Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1980

Vol. 318 No. 1

Fisheries Bill, 1979: Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 are consequential on amendment No. 1, and amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related. The Minister will move amendment No. 1 and we will discuss with it amendments Nos. 4, 6, 9 and 10.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following:

5.—(1) Subject to sections 9 (1) (b) and 53 (6) of this Act and to subsection (5) of this section, the Minister may by order amend or revoke an order made under section 7 (3) (b), 9, 10, 14, 23 (6), 53, 54, 55 or 56 of this Act, this subsection or section 81 (3) or 159 (6) of the Principal Act (inserted by sections 67 and 68, respectively, of this Act).

(2) (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, the Minister may—

(i) by order amend an order made under section 36, 37, 38 or 41 of this Act,

(ii) by order amend an order made under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

(b) In case the Minister proposes to amend an order under section 36, 37 or 38 of this Act or this subsection, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) the Minister shall as soon as may be give notice in writing of his intention to amend the order to the Arbitrator who shall cause to be published a notice of the Minister's said intention in such newspapers and in such manner as the Arbitrator shall determine.

(ii) the Minister shall give notice in writing of his said intention to any person by whom an appeal relating to the order proposed to be amended was brought under this Act, or, in case the order is an order under subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of this subsection, to any person by whom an appeal relating either to the original order under section 36, 37 or 38 of this Act or to any order under the said paragraph (a) which relates to such original order was so brought, or, if in either case any such person is deceased, to his personal representative,

(iii) the Minister shall not make the order unless a draft thereof has been submitted to and approved of under this paragraph by the Arbitrator,

(iv) the Arbitrator shall not determine an application under this paragraph by the Minister before the expiration of the period of thirty days begining on the day on which the relevant notice is published pursuant to this subparagraph, or in case such publication is made on different days the day of the first such publication,

(v) any one or more of the following may, within such period of thirty days or such longer period as the Arbitrator may determine, serve on the Minister a notice of his intention to make an application to the Arbitrator in relation to the proposed order, namely:

(I) any person by whom such an appeal was so brought, or, in case such person is deceased, his personal representative, or

(II) the person who, immediately before the making of the order proposed to be amended, was the owner of the fishery or land acquired by that order or the successor in title of such person, or, if any right has been acquired by such order, the person who immediately prior to the making of the said order was entitled to the enjoyment of such right or the successor in title of such person, or, if such order was made under section 38 of this Act, the owner of the relevant servient tenement,

(vi) in case a notice is served on the Minister pursuant to this paragraph the Arbitrator shall, before deciding whether or not to approve of the proposed order, give the person by whom the notice was served an opportunity of being heard (either in person or through counsel or a solicitor), and

(vii) the Arbitrator may in determining the matter approve of the draft of the order in the form proposed by the Minister, approve of such draft subject to such amendments as the Arbitrator shall specify or refuse to give his approval.

(3) (a) The Commissioners may by order under their seal amend an order made by them under section 39 of this Act.

(b) The Irish Land Commission may by order under their seal amend an order made by them under section 40 of this Act.

(4) If in relation to an application under subsection (2) (b) of this section the Arbitrator is satisfied that after diligent inquiry a person to whom notice is required by subsection (2) (b) (ii) of this section to be given by the Minister cannot be found or ascertained, the Arbitrator may determine the application, notwithstanding the fact that such person cannot be found or ascertained.

(5) Subsection (7) of section 68 of the Principal Act (inserted by section 3 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1976) shall apply as regards an order under this section by which it is proposed to amend an order made under section 81 (3) or 159 (6) of the Principal Act (inserted by sections 67 and 68, respectively, of this Act), as it applies as regards an order made under section 68 of the Principal Act."

As the Bill does not in all cases empower the Minister to amend or revoke orders, these amendments enable such amendment or revocation where necessary. This is a standard provision designed to confer the necessary flexibility for effective administration purposes. The inclusion of such provisions in some cases was overlooked. A consequential amendment arising out of appeals to the arbitrator in regard to the amendment of acquisition orders has also been provided for.

Consequential amendments to sections 9 and 53 have also been made. Provision had been made in these two sections for amendment or revocation of orders and as this is now being provided for in the new section 5 covering all sections, it is necessary to remove the provision from the sections in question.

We on this side of the House are not against an arbitrator being appointed but we should like to be told by the Minister whether he will be a full-time employee of the Central Board. If so, who has the Minister in mind for the job?

These amendments basically refer to sections 36, 37 and 38 which deal with the important matters of acquisition and transfer of fishery rights in rivers, lakes, rights of way and so forth. To my mind, and this is the view of my colleagues, these sections and the amendments relating to them form the essence of the measure before us, and I should like the Minister to indicate if the amendments in any way strengthen his powers of acquisition of fisheries rights.

If they do not, the Bill will remain an inadequate piece of legislation, far from being satisfactory from the point of view of thousands of anglers and angling clubs throughout the country who had been looking forward to this Bill because they had hoped it would enable the Minister to take as much as possible of our Irish fishing waters into State control. I particularly deplore the inadequacy of these sections to which the Minister has tabled amendments, and the failure of the Minister and the Government to bring under State control all unclaimed waters throughout the country.

It is very difficult to understand why the Minister has shied away from this important matter. The Minister has at his disposal the backing of the legal powers of the State and I therefore cannot understand why hundreds of miles of unclaimed rivers, streams and lakes cannot be taken under the control of the State. Unless something is done to vest in the Minister and the State all unclaimed waters, this Bill will have been a futile exercise from the point of view of the Labour Party.

It is not good enough to say that the litigation procedures involved would be too difficult. If it is too difficult for the Minister and his Department with their vast resources, what chance have the small angling clubs or even the Central Board to deal with this issue? These amendments are all about legality of acquisition of fisheries and I appeal to the Minister not to allow this opportunity to pass without facing up to his responsibility to secure ownership of all unclaimed waters.

This Bill is about preservation and renewal and the unclaimed rivers and fisheries rights that have been derelict could be made good by a provision in this Bill, and to ignore these waters and to abandon the State's claim to them is virtually to throw away an integral part of our fishery assets. It is an inherent weakness in the Bill which I deplore and I am asking the Minister, who has taken over this portfolio—I extend a sincere welcome to him and wish him boundless success in his endeavour to give teeth to this measure—to grasp the nettle of the unclaimed waters and the legal entanglements involved. He should not shirk it. Otherwise, he will let down thousands of people, especially those in the angling world, who have looked forward to the day when they could gain access to Irish waters that have been for so many centuries in the control of those whose predecessors had obtained them by conquest. I want the Minister to undo that conquest in respect of our fishery rights. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on the matter.

Deputy White raised the question of an arbitrator. We have no particular arbitrator in mind but we have in mind someone, such as a barrister of seven years standing, to act in the capacity of arbitrator.

Will he be part-time, someone who can be called on when needed?

Yes. I thank Deputy Treacy for his kind remarks. I feel I am basking in the reflected glory of my predecessor who piloted this Bill through the House; in a landlubber's language I am only leading in the winner. When action is not taken during the years over some matter and when somebody makes an effort to do something about it he is often open to criticism. Deputy Lenihan grasped the nettle when he brought in this Bill. I am not saying it is perfect—no Bill is—but it is a decent effort to deal with a long-standing problem.

The amendments do not in any way lessen the Minister's power of acquisition. With regard to unclaimed fisheries, they can be acquired individually. We have decided they should not be acquired globally. Provision exists in the Bill to enable the Minister to authorise the Central Board to acquire by agreement or compulsorily any fishery for the purpose of managing, operating, protecting, conversing or developing that fishery in accordance with the board's overall development programme. There is a further provision in the Bill enabling the compulsory acquisition of any fishery to be proceeded with where the owner cannot be found or ascertained. The case has been made that the Bill should contain powers enabling the Central Board by a single vesting order to acquire the fishery rights on substantial stretches of rivers where there is a large number of riparian owners involved, where the legal ownership of the fishing rights is not clear or where the rights are not being exercised. Such a global action would have far-reaching implications; indeed, its constitutionality would need to be examined very fully before we could insert it in this or any Bill.

Like the ground rents.

Further, it is felt it is too major a proposal to be introduced for the first time on Report Stage. In the interest of getting the reorganisation of inland fisheries under-way as quickly as possible, it would be more appropriate to accept the powers of acquisition that we have as the basis of the solution to the problem. We could examine the more far-reaching proposal later if it needs to be put forward. Personally I do not think nationalisation is always the answer to everything. Private rights of individuals must be recognised also. When this measure is operating if it is found that the general good of the country requires the acquisition of any particular stretch of water, I can guarantee that the powers we have will enable us to acquire it.

Amendment agreed to.
The Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 2.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 50 and 51, to insert the following:

"(3) Subsection (1) of this section, except in so far as it amends section 163 of the Principal Act and repeals clause (b) of paragraph 2 (1) of the Fifth Schedule of that Act, shall come into force on the appointed day.

Section 5 (1) stipulates that the Principal Act is repealed to the extent specified in column (2) of the First Schedule to the Bill. As section 5 (1) stands at present, the date of effective repeal is the date of enactment of the Bill but this requires to be altered to the appointed day in order to continue the present arrangements until the new boards are established. However, there are two specific provisions in the First Schedule which require to be brought into effect on the date of enactment of the Bill and amendment No. 2 regularises the position.

I am not in disagreement with what the Minister is proposing but I am rather worried on one point. When we were discussing this Bill last November we were told that the regional boards and the Central Board would come into operation on 1 April. I should like the Minister to tell us that he intends to have the boards in operation by that time.

I am concerned also about this matter. I am fearful that there may be postponement of the establishment of the Central Board and the regional boards. We have waited a long time for this measure and we want to facilitate the Minister with regard to passage of the Bill. There are many good points in it which we wish to see implemented and it will come as a bombshell to all of us if there is any attempt to postpone such implementation.

Like Deputy White, I should like the Minister to give a categorical assurance that the establishment of the regional boards will be carried out this year. I do not know why this amendment was necessary unless it was to get the Minister off the hook again. I am saying this in the knowledge that the Estimates for his Department and for all Departments are known to us. Having regard to the serious cutbacks in the Estimate for the Department of Fisheries it might be a good excuse for the Minister to defer establishing the Central Board and the other agencies mentioned in this Bill. I should like an assurance now from the Minister that on passage of the Bill it will be enacted into law with the least delay. In particular, the Central Board and the regional boards should be established before the year is over.

I can assure Members on the other side that I share their anxiety regarding the establishment of the new boards at the earliest opportunity.

When will that be?

I hope within two months, but the Deputy will realise that the first business that was ordered in the House today was this Bill, and that is an indication of the interest we have in seeing that it becomes law. There will be a certain amount of delay in setting up the new boards and getting them into existence. We have to appoint CEOs and certain other work will have to be done. I assure Deputy Treacy that financial provision has been made and that these boards will function and function well, we hope in this year. I am as anxious as the Deputies to see the boards come into existence straight away. This amendment which we are discussing on Committee Stage has been brought in to deal with specific matters which we wish to see introduced immediately. That is the reason they were written into this.

Would the Minister elaborate on his last remarks? What are the matters to which he is anxious to give effect?

The first exception referred to is the revocation of the provision of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 which lays down that salmon dealers cannot be required to enter the price paid to them for salmon in their registers. Dealers' registers at present are used for monitoring the sale of salmon. When this Bill is passed we propose to devise a type of register which will cover all the information that we would like to have. I am sure that Deputies opposite share my anxiety to see that this is done to enable us to get a proper picture of sales of salmon, where the salmon came from, the price paid and so on. The second provision lays down, if the 1959 Act stands, that we would not be in a position to alter the close season for any species, salmon particularly, for three years. It is desirable that we have a certain amount of flexibility in this regard so that it can be seen that if certain areas suffer as a result of restrictive measures which we might introduce we could allow an extension at either end of the season, or something like that. They are the only two matters I have in mind. There is nothing at all insidious in it.

The Minister's last remark was in regard to the restriction of salmon. We have read and studied the Bill. I take it that if there is anything else that is not in the Bill new legislation will be brought before this House and we can discuss it regarding the restriction of salmon.

When we were talking on Committee Stage of this Bill we all agreed that a hard and fast look would have to be taken at the declining stocks in most of the rivers. I am not saying that I am against what the Minister intends to do. I do not know enough of what he has in mind to comment, but he must take a hard, fast, determined look to see that stocks do not decline further. I will have more to say about that when we come to the final Stages of the Bill. Regarding this amendment, the Minister has stated, and I can understand why, that he hopes within two months to have the new boards set up. He went on to say that it is going to take time, that, naturally enough, executive officers will have to be employed and other professional people also. I agree with this, but I would like a date from the Minister. I would like him to say that within two months, eight weeks, the Central Board and the regional boards will be in operation. It should not be impossible for the Minister to state this. We have dealt with this Bill at length from last October until now and we have been stressing the importance all the time of getting this Bill so that stocks can be conserved and, as the Minister said, we can have a licensing authority for salmon dealers and so on. It is imperative that the Minister give Deputy Treacy, myself and this House a definite assurance that these boards will be in operation not later than the beginning of April. We are talking, for instance, about salmon licences. Will the old boards be distributing the salmon licences? Who will be distributing them? We should like to know now what body will be responsible. Will the terrible blackguarding of our estuaries carry on as in the past unless this board is set up? Sincerely I ask the Minister to say "Right, D-day is 1 April" or 2 April, whatever day it is going to be.

One of the reasons I cannot give a specific date to Deputy White is that we cannot anticipate when this is going to get through the Seanad. It will have to go back to the Seanad again because of the amendments, but it should go through the Seanad in the next week or so, and I promise that if it is physically possible the boards will be set up and activated within two months of the date the Bill goes through the Seanad. These are matters that we would like to see attended to immediately, such as the proper register taken for salmon, and we hope that we can do that within two months. That is the idea of the amendment. I share the Deputy's concern to see that salmon are conserved and I am aware of the activities that go on in estuaries. I am confident that when we take certain measures we will get Deputy White's complete backing with regard to these. I have read some of the reports of the debate on this Bill and I saw pleas from the Opposition to "call off your gunboat". I hope that those pleas will not be repeated when we make an effort to ensure that salmon stocks are conserved and that salmon get an opportunity of escapement to go up the river to spawn.

The Minister does not know what he is talking about.

The last remark by the Minister is uncalled for.

Uncalled for.

If he had read the debate properly he would have realised that the appeals from this side of the House were not so much to call off the boats that are charged with the responsibility of protecting our waters and safeguarding the resources of our seas, rather the protest from this side of the House was that we would empower anyone to shoot at and sink an Irish vessel. We expressed ourselves as appalled at that kind of suggestion. There are ways and means of getting our fishermen to conform without shooting directly at them with intent to kill. The Minister has misconstructed the attitude of the Opposition speakers in this regard. We want to protect our fisheries. This side of the House wanted a 50-mile limit and we insisted on that. The Minister's party said likewise but welched on that before their backsides were hot in office here. We have no proper protection. If we had a 50-mile limit it might not be necessary to engage in gunboat war of the kind mentioned by the Minister. We support that the provisions in this Bill are adequate for patrolling our waters and adequate protection for safeguarding our fish stocks, but we expressed concern, rightly, when the Minister wanted to take on himself the power to use Irish gunboats to shoot at——

The Chair has allowed a certain latitude to the debate because the Minister mentioned it, but it does arise on this measure.

——and to sink the boats of our own defenceless fishermen. That was going too far as far as we were concerned. We stood up here and said so and make no apology to anyone for having said so.

Possibly the Minister was out of order. It is Committee Stage.

I agree, but even on Committee Stage one can discuss only what is in the amendment.

The Minister went outside the scope of the amendment and I am amazed at his outburst. Deputy Lenihan as Minister accepted certain of my remarks in the spirit in which they were made and I am really amazed that this Minister has misconstrued my remarks to such an extent. The Minister's preparation in relation to his portfolio is pathetic and the fishermen will not have confidence in him. The previous Minister accepted my remarks in the spirit in which they were made and agreed to delete the section. This Minister does not care whether our fishermen lose life or limb and he has no hesitation about being a butcher.

Let us get back to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, to delete lines 33 to 40 and substitute the following:

"(c) (i) The Central Board shall within the period of two years beginning on the appointed day (or such longer period as the Minister may allow) prepare and submit to the Minister for his consideration an inland fisheries development programme.

(ii) Where the Central Board has prepared and submitted a development programme under this subsection, it shall from time to time as occasion may require, and at least once in every five years after the date of the submission to the Minister of the programme, review the programme and make in it any variations whether by way of alteration, addition or deletion which it considers proper and shall submit to the Minister for his consideration the results of the review.

(iii) a programme under this subsection may contain recommendations regarding the conservation of inland fisheries and may have regard to any programme under section 10 of this Act.".

These amendments make provision for the submission to the Minister by the central board and to the central board by the regional boards, of development programmes within two years of their establishment and for a review of these programmes at least once every five years. Originally a yearly programme was envisaged but on consideration of the arguments in favour of longer term planning put forward on Committee Stage particularly by Deputy Treacy, a more flexible arrangement is now proposed.

We welcome this amendment and I congratulate the Minister for including this. This legislation provides that the central boards will have to bring in a two-year plan and I agree with that but in line with that the regional boards should also have to submit a two-year plan to the central board. The central board for example would not have local knowledge when it comes to restocking rivers, lakes and estuaries and when it comes to cleaning little streams and rivers or in regard to the taking over of lakes. An order should go out from the central board to each regional board requesting a two-yearly plan at least, and if possible a yearly plan. At the moment we are lacking, in that no directive is issued to a lot of these boards as to what they should be doing.

I am grateful to the Minister and I am particularly grateful to his predecessor, Deputy Lenihan, for meeting my amendment in such a fulsome fashion. The amendment initially asked that the central board should at intervals of five years prepare and submit to the Minister for his consideration a research and development plan under this section. I now observe that the board would be obliged to report annually and to conform to a five-year plan. That was the essence of my amendment, because I felt that it was neither feasible nor realistic for an important body of this kind to prepare, have ready and approved a meaningful programme of the kind envisaged in this Bill on a one-year basis. I am pleased that the Minister has allowed them that extra leeway to plan ahead. The one-year stipulation was all the more unrealistic having regard to the fact that the Inland Fisheries Trust are conforming not merely to a one-or five-year plan but to a ten-year plan. Five years is fair and reasonable and I thank the previous Minister not merely for the manner in which he met us in respect of this amendment but for his sympathy, understanding and co-operation all through the passage of this Bill, especially on Committee Stage.

We are all at one in this. Once the regional boards are established they will be obliged within two years to present their first plan to be submitted to the central board and then to me. From then on they will be obliged to produce a plan every five years. This, as Deputy Treacy said, will give long-term planning a chance to operate. As well as that a certain amount of monitoring will have to be done because they will have to present their budget annually but that would be in line with their long-term plan. It will enable us and the central board to compare how effective the different boards are and possibly what has been found to be effective in one might be copied in another.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 13, to delete lines 38 to 40.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 has already been discussed with amendment No. 3.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 13, to delete lines 45 to 50 and substitute the following:

"(ii) within the period of two years beginning on the appointed day (or such longer period as the Minister may in any particular case allow) prepare and submit to the Central Board for its consideration an inland fisheries development programme.

(b) Where a regional board has prepared and submitted a development programme under this subsection it shall from time to time as occasion may require, and at least once in every five years from the date of the submission to the Central Board of the programme, review the programme and make in it any variations whether by way of alteration, addition or deletion which it considers proper and shall submit to the Central Board for its consideration the results of the review.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 was discussed with amendment No. 1.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 38, to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute the following:

43.—(1) A person appointed under this section by the Minister is in this Act, other than section 42, referred to as `the Arbitrator'.

(2) In case the Minister receives a notice of appeal under section 36, 38 or 53 of this Act, or by virtue of section 37 (3) of this Act, he shall as soon as may be appoint a person, who shall be a barrister of not less than seven years' standing, to hear the appeal (which person is hereby authorised to determine the appeal).

(3) In case the Minister proposes to amend an order made under section 36, 37 or 38 of this Act, he shall as soon as may be appoint a person, who shall be a barrister described in subsection (2) of this section, to perform the functions assigned to the Arbitrator by subparagraphs (i), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of section 5 (2) (b) of this Act.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 40, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute "servant of a board, a private waterkeeper within the meaning of Part XVIII of this Act or any other person.'.".

This amendment includes any other person in the categories of people who may prosecute under the offences in the District Court. Deputy Treacy proposed that this provision should be included and I agree that it is desirable.

I am grateful to the Minister. It improves the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 44, lines 50 to 53, to delete all words from and including "and in particular" in line 50 down to and including "boat" in line 53.

This amendment removes the provision concerning the use of firearms in connection with the power of an authorised officer in bringing a boat which is fishing illegally to port. The section as amended enables authorised officers to use such force as they consider necessary. Several Deputies asked for this amendment and I agree that it is desirable.

Maybe this is what the Minister meant when he referred to the official reports and to calling off the gunboats. The only reference to gunboats was made on this section, as far as speakers from this side of the House are concerned. I am delighted that the Minister agrees that no boat will be fired on as far as this legislation is concerned. Since I became spokesman for fisheries I have never heard any reference being made to the gunboats being called off if they were doing their duty in the national interest. Perhaps when replying the Minister will say that he made a slight error in what he said.

At the time of the trouble off the south-east coast in relation to herring fishing there were calls from other spokesmen in relation to interference with Irish fishermen fishing off the headland. We have no apologies to make for that because we never thought that the EEC limits would stretch to within the shores of the south-east coast. We adhere to that view and believe that there should be a 12-mile limit right around Ireland. I am glad that this amendment has been agreed to.

This is a vindication of the stand taken by the Opposition in relation to the operation of the gunboats. The reasonableness of our case is amply demonstrated by the fact that the Minister and the Government have accepted our point of view and made amendments accordingly.

I welcome this concession by the Minister. We were concerned that the Naval Service had the power to sink an Irish trawler if it did not stop. Is it now the situation that they will not shoot under any circumstances? The Minister did not specifically state that firearms would not be used. Could there be a mini-war around our coast?

Deputy Begley referred to my being a midlander and not having an interest in fish. This Bill applies just as much to midlanders as to those living near the sea. I have a particular interest in seeing that salmon are conserved. The idea behind the amendment is that, when we call for help to see that the law is maintained and that those breaking the law are not allowed to do so, as much force as necessary to compel them to keep the law will be applied.

The Minister has not clarified my point.

A Deputy may speak only once on Report Stage.

We will have to vote on this unless the Minister rules out the use of firearms.

The Deputy may not speak a second time on Report Stage.

Does the order "shoot to sink" still stand?

I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply.

Yes or no?

Deputy Treacy should make up his mind one way or the other. He cannot ride two horses at the same time.

The Minister for Justice is not involved in this.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 45, to delete lines 49 and 50, and substitute:

"(b) An order under this section which designates an area which is wholly or partly comprised of an area of the sea, or an order amending such an order under this section,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 45, to insert "or to amend such an order" after "section" in line 58.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 51, to delete lines 50 and 51 and in page 52, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:

"(a) keep in the prescribed manner records of the weight of salmon handled in the course of his business together with——

(i) in case such salmon is purchased by him, records of the price paid by him therefor, and (ii) in case such salmon is not so purchased, records of the price received by him therefor, and

(iii) in either such case, such other particulars (if any) as may be prescribed,".

The Bill as drafted did not empower the Minister to demand from persons paying the first sales levy information other than the weight of fish handled and the price paid. The obligation to record additional information could be important and the amendment provides for this.

Does the Minister propose to set up a network of salmon dealers? Are they to tag the salmon or are the fishermen to do so? What does the Minister propose in regard to the rate of levy? When discussing this matter on Committee Stage we had in mind that the fishermen should sell salmon only to licensed dealers and the dealers would be responsible for keeping records. Is there any provision in the Bill for dealing with a case where untagged salmon are found in a café or hotel?

The obligation will be on the registered dealer to record the details we request.

Must all salmon be sold to registered dealers?

Yes, and we are doing some research on the best possible way of identifying the salmon, who catches them and where they are sold. Much of what the Deputy said figures very prominently in our thoughts at present. We have not yet made provision for it but we will do so.

Does the Minister intend to make it watertight?

Our experience is that nothing is really watertight but it will be as tight as we can make it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are consequential on amendment No. 14 and they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 77, to delete "and" from line 48.

This amendment includes fyke nets for eels in the list of scheduled engines set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Principal Act and fixes the licence duty therefor. Until recently fyke nets were used primarily for experimental purposes but their use as a commercial fishing engine is becoming prominent and the number of applications in my Department for authorisation to use such nets for commercial purposes is on the increase. Consequently, the time has come to designate this type of net as a commercial engine and thereby entitle the Minister to fix the licence duty in the same way as in the case of the other scheduled engines. At present the licence duty for fyke nets is fixed by the relevant board of conservators with the approval of the Minister.

Is the Minister aware of the views of various fishermen concerning the use of the fyke net? May we take it that there is nothing controversial about the use of this net and its mesh? Is it a contentious matter?

There is nothing controversial about the type of net or the size of mesh. Their use has become so widespread that we have decided that a licence should be paid so that they cannot be used indiscriminately and there would be some control over their use.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 77, line 53, to delete "Table." and substitute "Table; and".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 77, between lines 53 and 54, to insert the following:

"(jjj) the insertion in Part II of the Fourth Schedule, as amended by section 31 of the Act of 1962, of:

14

Fyke nets for eels

£10 for a train of twenty nets or less together with, in case the train is one of more than twenty nets, 50 new pence for each net in excess of twenty.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consequential on amendment No. 17 and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 89, lines 32 to 34, to delete "38 of this Act or an order under section 36 of this Act providing for the acquisition of a right of access," and substitute "36 or 38 of this Act".

This amendment provides that when the owner of a fishery proposed to be acquired by the Central Board cannot be found the fishery may be acquired, notwithstanding the fact that such owner has not been found or ascertained. The inclusion of references to section 36 in article 6 of the Fifth Schedule was overlooked and this amendment rectifies the omission.

We agree with this amendment, but I am not satisfied that the Bill goes far enough in regard to the acquisition of lakes and rivers. I hope the amendment includes right of way to a lake or along a river where the owner cannot be found. I would like to see such undisputed waters taken over by the Government as soon as possible.

That is a hope I latch on to also. I hope the Minister will invoke the powers contained in the amendment to a great extent in order to gain access to the large tracts of unclaimed waters which I adverted to in the course of the debate. It apears that the owners of hundreds of miles of such waters are not known or have been absent for many years. When such matters come to the notice of the central or regional boards or the Department I hope the powers contained in the amendment are invoked. Where ownership is not claimed or the owner cannot be found I hope the matter is sent to the arbitrator. The amendment represents an improvement on the existing situation but whether it will be availed of is another matter. I want to encourage the Minister to avail of every opportunity to advise the boards that where important stretches of water or lakes are bereft of ownership and allowed become derelict they should be acquired in the formal manner. If that does not happen important stretches of water and lakes will fall into a greater state of disrepair and neglect. That would be tantamount to a national disgrace. If the Bill does not deal with such a situation we have been engaged in a futile exercise here for some time.

I should like to assure the Deputies that the question of rights-of-way which we need to acquire or the necessity to acquire certain stretches of water will be dealt with. We have the authority to do so under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 89, line 36, to delete "the" and substitute "a".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 89, lines 45 and 46, to delete "proposed servient tenement" and substitute "fishery proposed to be acquired, or, in case the application is either for an order under the said section 38 or for an order under the said section 36 providing for the acquisition of a way-leave, right of access or other right over, in or under land, the owner of the proposed servient tenement,".

Amendment agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stage today.
Top
Share