to be operated by fish merchants. I think this would be the best system and the easiest for the Department to check. Say we have at the maximum 500 fish merchants. One could have a system whereby they keep registers in their offices. When anybody sells salmon to a fish merchant he must enter it in the register and put a tag on each salmon. If a fisherman, for instance, brings in 30 salmon, his numbers might go from 230 to 260. When the merchant sells to a hotelier or to a fish market or a fish buyer, those people in turn must have tags on their salmon. Otherwise, they, as well as the fish merchant, could be prosecuted.
Against this system is the fact that the inspector could go to a restaurant and look into the deep freeze or the refrigerator and the restaurant might not have any tags on their salmon. He could ask the owner where they got the salmon. The inspector should have authority to check with the salmon boat that caught the fish or go back to the fish merchant. Before we get on to aquaculture perhaps the Minister would give his views on the salmon levy. I think the best way would be to operate the scheme with the least number of check points and we suggest that would be through the fish merchants. Perhaps we could deal first with the salmon levy and then go on to aquaculture. I should like to hear the Minister's views on the salmon levy.
We are on section 51.
Yes, aquaculture and salmon levy.
That is section 52.
Very well. We will take it the other way around. The Minister has my views on the salmon levy and can reply to me on that. As regards aquaculture I began by saying I was rather worried on this score. I understand that a very big national group are taking a share in an aquaculture set-up in west Cork and that they intend to have a yearly turn-out of 650 tons of salmon per year, about half the national catch of salmon. We reckon the national catch as about 1,300 tons of salmon a year. This new multi-national firm, which I will call a property firm, are at present setting up an aquaculture farm or salmon farm in west Cork to produce about half of the total number of salmon produced here over the last two years. I am sure the Minister knows who I am talking about. I am very worried about this.
In Mulroy Bay in Donegal there is another firm, which I will call a drink firm, starting an intensive trout rearing farm. The problem is that the people rearing mussels, oysters and scallops there are very worried because, as I understand it and as they understand it, if there is intensive trout farming or salmon farming the waters could be contaminated for the shellfish; it is the same thing as having pig pollution on the land. These farms are fed intensively and the waste from the meal seeps into the lakes and contaminates the shellfish industry in the bays here. Perhaps the Minister would let me know what definite technical knowledge he has. It has been proved beyond doubt in other countries that this is so. In that event we will have to make up our minds whether to promote shellfish farming in our bays or not. If we decide to promote shellfish farming we cannot promote salmon and trout farming in the same bays. There is no doubt about it at this stage. I am convinced of that. I come from an intensive farming area and I know the harm pollution can do, whether it is because of pigs or poultry. It is the same type of thing now in regard to salmon and trout. It would be a national crime if we allowed licences to be handed out to these very big profitable firms who now see a new gold mine in the bays here. This would interfere with one of the most traditional types of fishing, namely, for scallops, oysters and mussels.
In regard to Mulroy Bay it has been found recently that it is probably one of the best scallop areas in the entire country, if not the best. This was discovered only by accident. The procedure adopted on the aquaculture scene is to set out a raft and lines are put down from it so that sperms of mussels will cling to the lines. Instead scallop sperms clung to the lines. At present in Mulroy Bay a quarter of a million young scallops are being reared. Suddenly, in the last three months, this national drink firm—which I presume did not do so without being granted a licence—set up a trout farm and this is going to contaminate the waters here. My information is that no technical man here is capable of saying how much of the waters around this trout farm will be contaminated. I have asked experts outside the Department of Fisheries and Forestry if it would be 100 yards or a mile or three miles and the answer I got was that certainly within that perimeter of these trout farms the water would be contaminated. I stress all this because I am afraid the Minister does not realise what is involved in issuing licences to everybody who applies for them. I am not against issuing licences; I am all for this industry. But it must be watched very carefully because there is so much money to be made out of it if everything goes right. I would like the Minister to consider what I have said about the conflicts of interests between the two types of fish farming existing here. Now is the time to do it. If what I am saying is correct—and I have reason to think I am 100 per cent correct—I suggest that all the bays here be zoned; if there are no shellfish in the bay it should be used for salmon and trout farming but if there are shellfish they should have priority.
This is a chancy business. All intensive farming is chancy. What technical data have we here regarding the red tide action? I suggest that not enough money has been spent on the technical side of our fishing industry and particularly on aquaculture to determine where this red tide is coming from and how it is coming to our shores. I understand that the red tide is off only the north coast of Scotland and off the east and west coasts of Ireland. It is peculiar that there is no red tide in Brittany where the major portion of shellfish farming in Europe is carried on. Perhaps the Minister could give us some information on the technical know-how of the Department and what they intend to do to find out where this red tide is coming from. We are talking about a multi-million pound industry within the next ten years.
We have dealt with important sections up to this but this is one of the most important developments ever to take place here. I hope the Minister is Minister for Fisheries and Forestry long enough to look after this important aspect and to bring in the right legislation for it. I would also like to mention a worry I have about oil spillages. The red tide and oil spillages are the main things that can really interfere with our aquaculture. The Department of the Environment and other relevant Departments must ensure that there is proper legislation to make sure that none of these big tankers will come near our shores. Other things that interfere with our aquaculture, of course, are storms and vandals. These are the four main things which interfere with shellfish farming and with salmon or trout farming.
How much of the sea bed does the Minister intend to allocate to somebody who applies for a licence? Earlier today we talked about rights of way and, if ever rights of way were needed, they are needed in intensive fish farming. If somebody applies to the Minister to produce a million mussels in a year, has the Minister some rule of thumb for allocating a certain acreage of the sea bed? Has the Minister some idea that he will allocate 100 square metres or five square miles? Does he allocate to that man five by five square miles of bed of estuary for that? We must have some rule of thumb so that somebody applying for a licence does not state that he wants, for example, the entire Mulroy Bay but that he wants an area one mile by one mile to pursue 100,000 salmon or whatever the case may be. This also must be tied into the section.
There is one other thing about which I am not at all happy. I understand that at a lecture delivered recently in Dublin by a senior official from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry one of the questions asked was whether the new central board had the power to prosecute a county council for polluting water. We are talking about aquaculture but we can also talk about polluting streams, estuaries and bays. If we have not that power in the central board——
We have.
——we should have it. The central board should be the authority who can in turn prosecute the Department of the Environment and particularly the county councils. My information is that we have not the power at present and I would like the Minister to say that we have.
We have.
I hope that when the Minister is replying he will be able to give me not only an answer but also the technical details of what I am seeking. This could be one of the biggest industries that we have ever started in this country.
I am very happy with the Minister's reply that we have the power, because my information is that we did not have it. We have found that the Department of the Environment and local authorities can be the greatest polluters. In the future I can see that under the Department of the Environment effluent will be going into Cork Harbour, for instance, a large proportion of which will be untreated industrial effluent. The central board will have to move quickly before damage is done in areas like Cork Harbour. I am very pleased to hear that we have the power to take local authorities to task because up to now we have had a unique situation where the Department literally took themselves to court. That was a crazy situation. I have always believed that that power should be in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry or some such Department, but certainly not with the Department of the Environment who are among the major offenders. That Department are very quick to take a small operator to court on a charge of minor pollution of a stream but they themselves seem to have a total disregard for these rules. I am very pleased at the Minister's reply in that.
The section deals primarily with aquaculture. Salmon was referred to but that is really for section 52. Section 51 has 18 subsections setting out a whole new licensing and designation regime in regard to aquaculture. It is precisely for the reasons raised by Deputy White, with which I agree, that we are introducing this. At the moment the situation is largely uncontrollable. We have that very dangerous situation where we do not have an administrative regime properly organised to licence, designate and control this whole area of aquaculture. The reasons advocated here by Deputy White and the dangers that he spelled out have motivated me in introducing this section under which we now have a procedure by which this whole area can be organised and controlled properly. I agree with the views expressed here of the need to have a system that can be organised on the basis of scientific criteria so that we do not have a sort of haphazard development of an area of fisheries that could do harm unless properly organised and controlled.
For instance, Deputy White mentioned one aspect with regard to salmon farming and the possible conflict between it and other forms of shellfish farming, and he is right in that. The compatibility of various types of aquaculture farming has to be examined very closely and will be so examined by the scientists in my Department. In recent years we have done a very big build-up in this whole area in terms of research and investigation. There is the provision in the Fisheries Research Centre at Abbotstown to deal with this whole area. We have recruited expert scientists and have a whole scientific division concentrating on fish farming and all its implications. One important implication is the necessity to ensure that any such developments are done on a compatible basis. That is why, whenever an area will be designated under subsection (2) and when licences are being issued under subsection (9), particular attention will be paid by me, on the basis of scientific evidence which I will have available to me, to the compatibility of the species proposed in the application for the farm. Another very important aspect that obviously will have to be borne in mind is the question of the wild forms of natural fish life in an area and the compatibility between a fish farm and existing natural fish habitats and spawning grounds. As well as protecting established fish farming interests and making sure that there is no incompatibility between those interests and new fish farming interests we also have as an overriding consideration the natural fisheries of the area. That is why the Bill goes into such detail on this section.
Subsection (1) makes it an offence to engage in aquaculture except in accordance with a fish culture licence or an oyster bed licence. There is provision for penalties for any sort of aquaculture that is not being done in accordance with a licence issued by me and in an area designated by me. Subsection (2) is a designation subsection. Again, each proposal, will, of course, be examined on its merits and will be limited to a specified area in which we would regard the criteria of viability, compatibility and so on. A number of scientific criteria would limit strictly an area of designation to a specific area that we would regard as being valid in all the circumstances of the case.
Subsection (3) makes it obligatory that a plan of the area proposed to be the subject of the order be publicised. Subsection (4) empowers me to hold a public inquiry. Subsection (5) contains a requirement to deposit documents and for these documents to be published also. Under subsection (7) there is the right of appeal to the High Court. An important subsection is (10) which provides that an aquaculture licence may not be granted in respect of an area to which an oyster fishery order or oyster bed licence applies or in a private fishery except with the consent of the owner or the person in whose favour such licence or order has been made.
Subsections amounting to 18 in all set out in very great detail the procedures to be followed, the designation, the species and so on. The importance of this is that for the first time we can have a regime under which this whole area can be controlled in the national interest and it will be controlled on the basis of strict scientific criteria and studies. I wish to assure the House of that and to say also that we have set up internally an excellent scientific administration which will be concerned with the application of the standards and criteria to which I have referred. This whole area, while it is an excellent area in which to be engaging from an investment and employment point of view, is fraught with very real dangers. Only the strictest scientific standards should be applied.
Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on some very important points made by Deputy White in adverting to the incompatibility between shellfish rearing and salmon and trout farming. The incidence of pollution from such farms has not been mentioned by the Minister. He did not advert either to the problem of red tide, a form of pollution that has been a source of much anxiety to those engaged in aquaculture. The Minister commented briefly across the House that the central board will have power to prosecute local authorities in respect of pollution, but that seems to come as news to some Members of the House. Having regard to the high incidence of pollution resulting from the discharge of raw sewage from places under the control of local authorities, it is pertinent that the Minister would comment on that situation. My question, then, is to ask the Minister whether the emergence of the salmon and trout rearing farms constitute a serious threat in so far as shellfish farms are concerned.
They do.
If that is so, we have a serious situation to contend with.
I said that in reply. The situation must be watched very closely.
The Minister has not given us any evidence in regard to this problem. He has merely agreed that there is a problem. He has not given us any scientific information on the incidence of red tide in terms of the damage that this new phenomenon is causing on the south coast and also on the east and west coast. What is being done scientifically by the Department to deal with the situation?
I do not know whether the Minister was listening attentively to me when I adverted to the powers vested in the central board to deal with pollution emanating from local authority sources but it would be a signal warning to all those bodies if the Minister would comment now because many of our rivers, including the River Suir and its tributaries, have become virtual cesspools as a direct result of the discharge of sewage from local authority sources.
Hear, hear.
Likewise there is the threat of contamination as a result of the serious pollution caused by the discharge from industry and from farms, especially pig farms. I should appreciate very much the Minister elaborating on those points.
I share the Deputy's concern about pollution and I wish to emphasise that under existing legislation the boards of conservators have the right to prosecute local authorities. In fact, there are a few such prosecutions pending, one of which is being taken by the Dublin board against Dublin County Council. These powers of prosecution will be translated in terms of the new regional boards. The local authorities themselves have assumed a function under the Water Pollution Act whereby they have established divisions throughout the country and engaged the appropriate technical personnel for the purpose of controlling pollution. Therefore, there are two ways of approaching the problem, but what is important is that the power to prosecute is being retained.
That is what we want.
Regarding the question of red tide, this is a problem that we have been watching very closely. There are several scientific advisers dealing with the matter in an effort to come to grips with it. Earlier this year the Fisheries Research Centre held a seminar at Abbotstown on this question. Among those who attended were a number of scientists from other European countries. The problem has been assessed and found to be a toxic type of disease, but we are not clear where it came from or how it came. From the middle of August to the end of September this year discoloured water, commonly known as red tide, was observed in many areas between Youghal and the Magharees in Kerry. The organism responsible is microscopic algae. It has caused problems elsewhere in regard to sea cage trout, causing severe mortalities and it had an effect on shore organisms—cockles, mussels, and barnacles, while oyster growth was reduced because of a high level of sprat mortalities. I am told that the exact cause of the problem is not known but we are very conscious of the situation and recognise it as a serious danger to the type of development we are discussing here. However, I shall write to those Deputies who have raised the point, setting out in detail what I am saying now. People seem to want more information on this problem but we have not reached final conclusions in regard to preventing it. It is easy to analyse it but it is another matter to say where it came from or how it can be prevented.
Deputy White raised the question of Mulroy Bay. I am aware of very successful scallop investigations in that area. However, the issuing of licences there has been suspended pending full investigation of the potential of the area.
Has not any licence been granted?
That is so and we shall not grant any licence until after we have considered the matter carefully and assessed the potential of the area.
But there is a trout farm there.
Before the scallop potential of the area was discovered, a trout farm licence was issued. Now we have a scallop potential in the region and we have to see how the two activities can be reconciled. This whole area of aquaculture is full of difficulties. Throughout the world generally it is a completely new area and we are as advanced as a number of other countries. The Norwegians and the Japanese are particularly advanced in this sector but our scientific staff are keeping up with all developments. The main aspect is the devising of a regime that will issue the licences, designate the areas, make sure there is no incompatibility between the various forms of fish farming and, above all else, ensure that the natural habitat, environment and spawning grounds are protected. That is the purpose of the section.
The Minister seems to be out of his depth. He talks about scientific evidence. I am not just talking about Mulroy Bay because I am from Donegal. For the Minister to say that we are so advanced in this area as Norway is absolute rubbish.
We have very good scientific staff.
I understand that a licence has been given to Fitzwilton to farm 650 tons of salmon per year. In Norway the maximum licence is for 60 tons per annum. I am afraid multinational firms will be given licences of this kind by the Minister simply through lack of knowledge. I suggest very few people in the Department know all that much about aquaculture. The Minister said that a trout licence had been granted for Mulroy Bay. As I understand it, that was issued nearly a year ago. In that area they applied for a scallop licence nine months ago but it has not yet been processed by the Department. It should be the other way around. The Minister's technical advisers have given him wrong advice. A licence should be given to the shellfish industry in that area and a licence given in respect of trout farming in another area where there is no shellfish. As I understand it, the Department did not realise until quite recently that intensive trout and salmon farming pollute the waters where the shellfish are located. That licence in respect of Mulroy Bay should not have been issued and I am glad the Minister has stated that he will be more than careful in future to see that this situation does not arise again.
The Minister told the House that we do not know the cause of red tide and he repeated the technical and scientific advice given him by his Department. If I were in the aquaculture business I would be terrified. In the poultry industry some ten years ago the poultry stocks were affected by a disease which eliminated 50 per cent of the birds in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Until we know how to deal with red tide the people in the industry will be in a very precarious position. At the moment they are living from day to day because they do not know when this form of pollution will affect them. As I understand it, other parts of the world have experienced this pollution, even though it does not appear in many other parts of Europe. For instance, Norway is not affected by it.
Much more technical and scientific advice is needed. I have got many contacts in Norway and I intend to find out how they have developed their aquaculture farms. I am glad that Gaeltarra Éireann have formed a company with 300 local farmers in Galway to deal with oysters and mussels. It would be worthwhile if we got local farmers, particularly part-time farmers, involved in this kind of work.
In his reply I should like the Minister to tell the House whether he has granted to Fitzwilton a licence to farm 650 tons of salmon per year even though the total wild catch of salmon in the country is only 2,000 tons. Fitzwilton are probably thinking of taking about one-third of our natural wild catch of salmon. If they have not been granted such a licence, I suggest that we do not issue licences for large amounts until the local farming and fishing community around the coast have been involved. This is the most important section for future development of our fishing industry.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions with regard to sewage farms. The Minister mentioned that a prosecution is pending against Dublin County Council. I am sure he is aware that the North Dublin drainage scheme is totally overloaded as a result of extensive housing development and in my opinion sewage farms are inevitable. The Minister also mentioned that in Abbotstown there is a unit where scientists are employed. Will those scientists monitor pollution at sewage farms if they are constructed in Malahide, Swords or in other places? In addition, will the Minister state the cost of a licence for aquaculture?
We have not decided the figure.
We must deal with these points now. We must make a decision where people are getting areas of the seabed. This is a very important matter.
It is being done by way of regulation. It will not be written into the section.
Everything else has been written into the Bill.
Not down to the level of licence fees.
I should be glad if the Minister would reply to the points I raised.
I should also like a reply to my question regarding sewage farms.
With regard to sewage farms, that is a matter for the Water Pollution Council under the Water Pollution Act. We have an input on that council. Fishery representatives and scientific people in my Department are represented on the Water Pollution Council. Under separate legislation it is their function to deal with this aspect.
On the question of the licence fee, that will be done by way of regulation to be laid on the table of the House and there will be an opportunity to debate it. Much of this Bill will be implemented by way of regulations and they will have to appear here and the House can discuss them.
The Minister has given a licence to the Guinness Group in Mulroy Bay for trout farming. How much did he charge for that licence?
No licence. This is the first time we have got any power to give licences for any form of fish farming. Under this Bill we will have well over 100 orders to be made.
What is the position about the 650 licences issued to Fitzwilton?
I will inquire into them between now and Report Stage.
How many scientists are employed in Abbotstown?
Twenty.
Has the Minister gone back on his previous statement? We are now talking about a situation in which some of the central board members will be on the Water Pollution Board. The Minister is watering it down. I would prefer to see the central board having direct power to prosecute local authorities if necessary. Forget about water pollution. This is different.
The boards of conservators have the right to prosecute local authorities. That right is being transferred from the boards of conservators to the seven regional boards who will continue to have that right to prosecute. Side by side with that enforcement aspect, there is an administration structure which was set up by the previous Government under the Water Pollution Act, 1976, under the Department of the Environment. That has been set up and established and there is a Water Pollution Council administering that Act. Amongst others, our fishery scientific people are represented on that council. That council administer the Water Pollution Act, 1976, through the local authorities who, since 1976, have been in the course of hiring and taking on water pollution experts and staff. There is a double structure. We have and will continue to have an enforcement structure in the interests of fisheries to prosecute local authorities, and the local authorities are empowered under the Water Pollution Act to set up the administrative structure to handle the problem in terms of expert engineers and pollution experts. That is the way it works. The Coalition Government brought in that Act.
We are not talking about Governments.
Would the Minister give the House and the country an assurance that, in the growing dimension of this aspect of aquaculture and fish farming, especially around our coasts, he will not grant licences to large groupings, be they national bodies or, worse still, multinational bodies, without ensuring the well-being of the fishermen concerned whose livelihood depends on shellfish, or salmon, or coarse fish or whatever it might be, and whose livelihoods are being impinged upon by the new development? Will he encourage the local fishermen by giving them the knowledge and the expertise to engage in this new feature of aquaculture rather than seeing stretches of our coastline being taken over by multinational groupings over which we would have little control?
I am concerned about the extent to which these new developments will impinge upon the traditional rights of our fishermen. I am concerned to know what employment they will give and what advantage they will be to the nation. It is obviously a lucrative business especially if one can go into it to the extent of rearing or farming salmon of the dimensions and size mentioned by Deputy White. This is very big business. It is no wonder that the big shots are moving in. We must look at it very carefully. The fishermen's organisations and the fishermen around the coast should be alerted to this trend.
Names have been mentioned. They are the biggest companies in this country. Some of them are equal in size to any company in the British Isles or the EEC. These people can do a lot of good. We welcome their intervention along those lines if it is done with the approval of our fishermen and if it gives gainful employment. There must be constraints. There must be controls. Guarantees must be given that this is not a gigantic takeover by multinationals of the rich preserves of fish around our coasts conceivably to the serious disadvantage and possible wiping out of many fishermen who depend on this industry for their livelihood.
What is developing in parts of the country is worrying. We have allowed a serious conflict to emerge through lack of direction from the Minister's Department. People were allowed to engage in the farming of trout and possibly salmon in an area where it was traditional to harvest shellfish. The effluent from these farms is virtually toxic to the shellfish in the area. That is a stupid policy.
There are many worrying aspects but the one I am concerned with now is the extent of this new development of people speculating in aquaculture, in the rearing of salmon in particular, and the repercussions which will arise from that for our traditional fishermen and the nation as a whole. I am also concerned about the manner in which the fish will be distributed and where. There are many sides to this very big issue. At this stage the Minister's observations would be welcome.
Surely the Minister knows whether a licence has been granted to this grouping. He must know.
Which group?
Fitzwilton. The group may operate under a different name but they are behind it.
We are setting up a new regime in respect of the licensing of aquacultural projects. At present we have no such regime. The Department of Transport and Power can give certain foreshore rights to people. The whole purpose of the exercise here is, for the first time, to set up a regime to cater for aquaculture. Because we have been concerned with the reasons advanced by Deputies White, Treacy and Cosgrave, we have decided to introduce controls under which I can only issue a licence after the production of documents and maps and after public enquiry procedures to ensure that traditional fishing rights are not interfered with. All those provisions are set out in detail in section 51.
Is the Minister seriously telling the House that anyone who wanted to set up a salmon or trout farm did not have to apply to his Department for permission?
No.
Is he telling us that anybody can go down to Castletownbere and take over an area without the permission of the Department of Fisheries? They could contaminate the fishing stocks in an area.
That is the reason for the provisions in the section.
Someone has been fast asleep in the Minister's Department for two-and-a-half years.
Deputy Deasy on section 51, as amended.
Although we have been hearing a great deal of talk in recent years about the potential of aquaculture, few positive measures have been taken to further that industry. With respect to what Deputy Treacy said about multinationals taking over this sphere of activity, it seems that they are the only people who have the resources to go into this line of business. In the national interest we should encourage anybody, no matter how rich or how ambitious, to go into this business on condition that the rights of fishermen are safeguarded. I recall asking questions about State initiative in this area. It seems that there is little State initiative other than the giving of grants and that the EEC will give generous grants for the development of aquaculture. It appears that development is being left in the hands of commercial interests. The heavy capital outlay required precludes smaller concerns from becoming involved in the industry.
Fishery reports do not list the different varieties of shellfish which can be reared in captivity. I should like the Minister to give us a schedule listing species of shellfish which can be reared under artificial conditions. If this information was made public it would give people an insight into the industry. A report from the Leenane International Conference which was held in December 1978 states that the potential for the production of mussels is 5,000 tonnes per annum. This seems to be a low figure in comparison with the Spanish figure of 150,000 tonnes. Mussels seem to thrive around our coast and I wonder if we understand the potential of such a fishery.
It is the most promising one.
The only major development of mussels that I know of is in Wexford. There are lesser developments in Youghal and Galway. I also know that there is a development of some kind in Cromane in County Kerry. There has been a major oyster development at Rossmore near Cobh in County Cork.
It has been very successful.
The understaffing in the Minister's Department has led to the small development in aquaculture. The Minister should tell us whether he has the research facilities to develop the industry. I suspect that lack of personnel, money and scientific facilities is the main cause of the present underdevelopment. Mussels and oysters are easy to develop. I do not know what the position is in relation to scallops and sea urchins. There is a market for shellfish in France. Periwinkles are probably our most plentiful shellfish. The people who collect them are probably getting only one-tenth of their value on the French market. The industry seems to lack marketing expertise. Can the Minister promise us an improvement in that regard? In order to develop the industry we must ensure that the producer is given a high percentage of the selling price on the French and Belgian markets.
I understand that lobsters can be artificially reared and I should like to know if the Department are conducting experiments in this subject.
We are getting into a long debate on this. I accept the importance of the section but we are getting into what I would regard as a Second Stage debate on fish farming.
We are getting into a seminar.
It is time the people learned about it.
I agree with that, but I would ask Deputy Deasy to be brief.
If the people in Kilmore Quay heard the Leas-Cheann Comhairle they would be ashamed of him.
They are tired hearing me in Kilmore Quay. They have been hearing me for the last 40 years, so the Deputy should not worry about that.
Obviously not about fishery matters, but perhaps about the GAA or the local cumann.
The Deputy should not question the Chair on these matters.
I am only joking.
We must try to be a little more brief.
This section on aquaculture in general is so important and has been so neglected that we are entitled to dwell on this section to a certain degree.
Russia expect to supply over half their fish supplies by 1990 from aquaculture methods. That is a vast amount of artificially produced shellfish. It behoves us as a country with a far more suitable climate, to attempt to do something about developing aquaculture here. I would be happy to see private individuals and companies, no matter how rich they are, involved in this, because the bulk of these products are exported and must be of tremendous benefit to us. Is it possible to develop lobsters, crayfish, prawns and shrimps by means of aquaculture? Surely they occur around our coasts in reasonable quantities. If we can increase these quantities by aquaculture we should do so especially when other species of fish such as herring and salmon are on the decline. These artificially produced fish have a high money value on the open markets in Europe. Will the Minister say what experiments have been carried out by the Department and what projects are going on to develop this very high priced commodity?
Deputy Killilea suggested that there should be a close season for products such as lobsters. Will the Minister say if he has any intention of designating a close season for lobster and crayfish and if he intends introducing a licensing system to make sure that lobsters are not overfished? We seem to take action only when something has gone beyond the point of no return. We saw that with the herring industry and it is likely to happen with the salmon industry. Will the Minister refer to a close season for these fish when they are breeding, and also to a licensing system?
Aquaculture is very much a new area.
It is new to this country.
It is new throughout the world.
It is very advanced in Sweden.
The world is still learning in regard to it and there are very big disease aspects involved which have already been referred to. This section has been introduced because of the importance of controlling aquaculture. We are introducing for the first time a licensing system, the power to designate areas, to publish, to hold a public inquiry and to control it in the national interest.
In relation to the technical progress in regard to certain fish, mussels, scallops and oysters can be farmed excellently. Development in relation to lobsters, crayfish, or prawns is not as advanced, but can be further developed scientifically. Considerable progress has also been made in regard to salmon and sea trout.
I was glad to hear Deputy Deasy say he welcomed the research attention that can be given to this area by big firms. A lot of research, speculation and investigation is going on into this whole area and only firms of consequence can afford the sort of long-term development and investigation that is required. In Ireland Guinness, BIM, the ESB and Gaeltarra Eireann are involved in this research. I intend to co-ordinate the whole thing rather than to allow a haphazard development to proceed without any planning. This section is to ensure that we have some sort of order and control in this area. Existing fishing rights, natural habitats and spawning grounds have to be protected. Under this Bill no one will be allowed to interfere with traditional public fishery rights. That is the reason for the public inquiry procedure set out here. After notice and publication of intention to apply to me for a licence, an inquiry must be held in the area so that anybody who has a right can object and so on. The section sets out in detail what I have said so as to ensure that no rights are interfered with, and I attach tremendous importance to that aspect. Existing public rights should be organised on a co-operative basis. We have had certain success in that area this year in Clarenbridge in County Galway, in Cromane and in other areas around the coast where there are existing public rights held by fishermen.
We have alerted the EEC to this aspect and we now have sanctioned by the EEC a 50 per cent grant contribution towards aquaculture projects. At a meeting on Monday I proposed that this, initiated as a temporary scheme last year, should be continued for the coming year, and I hope it will form a permanent feature of the common fisheries policy. The only countries within the EEC in receipt of a 50 per cent grant towards aquaculture projects are Italy and Ireland. That indicates our intentions in this matter. Because of the regional development implications in relation to aquaculture we have a good case. The most suitable locations for aquaculture development are around the coast in our more deprived areas that require redevelopment, so that the implications on a regional social basis are quite exciting and interesting provided we can organise it properly, make sure it is controlled and that we apply scientific criteria to any project proposed.
The scientific criteria are important because, as we said in the discussion on the menace of red tide, this whole area of disease is very serious for aquaculture—a disease could wipe out a farm overnight. Therefore, the scientific aspect is important. I will look into the points made here with regard to building up the scientific side of my Department.
We are educating the Minister here today.
I am aware of the views expressed and I am thankful for a very constructive debate.
I asked about the closed season and a licence system for lobsters.
That is not really relevant but, with the Chair's permission, I will deal with it. We are looking into that at the moment together with a licensing system for lobsters. A case for having a closed season and a licensing system for lobster fishing is very strong.
If we were talking about agriculture or any other industry and outside specialised knowledge was needed, we would be very quick to invite the experts in question to advise us. We all know the Norwegians, the Danes, the Russians and the Japanese in particular have developed aquaculture to a very advanced stage. Has the Minister invited any experts from these countries, particularly from Japan, to come to Ireland to advise us?
Following what Deputy Deasy said, I suggest that we send two technical people from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to Norway for perhaps a three-month period because we do not seem to know enough about aquaculture. We know enough about intensive farming, such as pigs, chickens, turkeys and so on, but in this area we need more specialised knowledge.
Although I said I was alarmed at the big multinationals starting up in Mulroy and Cork, I would not like the House to think I was against multinationals as such. My first priority is for fishermen/farming co-operatives to develop these areas. If they are not functioning—I appreciate what the Minister said that it costs a great deal of money to get new types of farming off the ground—I would welcome the multinationals in the areas where the local co-operatives are not interested. I would like to see the whole coastline worked.
I thank the Minister for his replies on this subject. He dealt with this at length and emphasised how important this section will be in future years.
In respect of this new development of aquaculture and the growing interest in its potential for the future, can the Minister give any indication of the employment potential involved?
We could be talking in terms of 5,000 people employed around the coast at locations where such employment would be very welcome.
A very well-known firm was mentioned in this debate. How many do they employ at the moment?
They are still only at the experimental stage and have not fully worked out the economic implications. They have been carrying out experimental research for a number of years and are looking at it from a commercial point of view now.
Have they given any forecast of the number to be employed?
They have been carrying out their experiments near Achill for the past five or six years.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 52.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 49, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete the definition of "the Salmon Conservancy Fund".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 52, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am giving notice of my intention to move an amendment to this section on Report Stage the effect of which will be to allow the Minister to prescribe the kind of records to be kept by persons paying the first sales salmon levy.
Who will keep this record? Will it be the fishermen themselves or the person who sells the fish?
The dealer.
That is what I suggested earlier?
Yes.
On a tagging system?
That is an administration matter.
Is the Minister considering the tagging system?
Yes, from the administration point of view, but there are many snags.
It is a good system.
I will have an amendment on Report Stage which will go some way towards meeting the Deputies' suggestions.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is bringing in an amendment on Report Stage to meet a suggestion I made, but I think he has only gone half way. Fishermen merchants will be granted licences. Is that right?
Yes.
Will they collect the levy?
The dealer will.
The dealer collects the levy. That is as it should be. In other words, if somebody brings in ten 10 lb salmon, the onus will be on the dealer to collect the levy.
Yes.
How much will the levy be? Will it be so much per lb? Now we have agreed about the merchants, the Minister might consider some kind of a checking system. The only way we can have a checking system is to tag each salmon at the register point.
The dealers are registered.
They will enter in the register the name of each fisherman and number of salmon each fisherman catches.
Yes. That is how we get our statistics at the moment.
All that hard work will be lost unless at the register point the salmon are tagged. That has to be done. There is no other way round it. I will ask the Minister on Report Stage to consider that the salmon be tagged. If they are tagged at the register point we will have a check-up system where our inspectors can ensure that no illegal salmon will go into our cafés, restaurants or fish markets and, at the same time, they will be checking up on the fishermen.
I will have that investigated between now and Report Stage because it will help control the illegal distribution of salmon which is what the Deputy has in mind. The Deputy asked about the amount of the levy. We are thinking in terms of at least 5 per cent.
One of the amendments mentioned the Foyle fishery area. If that area is mentioned and if salmon come in from the other side of the Foyle, those salmon should have the right to be sold in the State so long as they are entered in the register. In the last 12 months instead of selling Irish smoked salmon it is estimated that 25 per cent of salmon sold was smoked Irish salmon coming from the Baltic. I do not know if the Minister is aware of this. They have changed the name from Irish smoked salmon, which is our native wild Irish salmon smoked here, and have imported Baltic salmon and have called it smoked Irish salmon. I suggest that when we are talking about licensing, tagging and so on we should develop a brand name as Board Bainne have done. The brand name is immaterial once it is classed as Irish smoked salmon. It is ridiculous to think that we are importing salmon from the Baltic and have the cheek to try to cod the people by calling it smoked Irish salmon.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.