Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1987

Vol. 376 No. 10

Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1987: Second Stage.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Daly)

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

I have decided that trout and coarse fish anglers who benefit from substantial State expenditure on the development and protection of our trout and coarse fish fisheries should contribute towards the cost of such development and protection. However, I wish to add by way of reassurance for those anglers and the general public at large, that substantial State expenditure on developing and protecting our inland fisheries will be continued.

At present the only form of angling requiring a licence is salmon angling. The licensing of trout and coarse fish angling was proposed by the Inland Fisheries Commission in the mid-seventies. As some Deputies will no doubt recall, the provisions of the Fisheries Act, 1980, are based on the commission's report.

Prior to the enactment of the 1980 Fisheries Act the Government of the day decided not to implement the trout and coarse fish licensing recommendation but to introduce instead a voluntary system of registration for trout, coarse fish and sea anglers in order to raise revenue for the development and protection of the fisheries. The fee for such registration was set at £5 per annum up to 1985 and at £9.50 since then. It entitles them to fish for trout and coarse fish in any waters owned or occupied by the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries board with which an angler is registered.

It is claimed that there are 100,000 trout anglers and 10,000 coarse fish anglers in Ireland as well as an additional 10,000 and 33,000 tourists anglers, respectively, for each category. If this is so, then the numbers registering in the trout and coarse fish categories of the Register of Trout, Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers have been very disappointing indeed as about 4,000 of them only have registered.

On the introduction of the proposed licensing system for trout and coarse fish anglers, the present voluntary register of such anglers will no longer be necessary. I am, however, retaining the voluntary system of registration for sea anglers. I have accordingly provided in the Bill to change the name of the register to the "Register of Sea Anglers". In this connection I want to address myself to sea anglers and to encourage them to continue to pay their voluntary contributions to the Register of Sea Anglers.

Life members of the former Inland Fisheries Trust are entitled to fish for trout and coarse fish without payment of a permit fee in fisheries boards' waters. With the introduction of the proposed legislation these members will require a licence to fish for trout or coarse fish but will retain their right to fish without having to pay for a permit. Of course those people who have reached their 66th birthday will not be required to hold a licence. This is provided for in the Bill. I am proposing to introduce separate licences for trout and coarse fish angling which can be used countrywide. Licences will be available for a period of 21 days or for a full season. The fee will be £10 for the trout licence, £5 for the coarse fish licence for 21 days. The licence fee for trout angling for a full season nationwide will be £15 and for coarse fish angling for a full season nationwide £10.

I also propose to rationalise the licensing system for salmon angling. This will be achieved by a reduction in the number of classes of salmon angling licences. I propose that, in lieu of the existing five classes of licences, there should be two, a 21-day salmon licence costing £21 and a full season licence for salmon fishing in all areas of the State for £25. These will be nationwide licences covering holders in any region of the State. I might add that this rationalisation has been long overdue, particularly bearing in mind the position that has obtained in which there was a multiplicity of licences for different areas and regions. It will be possible now to obtain one licence nationwide for trout or salmon fishing, one for 21 days costing £21 and another covering every part of the State for a full season costing £25.

In the case of anglers who engage in all types of rod fishing there is provision in the Bill for an annual composite licence costing £40 which will entitle the holder to fish for salmon, trout and coarse fish. What I am saying is that one can obtain a salmon licence only if one wishes to fish for salmon only, a trout licence alone if one wishes to fish for trout only or a coarse fish licence alone if one wishes to fish for coarse fish only. If one wants a combination of the three, then one can obtain a composite licence covering the three species for £40. I consider that to be reasonable.

In introducing the Bill I have not overlooked the special needs of our young citizens or indeed of our senior citizens. Members will have observed that, under section 4 (2) persons under 18 and over 66 years of age are exempted from the obligation of having a licence when fishing for trout and coarse fish. At present salmon anglers of all ages are required to hold a licence. This stipulation has not been changed under the provisions of this Bill.

I do not propose to require those people engaging in sea angling to hold a licence. But I would encourage them to register with the new Register of Sea Anglers, making a contribution to the development of sea angling which has enormous potential, and which has been relatively under-exploited. A small contribution would help us develop that further.

It is difficult to estimate how many trout and coarse fish angling licences will be sold in the first year following the introduction of the new licensing system. However, a figure of 50,000 licensed trout and coarse fish anglers would yield an annual income in the region of £500,000 in any one year.

I should like to assure Deputies who are concerned about this that the income derived from the sale of the new licences will be retained by the relevant fisheries boards or authorities for the protection, development and conservation of fisheries and for pollution control. The fear was expressed by many people that the money would not be put back into the relevant regions. I am giving the House a solemn assurance that this money will be collected locally and used locally for the protection, development and conservation of fisheries.

The Bill before the House has been requested by the Central Fisheries Board on which all the regional fisheries boards are represented. It also has the support of the Trout Anglers Federation of Ireland and the National Coarse Fishing Federation of Ireland. Naturally some organisations, groups or individuals will object, on principle, to the introduction of licences for trout and coarse fish angling. Others will complain that it may harm the tourist industry. I do not accept that contention, particularly at a time when more revenue is needed for the development of these areas, where there is a huge volume of goodwill and support — provided it is clearly seen that this money is invested or spent on the development of the various fisheries involved.

I accept that visiting coarse fish anglers outnumber native coarse fish anglers by approximately 33,000 to 10,000. However, native trout anglers far outnumber visiting trout anglers by approximately 100,000 to 10,000. For that reason the bulk of the revenue to be collected from the licence fees will emanate from native anglers. Furthermore, it is my belief that few visiting anglers will object to paying what amounts to a small contribution toward the conservation and development of these most important fisheries. It is my belief that the fees from coarse fish and trout angling licences represent a very small amount of the overall cost of holidays. It is my further belief that tourists who pay substantial sums to come here on fishing holidays are most unlikely to change their plans because they are required to pay such a small or nominal fee. It has been my personal experience in fisheries over many years that visiting coarse fish and trout anglers are always interested in further development of such fisheries and, in some cases, in their conservation. I have found them more than willing to make a contribution. Indeed I have found them to be amazed that we have not been imposing fees or charges for engagement in such activity. It has been my experience — having spoken to many visiting coarse fish anglers who have come to my county — that they are more than willing to pay a contribution towards the overall development of this very important fisheries activity.

Trout and coarse fish anglers, be they native or tourist, can no longer expect our taxpayers to continue to fund completely the development and protection of their angling waters. What we are seeking here is a small contribution by the people who will substantially benefit, who will enjoy these recreational amenities we provide, thereby easing the overall burden on our taxpayers.

I am anxious to ensure that licensing constitutes the minimum amount of inconvenience to our own, or visiting anglers. While the arrangements for the distribution and sale of licences will be primarily a matter for the fisheries boards, it will be organised in the simplest possible manner. Licences, as at present, will be sold by the fisheries boards through their own offices and some field staff and through outlets countrywide — shops, hotels and offices of regional tourism organisations and other outlets. The feasibility of extending on-the-spot sales of licences by fisheries field staff is being examined. If we could organise an effective system here we would be far more successful in collecting contributions from anglers.

Many Deputies will be aware that a restructuring of the fisheries boards is currently being considered. No firm decisions have yet been made, however, as to what the future structure will be. There are many references to the fisheries board in the text of the Bill. This is necessary in view of the fact that responsibility for inland fisheries currently lies with the fisheries boards. I have had discussions with the central fishing authorities, the regional fisheries boards, the anglers' associations and many others, and at this time I am preparing final proposals to restructure the whole administration of our inland fisheries which is long overdue. I will be proceeding with the greatest possible speed.

In conclusion I wish again to state that the objective of this Bill is to provide a more equitable way by which funds for the future development and protection of our inland fisheries will be available.

I strongly commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Doyle

The purpose of the Bill before us this evening is to introduce a licensing system for trout and coarse fish angling. Behind that simple sentence which perhaps is a reasonable enough objective on the face of it — I will go deeper into that later on — lies a way of life for thousands of people, young and old. Free fishing has been part of our culture for generations. Our free fishing here has been a major sales pitch and tourist attraction both at home and abroad for years.

It is such no longer. Salmon anglers have been paying a licence which is now to be increased at a time when the salmon numbers are declining due to overfishing at sea and pollution in our rivers. We have 153,000 trout and coarse fish anglers, 100,000 being trout anglers and 10,000 coarse fish anglers. There are 10,000 tourist anglers for trout fishing visiting our shores per annum and 33,000 coarse fishermen from overseas, a total of 43,000 overseas visitors. When we consider that the total number of fresh water anglers in the world is estimated at 43 million and that we attract 43,000 to this country, which is perhaps the best inland fishing area left in western Europe or even in the world, we certainly are not getting our share of what is out there.

I understand that the licences are intended to raise £500,000 per annum. There are many unanswered questions in the Bill. How does the Minister intend to enforce this legislation? I am conscious of the fact that the Minister has just returned home from a futile and perhaps rather fruitless overnight session in Brussels in relation to our quotas, so we will be reasonable.

Mr. Daly

The Deputy has been badly advised about that.

Mrs. Doyle

There are serious issues that we have to get to grips with in relation to this Bill before any decisions in relation to how I or my party will be able to support it can be reached. How will the Minister enforce this legislation? We need a thorough explanation of this to the House, as any more legislation without enforcement will bring the system into further disrepute.

No doubt the Minister will assure us that the fisheries boards will issue the licences and enforce the legislation. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the Minister is about to announce the abolition of the Central Fisheries Board and the regional boards and their replacement with Bord Iascaigh Intíre or Bord Intíre Iascaigh, whatever name the Minister finally comes up with, the 1988 Estimate provisions for the boards as we now know them for non-paid provisions will be reduced from between 25 and 35 per cent depending on the different regions of the already much depleted 1987 levels. With a tragic summer of one fish kill after another just behind us, the fisheries officers have no money for diesel for their mobile patrols or for petrol for their cars.

Is the Minister seriously asking us to believe that with less money in 1988 there will be increased enforcement of the law in this new Bill when it is enacted? There is, at the very least, an economy of truth in the picture that has been painted, and if the Government are serious about one of our most important natural resources, our inland waters, we must in this House be absolutely frank and upfront with one another, which I fear we are not being. Will it be left to the voluntary bodies, the angling clubs, the tourist organisations and the like yet again in 1988 to keep our fishery protection officers mobile, or is it the Government's intention to pay them to sit in their offices unable to perform the duties they are only too willing and able to do?

The farce of 1987 has cost our country and our tourist image dearly. Is the Minister going to control what is going on? Will the Minister and his Government sit idly by as our wild salmon stocks are plundered at sea and not allowed up our rivers to spawn? Will the Minister and the Government continue to sit idly by and allow poaching, pollution and neglect of our rivers and lakes, ignoring the enormous potential for our gross national product from the proper development of angling as a special interest holiday or sport for our own people and for visitors?

There is something disquieting in discussing a Bill here this evening knowing that an announcement in a matter of weeks from the very Minister who has just addressed us on this Bill will make 15 of the 21 sections in the Bill irrelevant, or at best in need of further amendment. Any reference to the principal Act as amended by the Act of 1980 will have to be amended when the legislation to abolish the central and regional boards is before the House. I do not have to tell the Minister that apart from the acute lack of current finances being suffered by the boards, the officers themselves are totally demoralised by the Minister's frequent references to his intended reconstruction with, as yet, no clear indication as to the Minister's intentions. The prevarication will have to stop. The Minister must, this evening, declare his intentions in relation to the Central Fisheries Board and the regional boards as it is an essential part of the Bill and the enforcement in putting into law of the Bill we are now discussing.

I am tempted to draw on the much used Russian analogy of the present time and to say that in relation to the development of inland fisheries and to the Minister's hinted at and leaked, if that is a fair word — he has mentioned it openly on several occasions on visits around the country — reconstruction of the fisheries board and the fisheries protection system generally, we have plenty of perestroika without any of the glasnost. We do not really know what the Minister wants to do except that it will be reconstruction of some sort.

Let the Minister put his cards on the table this evening and tell us what he is doing with the central and regional fisheries boards and let the prevarication stop once and for all. We need to know what is on the Minister's mind, what are the Government's intentions, and we need to know fully, frankly and fast. Before I can indicate my conditional support for this Bill I must have an unequivocal commitment from the Minister that whatever moneys are raised by way of the new licensing provisions will be invested in the inland fisheries for development, conservation and the pollution control.

I refer to the Minister's speech where, in three lines, he alludes to his views in this area. The Minister said he would like to stress that all the income derived from the sale of the new licences will be retained by the fisheries boards for protection, development and conservation of fisheries and pollution control. What fisheries boards are we talking about? We all know, except the Minister has not said it officially, that there will not be fisheries boards, that the Minister's intention is to have one fisheries board. Does the Minister mean by that statement that he intends to leave the regional managers in situ, to strip away the management boards and administration they now have around them? Does he mean he will allow any moneys derived from these licences to be left with the regional managers or whatever advisory group he will build around them, for investment in the local inland fisheries in the particular area concerned? Can he assure us that whatever money is raised in each of the different regions will be left as an own resource to that region and will not be taken into account when each year's Estimates are being scrutinised?

I fear that the temptation, in the difficult budgetary times in which we live, will be to deduct from what otherwise might have been the Exchequer contribution to the different regions or boards the amount in Appropriations-inAid from the own resource of their licence money. This money coming from the sector itself as a tax on the sport can only be justified if it is invested over and above the normal Exchequer funding for the future development of pollution control and conservation of our inland waters generally. Without any equivocation or prevarication the Minister must make a clear statement of his intent that that will be so, that this licence money will be over and above the normal Exchequer funding that can reasonably be expected to be given to the different areas or regions. Certainly, there will be a manager of some sort in situ and he will have an area under him.

Over the past few days there have been many meetings of fisheries boards and reports coming through to me indicate that while there is disquiet and concern about abandoning our traditional rights to free fishing most anglers accept the principle of a licence provided that all the money will be reinvested in the industry. The North-Western Regional Fisheries Board take this view, as do the western region. In Munster opinion is very divided, but the majority opinion supports it. There is a very vocal minority down there who are none too pleased. In Leinster there is a generally supportive view of this provision, provided it means extra investment in the industry and not just extra money in the coffers of the Exchequer with futher neglect of the industry.

The angling clubs and federations in each board area may have their own views and even differing views from their respective boards, but all recognise the need for investment in and protection of a much valued industry. In the absence of Government investment this proposal before us tonight represents perhaps the only realistic option being offered. There will have to be a hard sell of the provisions of the Bill. The concept of free fishing has sold coarse fishing in Cavan, far and wide. It has also been an important factor with the wild brown trout of Loughs Corrib, Mask and Conn. We can all add our list, depending on what part of the country we come from. Many trout anglers feel betrayed that they were not consulted through their national federation and allowed an input into the decisions, especially as to how the money will be spent.

Mr. Daly

That would take about 30 years.

Mrs. Doyle

Fishing generally has been very bad this year and the clubs are understandably angry about the timing of this legislation. An essential ingredient for success will be local co-operation and this can and will only be achieved on the basis of licensing having a positive benefit for the sport itself and, as I have reiterated and will continue to reiterate, a guarantee that the moneys from the licences, as at present with salmon fishing licences, will become an own resource of the boards or whatever will supersede the boards in the proposed reconstruction. In other words, in case I have not made myself abundantly clear, my bottom line and that of the Fine Gael Party is that there should be a net increase in funding of inland fisheries by the amount accrued from the licences. I shall not and cannot, for the sake of this vital industry, compromise on that point.

I turn briefly to the different sections of the Bill. We note the redefinition of coarse fishing to exclude rainbow trout and char. This follows logically from the different type of licences we are bringing in and I have no difficulties at all with that, also the reduction in the number and types of the five classes of salmon licences to two licences, one costing £21 for 21 days or an annual licence for £25. Twenty five pounds for a salmon licence represents over a 300 per cent increase in some cases where the present licence is only £8. Is this acceptable or even reasonable, despite the hunger for money? Will the Minister also explain why there is so little in price between the two salmon licences, one for three weeks and the other for 52 weeks? Is such a small difference worth having two tiers, administratively? I suggest with respect that it is not.

I ask the Minister to consider accepting one salmon licence costing £21 for any period in the year. If there were a real difference in the price of the two licences it might be worth the administrative difficulty of bringing in a two-tier salmon licensing system. Given that there is over a 300 per cent increase in some licences, perhaps he would reduce the amount from £25 to £21, with one licence? It would please all sectors, the administrators and those looking for the licences. I hope to put down an amendment on Committee Stage along these lines and perhaps the Minister would bear this in mind as his acceptance of it would indicate that we could perhaps agree.

I shall also be proposing that the composite licence which is now £40 should be reduced to £30 in the interest of equity. This is the licence generally needed for rod angling for coarse fishing, trout or salmon. The one licence gives blanket cover for any type of angling. It is the type of licence needed by people who traditionally fish with a rod for no expenditure. To introduce it at £40 bringing in coarse fish and trout for the first time is very steep for the ordinary worker on the factory floor, the unemployed and the average family man who has other pressures on his disposable income but has a great love of the environment and fishing and wants to bring up his children in that tradition.

The three trout licences are pitched at perhaps a reasonable enough level, although some people have already expressed the view that £15 for the annual trout licence is too high. Perhaps the Minister might explain what the position will be if a trout angler, who has his annual trout licence, fishing on Lough Corrib catches a pike. Will the trout licence cover coarse fishing in these circumstances as the coarse fishing licence is cheaper? We need an element of commonsense here. The Minister will tell me that the composite licence is what the fisherman should have gone after in the beginning, but he is by nature a trout angler and belongs to the local trout angling club. He is not actually after coarse fish but is as likely to catch coarse fish as trout. Fears have been expressed as to how that situation will be handled.

On page 8 of the Bill the particular position of the Foyle area is dealt with. The Foyle Fisheries Commission are the joint North-South body for the Foyle catchment area, covering parts of Donegal, Tyrone and Derry. The people there already have a game licence for trout and salmon and the Minister is proposing to allow them a reduced rate for the trout and salmon licence proposed to be introduced but not for the coarse fishing. I am not quite sure what the thinking behind all this is and whether it is in the total spirit of the North-South operation existing there at present. I would be pleased to hear the Minister's views and the thinking behind the Department's or the parliamentary draftsman's inclusion of this section. If there must be a licence to bring these people into order with what may in time be legislation to be allowed a reduced rate sounds reasonable enough as they already have a game licence from the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

What is the position in the areas that already need permits for certain public and private fisheries? As I interpret it, the people involved will also need licences for different types of angling, as will the members of the former inland fisheries clubs who have had free fishing on central and regional board waters for some time now. Perhaps we could also have the Minister's views on the rights of the former members of the Inland Fisheries Trust when the Minister abolishes the central and regional fisheries boards.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill exempting those under 18 and those over 66 years of age from licensing requirements. I agree that it is essential that angling as a sport and recreation should be freely available to our young and elderly and to those who generally have more leisure time, be it enforced or by choice. I ask the Minister to consider an amendment to this section to the effect that in regard to exempting those under 18 he will also exempt all bona fide student cardholders. This is an area that would be easy to control. Many of our students are over 18 years of age and the student card system allows them to be identified. When I was a student a student card always contained a photograph of the holder and therefore did not lend itself to too much trickery or roguery. I presume that is still the case.

I am extremely concerned about the confusion and difficulty which has arisen in regard to the pollution committee which was recently set up. This committee includes the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for the Marine and they apparently decided that all farms be surveyed as possible sources of pollution and that a task force be set up in each county under the county engineer. Initial reports are to be submitted to the Department of the Environment before 20 December. It was decided that ACOT and AFT were to locate and report on potential sources of pollution to our inland waters. A questionnaire containing between 40 and 50 questions was circulated but it was quickly revised due to the unacceptable nature of many of the questions. The current position is that ACOT and AFT will have nothing to do with it as they do not see it as their particular role to be policing authorities. Perhaps, the Minister could enlighten us as to where the task force is now going and what results he expects from them.

In conclusion, An Bord Iascaigh Intíre should be announced before this Bill is enacted. The Minister's timing, if I may say so, is appalling. This is essential if, as the Minister has indicated, he has decided to abolish the present boards. I mentioned morale among our fisheries protection officers with the threat hanging over their heads of the abolition of the management boards to which they are answerable. We do not have to remind ourselves of what the role of the fisheries boards is and why they were put in situ in 1980. Their statutory function was one of management, conservation, protection, development and promotion of our inland and sea angling resources as far as a 12 mile limit. The fact that our fisheries protection officers have not been in a position to carry out their statutory function is in no way any fault of theirs.

We cannot leave hanging around any longer the uncertainty in relation to the Minister's intentions, his proposed changes and the reasons he feels change will improve the situation. Change without further investment from the Exchequer will do nothing but cause further demoralisation in this most vital area. I do not agree that the Minister is proceeding correctly but at the very least we should be told the full story. He owes it to this House to be frank with us in relation to his intentions in regard to his proposed plans.

Our inland surface water of 350,000 acres of lakes and 8,600 miles of main channel rivers comprises a far greater percentage of our total area than, for example, is the case in England or any of the continental countries. Our inland fisheries are an extremely valuable self renewing resource when exploited rationally and sensitively. This industry does not depend on imported raw material. Most anglers at the end of the day will be prepared to pay a reasonable sum for the sport as they, above all, realise that the protection of our natural environment does in fact pay.

I await with interest the Minister's response to the different points that have been made and I hope he understands that until he spells out without equivocation what will happen the money which will be raised by way of licence fees we will have to hold our position as to whether we can support this Bill on Second Stage.

I look forward to the Minister's response and to the contributions of other Members on this most vital part of our environment. Any investment in inland fisheries is an investment in the environment. It is an investment in our heritage and it is a further step down the road of civilising us as a nation. We receive our environment in trust from the previous generation. We are only custodians and we have to pass it on to the next generation in as good, if not a better condition, than we received it. That is what this Bill is all about.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I have mixed feelings about this Bill. The principle of licensing is not necessarily a bad or a wrong one but, quite frankly, I wonder about the timing of this Bill from several points of view. If we look at it from the point of view of the average angler he may well say that the Bill could not have been introduced at a worse time. Some anglers will use the emotional argument that the waters of Ireland belong to the people of Ireland and that therefore they will not pay any licence fee but most anglers are willing to pay such a fee on the strict understanding that the money will be put directly back into the protection and development of our waters.

In this connection, I have looked at the Estimates for 1988 where there is no less than a 29 per cent reduction under one heading, a 15 per cent reduction under the main heading for inland fisheries and the wiping out of a third heading. It seems that the proposals in this Bill are designed to make up the shortfall in expenditure and that, therefore, at very best, the overall expenditure will not be any more than it is this year. Given the size of the reductions and the estimate of the likely revenue to be raised from this licence fee the Minister has given, it will not even make up the shortfall. Therefore, from the anglers' point of view the situation is particularly unsatisfactory in that these fees are being introduced for the first time in so far as trout and coarse angling is concerned while the overall expenditure will be less than it was even in the current year.

We are aware of how inadequate the expenditure was this year because of the inability of the staff of the fisheries boards to protect the various fisheries and waters. It seems that it is a bit doubtful to be charging a fee as high as £40 for salmon and trout angling when the attitude of the authorities towards our inland salmon fisheries is very doubtful to say the least of it. In this connection I will not give any descriptions of my own, or of any individual anglers, but I will quote briefly from the 1985 annual report of the Central Fisheries Board, the latest report available. Part of the report deals with the Shannon region, an area not unknown to the Minister and myself, and although it relates to 1985 the position was not greatly different in 1986 and, perhaps, in 1987. The report states:

From 7 June a number of vessels, from other regions, were observed illegally fishing off the Clare coast and appeared to be catching salmon. Weather conditions then disimproved and very few boats were seen during the second week of June. The board's 32' GRP protection vessell, m.v. Thomond put out to sea and encountered 11 large vessels fishing illegally south of Kilkee.

Determined efforts were made to take their nets but m. v. Thomond was forced to withdraw due to attempted ramming by groups of vessels of 45' upwards in length. Some of these attempted rammings were filmed by RTE.

On 18 June, when the m. v. Thomond was at sea, the Navy patrol vessel L. E. Fola arrived on the coast and encountered the Marita Ann which resisted all attempts to board her by resorting to the use of chains, iron bars and slash hooks.

The m. v. Thomond resumed sea and estuary patrols towards the end of June during which an unsuccessful attempt was made to board a vessel from Skibbereen. Early in July a joint sortie by Shannon and western board staff was made in the north Clare area at sea. Firearms were brandished from a Kerry boat and the staff, a mile or more from land in vulnerable inflatables, were forced to retreat as their lives were endangered.

That is the real root of the trouble in regard to salmon fishing. The report relates to 1985 but I understand that one could write a similar scenario for the subsequent years. It is interesting to see that some of the boats were named and that the one that was particularly named was called the Marita Ann, a name that has other connotations. Indeed, I cannot understand why the L. E. Fola, after being treated in that way, apparently backed off and left the crew of the Marita Ann to continue their activities. If I had been the captain of the L. E. Fola, provided the rules of engagement allowed it, I would have given the crew five minutes to get off the Marita Ann and if they did not I would have sunk that boat in five minutes. It would have saved the country a lot of trouble if that had been done on that occasion and I think the captain was entitled to do that in view of the way his crew were assaulted, abused and obstructed.

There has been toleration of that kind of conduct off many parts of our coast for quite a while and it is time we put a stop to it. It does not matter what moneys are being charged, or not being charged, for salmon or other fisheries, we will not have salmon in our rivers and we will not have salmon angling in the future if that type of conduct continues to be tolerated, as it is at the moment. If the trawler, the Marita Ann, and some of those Kerry trawlers, had been sunk we would not have a repetition of this trouble. In the enforcement of the law the captain concerned would have been entitled to do what I have suggested. It is interesting that the mentality of those who engage in this activity is such that it is not just in a breach of the fishery laws that they connive; they are prepared, as we can see, to break more serious and fundamental laws in this State. That boat attempted, happily unsuccessfully, to import what we thought at the time was a very large quantity of arms — it was between 10 and 15 tonnes — into this country until she was stopped by the Naval Service. That is indicative of the mentality of those concerned.

I can recall about 12 years ago looking at the Butler Pool in Waterville, County Kerry, and at the narrow passageway from the sea up to the lake, and seeing so many salmon in that narrow channel that the water was virtually black. Three or four years later I revisited that area and I was told that in an entire season 30 salmon were caught in that pool. I asked where the rest of them were and I was told that they were all caught at sea illegally. They were caught not miles out to sea but in Ballinskellig Bay, in the view of the fishery protection staff who, unfortunately, did not have the facilities to stop them. That fishery, which could be one of the great fisheries of the world, is now almost denuded of salmon, as are most of our inland fisheries.

As we have seen from the Estimates all the fishery boards are in a bad financial state and with a huge reduction again next year the position will be worse. The prospect of enforcing these licences through the courts in a meaningful way is not realistic because some of the boards cannot afford to go to court to prosecute those they find fishing illegally or without licences. I wonder if there is any way of introducing some form of on-the-spot fine to be collected by fishery staff rather than having long drawn out court proceedings of people prosecuted for breaches of the fishery laws. This Bill, which is only proposing to introduce a few fees in relation to coarse and trout fishing and to increase the fees in relation to salmon fishing, runs to 16 pages, 23 sections and a schedule. I am aware, because I used to deal with this in previous days, that the 1959 Fisheries (Consolidation) Act runs to 400 or 500 sections. The 1980 amendment Act, which was supposed to simplify things, is another enormous tome. Our fishery laws are archaic, even though they were consolidated as recently as 1959. When one sees the complicated provisions that have to go into a Bill the size of the one we are debating and takes into consideration that it runs to 16 full pages, one can realise how archaic our fishery laws are. Some simplified system of enforcement like on-the-spot fines should be introduced, particularly when the staff are not in a position to spend much time on the ground.

The last few years have seen a reduction in the services of the central and regional boards. We have seen a considerable growth, unfortunately, in pollution and in illegal fishing. Judging by the board's budget for next year, things will be worse. The attitude of many anglers is, understandably, why should they pay more for a service that is getting worse? Like Deputy Doyle I regret that the Minister did not avail of the opportunity today to outline whatever plans he has to reorganise the central and regional boards. The feeling of grievance on the part of many anglers might not be quite as great if that was done and if they knew what was going to happen. We are entitled to ask the Minister to outline what will be done, at least in general terms if not in detail. Salmon anglers have paid licence fees for years and have seen salmon numbers drop year after year while the Government are doing little or nothing to stop illegal drift netting at sea. Trout anglers, who have not been paying a State licence, have had a good service over the years but now when their fisheries are being polluted and run down, they are being asked for the first time to pay. Coarse anglers have had little to complain about as in the past few years more work has been carried out on coarse fishing waters.

Why are sea anglers in some respects not included in the licensing system? Is the reason that the work carried out by the Central Fisheries Board and the other boards for sea anglers will not be stopped? That would seem the logical conclusion to be drawn. Sea angling, which is not subject to the difficulties of fresh water angling or pollution and other problems, has tremendous potential. I had a pleasant day this summer with two French people fishing off Inishturk and in the course of one day's fishing, we caught no fewer than then different species. We caught a great deal of fish which the French insisted on bringing home to put in their freezer in order to bring it back to Paris, which I did not altogether approve of, but they were able to tell me, for example, that the possibility of getting ten species of fish off the Atlantic coast in France in one day was nil, that you would be lucky if you fished every day for a whole season and caught ten species. Of course, fishing in the Mediterranean is a waste of time. We have a most valuable resource and asset in that respect and I am afraid we have not marketed it nor have we provided the appropriate facilities.

All the advice that Board Fáilte have got in more recent years and all the various reports commissioned have indicated that the two growth areas that above all else should be sold in this country are golf and angling. The potential of both is vast. Our efforts to sell angling in both sea and fresh water are very limited. That is regrettable. It seems pointless to try to collect money in licence fees and to try to develop inland fisheries if the sort of conduct I have described as happening off the mouth of the Shannon and off the Clare coast is allowed to continue. There is a tolerance towards these people. They are looked on as "the lads" in the sense that "the lads" are looked on in the Border areas. It is the same kind of tolerance of people who are doing incredible damage to our country. When I was Minister for Tourism five or six years ago, I got Bord Fáilte to do a study of the value to the Irish economy of one single salmon caught by a foreign angler. At that time, I think 1981, the value of one salmon to the Irish economy if it was caught by a foreign angler was £250. I venture to think that the value to the Irish economy of one salmon caught by a foreign angler today would be not less than £400 and perhaps more. I think that figure would not be disputed, yet we allow hundreds of thousands of salmon to be taken illegally all around our coast and we frighten away anglers who would otherwise come here. We deprive our own people who obey the laws and have angled all their life of the right to catch Irish salmon in Irish waters because these Provos and thugs carry on in this fashion off our coasts. That is perhaps the most important aspect of the matter at present.

The Minister would find a high degree of willingness to accept and pay the proposed licence fees if anglers here could see enforcement of the laws particularly off our coasts and against polluters, particularly the major polluters who more often than not in the case of rivers are local authorities who, are supposed to enforce pollution laws.

Apart from the obvious value of inland fisheries for angling and tourism, I want to refer to a type of inland fish which has great commercial value but which, unfortunately, is not encouraged to any great extent here; I refer to eels. Our total output of eels two years ago, the last year that I can find, was approximately 85 tonnes. The output of eels in Northern Ireland was seven times as great even though their area is very much smaller. Out of Lough Neagh alone they got something like 800 tonnes. These are very valuable; lb. for lb. or kg. for kg. they are the same value as salmon. I am aware of processors in this country who have unlimited markets abroad for smoked and other processed eels who simply cannot get the raw material here. The boards should be encouraged and the ESB should be required to increase the production of eels here enormously. They have every opportunity and facility on the Shannon. The Shannon lakes in particular were major producers of eels in the pre-Ardnacrusha days and there is a statutory obligation on the ESB to try to overcome the problems that have been created for fishing as a result of the construction of the Shannon scheme at Ardnacrusha. There is a limit to what they can do in relation to salmon. I will say for them that they have made fair efforts with their hatcheries at Parteen, near Birdhill and elsewhere, but what they have done in relation to eels is very limited. The potential is vast and we are very foolish that we do not seek to avail of it. On other lakes such as the Corrib and on many other rivers there is equal potential for the production of eels for which there is an unlimited market abroad and to which a fair degree of value can be added here before they are exported.

I do not object in principle to the Bill but I object to bringing in a Bill like this with all kinds of new licences and regulations and so on if they cannot be enforced. I have a great fear that this provision, like so much of Irish law, will simply be ignored and will make even greater the contempt for the unenforceable laws of this country. This thing will probably become something like pirate radio stations. We have staff, the staff are being paid but the staff are literally being prevented from leaving their own offices. They feel frustrated. They are men of commitment. It is very unsatisfactory for them and for all of us. Even if the fisheries boards were to get the entire £500,000 that the Minister predicts hopefully in his opening speech, it will not go remotely near making up what was cut in the Estimates. Therefore, on the face of it, the chances of proper enforcement do not look very good and I wonder how wise it is to bring a law that we virtually know in advance will be futile.

I would like very much to see inland and sea angling facilities developed in the way they should be. That can only be done if the law is enforced and if people are prepared to co-operate. The co-operation of ordinary people off our coasts does not seem to arise. That is where the boards should be given greater facilities. In particular, when the Navy are called in they should have no compunction in sinking some of these people who are operating off the Clare coast and at the mouth of the Shannon. If they had sunk that boat to which I referred earlier, in 1985, as they would have been entitled to, the country would be better off, not just in respect of fishing but in respect of other situations as well.

Mr. M. Higgins

I welcome the consensus that is apparent in the House in relation to the conservation of stocks. About six years ago when fisheries was part of my spokesmanship — it is not now — I was concerned about the disinterest that prevailed about general aspects of fisheries.

I know you will forgive me, Sir, if I make one historical reference to that. In the seventies when we were campaigning on Ireland's entry to the European Community I found myself developing an opinion that suggested that our general fisheries needed the specific protection of a protocol to our Treaty of Accession. I found few takers for that argument and I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of Deputies who found any reluctance in exchanging benefits in terms of milk for possible protection in terms of fish. However, from 1974 to 1981 there was a certain evolution in thinking about fish. In 1981, an argument was developing that we had been through an argument about the potential of our fishing industry. However, in the last six years there have been some very welcome developments in this area.

In this House and in Seanad Éireann — where I spoke before on these issues — there has been a growing acceptance of the need for conservation. Everyone agrees now that the basic co-principles of an adequate fisheries policy are ones in terms of adequate capital provision, the possible projection and development of stocks, the development of education in training, marketing and so on. Among those criteria there is more support for conservation. The present Minister, six years go, strongly backed unpopular conservation measures. I appreciated it at that time and commended him on it. Now, in 1987, after an appalling year when we saw so much pollution, I very much support his very strong language directed against those who pollute our waterways. I do not really have to do that because that is supported on all sides of the House.

The Minister is in an impossible situation in many respects. For example, he suffers the disability of the general reduction in public finances allocated for his Department—a reduction of 13 per cent. In relation to the amount allocated for inland fisheries development the reduction is 15 per cent and in relation to the Salmon Research Trust the reduction is 29 per cent. Naturally, the Minister will incur the suspicion that any suggestions of raising revenue through introducing a licensing system for what was previously a free activity is simply an attempt to raise substituting finance for what was the State provision. The more general point is a very important one.

In the historic document the Programme for National Recovery, or revigoration or resuscitation, the crux of the matter is that there is a curious figure in it for 3,500 jobs in tourism. I do not have to be the jaundiced cynic I am to ask where these jobs are coming from. If I am looking for development in the tourist industry, I would not contradict any of the previous speakers who see an enormous contribution coming from angling and other forms of recreational activity but they are all based on a sound ecologically sensitive approach towards the future development of our country. This means we will be whistling in the wind if we allow pollution to continue. There is no point in pulling jobs in their thousands out of the air if we have destroyed the environment. We are in a extraordinary position in that regard.

Recently I met a member of the Europen Parliament from the Dutch Labour Party in Holland and the first question he asked me was what had happened to An Foras Forbartha. He did not pronounce it like that; he had his own pronunciation. He was asking if we were really serious about the environment when we abolished the major body which looked after the quality of our environment. There is no point glossing over the incredible damage that has been done to our potential for retaining that kind of ecological base and that set of possibilities for the fine development we might have looked forward to in years ahead.

An Foras Forbartha produced one report after another about the impact of waste, the need for sensitive monitoring of the environment, the establishment of standards, their experts visiting other bodies involved in similar work so on. An Foras were an independent statutory authority. I am a member of one local authority now but from 1974 until the eighties I was a member of two local authorities. I remember clearly the independence of that body when they criticised local authorities as being involved in pollution. The list of polluters in some of their surveys showed that after agriculture and certain kinds of heavy industry local authorities were major perpetrators of pollution. I have seen a terrible erosion of our commitment in this regard.

I want to be even-handed in my criticism. I believe it was absolutely disastrous to give local authorities the single and sole responsibility for monitoring pollution in 1985. That was followed by the abolition of An Foras Forbartha and still the Government say they are expecting to create an enormous number of jobs in tourism. The Government followed that by cutting the Estimate for the Department, and that was followed by an announcement of an increase in office machinery and other office supplies of 218 per cent, admittedly only from £45,000 to £143,000. To cut back on the two areas directed at environmental protection within fisheries — the Vote for inland fisheries development and the Vote for Salmon Research Trust — makes an extraordinary mishmash and shows an absence of sense. I am not blaming the Minister in particular for this. I am simply saying it is an unfortunate flow in Government approaches that legislation is coming before us without having a coherent place in planning. If they say they are going to plan to develop the tourist industry and they identify a strong environmental capacity to create those jobs, they must then look at the institutional infrastructure that makes that possible, and at the estimates and expenditure of money required to fund that kind of activity.

The previous speakers, particularly Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Doyle, referred to the public and social attitudes that prevail at present. Our attitude is totally supportive of Deputy Doyle who said that we are responsible for the environment of future generations. Would that that were widely accepted. I am an optimist in one regard; the present number of young children going through the school system are far more sensitive and aware of ecological responsibility than their parents and the people who went before them. As somebody who was reared in rural Ireland and now lives in a city, I have been a little more than appalled at the highly privatised view that people have of their world. It is always someone else who is polluting, never you or your neighbour. There is very little concept of the social irresponsibility involved in acts of pollution. One incident I will mention illustrates this dramatically to me. About 12 or 13 years ago I spent a holiday near Lough Sheelin and I watched the lake coming back from a stagnant pool caused by the people who had dumped pig slurry into it for years and years. It recovered but last year people living on the edge of the lake told us that it is now dead again. Many people involved in that pollution would call themselves Republicans, Nationalists and all sorts of other "isms". They are behaving, not only in an irresponsible way but in a traitorous way towards future generations and to people in a county who rely on an inland fisheries base for tourism, employment in the future and for the possibilities for living there for so many families.

I agree that there should be an integrated approach towards this problem. In this regard, as someone who supported the establishment of Roinn na Mara, I was always afraid that conceptions would arise in the new Department that people would think that from the title, the Department of the Marine, somehow or other inland fisheries had got lost. That is not so, it is possible and appropriate — and I know the Minister holds this view — that there is no need for any less concern about inland fisheries under a new, integrated Department. The case for an integrated Department in our aspects of fisheries was an overwhelming one to reduce the bureaucratic structures and obstacles which stood in the way of those who were interested in fisheries.

However, the issues that arise in terms of trying to make progress cause one almost to despair that voluntary appeals to people to protect the environment do not work any more. The sanctions and penalties imposed for violations of the environment are totally insufficient. I suggested that there was need for an integrated approach but nobody can talk about salmon without thinking in terms of the whole contribution towards the lessening of salmon stocks by the different component parts, such as trawlermen, inshore fishermen and people who use fixed nets and so on. If we want an example of double thinking and evasion why are there outlets and agents for monofilament nets when we know that they are a major threat to different species? We cannot have it both ways. Every single person who is involved in causing havoc to fish stocks will always say that they needed the catch to save them from destitution or starvation. I am sure that is true in some cases but I am certain that the social and public attitudes needed in relation to the support of conservation need to be strengthened by a full panoply of sections and penalties which must be imposed if the generation following us will not have a missing species.

There are countries where a species has completely disappeared and if one looks at the cost of restoring such a species to a particular place and the enormous effect that has, one can see that no measures should be spared in trying to make sure that we do not suffer the same fate. As previous speakers said, the Minister needs to satisfy Deputies in relation to the question of funding. The Minister said that trout and coarse fish anglers who benefit from substantial State expenditure on the development and protection of our trout and coarse fish fisheries should contribute towards the cost of such development and protection. The public have a reasonable expectation of fishing free for trout and coarse fish, the area that traditionally has been the popular, non-elitist one in fishing. Indeed, the mind boggles as to whether it is the purpose of the people who would implement these new provisions to chase young men and women to ask them if they are 18 or 19 years of age and — to use an unfortunate phrase — seize the rods from them, confiscate them and then get involved in the maze of law which would be necessary. Remember, if we had adequately funded fisheries protection, development and monitoring from public funds, as we have in terms of stocks that have now come to this point, we should have been able to avoid charges. The question arises — I am asking it rhetorically — does the concept of charges not limit access to something that was generally provided? It is a reasonable question. In an ideal world, in which people had a strong commitment, one would like to think that those who had enjoyed fishing and who can afford to pay for it would have voluntarily come forward, registered and paid money to create funds and trusts which would have enabled all sorts of conservation and so forth to take place. However, that has not happened so do we now have to collect it from them if they are not willing to give it? In doing so, will we exclude some categories of people?

The Minister was anxious to assure the House that those over 66 years of age and under 18 years will not be excluded but I think of others whom I should not like to see prevented from fishing. In Galway city, which escaped the early days of the recession but which is now feeling it in terms of the registered unemployed, there is a tradition of coarse fishing among the unemployed. I would not like to see an unemployed or low income person excluded simply by the charge. Fishing, as a basic activity, is passed on from one member of a family to another and there is a strong and convincing case to be made for a family licence which would perhaps be administratively difficult but in terms of justice would recommend itself.

I was interested to hear the report from around the country by Deputy Doyle about the attitude towards the question of licence charges. She mentioned the strength of feeling among the people who believe in free fishing. That is not unconnected with a further correct sense of rage that has often existed in this country by people who are excluded from fisheries in estates which were acquired under the most dubious circumstances. In terms of the waterways which belong to the people of Ireland, when we hauled down one flag and put up another and changed the colour and paint of the pillar boxes we left an awful lot of private proprietorial landlords' rights intact on a most suspect basis. I am not arguing that they should be despoiled or that people should blackguard these resources, I am simply saying that they should be part of the managed resource of inland fisheries available to the public. It is high time that we moved in that regard.

I do not want to criticise those involved in fishing for their lack of commitment to conservation. The best arguments I have heard for conservation have come from those involved in sea fishing and inland fisheries. The people who have inherited the capacity to make a living, perhaps from several generations, are precisely those who know who is abusing the system. It is they who will ask you, as a legislator, to do something before the whole lot is gone and we come to a point of no return.

We had hoped for the development of the tourist industry. Does it ever strike anyone as strange that there seems to be an endless market available for illegally caught salmon? If these fish were rotting because of the lack of a sales outlet I doubt that so many people would be getting involved in such extraordinary adventures to break the law. It is an activity that is rewarded by many people who are only too willing to purchase these fish without asking questions. Those people are often involved in the tourist industry and they are participating in the destruction of their own industry as certain as I am standing here.

The Minister has been asked what this money is for. He assured the House that it will be spent on protection and conservation. He can develop that but there is another question which is really the one people were preparing for when this short Bill came in. That question relates to who will spend the money. I have been intrigued by the extraordinary new creation, An Bord Iascaigh Intíre.

Obviously we are going to hear more about it. There is another shadow hanging over this legislation in relation to the significance of the sum of money involved. If £550,000 is the projected figure, one has to ask what administrative cost is involved is seeking to yield this money. If it is a net yield one has also to ask if it would have been easier to include that money in relation to making general provisions. That would have been my approach.

The Minister has said that he is going to reorganise the regional fisheries boards and the Central Fisheries Board. That argument should have been thrashed out in advance of this legislation. Basic questions have to be asked; is centralisation necessarily good; and, to take the most petty question, do the savings involved make it convincing? Set against that are the costings of the regional fisheries boards. The central and regional boards we have at present are not spending an enormous amount of money. If one said that they were spending a lot of money and that the projected figure for pay and non-pay in 1987 was £5.7 million, another argument immediately arises. There has been a reduction from 1982 to 1987 in the figure for the non-pay component which has sunk from 61 per cent to 19 per cent. Is it because enough non-pay provision has not been made that we are not getting the efficacy the people who work in the boards want to deliver in the interests of fisheries? What do the people who work in the service want? I would be guided by what they say.

In making the case for regionalism versus centralism the fact is that whatever their resources the regionalised fisheries boards have been very good and courageous at calling our attention to major pollution events. They have alerted us very often, even when the local authorities have failed to do so. I want to lay my cards completely on the table in this regard. I am not in favour of local authorities being the monitoring institution of pollution. There is too much of a collision of responsibility. I want to give an example of this. If the highly centralised system of looking after fisheries was the responsibility of the Minister at Roinn na Mara and the local authorities were supposed to report major incidents of pollution one would be talking about two centralised bodies and two Ministers exchanging views. There would be no incentive for one to draw the uncomfortable facts that would embarrass the other. I am sure the regional boards will have made the argument to the Minister that they at least have highlighted the problems of pollution and they have a fairly decent record of prosecutions, often against hostile social and public attitudes. They will have probably pointed out as well that it is their work that has made possible the increased attention given to the dangers of the salmon stock and molluscs. They have pointed out also the importance of democratic local involvement.

I was impressed by the Central Fisheries Board's activities in relation to films. I would like to see that work continued. The two films they made drew a great deal of very favourable comment. They were shown abroad and if they were linked to an educational programme in second level schools they could lead to the very natural introduction of people into a healthy activity. I would like to refer to licence charges and fees. We are trying to encourage people, through the national lottery, to become involved in sport and, on the other hand, we are charging people because they have become involved in angling. There seems to be a logical contradiction involved there.

I have made these points to try to ensure that what emerges is something that will be responsible, that will draw the activities of local communities, will help turn around attitudes and give us an attitude towards the environment which will enable the maximum involvement. My criticisms of the Bill were expressed as very serious worries that we would exclude anybody on grounds of low income or that they are unemployed from participating in what has been a traditional free activity in Ireland.

Mr. Begley

I wonder where the Minister got the figure of 153,000 coarse and trout anglers. Was that a figure that was plucked from the sky? I doubt if there are that many anglers in this country. I would like to know on what basis the Minister put that figure together. I would like to ask the Minister who are the faceless men behind the Bill. Is it the Minister for Finance? Has he told the Department of the Marine that he has no more money for them, that they must get it somewhere else and get it fast? If this Bill is passed, trout fishing could become an elitist exercise for some people. If there is a £10 charge imposed this year there is nothing to stop the Minister introducing amending legislation to push the charge up to £20, £30, £40 and eventually £50. I am giving a grassroot view tonight for free fishing.

One would have thought that the Minister for the Marine who has a rural background would be more abreast of the situation. I wonder what vested interest outside the Department of the Marine has got to him. This legislation has been introduced in a hurry. It seems it is being stampeded through the House. There was an inspired leak in the newspapers last week saying that this legislation was to be introduced and that trout fishermen would have to pay from now on. Second Stage of the Bill is to be completed tonight and the remaining Stages are to be completed some time tomorrow afternoon.

I wonder is the Minister aware that there are over 250,000 people unemployed in this country. He should give a concession to those people because they deserve it. Is the Minister trying, by a back door method, to prohibit these people, as Deputy Michael D. Higgins has said, from the only recreation they have? Will we ever again see a father and his children fishing on the banks of the canal trying to catch a few "pinkeens" or will he be afraid to go fishing in a small river near his back door after a couple of days' rain? Is the Minister going back to the Victorian times when it was a crime to catch a trout or a salmon and the local landlord would probably have you deported or you would serve a few days in jail for illegal fishing? The Minister should consider that aspect very closely.

One would have thought the Minister and the Government would encourage young people to take up fishing as a recreation. It is the only recreation for many of the unemployed and, God knows, it keeps some of them sane. Surely the Minister must be aware of people in his own constituency who leave in the morning with a flask of soup and two sandwiches and start out for a day's fishing. That is the only thing that is keeping those people sane. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider on Committee Stage giving a concession to the long term unemployed because many of them do not have the £10 which the Minister is proposing in this Bill.

Everybody knows the regional fisheries boards are experiencing difficulties. It is about time some of them were done away with and I certainly would not shed any tears. They are aloof bodies who speak from lofty heights. Some fishermen never even heard of them. The only time people have contact with them is once a year when they apply for a drift net licence. Their officers are as scarce as snow in Manhattan. The boards are non-existent and their profile is non-existent. The Minister would be right to give them the chop and to put some other body in their place which would be more active and more vibrant and which the people would respect.

I cannot agree with what Deputy O'Malley has said in regard to drift nets. I am sorry he is not in the House now. He spoke about the Kerry fishermen who, he said, fish illegally off the mouth of the Shannon. If he had his way he would instruct the Corvette to shoot to kill or to sink them; in his eyes they are only Kerrymen. That is the kind of emotive language that Deputy O'Malley used tonight. The man must be on cloud nine. He should know there are many legal drift net fishermen in this country. He mentioned one particular boat but he did not dare mention other trawlers because the Progressive Democrats have a vested interest in some of them. What Deputy O'Malley has said, that for the sake of a salmon a boat should be sunk and all lives go down with it, is very emotive and he should be ashamed of himself.

I wonder in what circles does Deputy O'Malley travel. Does he associate with members of a club who meet at 6 p.m. after a round of golf? Those people do not think of the poor fishermen who have to get up at 4 a.m., who do not arrive home until 8 p.m. and barely make enough money to pay for the diesel oil for the day. They are legal drift net fishermen. I have no respect for cowboy fishermen. If Deputy O'Malley or the Central Fisheries Board know the names of the trawlers that are fishing illegally there is nothing to stop them from notifying the Garda so that they could get the names of the crew when they land and prosecute them if they deserve prosecution, particularly if they brandish firearms. Deputy O'Malley must be on cloud nine and I have sympathy for him. The sooner he takes a dose of cop-on tablets the better.

There is a certain amount of illegal coarse fishing in this country at present and the penalties should be dramatically increased. Recent newspaper reports indicated that this is a very serious problem. I congratulate the Minister on bringing in the legislation if it will put an end to that illegal fishing. Coarse fishing is a very important tourist attraction and something should be done about the matter.

When the Minister framed this Bill I wonder did he contact Bord Fáilte. They have issued brochures all over the world stating quite clearly that there is free fishing in this country. For example, a Dutchman visiting Ireland does not realise it is illegal to fish until a bailiff taps him on the shoulder and asks him for his licence, in spite of the fact that the Bord Fáilte brochure states there is free fishing in this country. There is a lack of communication somewhere. There is no way the Minister can have this legislation in law for 1988. Some visitors will have been misled that there is free fishing available. The Minister should consider that aspect of the matter very closely.

I suggest to the Minister not to make trout fishing a yuppie exercise because it appears that could very well by the case. I met some angling clubs this afternoon and each one told me that at least onethird of their members are unemployed. I appeal to the Minister, if he must introduce a charge for fishing to make it a nominal charge. I know that when a charge is in existence there will be more appreciation for the opportunity to fish but £10 is too much to charge the long term unemployed. The most they should be charged is £2 or £3. It will be possible to get £3 from these prople but there is no hope of getting £10. I appeal to the Minister to look again at that aspect and reduce the charge to £3.

In the new fishery boards to be set up by the Minister there should be fishermen's representatives. Even on the old boards the members were elected by a kind of caucus group, if the truth were known.

Mr. Donnellan

Have the regional boards been abolished?

Mr. Begley

They have been laid out. The final rites are being said. The Minister should have a better method of selecting these boards——

Mr. Donnellan

A non-political one.

Mr. Begley

None of us is purer than the next. There will be political input in every board——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Begley

In view of the heckler behind me and because other speakers wish to speak, at this time, I think I should give the floor to somebody else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would remind the House that there are only 15 minutes remaining.

Mr. Pattison

The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a licensing system for trout and coarse fishing. This would be welcome in itself but unfortunately, we cannot get away from the fact that the main purpose of the Bill is to raise additional funds. It is, in other words, a new form of taxation. This is most objectionable and most anglers would strongly object to this proposal particularly now when there are so many problems and the Minister cannot make moneys available to deal with those problems. Regrettably, the summer of 1987 will go down in the history books as the summer when inland waterways were under continuous attack from industrial and farm pollution. We have first-hand experience of what can happen when regulations are not imposed and when polluters are allowed to go unchecked. More significantly, we know what can happen when we withdraw resources and staff from the monitoring agencies. While I would normally welcome a measure to bring more finance into this important industry, I cannot welcome this method of raising finance.

Finance is urgently needed. The Minister has the responsibility if he succeeds in getting this legislation through, to ensure that stocks are replenished, that waters are kept clean and that there are appropriate staffing levels to undertake the responsibilities involved. Imposing licence fees, establishing registers and imposing fines of up to £500 will not of themselves guarantee either the finance or compliance with the law. This is just window dressing. Other Government and ministerial initiatives will have to accompany the legislation. The imposition of licences and of regulations has not prevented the widescale abuse in the fishing industry along our coasts. The last report produced by the central and regional fisheries boards referred to an impossible situation at sea and said that the boards were particularly concerned about illegal fishing at sea where over 80 per cent of the total catch is taken and where the authorities were least equipped to deal with such fishing. While the regional boards can control the estuaries and sheltered waters with their small patrol boats, only one of the seven regional boards possesses a seagoing patrol boat. The same report refers to the inadequacy of staff levels to monitor pollution in the regional boards and to cope with the growing numbers if fish kills from silage effluent. The concern expressed in the 1985 report was borne out last summer. It is regrettable that the Minister with responsibility for marine matters did not anticipate the problems.

What is more disturbing is the proposal to reduce the finance and responsibility of the regional fisheries boards. The abolition or restructuring of these boards will be a loss to the country in terms of the tourist industry. It is rather ironic that just a few weeks after the Government's loudly heralded Programme for National Recovery, part of which included the provision of thousands of new jobs in tourism, we should get a Bill of this kind which contradicts the content of that programme. This Bill undermines the efforts being made by Bord Fáilte and regional tourist boards to promote angling as a major attraction. This Bill will impede the creation of much needed employment in the tourist industry.

The proposal to place the monitoring of pollution in the hands of local authorities is not acceptable. We all know that the major cutbacks decided on by local authorities all seem to be in the area of refuse collection. This will lead to pollution in the streams which lead into our rivers. To expect that the local authorities will take a higher profile on water pollution is just not on. All the evidence points to the opposite being the case. If the Minister's proposals are to be properly implemented it will involve greater financing and staffing in the boards so as to minimise illegal fishing. Applications for licences will have to be examined to ensure that the abuse of waterways is not intended. The stocks and waterways will have to be monitored by highly trained committed individuals.

It is ironic that a number of the regional boards have people who are unable to do their jobs simply because they have not enough money to go out on patrol. It is also ironic that if an offender is brought to the notice of some regional boards, the boards have not the money to take legal action. It is crazy that the boards are so bereft of funding that they cannot even in cases of blatant law breaking, take legal action.

Ireland has been recognised internationally since the last century as a centre for trout angling. We have the finest brown trout in Europe and our fishing waters stand apart for quality and beauty. The same could be said for our large and smaller lakes. The Trout Anglers Federation have been doing considerable work for the past 30 years to ensure a proper management programme for the waterways, and to guarantee stocks. In view of the increased charges which go from 300 per cent to 500 per cent, the Minister has a renewed responsibility to all these organisations and to the various clubs concerned with fishing in our lakes and rivers. There will be a greater onus on the Minister to ensure that the waters are clean, that stocks are plentiful and that the issue of licences proves to be a progressive rather than a regressive measure. If the provisions of this Bill are to meet with any success, the Minister will have to show that he is prepared to make much greater financial resources available to the regional boards to enable them to carry out their basic duties.

Mr. Boylan

It is unfortunate that this Bill is being rushed through the House. It is a very important Bill which is concerned with a major industry, namely, fishing and tourism. Coming from a county which can boast 365 lakes, one for every day of the year, I have a particular interest in contributing to this debate. I have mixed feelings about this Bill. I do not think it can be implemented because there are not enough people on the ground to implement the existing legislation.

Some months ago I tabled a question to the Minister for the Marine regarding abuses by tourists taking large stocks of fish out of our lakes and rivers. Is the Minister aware that they are blackmailing guesthouses into stockpiling these fish for them in deep freezers? Is he aware that if they arrive at a guesthouse where this facility is not available they will move on to another guesthouse which is in a position to offer it? This practice can be stamped out quite simply. It is a matter of checking the equipment, cars and caravans of these people when they are leaving the country. Large stockpiles of pike and eel will be discovered which are very valuable on the Continent. Our stocks are being depleted because of this abuse. These people are more than welcome to come here but it must be remembered that fishing is a sport and a recreation. It is not a commercial enterprise in which people can employ ten or 20 rods. I have often seen fishermen going to our lakes and rivers with ten rods and numerous set lines. No effort is being made to stop this practice.

The people who will be penalised by this legislation are those who have enjoyed the relaxation of an afternoon's fishing, something which was taken for granted for generations. This recreation was freely available to people who had time on their hands and it is especially important now when so many people are unemployed.

Farmers who have rivers, streams and lakes adjacent to their lands have fished these waters for generations and they should feel free to do so. They also allowed others to come across their lands to fish these lakes and rivers. If when these licences are introduced a farmer cannot engage in some fishing after a hard day's work he will close the gate against other people coming in to fish. He will have every right to do so because this was a facility which he allowed without question. There must be some recognition of the fact that farmers made this facility available.

Deputy Higgins referred to Lough Sheelin, one of the finest lakes in the country or in Europe. He mentioned a lot of "isms" with regard to the farmers who live around that lake. Nobody is more concerned than those farmers about the problem of Lough Sheelin and nobody has made a greater effort to clean up the problem which evolved there due to the expansion of the pig industry. Deputy Higgins is totally misinformed and he is welcome to visit the area and examine the farmyards to see for himself what those people have done. If there is a problem there now, it is not due to the farmers. It is more widespread. Unless grants are made available people cannot rectify the problems of farm pollution. They expanded and developed over the years in line with guidelines laid down by the Department of Agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now fishing in ministerial waters.

Mr. Andrews

As a founder member of the Lough Mask Anglers' Association I should like to express my concern at the proposed legislation. Like some other speakers, I have some mixed feelings about it. I would regard myself as a dedicated trout angler. I am not a particularly successful one but I like the pleasure of the environment and the ambience of the company. Fishermen are a good and genuine breed of people—I am talking about the native species. They have asked me to express their concern, particularly the members of the Lough Mask Anglers' Association.

Deputy Boylan mentioned Lough Sheelin, a lake I used to fish many years ago. It is, as he says, a wonderful lake. The problem is that the lake was almost killed, but I hope it is rising from the dead. Slurry effluent from pig farming caused much damage to the lake. As Deputy Boylan said, the farmers did not get enough support to gather up the slurry and it was allowed to get into various rivulets and rivers feeding Lough Sheelin. That was where the damage occurred. I hope it is a fact that this precious lake is now regenerating itself.

Fishing is not just a matter of bringing along a rod and dipping it into a lake. It must be considered in terms of the economic advantages it brings to these areas. There are many beautiful guesthouses in the area of Lough Mask from which people make a living during the fishing season which runs from 15 March to the end of September. It is a very important economic factor for the local people.

We are speaking here about proposed increases for fishing licences. I have no objection to the imposition of these charges if, at the end of the day, the Minister will assure the House that some of these moneys will be utilised in a way that will ensure our lakes are pollution-free not alone for this but for future generations. That is what we should be talking about. Perhaps the Minister, when replying, would outline in greater detail what these moneys will be used for. We are just coming to the end of the European year of the Environment. I understand the object of the celebration of that year was that we would ensure we had pure air, pollution-free rivers and lakes. Instead what did we do this year? We polluted our rivers and lakes. There were so many incidents of pollution during the summer that one wonders if they constitute our tribute to the European year of the Environment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I might interrupt the Deputy to inform him that there are only ten minutes remaining for the Minister.

Mr. Andrews

I did not realise I was on ministerial time. I merely want to place my concern on the record and to request the Minister to clarify the points I and other speakers have raised. We should remember that we have tremendous rivers and lakes. For goodness sake let us protect them and, if the provisions of this Bill so ensure, then I am happy.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Daly)

I might express my appreciation of the constructive, worthwhile and generally supportive comments which have been made this evening in relation to this Bill. Anybody listening to such comments will appreciate, as I do, that this is a complex area, with very many aspects and on which people have widely differing views and opinions.

Let me first reassure the House that the moneys which will be collected by way of revenue from the charges and licences we are introducing will be paid directly to the fisheries authorities in the different regions to be used solely for the purpose of protection, conservation and development of our inland fisheries.

Mrs. Doyle

Over and above the normal Exchequer funding of those authorities?

Mr. Daly

This is a new measure, the revenue from which will be used solely for the protection, development and conservation of our inland fisheries. I want to mention development because, as everybody here knows — and this has emerged clearly from the contributions made — regardless of how we may feel about the existing structures, the Central Fisheries Board, the regional fisheries boards, the inland fisheries trusts we had before, the old boards of conservators — whatever administrative arrangements have obtained over the last 50 or 60 years have not operated satisfactorily. Therefore, is it any wonder that we have had some of the comments we have heard this evening? I find it extremely difficult to defend a system of administration which leaves our inland fisheries in their present horrible state. If there is any one reason we need to examine this and take urgent action to deal with it, it is the problem of pollution. Do not let anybody contend that this is something which occurred last summer only. Pollution has been a problem for over 30 years. Other Members have more eloquently advanced reasons that some of these things have been allowed to happen. We must try to create an awareness of our environment. If we cannot do so here, where else? We have, in our inland fisheries, a huge natural resource capable of exploitation and development if properly managed and organised which could transform our whole economy. It poses a challenge for us here, to examine the whole system to ascertain how it can be operated effectively and successfully.

For whatever length I remain in office it will be my intention to work with the many people interested and concerned in this area to put in place a system which will work successfully, doing what we need to do, above all, bearing in mind that this represents a community resource. Regardless of how budgets may be framed in ensuing years we must ensure more community involvement and investment in the development of this resource. I believe the necessary goodwill and money is there but people have not been prepared to invest under the present arrangements.

I could have come to the House much earlier with proposals for the reconstruction of our inland fisheries administration had I not taken into account the views of the various interests involved countrywide. The delay has been occasioned by the fact that I have taken time to discuss the arrangements with the existing Central Fisheries Board — which had been abolished by a decision of the previous Government without any provision having been made for the continuance of the work in which they had engaged or dealing with the activities of personnel involved. I examined the whole area ascertaining what new arrangements were necessary to ensure the success of our inland fisheries all of us would like to see. Of course there are differing views and opinions about that. Indeed a debate like this serves a useful purpose in that it indicates how Members of the Oireachtas would view the administrative arrangements being put in place in regard to our inland fisheries. The fact that I wanted to consult all of the interested groups has meant that I have not until now put proposals before the House for discussion. Any such proposals will involve major legislative changes. Members will see, on examining the Bill, the number of amendments of existing legislation, which obtained even before the inception of the State. It is an extremely involved and complicated area. Any new structural proposals calling for decision will be debated here, when Members will be afforded an opportunity to express their views.

If we approach this Bill from the purely negative viewpoint, that its provisions will not work, are not capable of being administered, then we are going down the wrong road. I believe that the provisions of this Bill are capable of being implemented successfully but, in order to ensure their implementation, we need a measure of agreement on the part of local bodies and organisations. Even though there may be differences of opinion expressed in different areas I am aware that there is an overwhelming volume of support, from within the regional fisheries boards, the existing Central Fisheries Board, on the part of some angling organisations in addition to many important and very vocal members of those organisations. There is an overwhelming volume of support in favour of the introduction of a system of charges for services in this area which will lead to the overall development and benefit of the industry as a whole.

Mr. Sheehan

Will the Minister police the rivers? What is he going to do about that? Nothing has been done for the past 12 months.

Mr. Daly

The question of protection has been the subject of debate on numerous occasions. It is an area in which current legislation is inadequate. We have established a ministerial subcommittee. They have already made certain recommendations which have been referred to already this evening. Resulting from discussions, we have identified a number of key areas warranting attention. In addition I believe there is a necessity for substantial changes in legislation along the lines I have indicated already. These will be proceeded with as speedily as possible. When such legislation is introduced Members will have an opportunity of expressing their views.

I must insist on one principle, that is in relation to the whole area of conservation. I support fully what Deputy Michael Higgins said this evening. This is not the first occasion on which I have spoken of this. In the whole area of fisheries conservation we have to change the attitude we have had in the past number of years, particularly in relation to our very valuable salmon fisheries. If we allow the indiscriminate illegal activities that have been taking place in the salmon fishing industry to continue, especially in the offshore areas, then there will not be a salmon fishing industry in the future. One of the areas of priority for any new fisheries authority, be it national or local, will be to tackle the indiscriminate illegal activity in the salmon fishing area which is decimating our salmon stocks, putting the future of our salmon fisheries in jeopardy and threatening its whole viability. We cannot allow that to happen. There must be law and order in what is a key area: otherwise, the salmon fisheries industry as we know it will be eliminated.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Daly

Before we conclude let me say that I will endeavour, on Committee Stage, to deal with some of the points that have been raised here because some are very important issues on which Deputies would like to hear a view from the Department.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 10.

Tá

• Abbott, Henry.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Ray.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Mooney, Mary.
• Morlev, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Swift, Brian.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Bell, Michael.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Bell.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage of the Bill?

Mr. Daly

Tomorrow.

An Ceann Comhairle

By agreement with the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 17 December 1987.