Deputy Gerry Reynolds was in possession and moved the Adjournment of the debate. However, he is not present. Is anybody offering from the other side? As nobody is offering I call on Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Where is Deputy Taylor-Quinn?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an Bille seo os ár gcomhair mar is comhartha oifigiúil é go bhfuil deireadh leis an chogadh a bhí ar siúl idir na hiascairí agus an iar-Aire. Dhein an cogadh an-dochar do mhuintir na tíre agus do chuairteoirí a raibh sé ar intinn acu dul timpeall na tíre ag iascaireacht. Cé nach bhfuil an Bille seo mar ba chóir dó a bheith, fáiltím roimhe. Léirigh na daoine a labhair romham go bhfuil lochtanna ar an mBille agus tá súil agam go bhfuil an tAire ag éisteacht lena bhfuil dá rá agus go ndéanfaidh sé na hathruithe atá riachtanach, mar post factum nullum consilium, which, for the hoi polloi like myself who have forgotten their Latin, means “after the deed is done consultation is useless”. The Latin phrase is for the Minister's benefit so that he will not feel like Oisín i ndiaidh na Féinne and as a boost to St. Flannan's College where I spent five years learning Latin and Greek, although I think I learned it backwards. Since tempus fugit I will have to go on quam celerrime.
It is good to see an end to the strife caused during the rod licence saga. It also benefits the Government and the Minister for the Marine. Above all, it is good for the fishermen, the boatmen and the innkeepers. The Minister will note how I am influenced by the Minister's translation yesterday as I did not say "hotelier", or "guesthouse keeper".
This Bill has been criticised by previous speakers. Different sections have been questioned and I admit I find it difficult to understand why a simple pastime like fishing needs so many regulations. Some of my colleagues have pointed out the overpowering role of the Minister while working in a co-operative set up. Tuigim gur ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine. Dúirt an tAire é sin ach tá scáth an-mhór aige féin agus ní toisc go bhfuil sé troigh airde nó mar sin aige. Tá a lán cumhachta aige de réir dealraimh.
I accept that the Minister must control legislation, but why do we have to use a sledge when a small hammer would do the job? There will be no enjoyment any more for those who want to participate in what is left of the old practices. I am not convinced that all the red tape, regulations, rules and ruaille buaille will produce a better result than the voluntary system achieved in the past.
I want to pay tribute to the many fishing clubs throughout the country who, down the years, without help and often unappreciated by those who should know better, promoted the opportunity for so many to enjoy so much at so little expense. The members of these fishing clubs kept the river banks trimmed, detected and prevented pollution long before other bodies even became aware of it and trained the youngsters to fish and to grow up with a sense of responsibility. They did it all for the sake of the little village. Indeed, I thought of Yeats and his poem The Fisherman in which he talked about the ideal man. I quote:
Maybe a twelvemonth since
Suddenly I began
In scorn of this audience
Imagining a man
And his sun-freckled face
And grey Connemara cloth
Climbing up to a place
Where stone is dark under froth
And the downturn of his wrist
When the flies drop in the stream
A man who does not exist
A man who is but a dream
Maybe Yeats had a different explanation but it would be a pity if, over the years, we lost the art of fishing and the contentment derived from it — even the contentment I get from watching fishermen on the river banks — because there was so much red tape and so many regulations that a simple pastime like fishing becomes an ordeal. However, tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis which, for those who have forgotten their Latin, means “times are changed and we change with them”. We must look to the future with hope.
I have a great liking and yearning for Goldsmith's poetry, especially The Deserted Village, which I suppose sounds a bit despondent in ways because he experienced 250 years ago what we are now experiencing, the flight from the land in many areas. He penned very apt lines about the depopulation of the countryside and he said “a bold peasantry, their country's pride, when once the stride can never be supplied”. I hope he will not turn in his grave or lose his wings in Heaven if I add “but a clean river, its country's pride, once polluted can never be supplied”. We must ensure, to the best of our ability, that the facilities we have been granted will not be diminished or indeed be destroyed.
I hope the future will bring lots of tourists and, since tourism is a great money-spinner, it is important to attract them. In fishing we have something to offer regardless of lack of sunshine — or maybe because of it, depending on the kind of fishing. In Carlow we have had many regular fishing visitors from Europe and they are always amazed at the quantity and quality of the fish they catch in our rivers. While maybe we regard some of our rivers as polluted, if you come from a region of the Rhine this country is paradise.
Our fishing clubs do a great deal to encourage those visitors by holding competitions to lure them here and we should ensure that the members of these fishing clubs — will they now be called co-operatives? — will be given every possible help and co-operation in running their activities.
Last evening I intended talking about a list of sections but, since previous speakers outlined deficiences in the Bill, it would be futile to repeat them because we will be dealing with them on Committee Stage. I had intended to say a lot about section 15 but the Minister stole my thunder by saying it was a misprint. I was prepared to make a savage attack on the imposition of a £1,000 fine, but then I found it should have read "a fine of £100".
I welcome section 13 which allows the Minister to give grants; I hope it is not there as a fly to lure fishermen into accepting something which will not happen in practice. Is it real? For example, if there is a fish kill in a river, could the fishing clubs apply for help? My first introduction to the work which fishing clubs do was my realisation of their concern regarding fish kills, not because they cannot catch fish but because they see that life on the river must go on. As I said, that was my first introduction to the wonderful work which fishing clubs do when they want to restock. I hope section 13 will help them.
As the Minister knows I took his bait immediately yesterday, when he finished his speech with his Latin verse and gave him a verse translation. On mature reflection, however, I have decided to put a different finish to it and for the sake of posterity which never did anything for us, I will now put on the record my effort which is a translation:
"Ochón! ochón!" the fish cry out.
But, standing on the banks,
The fishermen with rods and hooks say "Tánaiste, much thanks!".
Innkeepers smile again with glee,
Supplying bait and fly.
"We'll all be ruined" they used to say
But now the fish say "Aye!".
In keeping with the finish of the classics in the Minister's speech, may I do likewise and advise him to tackle this problem, fortiter in re, suaviter in modo, that is, firmly in action, pleasantly in manner?
As a Deputy representing a constituency which is very involved in the rod licence saga I should say something about the nature and the desirability or otherwise of the legislation. Seldom has a measure led to such tortuous debate at home and abroad. Seldom has a measure so damaged the reputation of our tourist industry, and the general conception abroad that this country offers visitors tranquility as an attraction.
I happened to be in the Soviet Union as a member of an all-party delegation led by the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad last May, and sitting down to breakfast with a group of American tourists the morning after our arrival, a very prominent member of the US Legislature asked if the rod licence dispute had been settled yet. He had come to Connemara the previous year and had not been able to engage in what was for him a traditional visit to Ireland each year to enjoy the delights of Connemara and do what Deputy Browne said in his very apt contibution while quoting The Fisherman.
Seldom has anything engendered such hostility within a community which is by its nature a tranquil, peaceful, pensive community. The fisherman is somebody who enjoys the quiet contentment of dipping the rod and line in the local stream and lake.
Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the Minister to assuage the hostility and the bitterness raised at local level, there is in the west a considerable residual bitterness that will take a long time to go. The ultimate victim of all this was the unfortunate Deputy Daly who was then Minister for the Marine. Deputy Daly was the victim of collective Cabinet stubborness in dealing with all kinds of entreaties that they should do the sensible thing and repeal the legislation on the basis that it tramelled the traditional inheritance of the people of this country.
I compliment the Tánaiste for having brought this matter to a successful legislative conclusion, for having won the goodwill of the angling interests and for having diffused to some extent the bitterness and turmoil. I agree to some extent with the reservations expressed by our spokesperson on the Marine, Deputy Taylor-Quinn, and the spokespersons for the other Opposition parties, that this is not the ultimate redress for the people who have been aggrieved by the imposition of this legislation which was brought in by sleight-of-hand and that it does not ultimately lead to the long term development of the angling/tourism industry.
The Minister in his opening address gave considerable merit to the democratisation of the angling industry. We welcome democracy at all levels but his legislation is overstraining the democratic principle. If anything, it gives too much power to the local angling interests while vesting in them some of the most unpalatable and unsavoury conditions of this measure. I note that the Minister will decide the level of penalty and I note that the level of penalty is directly related to the level of the annual subscription, but the Minister has absolute discretion to decide on what level of increase will take place. I am apprehensive that the Minister in future years will use this vehicle as a revenue gathering facility in order to get to the central Exchequer or into the co-ops the finance required for extensive development. I welcome development and the finance for it, but the penalties should not be the measure bringing in the finance.
The Minister has also given the co-operatives the right to decide who will and who will not be prosecuted. It heaps on to the co-ops the rather dirty task of deciding who will and who will not be penalised for transgressions of this measure.
I welcome the development of the angling policy. The Minister in his speech acknowledged that apart from commendable independent efforts by angling clubs, there has not been a central policy in relation to the development of angling and there has not been a major emphasis on using angling as the bait to enhance our tourist industry. Angling is one of our basic and obvious areas of natural potential for development. There is not a community along the western seaboard or throughout rural Ireland that is not within striking distance of a considerable number of coarse water angling facilities, lakes, rivers and so on, apart from game fishing facilities.
In a startling revelation in reply to an innocent Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and to the Minister for Tourism last year I discovered the number of people who applied for and benefited from grants from the much vaunted angling tourism scheme introduced two years ago. I discovered that in 1989, a mere 26 grants were paid to people for agri-tourism facilities promotion. That was a very poor showing at a time when rural Ireland is crying out for the development of alternative enterprise and for some form of supplementary income to augment the drastic decline in farm incomes. Such complementary income is needed to help sustain family farms, because it is quite obvious that the viability threshold is growing all the time and that the whole fabric of rural communities is falling assunder.
I urge the Minister, as a member of a Cabinet who share collective responsibility and who will be trying to stimulate development and growth within the tourist industry, to promote local initiatives and local co-operatives, not alone from the point of view of angling but of the integration of local developments plans. In this regard I pay a special tribute to local communities in the west and to three in Mayo in particular — Ballina, Castlebar and Kiltimagh — who have put together comprehensive plans involving the integration of all the resources at local level in an effort to move away from the begging bowl mentality, to harness and develop the existing resources within the community and to unleash the tremendous potential and the development spirit that is latent in many communities, and which can be unleashed if given the proper stimuli at Government and sub-regional level.
I urge that the money now coming in in increased amounts through the Structural Funds but which is largely going into the Exchequer and is then siphoned off to various Government Departments, should find a more direct path back into the rural communities. A fundamental incentive in all of this is the angling industry. In this respect we have a tremendous resource that has remained largely untapped but which could be the central focal point of development of tourism, which would be at the centre of festivals, of community endeavour and of comprehensive tourist packages in places such as Kiltimagh, Castlebar, Ballina and indeed, Westport which has done much to develop its own tourist industry. I urge that in tandem with this we introduce a realistic usable scheme for the small individual farmhouse developer. In this regard we should endeavour not to put the terms of reference or the conditions way outside the scope of what would be feasible in terms of expenditure by local small farmers. Therefore, I ask that we revamp, re-examine, reappraise and redraft the present agri-tourism scheme because, unfortunately, it is much too grandiose, much too expensive and way outside the range of the vast majority of would-be beneficiaries and the people who need it most.
The Minister has heard the arguments in relation to the broad scope and spectre of the Bill. He has listened to individual spokespersons argue the deficiencies, as they have seen them, of the various sections. I think we are all ad idem, in relation to the arguments. We want to see put in place legislation that will stand the test of time, that will be successful in the development of the tourist industry and, particularly, the angling industry and, which will diffuse immediately — or within the foreseeable future — the residual bitterness which has arisen as a result of the 1987 Act.
Last, but not least, we hope the legislation will yield a rich harvest in terms of bringing foreign visitors to this country to enjoy the peace and tranquility, the atmosphere and the environment of which we are so proud.
I wonder how seriously the Government, and the Fianna Fáil party in particular, are taking this Bill since, so far as I know, there have been only two speakers on the Government side since this debate began. They have been the Minister and Deputy Briscoe who, I think, was sent in here yesterday afternoon to try to put colleagues of mine off their stroke. I would like to see what interest they have and I, therefore, request you to summon the House.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.
I call Deputy Alan Dukes.
A Deputy
He has no quorum.
I should like to thank the Chair, the position looks much better. It would be a shame to see the Minister wasting his sweetness on the desert air.
The Deputy's tactics in the previous Dáil did not get him very far.
The Deputy has not learnt much from the past.
I am bound to say that it is rather surprising none of the provisional wing of the Government are here, the Progressive Democrats. The Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, was here yesterday, apparently only to interrupt.
He has gone fishing.
He was the man who all the way through 1988 came out with a new instant solution every week to this problem to the obvious discomfort of the Minister of State, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, who obviously has now gone out to keep tabs on Minister Molloy and see what he is up to.
This Bill has been a long time coming. I have to say that it is a most unsatisfactory Bill. Indeed, if it were not such a gross play on words, I would say this Bill is nothing more than a cod. It does not deal with the issues which need to be dealt with in the way the Minister has tried to indicate to us. The Bill is grossly intrusive in that it will put the Minister's fingers into every single pie in our inland fisheries and will give him excessive powers of intrusion and interference in the business of angling clubs, fishermen and, indeed, the regional fisheries boards. No real explanation is given anywhere in the Bill as to why the Minister feels he has to do all this and why he feels he has to play such an intrusive and oppressive role in the development of our fisheries.
It might be worthwhile to remind the House of the broad outline of the arrangements agreed during the winter of 1988 by my colleague, Deputy Madeline Taylor-Quinn, with representatives of the angling clubs and angling federations in order to resolve the impasse which had emerged from the Act which was passed in 1987.
The key feature in the arrangements which were then talked about was that angling clubs were prepared to make a development contribution to help in the development of inland fisheries, to provide the funding which everyone agrees is required to maintain and improve stocks, to provide angling stands, to clean rivers and do all of the other things which would help to expand the contribution angling and inland fishing can make to our economy and increase the enjoyment our population and the tourists visiting our shores can derive from angling. The angling clubs were prepared to make that development contribution in respect of services rendered; where a service was not provided there would be no contribution from the clubs but where a service was provided the clubs would participate in paying for the cost of the facilities being provided. That was the central feature of those arrangements.
There was, in a real sense, a joint venture approach between the State and the angling clubs to the development of our fisheries. The Minister has tried to indicate that that is part of the intention of this Bill but I am bound to say that it is very difficult to discern it clearly because the whole thing seems to have got swallowed up in so much bureaucracy and red tape, as was pointed out by my colleague, Deputy Browne, a few minutes ago.
In spite of the fact that agreement on that general line of approach had emerged by the winter of 1988, it took the Minister two years to come forward with a Bill to address these issues. After those two years, when that mountain has laboured mightily, the Minister has brought forth the most bureaucratic, technocratic, oppressive and intrusive mouse of a Bill that has ever been brought before this House. Since the Minister is so given to Latin tags, this Bill certainly qualifies for the old description of a ridiculus mus.
The Bill seems to depend a lot on angling clubs but I cannot find a definition anywhere in the Bill of what a club is, not in the definition section or anywhere else. Yet the Minister in his speech yesterday outlined very briefly how he sees angling clubs. He said:
Angling clubs and other bodies will be enabled to become corporate members of co-ops. No one will be entitled to have more than one vote in any ballot or election conducted by a co-operative.
He continued, and this is the real meat of it:
The provisions for the integration of angling clubs into the structure and for recognising their role in and contribution to fisheries development is, for me, a most important element of the proposed new structure.
Having read the Bill, I did not see any provision in it which integrates angling clubs into the structures, what I see is a set of arrangements which amount virtually to a take-over of the functions of angling clubs by the fisheries boards. In section after section we see that the angling clubs are to become the creatures of the fisheries boards. That is the way the Bill is written.
I should like to know if the fisheries boards have been consulted about this, if they really want to have that kind of enveloping and suffocating embrace around the angling clubs and if they have given the Minister any indication that they approve in any way of the arrangements set out here. I doubt that they do because my experience has been — I am sure the Minister and other Members of the House will agree with me — that by and large the members of fisheries boards are sensible, down to earth people who do not want to get involved in the intimate details of what angling clubs do day-in and day-out, but want to carry out their separate and well defined statutory obligations to the best of their abilities. They do not want to have their hooks into angling clubs and co-operatives in the way the Minister has set out here.
There are a number of very unclear provisions in the Bill. For example, section 2 provides that this Bill shall come into operation on such day as the Minister by order appoints. Why is this provision left so vague? Why does the Minister not give us a date for bringing these arrangements into operation? Why has he not set a target? I suspect — the Minister has been silent on this — the reason for this is that having brought before us this ridiculus mus the Minister now finds that he had better consult with the fisheries boards and maybe the angling federations. The reason he has not given any date for the implementation of this Bill is that he has not got the slightest idea of how long it is going to take him to try to sell this dreadful fabric of a Bill to the people who are going to be lumbered and saddled with it, if it ever gets past this House. If my suspicions are correct, the Minister will have a tough time over Christmas and in the early part of the new year in getting any semblance of agreement from the federations, fisheries boards and angling clubs for these measures.
Section 4 deals with fisheries co-operatives. These are very strange creatures indeed. They are neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. We have here a provision that the Minister shall by order establish in each fisheries region one or more fisheries co-operative societies to raise and disburse for the public benefit funds for the development of trout or coarse fisheries, or both, in a specified area of that region. That gives rise to certain questions. Is it really possible to establish a co-operative by order? I doubt it. One cannot just order people to co-operate together. That has nothing to do with the spirit of co-operatives or the way co-operatives have been developed. The Minister stated yesterday:
The structure and framework proposed is grounded in the principles of the co-operative movement and of local participation and local democracy. It will allow anglers themselves, through a democratic procedure to make decisions on the best and most effective process for raising moneys.
That is a grand idea but it has nothing to do with what is provided in the Bill. The Minister went on to say:
The Bill provides for licences for trout and coarse fish angling to be replaced and for angling development co-operatives to be established in each of the fisheries regions. These co-operatives are to raise and disburse funds on fisheries development work of public benefit.
The Minister continued:
I wish to emphasise that the title "fisheries co-operative society" is meant to reflect the spirit under which the co-operatives are to be established rather than any legal definition.
As the former Deputy Paddy Power would say, if you had music for that you could sing it. This is from a Minister who says that the Minister shall by order establish co-operatives. The Minister went on:
Purchase of a share certificate or membership of a co-operative will not confer any proprietorial rights on anyone. I would hope, however, that the establishment of the co-operatives will introduce a spirit of co-operation, a form of "comhar na gcomharsan" to our rivers and lake sides.
We have heard of the "comhar na gcomharsan" before. It was the Minister's bolt hole during the winter of 1988 when he did not seem to have any prospect of reaching agreement with the federations. "Comhar na gcomharsan" was introduced to divert attention from the central difficulty. The Minister spoke yesterday about the traditions of co-operation, "comhar na gcomharsan", people getting together to do work of mutual benefit. The Bill provides that the Minister shall by order establish co-operatives. Whether people like it or not, they will co-operate together because the Minister is establishing a co-operative and he will tell them what their rules are, who their trustees are, how much money they may spend and how they may work with the fisheries boards. The Minister is trying to regulate every last detail of how individuals and angling clubs will co-operate. Who is to be in these co-operatives we do not know. Why should it be up to the Minister to set up the co-operative and specify the most minute details as to how they carry out their business? Who will scrutinise the orders which the Minister will make establishing these co-operatives? Is he asking for carte blanche to decide how many co-operatives he will set up, where they should be, who the members will be? Is the Minister asking this House to give him a free hand to do whatever he likes about organising our inland fisheries? If so, this House ought to reject it. The House has no reason for giving the Minister such extensive powers. We do not need that. Structures already exist which can be used in the spirit of good will as agreed in the winter of 1988 without this intrusive and oppressive legislation which the Minister is trying to impose.
I return to the provision that the Minister shall by order establish co-operative societies to raise and disburse for the public benefit funds for the development of trout or coarse fisheries, or both, in a specified area in the region. The Bill does not contain any information about how the Minister will specify the area. Will he divide the region into a number of areas? Will it depend on how many rivers, lakes or catchment areas are there? How will he decide what a region is? I assume it will be the regions covered by the regional fisheries boards but that could have been specified in the Bill. Clarity helps debate and helps in the implementation of the law. How is the Minister to decide what a specified area is? How will he decide how many co-operative societies there should be in a specified area? There is no indication. The Minister is looking for a completely free hand. It is conceivable that he could decide in a given fisheries board region to set up one monster co-operative and allow individuals to be members and angling clubs to be corporate members. He would allow the corporate members to designate a person to be a member. What will this achieve? This is a totally artificial construction where people are being told to co-operate because the Minister has by order established a co-operative.
The Minister might have a little more sense, subtlety or finesse and might decide to set up two, three or four co-operatives in a given region. Will he decide on the basis of catchment areas or lakes, or on a river by river basis? There is no particular reason why he should choose any one of those solutions rather than another. The Bill gives no guidelines to the Minister. We do not know what he will do and I suspect the Minister does not know, yet he is looking for unlimited powers to decide on the setting up of co-operatives, their membership and areas of influence.
Still under section 4, the Minister may by order revoke or amend an order made under this section. Those orders are not like other orders which are brought before this House for scrutiny and remain in force unless this House throws them out within 21 sitting days. On other occasions — and this is by far the better practice — orders are brought before the House and are not allowed come into effect unless or until a favourable view is given by the Houses of the Oireachtas, but that is not the case here.
This Bill will allow the Minister to make orders to establish co-operatives and will give him the power, by order, under subsection (3) to revoke or amend an order made under this section.
If the Minister finds that a co-operative society are not doing his bidding and have not succumbed to the embrace of the fisheries board, he can say to all those people he dragooned into the co-operative in the first place that he has changed his mind, he is going to abolish the board or he could change their rules or anything else he wishes. Even when these people join this co-operative they will never know the future nor will they be certain if they will be there the following year or even the following month because the Minister may, by order, revoke or amend an order made under this section.
There are occasions — and there are many examples in our law — when we allow Ministers, by order, to do certain things but we at least take the trouble to write into our legislation the basis on which a Minister can decide or may make orders, but there is nothing here which says that "the Minister may, by order, revoke or amend an order made under this section if the following conditions have not been met" or "if the following transgressions have taken place". There is simply a bald statement — the Minister can establish co-operatives, by order, and if he decides he has made a mistake or does not like what is there, he can revoke that order and abolish the co-operatives.
Subsection (4) reads:
A society established for the purposes set out in subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed to be established for charitable purposes only.
I wonder why that is there. I ask this because the House is entitled to have that information. According to the Minister's speech yesterday, the function of these co-operatives is to raise and disburse for the public benefit funds for the development of trout or coarse fisheries or both in a specified area in the region. Here we find that these societies "shall be deemed to be established for charitable purposes only". There may be some technical reason for writing the Bill in this way but I have to wonder is the raising and disbursing of funds for the development of trout or coarse fisheries for the public benefit now to be deemed a charitable activity. I do not think it is. I would hope, it is a useful economic activity and a useful environment friendly tourism promoting activity, but it is certainly not what I would regard as a charitable purpose. I would like the Minister to tell us why this provision is there. Why are these societies going to be deemed bodies set up for charitable purposes when we all thought they were going to be there to develop our inland fisheries?
The next subsection gives us our first indication of the heavy hand of the Minister because this provides that "the order establishing a society shall designate the persons who shall be trustees of the society on its establishment". Even though the Minister will dragoon all these people together, by order, to form a co-operative he will not trust them to run the business themselves — no, he will decide who the trustees will be.
In the following subsection we find that "the Minister may appoint persons to fill vacancies among the trustees so designated" this is where the chill goes up one's spine —"and may remove any such trustee from office". Here again, having dragooned all these people to form a co-operative, having told them that they are a co-operative and to co-operate with each other, the Minister will be able to say "I will appoint the trustees and if I do not like you, I will fire you as well". There is no provision in the Bill indicating why the Minister should be given that power, under what circumstances he may exercise it or what the hapless trustee would have to do to qualify for the Minister's attention and removal from office.
Is the Minister pretending that he needs to have those draconian powers to do the simple things we all want done for the development of our inland fisheries? There is no indication here of what kind of criteria the Minister should bear in mind when appointing trustees nor is there any indication of the behaviour he should expect from trustees while trustees and no indication of what deficiencies they would have to show or what defalcations they would have to commit to qualify for removal from office. This provision is totally draconian, excessive and oppressive and not one I would like to see enacted.
I know that the Minister is an upright and honourable man but his successors in office might not be, and I can see at least the possibility that the trustees of these co-operatives will be drawn from the ranks of staunch Fianna Fáil supporters among the angling clubs. Perhaps that is the criterion the Minister wants, but it is not desirable that that power should reside in the Minister. I do not think that is the kind of thing our angling clubs or even these misbegotten co-operatives, if they are ever set up, will want. What they will want are trustees who will make sure that the funds raised and disbursed by the co-operatives were properly raised and used for the benefit of inland fisheries. However, this section gives the Minister powers which will make the situation of any given trustee uncertain.
The interference continues in section 5 which provides that the Minister "may make rules for the regulation of societies" but then goes on to state — there is no may about this — that such rules "shall constitute the rules of each society from its establishment". Again, having dragooned all these people together, and forming a co-operative, and having designated the trustees, the Minister will be able to tell them how to do their job and he will be able to set the rules.
Subsection (2) of that section provides "that rules under this section shall, in relation to a society, provide in particular for" and goes on to a lengthy list specification of the rules. The interesting words are "that these rules shall provide in particular for". To the lawyer and parliamentary draftsman that means that while the rules will have to include all these things, they may also include other things as well.
I would like the Minister to tell us what other things he might like to prescribe in the rules because, let us not forget, "the Minister may make rules" but once he does "they shall constitute the rules of each society". I suppose everything listed in paragraphs (a) to (i) are what we should expect to see in the rules, but I would like to know if there is a hidden agenda admitted here by the use of the words "in particular". We all know that the use of those words means there is another wide field of action still open to the Minister and he can do a lot of other things if he wishes.
We then look at the various characteristics of the rules. It is clear that for the first year of their operation, until December 1991, all these societies will be entirely the creatures of the Minister. They will do his bidding, he will be the creator who breathes life into them, he will tell them how to go about their business, he will also tell them what trustees they may have and he will tell them exactly how they should carry out their business. He will also prescribe the membership and functions of a management committee as well as the appointment or election and terms and conditions of office of their members. Does this mean that a society cannot appoint their own trustees? The answer to that is "yes", they cannot appoint their own trustees until after the first ballot which, according to the Minister's indications, will not take place until December 1991 at the very earliest. By then the Minister will have had his stamp on every one of these societies, he will have his people in there and his rules in place. I would not expect they would have much stomach for changing that or even much possiblity of doing so after December 1991. Therefore, in a very real way these co-operative societies — misnamed — will be creatures of the Minister.
The rules will provide for membership and termination of ordinary and corporate membership of the society. This means that, not alone will the trustees not be secure in their jobs and function, but members may not be all that secure in their tenure of membership either. The rules will provide for the termination of membership. Let us not forget that those rules that provide for the termination of membership will be implemented by people the Minister himself will have put in place.
Section 5 (1) (f) reads:
(f) the establishment and management of a development fund for the receipt of payments to the society and the disbursement of moneys of the fund, including provision for payments to the appropriate regional board to promote the purposes of the society:
Of course, the development fund idea must be an integral part of whatever solution we reach to this impasse; we are all agreed on that. Here we have circumstances in which not only will the societies be raising and disbursing moneys, but the Exchequer will also be expending a sum of money, which I think the Minister has reckoned will be £250,000, on this whole enterprise. That disbursement of moneys is to include provision for payments to the appropriate regional board to promote the purposes of the society. Who decides these payments? How do the regional boards promote the purposes of the society? That is not explained. We would expect the societies and the regional boards to have a common interest in the development of fisheries, but the regional boards have their specific mandate under statute. That is their job, they have to carry that out. Therefore, they cannot really work together unless the societies are disbursing moneys nominally to promote the purposes of the society, but they must clearly be disbursing moneys in the same direction and for the same reasons as the regional boards. If we look somewhat further into section 5 (1) (g) and the provisions of that subsection, we find that confirmed because the rules will provide for the provision of guidelines for the society in relation to the disbursement of their funds, having regard, in particular, to the development programmes and plans of the appropriate regional board. To my mind that answers the question.
The societies are being set up to be the creatures of the regional boards. The promotion of the purposes of the societies resolves itself under this rule into the societies co-operating, going along with whatever the regional boards decide. In effect, this means we are setting up so-called co-operative societies which are not co-operative at all. They are supposed to be independent but they are not independent because their activities will be tailored to, fitted into, inextricably bound up with, the activities of the fisheries boards, because that is the way the rules are written. That may be all very fine. As I have said, the fisheries boards have their statutory function to perform; I admire them for it. By and large our fisheries boards have done a good job on limited resources. I wonder do the fisheries boards want, or is it appropriate for us to tie these so-called co-operative societies, their individual and coporate members, willy nilly, to what the regional fisheries boards are doing? I do not think that is a good idea. I do not think that this industry needs the kind of rampant but hidden corporatism we find in this Bill. I do not think that is a set of rules we would be happy to see imposed on people who are hapless members of these obligatory co-operatives. Section 5 (3) reads:
The Minister or a society, with the consent of the Minister, may revoke or amend the rules of the society.
A very curious provision. That means the Minister, pure and simple, can decide at any stage that he wants to revoke or amend the rules of a society. This means that, if this creature, working at his bidding, with trustees nominated by him, with rules laid down by him, looks like getting somewhat out of line or not performing as the Minister wants it to do, it can be brought to heel by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister, or the society volunteering to obtain the consent of the Minister in revoking or amending the rules of the society. To make assurance doubly sure, the Minister now has them all tidied up, he will put on the braces provided at section 5 (4) where it is said:
The Minister may appoint not more than two persons to be members of the management committee of a society in addition to its elected members.
Even with all of these people, acting at the bidding of the Minister, chosen by the Minister, with rules set out by the Minister, on sufference of the Minister, with unamended rules, if they still appear to be getting somewhat out of line, the Minister can charge in with his big battalions and appoint two people to the management committee of the society to ensure they are fettered, padlocked, suffocated and cannot do anything but what the Minister wants them to do. Is it necessary to do all that in order to extract from our angling community the kind of contribution to the development of their industry they want to see? I say to the Minister, for goodness sake, would he ever think again and really decide whether we need these elaborate, oppressive constructs to do the simple job needing to be done.
I could go on, and will, on Committee Stage if this Bill ever reaches that stage. In section 6 we see the first chink of light — a little chink — that is that in December 1991 the societies will be allowed to elect their own management boards and perhaps to elect their own trustees. Let us not forget they will have been working for a year under the firm guidance of the Minister, they will have been working to his rules, and will still be working to his rules thereafter; he will still be able to change the rules whenever he wants. This means their freedom will be in name only. They will still be creatures of the Minister and of the fisheries boards.
A few questions arise. Section 7 deals with ordinary membership of a co-operative society. It says who the first ordinary members shall be, including the trustees appointed by the Minister. Section 7 (2) reads:
Any such trustee shall cease to be a member on ceasing to be a trustee.
Perhaps after all they deserve to be treated like that; if the Minister appoints them, the Minister can discard them. But it is just conceivable that, among the trustees appointed by the Minister, all hand-picked by him, there might be people who would have an interest in remaining a member of the society. Does the provision of this subsection debar them from doing so? After all it says:
Any such trustee shall cease to be a member on ceasing to be a trustee.
Will such a member have the option of deciding to become, of his own volition sui motus a member of the society? I would hope he would, but the Bill does not say so.
I think Deputy Dukes was more or less indicating that he would fish out these details on Committee Stage.
Yes indeed, Sir, but I would like the Minister to know just what are the areas we wish to debate on Committee Stage. I am going over these with a very light brush at this stage. I am trying to find out first whether I appreciate the full awfulness of this Bill. Are there pitfalls in it that have yet to be discovered? Are there provisions in it we could actually welcome and support? I have not found them after a very careful examination, but maybe they are there. I raise the questions now so that when the Minister replies he will give us some indication that he intends to be less heavy-handed than the Bill allows him. It may be that he is not going to use the mailedfist I see behind this Bill and is going to trust people to co-operate and do their job without his dictating their every step and action.
I remind Deputy Dukes we are on Second Stage and that we usually reserve details for Committee Stage.
That is the custom and on Second Stage we look at the principles of the Bill. For instance, I have not gone into the interaction of (a) to (i) in section 5 (2) and I am very careful not to do that. I could but I will resist the temptation. You, Sir, are almost inviting me to do so. I will not do it. However, I would like to look at the principles of this Bill. It seems the Minister is saying to people, "you people out there, you are going to co-operate because I am telling you to co-operate, you are going to do it in the following ways with the following rules and under the supervision of the following trustees". I do not think that is what our inland fisheries need. I intend to look at the rest of this Bill to see whether we need all the provisions set out in it.
Section 8 deals with corporate membership of a society. A problem will arise there because the section provides that "Any angling club or other body may become a corporate member of a society in accordance with the rules of the society". That is assuming the rules of the society allow it and I presume the Minister, who is taking so much control, will ensure the rules of the society allow it.
As I said at the beginning, we do not know what an angling club is. It is not defined in the Bill. Is an angling club a loose association of people? Does it have to have a particular kind of statute or a particular kind of existence? Does it need a minimum number of members? What does it need to be an angling club? Does it have to have a membership fee? Does it have to have any rights over any stretch of river or lake? Could Deputy Durkan, Deputy Taylor-Quinn and myself sit down together on our Front Bench and decide we are going to be an angling club and ask to join one of these societies? We need a little more information on that.
What kind of other body might become a member of one of these societies? The section says, "Any angling club or other body" but what other body? Could this House become a member of a society? Could a darts club become a member of a society? What kind of other body is meant? Does that mean, for example, a multinational corporation could become a member of a society? They might have an interest in doing that for their employees. Does it mean a trade union, a benevolent society or any such bodies could become a member of a society? We need to know because we want to know what kind of societies we are dealing with.
Section 8 (2) provides that a corporate member being an angling club shall be entitled to certain things, but if we assume that the corporate member is not an angling club, is it entitled to those things or is it entitled to some different things? We do not know. The subsection further provides that, "Any other corporate member shall be entitled to nominate, without fee, one ordinary member of the society". This is where it begins to become important. We need to know who these other corporate members are. I assume they are the other bodies referred to in section 8 (1) but they will be able to nominate, without fee, one ordinary member of the society.
If there were enough of them they could become quite an important group in the society in their own right. Once we have a ballot in December 1991, and they begin to escape just a little from the Minister's clutches, these other members, these corporate members, could become quite important people in the operations of societies if there are enough of them. They are entitled, without fee, to nominate an ordinary member of the society. They could become quite important and, eventually, come to control the operations of societies. That might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing. I want the Minister to tell us what he means by all that.
There are a great many particulars in this Bill. Section 8 (3) provides that, "In considering whether to grant recognition to an angling club or other body for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section or fixing the amount of a fee to be paid by a corporate member under that subsection particular regard shall be had to the outlay of the body concerned on work of public benefit in the area in which the society operates". That is in considering whether to grant recognition to an angling club or other body. Does this mean, for example, that if an angling club is not spending money for work of public benefit then it cannot become a corporate member? Does it mean that a corporation, multinational, national or whatever, who decide for their own reasons to spend a lot of money in a given year will automatically be recognised? Is this section written in that way in order to incite or encourage people, clubs or corporations to spend money or is it not? If it is designed to do that, let the Minister tell us and maybe we will find a better way of encouraging and rewarding them. If it is not there for that reason will the Minister please tell us why "particular regard shall be had to the outlay of the body concerned"?
Section 9 deals with entitlement to fish for trout or course fish. My colleagues, Deputy Taylor-Quinn in particular, have dealt with a number of questions about that but a few others arise. The section provides that, "where a society has so decided by vote of 60 per cent of its ordinary members eligible to vote and voting, a person shall not be entitled to angle for trout or coarse fish in the area of that society unless he is " one of the four categoreis (a) to (d). The words that catch my eye are, "in the area of that society".
The Minister has already determined what the area of that society is under the provisions of section 4 where he has established by order these co-operatives "in a specified area in the region". The Minister has decided what the area of the society is. I would like that to be confirmed.
Section 9 (2) provides that a society may in accordance with section 11 (7) rescind a decision under this section by vote of 60 per cent of its ordinary members eligible to vote and voting. Does that mean, and is it the intention that it should mean, that a society could decide to permit a person who is not a holder of a current share certificate to angle for trout or coarse fish? I would like to know that. I do not know what conclusion I might draw. I will reserve that for Committee Stage, but I would like to know if the effect of that is to allow a society to say that, notwithstanding everything else in that Bill, it is going to decide that in its area persons of a given category or none can be allowed to angle for trout and coarse fish without having a share certificate.
Section 9 (4) provides that, "Prima facie evidence of a decision of a society under subsection (1) of this section may be given in all legal proceedings by the production of a copy of Iris OifigiÚil purporting to contain a notice relating to the society under subsection (3) of this section”. Does the Minister not trust the societies? Does he expect the courts will not trust them? Are they not to be required to keep minutes of their decisions? Are they to be obliged always to have the requisite notice in Iris OifigiÚil so that the appearance of that notice in Iris OifigiÚil will be prima facie evidence that the society has decided to do something different? Why is this written this way? Why have we got this awkward construction? Why are we going to have co-operative societies all around the country having to rely for prima facie evidence of a decision on the fact that a notice under subsection (3) of this section was published in Iris OifigiÚil? I do not know. It seems to me to be a very curious and elaborate way of going about what I regard as a perfectly simple job that needs to be done as, indeed, agreed in the winter of 1988 by my colleague, Deputy Madeleine Taylor-Quinn with the representatives of the angling clubs all over the country — and we did not have to have Iris Oifigiúil to give them standing or status or the comfort that their decisions would be recognised.
Section 10 deals with share certificates. We have a variety of them. We have the provision in subsection (2) that the Minister may, from time to time, by order made after consultation with the Minister for Finance, alter any fee under subsection (1) of this section either without limitation as to time or in respect of a specified number of years. Nobody else will have any say in those orders. The Oireachtas will not have any scrutiny of the orders. The Minister will have at his sole discretion, subject only to the agreement of the Minister for Finance, the right to alter the fees. Deputy Taylor-Quinn yesterday told the Minister what our fears are in that regard. I would agree with her and say very strongly that it worries me that the Minister should have that power, even with the consultation with the Minister for Finance. I have found in the past that consultation with the Minister for Finance was always a very good idea, especially when people were reasonable and did it my way. However, there is no outside scrutiny of this at all. The Minister for the Marine and the Minister for Finance, between them, can come to any conclusion they like about the level of these fees, and I do not think, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that this House really wants to give the Government the powers to act unscru-tinised, unrestrained, without any criteria being laid down, in a matter of that kind. Nor do I think that there is any other area where the Government are setting a fee — and let us face it, this is a fee — where we would want to allow the Government unfettered power to make whatever change they wish in the level of a fee.
Section 11 deals with voting rights and ballots. Subsection (5) provides that to be entitled to a vote in any subsequent ballot, that is, after the first one that takes place, I assume at the end of 1991, a person must be the holder of a current annual share certificate of the society and be or be deemed to be the holder of such a certificate for each year since the previous ballot. Why? If I become a member of a society in 1994 — I think I am right in saying that these ballots can take place every five years; if I am wrong the dates can be changed accordingly — I will not be allowed to vote in the 1995 ballot unless I have been a member since 1991. I would like to know why? If a person goes to the trouble of taking out a share certificate to become a member of the co-operative society, why is he or she not entitled by that very fact to vote in the next ballot? There may be a good reason for it but the Minister has not said anything at all about it, and it seems to be spurious to say to somebody who joins a society that they cannot vote in the ballot unless they have been or are deemed to have been a holder of a certificate for each year since the previous ballot. I do not know of any voluntary organisation that requires a membership fee of its members that carries out its business in that way.
Subsection (7) says that if the Minister, at his discretion — more ministerial discretion here — so permits, one other ballot may be held in the second or the third year between elections on such date as he may fix for the purpose. Again I ask why. What is the reason for this? What motivation might the Minister have for permitting, at his discretion, one other ballot to be held in the second or third year between elections? If it comes to that, in there any particular reason why the Minister thinks it might be appropriate in the second or third year rather than in the first or fourth year? None of this has been explained. No indications are given as to why the Minister thinks it might be indicated that there should be a ballot between elections, or why it should be the second or third year rather than the first or fourth year. Is there a mystery here? Is there a reason this is written that way? If so, could we have it? It would be useful to know that before this House is asked to decide to pass this Bill at Second Stage.
Section 12 provides that where a society request the assistance of the regional board for the area in enforcing that section, that is, the provisions of section 9 of this Act, it shall be a function of every authorised officer of the board to enforce the section. In other words, the societies are being given a certain number of jobs to do, and that is basically because section 9 is the one that deals with entitlement to fish for trout or to coarse fishing. The societies are being given the job of ensuring that that happens, and if they want help the fisheries boards are being obliged by this to assist them in doing that — basically to be their policeman. I would like to know whether the regional boards agree to that, whether they believe they are equipped to do that, whether they believe it is a proper part of their function and whether, in fact, they see this whole Bill, but this section in particular, as being an appropriate part of their operations.
Subsection (6) of section 12 provides that a private water keeper appointed under section 294 of the Principal Act shall have no function under this section. I ask why. I am open to convincing on that. There may be good reasons they should not have these functions. There may, equally, be good reasons they might be given these functions because private water keepers, appointed under section 294 of the Principal Act, are, after all, people who know their fisheries, and if they are asked to help out in a particular way, maybe they would like to do so. Maybe they would be prepared to do so, and perhaps it might be useful to have the extra resources. I do not know how many of these private water keepers there are, but it might be useful to have those extra resources if, indeed, this House comes to the conclusion that we want the system set out in this Bill.
Section 13 provides that the Minister may, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, make payments to a society established under this Act for the purposes of the society. That, I gather, is where this figure of £0.25 million comes into this. These societies are raising and disbursing moneys for the public benefit. Does this mean that while they are raising moneys for the public benefit, part of the moneys they will be disbursing for the public benefit is this £0.25 million that the Minister is providing? I would like to know if that is the intention of this section.
Then we have the provisions in relation to the election of members to the regional boards where the Minister is keeping to the tradition that people residing anywhere in Ireland can be involved in this. The Minister made some justifiably selfcomplimentary remarks on that, and I think it is good to see that system being kept. There again, however, I have a question. Under subsection (3) it is provided that for the purposes of section 12 (3) (b) (i) of the Fisheries Act, 1980 which provides for elections to regional boards, all persons who are members of a society in a particular region as trout anglers shall constitute one class and all persons who are members of any such society as coarse fish anglers shall constitiute one class. I read into that — perhaps I may be wrong — that never these two classes shall meet, and that is sad. These two groups of people are to be treated in different ways, are to exercise their enitlements in different ways, but what of the person who falls into each class, and there are some? A person in a particular region may be a member of a society as a trout angler and may also be a member of another society as a coarse fish angler. Is that person to be constituted in two classes? Is he or she to be schizophrenic about it? Can they have two votes or do they have to decide which class they are going to vote in or what designation they want for the purposes of section 12 (3) (b) (i) of the Fisheries Act, 1980? Another question occurred to me in that regard but I cannot recall it immediately. It had something to do with these classes also and with overlaps.
There are some more questions that we could ask about this Bill. As I have said, it seems to be a Bill that is grossly and unnecessarily intrusive. It gives the Minister powers — I suppose they are not really all that fundamental in the sense that they do not touch on the basic fibre of our society — of an extent and scope that are totally disproportionate to the job we want to do. The job we want to do is to put in place an arrangement which will encourage and facilitate angling clubs and individual anglers to co-operate with and contribute to the maintenance and development of our inland fisheries.
As I have said, a very sensible outline of a scheme was put together in the winter of 1988 by my colleague, Deputy Madeleine Taylor-Quinn, together with repesentatives of anglers all around the country. It was a scheme that did not require all this elaborate framework of rules, regulations, specifications, orders and so on by the Minister. That scheme would have given the Minister a much easier life than is the case under this Bill. What is life going to be like for the Minister when he has to nominate trustees and societies all over the country and decide how many societies there will have to be, how many areas he will break the regions down into, whether he will amend or revoke the rules, whether he will fire trustees and so on? I honestly do not think the Minister needs or deserves all that annoyance and aggravation. It certainly is not in order to do the simple job of contributing to the development we all wish to see.
I would ask the Minister to take some time when replying to Second Stage to refer to some of those questions we have raised. I hope he will come to the conclusion that this Bill is a totally unnecessary, excessively complicated and excessively authoritarian super-structure that should not be imposed on our inland fisheries. Will the Minister please think again and come back to us with a simple, sensible set of measures that we can all get down to work on quickly, because speed will be of the essence? Let us have something more sensible than this ridiculous Bill we have before us.
I would like to make a few comments on this Bill. As a confirmed and committed angler for several years and one who could not perform legally or otherwise in the last couple of years by virtue of the legislation which was brought before the House, I felt very much the loser. One fish that was caught and left hanging out to dry for a very long time was the unfortunate Minister who brought the legislation into the House in the first place and who steadfastly and stoically followed it through, both in and out of Government, only to find that it was not intended that the Government would stand behind him indefinitely. The unfortunate Minister was sacrificed. We should pay tribute to that Minister and his consistency, and ask why he should be left hanging on the hook for so long.
As I have said, I have been a committed angler for several years but unfortunately, like everybody else in politics, the amount of time we get to pursue our pastime is very limited, though we have to do quite a bit of fishing in political waters, sometimes troubled and sometimes smooth. Generally speaking our pastime does not get as much attention as we would like. I remember as a very small boy of about four years of age being brought by my late father on my first fishing expedition. I still remember distinctly that two fish were caught. I was more successful on that occasion than I have been on numerous occasions since. That is something that has always stayed in my mind. Many of the people with whom I have been associated and with whom I grew up also lived in a rural area and pursued the sport as they still do.
The unfortunate thing about the legislation before us is that it is a follow up to a piece of legislation which was introduced in this House a couple of years ago, allegedly for the purpose of developing the sporting side of the fishing industry. The unfortunate rider to that was that there was a financial element — the Minister's speech at the time confirms that — in that it was hoped to raise in the region of £500,000 in a single year. That was the big flaw in the whole system. If the purpose of the exercise was to improve the fishing industry, as was indicated, that would have been all right but unfortunately the real reason for the introduction of the licence was simply to raise more money. That was the big flaw and it was pointed out by a number of speakers at the time, some of whom sit on the Government benches now. The tourist industry and the public generally suffered considerably since as a result. Fishing has always been free in this country. Every school boy who had an interest in fishing has pursued the sport and it has been acknowledged as being as free as, for instance, flying a kite. I cannot see the merit in either the original legislation or the legislation before us at present.
This legislation is a circuitous attempt by the present Administration to circumnavigate a problem that was created by themselves a couple of years ago, and to do so on the one hand without again publicly hanging out to dry the unfortunate Minister who piloted the original legislation through the House and on the other hand without being seen publicly as backing down in the face of adversity, which is what is happening. This is a complicated, messy, daft piece of legislation that involves a lot of administration and bureaucracy that is totally unnecessary. The Government have come up with this legislation in order to get themselves off the hook — no pun intended — even at this late stage, three years after the original legislation was introduced.
Last January a Minister in the present Government, at the opening of the fishing season, cast his line upon the water and dragged out a protesting salmon. He loudly proclaimed, like little Jack Horner, that this was how it should be done. I remember, in my contribution to the budget debate this year, asking the Minister to introduce amending legislation which would clear the air. The Minister promised that he would — in good faith I presume — but the whole year passed and the only thing that happened was that a picture appeared in some of the newspapers of a Government Minister pulling a fish out of the water, holding it aloft and saying, in effect, that legislation would not be enforced. It was automatically assumed by the public that we were all to do the same thing.
However, the visitors do not always take their cue from that and the experience in my constituency is that there was a dramatic fall-off in the first year of the operation of the original Act which has not been compensated for in the last 12 months in regard to tourism. Countless local fishing festivals and tourist promotion groups had been involved, year after year, in building up an industry where German and British anglers fished in an area for a fortnight and established contacts with local people, with the result that they kept coming back.
I was reading the speeches in relation to the passing of the original Act and there was a reference by a contributor — in the Government party — to the effect that the value of a tourist caught salmon would be somewhere in the region of £400 to the Exchequer. I am sure the sum is considerably more now because, apart from the value of the fish, time and money are spent by the individual angler, goodwill is generated and, as I said, there is a strong possibility of a return visit or visits. When all that is calculated one realised the value of tourists who come here for angling.
What benefit has accrued from the legislation which, allegedly, was introduced to control or develop the industry? It was only introduced to make money and the various angling clubs throughout the country rightly asked when the money generated would be put back into the development and promotion of the fishing industry. I have serious doubts in that regard. Unfortunately for the then Minister, the advice he was given was that the various fishing interests throughout the country were in favour of the legislation. They were probably in favour of it when they heard about it first on the basis that the money raised was likely to be used to develop the industry, but when they reflected on it they came to the obvious — and correct — conclusion that there was a sting in the tail because the purpose of the legislation was simply to raise money and, as an afterthought, if the fishing industry was developed so much the better. The core purpose of the legislation was to raise money and that is where it fell down badly.
In the intervening period we have suffered greatly and we will never be able to quantify the damage to our tourist industry and the work and promotion in that area by various interest groups throughout the country. They encourage people to come to this country, to buy fishing gear, fish and to come back for another holiday. We will never be able to quantify the damage and the net loss to the economy over the last three years. For that reason, I query the wisdom of introducing legislation now which is merely the same thing under another name. Co-operatives, trusts and so on will be introduced.
Deputy Dukes referred at length to the possible pitfalls and difficulties for any Minister in relation to the appointment of people to trusts or boards. In many areas there has been a lot of emotional behaviour and emotive language in reaction to the previous legislation. Can you imagine what the reaction will be if, on foot of this legislation, an appointment is made to a board or trust which may well be seen as rubbing a little salt in the wound where local feelings have become inflamed? The Minister now sitting opposite is very well aware of how inflamed local feelings had become during the operation of the legislation which we now propose to abolish.
The Deputy is fortunate that I am in the House.
Why is there an element in the new legislation where we will be involved in appointing trustees and the issue of certificates to various people? How will we remove all vestiges of political influence in relation to trustees and small local boards? I am not saying that by way of criticism of the Government but it will be a problem. If the Government want to eliminate the problems they created a few years ago, surely the obvious thing to do is to simplify matters and to eliminate further pitfalls?
The Minister, in attempting to resolve the difficulties created by a previous Fianna Fáil Administration, tried not to hurt anyone's feelings. As a result, he has created complicated legislation which will prove to be as difficult to operate and to be accepted as the act it replaces. The present Bill is daft and useless legislation which will only create further problems. It would have been far better if the Minister had repealed the previous Act and replaced it by something very simple. By so doing, we could revert to what we always cherished, free fishing.
I know that nothing is free, we all accept that, but the difference between this and many other things is that a service was not being provided by the State. Certain rules and regulations were imposed by the State but they were not necessarily always beneficial. I know fishing could not be open all the time because conservation and the elimination of pollution are very important and must be paid for but——
All these delightful recollections are not relevant to the Bill. The Deputy must speak to its provisions.
That is exactly what I am trying to do but, obviously, I am not doing it very well. I am trying to say that the Bill now before the House will not necessarily be more beneficial than the previous Act which created the problem. I am trying to point out the foolhardiness of proceeding down that road again and creating further problems. The Minister, instead of bringing in the Bill before us, should have brought in legislation which would eliminate the difficulties about which I have just been talking.
The other thing we have to reckon with is that this legislation like its predecessor indicated a change from the voluntary to a very large State imposition. That is why it failed. Previously people could participate in angling without any major State influence and suddenly with the passing of the Bill the State were involved and the public did not react well. I am not so sure they will react too well to this legislation.
Let us remember how the people reacted to the earlier Bill. For the first couple of weeks after its passage there were slight mutterings and after various cumann meetings there were stronger mutterings. Ministers were button-holed and slight protestations became major and the thing became serious. Ministers came back to Cabinet and suggested that perhaps all was not as universal as it had previously looked. There was an obvious rush in some quarters to run away from the unfortunate Minister who carried the responsibility for the legislation. They distanced themselves from him and ultimately the grass-roots reaction was such that fear began to spread among the Government party backbenchers to such an extent that it was with great trepidation that they approached the General Election in 1989. So dramatic was the reaction to the legislation, which is similar to this legislation that quite a number of candidates throughout the country in areas where there had been an emotive reaction to the Bill did exceptionally well in the election. At that stage, the major Government party recognised that this was not on. Following that, the Minister for Energy decided that whether or not it was repealed, as far as he was concerned, he would do his own bit of repealing. I am sorry the Minister is not here because I would have been interested in hearing from him. No doubt it would have been somewhat enlightening too for the Minister opposite, to hear his reaction to a situation that has prevailed over the last 12 months. I know that he is an angler too and that he casts his line upon the water. I hope that the bait is always taken and that the fish are always landed. Fish like chickens have a habit of coming home.
The earlier legislation, like this, was an unnecessary interference in a sport and the Government would be well advised to think about something different, something with a more voluntary flavour. This Bill does not have that and the complicated manner in which the various boards and trusts are set up is an indication of either the Government's unwillingness or inability to recognise the voluntary nature of the sport.
Deputy Daly as Minister on 16 December 1987 said, as reported at column 2954 of the Official Report:
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.
That is the kernel of the problem, the assumption on the part of the Government that this new source of revenue which up to this had arisen voluntarily was now about to be tapped by Government in such a way that the Exchequer would receive considerable funding from it. The Government were obviously oblivious to what would be the reaction of the people. The then Minister went on to say:
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.
Surely the Minister had qualms at that time. Surely he recognised the damage that would have been done to the industry, seeing that he came from a maritime county. I am sure the Minister would not have introduced this Bill had it not been a Government decision. This gives us all the more reason to show some sympathy with him now since he was sacrificed as a result of having to promote that legislation.
This legislation is essentially about fishing co-operatives and it may or may not work. It will work only if it has the support of the people and the support of the various voluntary fishing clubs and associations. It will not work if it imposes a new structure which will interfere or divert the fishing clubs from the role they have adopted themselves. If the new legislation attempts to divert the clubs from the role they have adopted voluntarily without State instructions or interference we will have a problem similar to that with which we have been dealing for the last two or three years. The Minister would be well advised to carefully consider the likely implications of a continuation of this dispute.
I know that people on the Government side might say that there has not been a dispute for the past 12 months. I do not accept that at all. The fact that it appeared that the Government did not want to enforce the legislation in this season made no difference to some people as quite a large number of people in angling did not want to be seen to be flouting the law, and rightly so.
I would liked to have seen a little more participation from the far side of the House in this debate.
We have the utmost confidence in the Minister.
It is a pity that the Minister did not have a little bit more confidence in the Government — that is the Minister who originally introduced the legislation. The legislation we are replacing caused much trauma in a sport that was voluntary funded to a great extent.
I am surprised that so few contributors from the Government side have come into the House. Are they washing their hands of the Bill? Are they attempting to slide away from the scene of the crime as quickly and as easily as possible? Are they hoping against hope the legislation will slip through the House or are they hoping a new Bill will be introduced and rushed through the House as happened on the previous occasion and that the public will not recognise it until such time——
The Deputy's party accepted that Bill.
I am aware that our party accepted that Bill.
There was a majority concensus.
I cannot understand why Government speakers keep reminding us that the people in opposition are responsible for what goes wrong——
No.
——while the Government claim co-responsibility for anything positive that has happened from good weather to a large fish catch. I cannot understand how the Government can divorce their responsibilities from areas of doubtful or negative content. I am aware there is a technique for this and I would love to develop it because I am sure it would be extremely beneficial. At what stage do the government in power take full responsibility for the legislation they promote, considering this legislation was passed some three years ago? It is all very fine for the Opposition parties to say that if we had been in Government three of four years ago certain things would not have been done.
The Deputy has had a lot of latitude and he is straying from the point. He should confine himself to what is in the legislation or to what ought to be in the legislation.
I was responding to an unwarranted interruption from the Government side. You, as a Member from a neighbouring constituency which follows its fishing pursuits very seriously, will recognise that what I had to say was relevant and was what the people in the industry and the sport have been saying for some time. I apologise for responding to the unwarranted and untimely interruption from the Government, side but I will do my best to keep to the straight and narrow henceforth.
Acting Chairman
Go raibh maith agat.
There is absolutely no sense in any member of the Government attempting to escape from the cloud that has fallon over the legislation with which we had to operate over the last couple of years by attempting to divert attention to the Opposition. That is not democracy. I am surprised at the Government parties attempting to so do.
In conclusion, my advice to the Government is not to attempt to bring in this legislation. If they want to restore order to what it was, then please introduce legislation which will repeal the existing Act with no strings attached. Instead, they came into the House with complicated, convoluted legislation governing what has always been a free, simple and easy sport or pastime. It is incongruous that a Government should introduce difficult circuitous regulations for something that is so simple. Every schoolboy from the time they cut the first hazel rod and hung a line on it over a river bank or by a lakeshore must surely know how simple a pursuit fishing has always been. It was simple and accessible to everybody. Now we have a complicated, hamfisted attempt by Government to make it difficult. That is wrong and I do not think it can be of any benefit to us.
I would like to have spoken at some length on the benefit or otherwise of the present legislation, the elimination of pollution and the development of fishing, game fishing in particular, as a pleasure and a sport but, unfortunately, there is very little in the legislation which contributes to doing that. Essentially, the Bill introduces controls which are not beneficial. I do not know for what reason we have the legislation but I hope the Government have learned a lesson. I hope the damage which has been done to the industry over the last couple of years is not permanent. On Committee Stage perhaps the Minister will loosen up the lines so far as fishing is concerned.
I note that TDs are increasingly being judged on their performance by the number of words they say in this House. I do not intend to speak at length because there are only a few words I want to put on the record about this Bill. If it is the expectation of those in the media that the public should judge us on the amount of verbiage we pour onto the record then it is a sad day for the House and a sad day for journalism.
I take this opportunity to voice my opinion because it is a load of nonsense with no credit being given for the work which goes on in committees. This work, often through quiet disposition, enables TDs to play an adequate role as legislators and as representatives of the public holding the Government accountable. If one comes into the House and speaks for an hour or an hour and a half on everything and anything, making a point which could be made in a couple of minutes, one is held up as a hero by certain sections of the media. I hope when the words are being measured next year they will find these comments. It is a disgraceful reflection on the journalists who have been using this system as a measure of the success or otherwise of Members of the House.
I am opposed to this Bill as I was to the original Bill. I oppose the question of a licence for fishing or its replacement by shares of anything else for a number of reasons. I was a youth leader for 11 years. During that time I was involved in organising fishing outings regularly for members of the youth club who would not have had that facility within reasonable distance of their homes. Many of those young people would not have had transport to take them to the lakes of Cavan, Leitrim or Blessington. It is a wonderful pastime and something to which young people should be introduced. It is one of the few pastimes which up to now has been free, and it should have remained free not only for the youth clubs and for people who fish week in week out but also for tourists particularly German tourists, because they can fish with Irish friends they had made over the years. It is going too far to introduce a licence or a compulsory share certificate for fishing.
Section 4 deals with the appointment of fisheries co-operative societies for specified areas in the region. As I understand the Principal Act, a couple of unemployed people over the age of 18 who are in receipt of unemployment benefit — I note the Bill refers to assistance — fishing on the Grand Canal, off Donore Avenue, could be prosecuted. This is not satisfactory.
The Minister referred to the appointment of co-operatives for specified areas. Will co-operatives be appointed for the Royal and Grand Canals? Will they be specified areas? The Minister should realise that for many of those who are unemployed, people working in poorly paid jobs and young people, this keeps them out of harms way. They spend their leisure time not vandalising cars or annoying other people but casting lines out on the Grand and Royal Canals. As a result of a proposal put forward by me, Dublin Corporation, with the assistance of the fisheries board——
And the Office of Public Works.
I acknowledge their assistance. The corporation went as far as stocking the part of the Grand Canal in my constituency so as to encourage young people to use this facility. Even on the very bad days one can see young lads fishing as one drives along the canal. It is far better for them to be doing this than hanging out in some of the housing and flat complexes in this city where temptation is in their way. I do not think a very sensible approach is being adopted to deal with this issue.
Section 12 (5) states that where a person who was in possession of a rod and line is charged with an offence under this section consisting of a failure to produce a share certificate, it shall be a good defence to prove that he had the rod and line in his possession as a manufacturer or seller thereof and not for use. Will a person who is fishing on the Grand Canal be expected to have a for sale sign hanging on his fishing rod if he does not have a share certificate? This provision goes a bit far. The penalties provided for in section 15 of a £1,000 fine or ten times the fee for an annual share certificate in force at the time of the commission of the offence are extraordinarily high for the offence of putting out a line on the Grand Canal. Those penalties are unacceptable and the Bill goes too far in this regard.
There would be a smaller fine for vandalising a car.
That is true.
When it comes to fishing we tend to think of the lakes in Counties Cavan, Leitrim and Wicklow, but people fish in the canals. There are very few facilities around the city and many of the people who learn to fish on the canals join clubs and, when they have the opportunity, fish elsewhere. I do not think the Bill takes into account those people who are keeping out of harm's way and developing a very positive and healthy interest in fishing by using, for example, the canals in Dublin.
The Bill goes too far by providing that the Minister may call these bodies co-operatives when he has taken onto himself the powers contained in section 5. It is an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of a co-operative, if there are to be such co-operatives, for the Minister to have such powers.
Section 9 provides that a person in receipt of social welfare assistance shall be entitled to angle for trout or coarse fish without having to have a share certificate. However, it does not refer to a person on social welfare benefit. That is a significant point and I ask the Minister to check it because a person in receipt of unemployment benefit is not a person in receipt of unemployment assistance. They are two different categories of persons. The Bill is specific and refers to persons on invalidity pensions, persons under 18 years or over 66 years and it is also necessary for it to be specific in regard to people on social welfare benefit or social welfare assistance. Unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit are different and it seems to me, from reading this Bill, that a person in receipt of unemployment benefit could be prosecuted for fishing in the Grand Canal. I do not know whether that is the Minister's intention but it would be unacceptable for people in receipt of unemployment benefit to be fined £1,000 for daring to fish in the Grand Canal.
This House is not about imposing such penalties on people and it seems to be far too great a penalty for us to pass today on the nod or any other way. If it is the Minister's intention that unemployed people should be exempt then he should take into account not only people in receipt of social welfare assistance but also those on social welfare benefit or those who for one reason or another are denied any benefit or assistance. Some people who live on the outskirts of the city do not bother to claim benefit or assistance because it would cost them more to travel to collect it than they would receive. If the Minister is talking about unemployed persons he should be more specific.
I want to refer briefly to the question of tourism. Those of us who fish know that many tourists, in particular those from Germany come to Ireland because there is free fishing in our lakes. Up until the protests started last year, this segment of our tourism market had grown to the extent that people here who keep guesthouses near lakes used to advertise in German fishing magazines. Many continental visitors used come to Ireland rather than go to Wales, Scotland or England because fishing was free. They returned here to fish and meet the people with whom they had made friends.
We have to compete with countries which have all sorts of attractions in what is probably the single biggest business in the world, tourism. We have very few facilities to offer which other countries cannot offer also. We are finding it increasingly difficult to attract American tourists travelling to Britain and the Continent or European tourists who can travel to other European countries by car, rail and other modes of transport. Those tourists have to make a conscious decision to visit Ireland. From that point of view, we should be using free fishing as a major selling point and not imposing restrictions. It would not be realistic for the Minister to say that visitors will not be required to have a fishing licence or share certificate because these visitors return here to renew friendships and fish in groups. They return with more friends and it would be unacceptable if three people in a group had to have a share certificate or a licence while the others did not.
The 1987 Act, and this Bill, are unnecesary impositions. The 1987 Act was passed through this House on the nod on the understanding that the people involved in fishing, both as an industry and sport, supported it. The Opposition were caught napping on that occasion. As I said at the time, we should have opposed that Bill as we should oppose this Bill.
Hear, hear.
The only purpose in introducing this amendment Bill is to save face, so that the Government are not seen to climb down. The national interest would be best served by an admission on the part of the Government that they made a mistake, that the Dáil made a mistake and that the original Bill should not have been introduced. They should withdraw this legislation and not make any charge by way of licence or share certificate for something which has been enjoyed for centuries, namely, free fishing. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter in those terms.
On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I oppose this Bill. This is a mere face-saving device to get the Government out of the predicament in which they found themselves in 1987. There has been inadequate consultation with the grassroots in the west about the wording of this Bill. I hope that the amendments sought by the fisheries interests will be included. This will be a difficult Bill to amend, however, because it is fatally flawed. The Minister and the Government should have the courage to admit they made a mistake, wipe the slate clean and start again. We had a viable, well-run fishing set-up until the previous Minister muddied the waters in 1987. The bureaucracy and the degree of State control in this legislation is totally unacceptable.
Every Member will know that the rod licence dispute was not about money. No anglers found the sum of money they were being asked to pay excessive. This dispute is about control. At its heart is the question of who owns the fishing rights on the former Crown lakes, rights which were given to the Irish people in perpetuity by Queen Victoria. The anglers living around these lakes, which include Loughs Corrib, Conn, Caragh, Arrow and Mask, realised that if they accepted the payment of a licence fee to fish on these lakes they would have handed the ownership of the fishing rights to whomever issued the licence, in this case the State. In defence of their rights they gave up their fishing for two seasons to prevent such a transfer. As an angler myself, I know how great a sacrifice this was, and I praise them for it. True, there were incidents of violence and intimidation which we must all condemn, but the people's insistence on winning and on keeping their rights is a proud part of Irish history.
There is a part of it which we in this House can be less proud. Why did it take us, and in particular the Members opposite, so long to realise why the rod licence legislation was wrong and had to be changed? There is a danger signal here. The Government's reaction to the dispute, which they realised was serious only in the 1989 election campaign when it threatened to cost them seats in the west, shows only too clearly how far the Fianna Fáil Party have become detached from their grassroots and from the people they used to represent and mirror so faithfully.
There is another lesson. Why did the people so fear the transfer of their common angling rights to the State, which is in theory a mere representation of themselves by another name? The answer is that people do not trust the State. They regard the State not as "us" but as "them", as something to which they are frequently opposed. They do not trust it, or rather they do not trust the Government who administer the State for them. This lack of trust constitutes a very serious warning to everyone in this House.
In this case the people feared that the State would use the powers it would acquire by issuing rod licences to allow salmon smolt cages to be moored on the former Crown lakes, thus removing one of the worst bottlenecks to the further expansion of fin fish farming. The anglers knew the dangers that such an action would present to the continuance of our wonderful resource of wild brown trout, but they felt they could not trust the Government to protect these fisheries for them. Why should they? How have the Government earned their trust? They certainly could not claim to have done so by virtue of the measures they had taken to regulate and control the development of fin fish farming around our coasts. Why, it must be asked of the Minister for the Marine, has there never been any comprehensive study of the environmental effects that fish farming is likely to have? Why has it been left to the anglers to make their own study and in turn act to curb the development of an industry when the results of their study appeared to be unfavourable? Is this the way to develop an industry or to run a country? Is this the way to build trust, to convince people that commercial interests will not be put before almost everything else? It is only now with the collapse of the farmed salmon prices, when fish farming has become less profitable and the industry has given up expansion plans for the time being, that good relationships are being restored between anglers and fin fish farmers. Anglers do not wish to stop the development of fish farming, merely to control it until its environmental effects can be ascertained and no irrevocable damage is done. Was this the role the Government should have played, not the anglers?
The Minister for the Marine will know, as a result of information I forced him to assemble for me earlier this year, that many fish farms are allowed to operate without proper licences. Why? Does this inspire confidence or trust in the Government? Salmon farms do not survive without the use of an unlicensed drug, Nuvan. Does this inspire confidence or trust? At one stage is seemed to be policy not to allow Norwegian companies to establish salmon farms here in order to ensure that a limited number of ideal sites would be preserved for Irish citizens. This policy was then abandoned because it came to be thought more important that Ireland should achieve 10 per cent of the world Atlantic salmon farm market in a short space of time. Does this inspire confidence or trust?
When confidence and trust has been placed in the anglers by the State rather than the reverse, as it will be through the establishment of the fisheries co-operatives, there is no doubt that the people who fought the imposition of the rod licence will devote an equal amount of time and energy to the development and preservation of the waters and fish they love so much. Although the Minister had to be forced into bringing this situation about, I suppose some credit is due to him. Even if the co-operatives work as well as everyone hopes and the anglers raise far more money than just the share certificate income from their own co-operatives, it does not let the Minister off the hook. The waters of Ireland do not benefit anglers exclusively. They benefit all of us and they benefit the whole country through the tourism industry which in the west is very dependent on fishing. We must all pay for their protection through our taxes. The fact that anglers will be paying more under this Bill must not mean that the general public pay less.
One area under the Minister's control is funding, for which there is an acute need. The manager of the Western Fisheries Board, Mr. Michael O'Kennedy, in an amazingly frank talk to the Irish Shellfish Association Conference in Ennis on 25 November last, complained that although the local authorities were nominally responsible for acting against the pollution of lakes and rivers, they were in fact the worst polluters themselves as a result of sewage outfalls. He added that, although the Western Fisheries Board had brought many successful prosecutions against local authorities in the area, nothing had happened. He stated that the local authorities had not done a clean-up, adding there was a limit to what his board could do having regard to their limited manpower and laboratory equipment. Each board had only one pollution officer. Mr. O'Kennedy also made it clear that the boards had insufficient staff to protect fish stocks from poachers, to stop the unlicensed movement of shellfish from place to place and the consequent spread of disease and to do anything at all about pollution at sea. In short, he said that the development of the shellfish industry and the maintenance of fresh water angling was seriously restricted through a lack of adequate funds for the fisheries boards.
I ask the Minister to promise to ensure that for every pound anglers put up for fishery development, either in actual cash or in labour, the Minister for Finance will put up an extra £10 for fishery protection on behalf of the general population. Such an announcement would give anglers enormous encouragement.
If the Minister feels he cannot go this far today, he must give an assurance to the House that he will not use the funds raised by anglers as an excuse to cut public funding for fishery development and protection.
This Bill seeks to hoodwink the Dáil. Throughout 1990 we were given the impression that a settlement had been reached and that legislation, along the lines proposed by the Fine Gael spokesperson on the marine, Deputy Taylor-Quinn, would be introduced. I am disappointed that this is not the case. In 1987, the Government of the day sought to rush legislation through the Dáil and tried to mislead the House on several occasions, particularly in relation to undertakings given to Fine Gael at the time. We now find, coming up to the recess, that the Government are making another effort to rush legislation through the House without carrying out adequate consultations and informing the various interested parties of the huge implications of this legislation for anglers, tourism and the nation in general.
I am opposed to the concept of a licence as it interferes with a basic freedom, which goes back to Lord Teeling in 1914, that is, the right to fish our rivers and lakes and enjoy their amenity and sporting value, a right which the Irish people have always had.
It is important to have a development plan for the industry but successive Ministers have failed, despite promises to do so, to produce such a plan for inland fisheries. It is also important that not alone should the Government contribute but all those angling clubs throughout the country and tourism interests should make a contribution and be seen to be players in developing the fishing and tourism industries. This should not be compulsory or done under the guise of a licensing system, which in essence, is the meaning of a share certificate — but rather voluntary and without the imposition of various rules and regulations by the Minister for the Marine covering management, trustees and the individual member of a club.
The damage done to the industry during the past few years by the rod licence proposal — which was badly mismanaged by the Government — was so enormous that it is now facing a grave crisis. For this reason, the Bill should be withdrawn as it is seen as a rehash of the legislation rushed through the Dáil in 1987. As I said, the Bill vests power in the Minister and not in the co-operatives, as the Minister indicated in his opening remarks. The Minister is not giving any independence or autonomy to the players in the inland fisheries industry. The politicisation of the development of this important industry will continue through the various powers being vested in the Minister's representatives on the fisheries boards. This is not acceptable as it is a smokescreen for the lack of progress by the Government on this issue.
The inadequate consultation with anglers and angling organisations in the fishery industy on the Minister's proposal has been disturbing. I respectfully suggest that he should consult more widely on this matter to see if amendments are necessary, if he decides to proceed with the Bill. The Minister is telling the societies what they may or may not do in this Bill, particularly in sections 5 to 8. It is an autocratic and centralised control of the angling industry, and this is not in the spirit of any legislative proposal I could accept. The Minister has a vested interest in this but perhaps he does not trust the participants in the industry to develop and control the industry. This will not get the Minister off the hook in this troubled matter.
I am familiar with the importance and amenity value of inland fisheries to tourism in my own County of Kilkenny where we have two rivers particularly the Nore, which are renowned for angling. I refer in particular to the area around Inistioge and Thomastown——
I caught a salmon in the Nore at one time.
The Minister would not catch salmon in it now because they are not getting an opportunity to come up the river, as the Minister is well aware. I know the Minister has had many fond days in Kilkenny but because the fishing industry has gone into such a decline in the last few years anglers will tell you that they have great difficulty catching salmon in various parts of the Nore which was one of the finest fishing rivers in the country. I hope a reversal of this appalling trend will be part of the Ministers development plan in the future, and fish will come up the rivers again, particularly the Nore when the Minister may be able to catch a salmon, a very rare species in the Nore at present.
Is the Home Rule Club still there?
The Home Rule Club is still there, alive and well. I invite the Minister to visit my area at some stage in the future to catch a salmon, if he can find one, and to visit the angling clubs in Kilkenny who are doing a tremendous job developing the industry, despite the difficulties they have faced during the past few years.
It was said that while the season was on, the truth was never told in the Home Rule Club in my time.
I am sure the Minister would not advocate that we fish out of season, not even in the Home Rule Club. It is difficult to comprehend the level of contributions from the Minister's side. Perhaps their deep knowledge of the fishing industry will go unheard in this debate.
I was alarmed to note that the people who have taken such a keen interest in fisheries in recent times, the Progressive Democrats, were so obviously absent from this House. We have heard of the great efforts of the present Minister for Energy over the years in the development of this industry, particularly in resolving that long-standing dispute. He has communicated messages nationwide, even in my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, to representatives of his party on the enormous contribution the Progressive Democrats were making to the resolution of this matter. Does his absence or that of any of his party indicate there are difficulties being encountered in selling this Bill and its provisions to their constituents? Bearing in mind the provisions of this Bill and the manner in which the Minister seems intent on their implementation, I would have to say this is not a Bill I would care to sell as part of a programme for Government or proposal that the Minister for Energy will have to sell to his constituents in the near future.
The role of the angler is tremendously important to the development of our fishing industry. Indeed, on many occasions protection of the amenities provided by that industry has been the responsibility of anglers in a voluntary way, when they brought undesirable occurrences or observations to the attention of the regional fisheries board, local authorities and the Department. I am conscious of the many instances when anglers spotted undesirable pollution in our rivers and lakes and brought it to the attention of the relevant authority. Their role should be encouraged by involving them more as players in the industry so that they, in a voluntary, spirited way can attempt to ensure that our rivers, lakes and amenities generally are protected and preserved for future generations.
I have seen no definition of a "co-operative". In other walks of life, in co-operatives similar to those being proposed under the provisions of this Bill, regrettably I have observed the farming community having to put up with professional management of co-operatives, with powers vested in them similiar to those being vested in one Minister and Department under the provisions of this Bill.
I ask the Minister to seriously reconsider its provisions, acknowledge that a mistake is being made yet again and ensure that the difficulties encountered in the development of our fishing industry and those experienced by tourists over the past three years will not recur. My fear is that implementation of these provisions could lead to another nasty scene which we have seen develop in a most irresponsible manner in recent years. It would be indeed regrettable had the players and the tourist industry to endure the same kind of hardship again. I call on the Minister to withdraw this Bill, on mature reflection, in the interests of the future of the industry.
First, I want to thank those who contributed to this debate. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said at one stage, the debate was almost a Committee Stage one, in that the type of discussion we had was more in the nature of a Committee Stage debate than a Second Stage dealing with the principles and general thrust of the Bill. That is anticipatory and, in the long run, may well prove helpful to the passage of this Bill.
I want to tell the House I am in no rush whatever in regard to this Bill. I do not want people to say they did not have every opportunity to cover all the ground they wanted in the debate. For that reason I am pleased that so many people participated, and at some length, though on occasion the thought occurred to me that the length of a contribution was not always matched by its quality. There appear to be an element of filibuster in one or two contributions at the very least. I know that the Whips will agree——
It is a pity there was not an element of participation from the Government benches; they were remarkable by their absence rather than presence.
Of course, I allowed Deputy Taylor-Quinn to talk at will. I will not interrupt the Deputy at any time. I did not even interpose a single syllable.
The Minister says "he allowed"; it should be remembered this is a democratic institution. We do not want ministerial control in this House any more than within co-operatives.
I depend on the sturdy Deputy reared on the slopes of the Wicklow mountains to defend me from the femme formidable who is going to interrupt me.
Acting Chairman
Will the Minister please be allowed to continue without interruption.
Of course the Whips will agree and we had a substantial contribution from one of the Whips.
The first point made by Deputy Taylor-Quinn — made by a number of contributors — means that I can begin by making a general statement, that the essence of the Bill before the House is the result of long, tedious, protracted negotiations with the people involved in fisheries here. They continued for weeks and months. I was more than punctilious in taking into account and noting the points made by people involved in angling. These negotiations went on in Dublin, in my offices, in this House, in Cork, Roscommon and so on. Therefore, nobody can come in here and say there was not adequate consultation about the substance of this Bill. This Bill incorporates agreed points resulting from those negotiations.
I listened to everybody, those who were opposed to the licences, those who would accept the licences, those who were in between and would accept them conditionally. I want to put that point across quite clearly. In fact, that one statement covers, for example, practically the whole of Deputy Dukes' contribution. I emphasise there is no rush, or tendency on my part to rush. I am glad that Deputy Taylor-Quinn welcomed the resumption of fishing and acknowledged that, as a result of the settlement I had reached with the fisheries interests, there was a good season's fishing this year.
There was much play made of ministerial control. I do not think anybody in this House could teach me anything about the co-operative movement. I was nurtured on it; it was mother's milk to me. As the House knows, Tom Finlay, George Russell — who was a friend of my father — and Horace Plunkett were the great promoters of the co-operative movement here. I come from a part of the country I know would no longer exist demographically were it not for the development of the co-operative movement there. I was committed to making this arrangement as democratic as possible. I reject any suggestion that there was a purpose in my mind to control these co-operatives. My purpose was to give to the co-operatives power to elect their own management; to decide whether they required share certificates to be held in their own area; to give to their members, the holders of share certificates, power to elect representatives onto the regional boards.
There was mention of take-over. Somebody mentioned the take-over of Lakelands Co-operative. I must say Lakelands Co-operative was not taken over. It is the co-operative that covers my area, whose members decided to amalgamate two co-operatives and continue in business, controlling the business themselves. That is well known. The takeover in this case would be a takeover of liabilities and obligations to create funds and develop fisheries in the area. There is no intrusion on the privacy of anglers. The will of a 60 per cent majority decides, and to my mind that is the essence of democracy. That was the figure chosen by the people with whom I was negotiating. They made this kind of social contract.
Deputy Taylor-Quinn made a serious error or misreading of the Bill when she said somebody who purchased a salmon licence in 1990 would be issued automatically with a share certificate in 1991. I suppose in the rush she misinterpreted. The salmon licence portion of the Bill is towards the end of the Bill and what is provided there is that anybody who had a full salmon licence in 1990 would be able to get free of charge a district licence in 1991. It had nothing at all to do with the share certificate.
With regard to the repealing of the 1987 provision for a licence, my advice from the Attorney General was that the repeal was implicit, and is implicit if you read the section in the Bill. As I said at the outset, there is no attempt at ministerial control. There is a participative, democratic arrangement catered for in this Bill, no diktats from Leeson Lane. There is an agreement with the anglers, and if that is not a full definition of comhar na gcomharsan I do not know what is.
With regard to the trustees, as it so happens the elections will be held in 1991. For that reason pro tem trustees are to be appointed by me. As soon as the self management of the co-operatives is in place there will be no further use for those trustees.
A question was raised about the angling clubs and about other corporate members. As far as angling clubs are concerned — tribute was paid to them by many speakers in the course of this debate — they have contributed very substantially to various kinds of developments connected with angling. In our discussions and negotiations during the protracted period I mentioned we came to the conclusion that this should be recognised. If an angling club contribute, say, £240 they can name 12 share certificate participants from their club for the purpose of balloting, electing their own board of management and electing members to the regional boards. In the course of our discussions reference was made to people who might like to contribute to the development of angling. Precisely on the point Deputy Taylor-Quinn made about takeovers and so on, we did not want outsiders to be able to buy any kind of control and such corporate members are entitled to one share certificate only. The purpose of that was the one I have just mentioned, so there would be no outside control.
With regard to "ordinarily resident in Ireland", there are specific definitions of domicile and quasi domicile in the law so we can rely on that phraseology.
There was general welcome for the fact that I substituted the word "Ireland" for "State" which we had been using already. To my knowledge there has been a great spirit of co-operation, between the southern regional boards and the Six County angling people and it was embarrassing in a sense that some of the facilities that were available to Southern anglers when they went to the Six Counties were not reciprocated here. I heard that from the people with whom I negotiated. That answers Deputy Taylor-Quinn's question as to whether there were reciprocal arrangements.
I am glad most of the people who contributed indicated that they were aware of the tourism potential of a properly developed angling system. Deputy Taylor-Quinn mentioned the fact that there was an element of elitism creeping into fishing in England and Scotland. We will try to avoid that. When I was Minister for Tourism and Transport I met, I think for the sake of propaganda photographs in Germany, a German angler who told me he would pay for fishing in Norway £200 per day for angling such as he was able to avail of in Connemara, and he paid it and was paying it on a regular basis. Therefore, there is that danger but we will avoid it. My Bill here is a guarantee against such elitism because the purchase of a share certificate is open to all at what I think is a very modest figure.
Deputy O'Sullivan was also concerned that we may be rushing the Bill. As I have said, I have no intention of pressuring anyone in regard to time so far as this Bill is concerned. By way of gloss on what I have been saying, let me say that the agreement reached with the various negotiating anglers, seeing that I stuck closely to the terms of the agreement in the Bill, in itself made them aware of the contents of the Bill. As well as that I circulated copies of the Bill to all of them just slightly after I circulated them to the Members of this House. I have already had communications both directly by way of deputation and in correspondence with them. I intend to keep in touch with them and to take on board any useful suggestions that come from Members of this House on Committee Stage, provided I am satisfied they are an improvement on the Bill.
There is no question of coercion because the decisions are taken by the members of the co-operative themselves. Enforcement arises only if a 60 per cent majority by secret ballot decide there should be a requirement for the certificate in the area and the enforcement is at the request of the co-operative in the area. I know Deputy O'Sullivan showed his interest by putting together a Bill during the year.
Shortage of cash was mentioned. I have got a substantial increase in the allocation for 1990 for the regional boards, and £6.2 million is a quite substantial investment in the sport of angling. I know we are applying rather strict criteria in our public spending. In the light of that any fair minded Member of the House would have to agree that a £6.2 million investment in the sport of angling is a substantial one.
Deputy Gilmore's contribution focused on the charge. It is not really a charge. Nobody is forced to join. The person who buys a share certificate buys a great deal, apart from the satisfaction of knowing that he or she is contributing to the development of angling in the particular area. He or she is contributing to something he or she is benefiting from. Shareholders also have the power to choose their own board of management and vote for the representatives on the regional boards. The membership is entirely voluntary but once a person joins he gets considerable advantages. It is an element of local democracy that I am rather proud of. My two objectives were reconciliation and funding which are achieved by this. Many of the points made by Deputy Gilmore and other Deputies were Committee Stage points and will be met again anyway. Deputy McCormack, who went on for a long time—
Which he is perfectly entitled to do, Minister.
——said that nobody outside the House was consulted.
There was such an inference in the Minister's suggestion.
I said he went on for a long time. The subtlety of the Deputy's mind probably reads inferences, insinuation and innuendoes, where they do not exist, but what can an innocent person like myself do in the face of that kind of interpretation? Everybody with an interest outside the House was consulted. I have already made that clear. Not only that, but anybody who had an interest, and had shown an interest over the years, got a copy of the Bill when it was printed, and was invited to make whatever contributions they wanted. I may have to reject some views and I may accept others, but what I do want is to get views on it.
The Bill is a true reflection of what was agreed early in the year and this was welcomed by all sides at that time. Deputy McCormack got very excited about total ministerial control. That idea is rubbish and any fair-minded person who examines the Bill would admit that. The framework is there. There is provison for supervision and, as Deputies know, co-operatives are generally superivsed by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
Deputy Gilmore said also that often the objects of a society were lost sight of. He quoted building societies as an example and spoke about self-perpetuating cliques. The straight answer to that is that the membership is open and nobody can deny anybody membership. There is no danger of self-perpetuating cliques developing in that situation. Deputy McCormack also mentioned the abolition of the provision of a licence. I think I dealt with that point already.
An chéad duine eile a labhair ná an Teachta John Browne agus chuir sé i gcuimhne dom post factum nullum consilio agus tá mise ag rá leis go nglacfaidh mise comhairle leis agus le Comhaltaí na Dála anseo agus le lucht iascaireachta taobh amuigh den Teach. Tá súil agam go n-éiróidh as an méid sin Acht — tar éis an Bhille — a bheidh oiriúnach d'fhorbairt na hiascaireachta sa tír seo. Mar a d'fhoghlaim sé i gColáiste Naomh Flannan in Inis, tá an fhilíocht thar a bheith tábhachtach agus tá mise chun an chomhairle sin a ghlacadh leis an Teach agus le daoine a bhfuil spéis acu inti taobh amuigh den Teach freisin.
I am glad that he stuck with the word "caupones", innkeepers, in his translation. It is said that the root of "caupo" is an innkeeper but that the root is "capio" and this would make sense from our own experience. I want to thank Deputy Browne for his translation. I have two translations now and they will have to be compared. The book token is almost en route. I am just waiting for one or two more entries.
I appreciate what Deputy Browne said about the clubs. They have served the people well and they have, as he said, trained youngsters in this very healthy sport of angling.
Deputy Mitchell mentioned the Grand Canal. He forgot, of course, that the youths he was talking about, being under 18 years of age, could fish away without any let or hindrance, and that is important for bringing on people who will keep up the development of the sport.
Deputy Browne also mentioned the problem of pollution and how important angling clubs are in monitoring pollution and fish kills. He correctly said that those clubs are invaluable in this regard as well as in the organisation of competitions and the attraction of tourists to areas of fishing competitions. He asked if the money I mentioned was real or imaginary. I can tell him here and now the money is real, that pound for pound, within certain parameters, will be contributed. So on his advice "fortiter in re, suaviter in modo”, I could not get a better summation of my own philosophy and the “suaviter in modo” will apply to the Committee Stage and the development of the Bill.
Deputy Higgins, in a nice piece of poetic prose, talked of fishing as a tranquil, peaceful, pensive sport, and Deputy Taylor-Quinn should remember this. He said that many visitors come to Ireland for that tranquility, for the peacefulness and, I suppose, for the pensiveness as well. I agree with him that there is a residual bitterness after the dispute and the whole purpose of this exercise, the aim of this legislation, is to remove that bitterness. I think this legislation has in it the qualities that will do just that and I thank Deputy Higgins for his contribution, for his congratulations and for his reference to the democratisation. He did say that maybe the angler got too much power. We believe that 60 per cent is a substantial figure and no individual can impose their will in the case of a 60 per cent majority. It is wrong to say there is any intention of getting money out of this for the Exchequer — I say this with some reluctance as the Minister for Finance has arrived in the House. The money will be used for the development of angling in the various regions throughout the country. Do not forget — this also applies to the contributions of other people — the penalties provided for are maximum penalties.
I agree fully with Deputy Higgins about the communities in the west and the potential for development there. I also agree that the agri-tourism results he outlined are rather disappointing. He referred to 26 grants, but that is not my departmental area. Hopes were raised but the conditions that were laid down inhibited development. He also referred to the viability of small farms and how that can be related to the development of angling. That is of very serious import for a great part of the country. I know through my agents in the west that the Deputy is very active in Kiltimagh — he mentioned two other areas — in trying to exploit the angling potential of the area. We want a realistic and realisable scheme in the agri-tourism area and in the integrated rural development area, to which Deputy Higgins is giving some time at present. We have here legislation that will stand the test of time, which is the criterion that was applied by Deputy Higgins in his contribution. I look forward to the House assisting me in perfecting the legislation on the next Stage.
At the beginning of my concluding remarks, I indicated that it was after months of negotiations the agreement was reached and that agreement is incorporated in the Bill before the House. That covers practically everything Deputy Dukes said. He put forward a false thesis that this legislation is unrelated to what is going on in the country and to the people who are involved in angling, to those who accept the licence and those who are anti-licence. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I want to put that strongly on the record of the House. Discussion on that matter went on month after month and week after week, as I have already said.
With regard to the trustees, the elections will be held at the end of 1991 and the trustees will operate until the management committees are put in place after the elections. It is my intention that the elections will be held at the same time as the elections for the regional boards. I want to tell Deputy Dukes there will be full consultation on all matters concerning this Bill before putting in place the regulations that are mentioned in the Bill. Deputy Dukes was looking for the parts of the Bill he could accept. His problem is that he cannot accept what is acceptable to many people who are directly involved in angling at present.
Deputy Durkan paid a very well deserved tribute to my predecessor in this Department, Deputy Brendan Daly, now Minister of State at the Department of Finance, and I appreciate that. He indicated he is an angler, but most of his contribution was concerned with history, with what happened in the past. He did not address many of his remarks to the Bill before the House. He just said it is not good legislation and he discussed this legislation in the light of what happened in the past. The Deputy rightly indicated that tourist caught salmon is worth a very substantial sum of money. He said he had doubts in the past as to whether the money raised in this way would be used for the development of fisheries. He can have no doubt about this Bill because it states specifically that the co-operatives will control the money and will invest it in the development of angling in the area.
Deputy Mitchell said he was concerned about the Grand Canal, I have already mentioned this, that young people would be better occupied on the banks of the Grand Canal than in blocks of flats where they may get into scrapes and temptations. As the House knows, the Bill makes provision for youths up to 18 years of age to fish free for coarse fish or game fish. The Deputy made a point about unemployment assistance. In fairness to the people with whom I negotiated, they introduced the idea of free fishing for those on unemployment assistance or, as it is called, the dole. It was at their request that that provision is included in the Bill. We can have a look at that matter later if necessary. Deputy Mitchell rightly stressed the importance of having a proper angling structure for tourism.
Deputy Garland made his contribution as an angler and gave us a conspectus of the history of what happened. He complained that it took a long time to bring in the legislation but if he was involved in the negotiations he would understand that it was very difficult and painstaking. We had to spell it out point by point and line by line. The Deputy mentioned something which is extraneous to this Bill but about which we will hear more, that is fin fish farming and particularly the use of Nuvan. The use of Nuvan is very tightly controlled. It self-destructs very quickly in water. As the House knows, it is put into the fish ponds at a very weak strength, much weaker for example than the Nuvan as used for dipping sheep. It self-destructs in that case also without doing damage. There is plenty of research taking place for substitute chemicals.
This is really a digression and I should not be led into it, but the lice on salmon are shelled lice. Nuvan destroys the shell and kills the lice. There is also nature's way of doing it where the wrasse fish eats the lice of salmon. Experiments are going on in this regard. The louse, being a shelled louse, creates some difficulty but the wrasse has been experimented on in Norway to see if it can be produced in sufficient numbers to ease the backs of the salmon. The Nuvan simply leaves the louse without house or home when it melts the shells and kills it. Deputy Garland said he was not opposed to controlled development. I am glad to hear him say that as there has been a good deal of emotional propaganda in this regard.
Deputy Hogan accused me of trying to hoodwink the Dáil but, when he came in, nearly everything had been said and he knows perfectly well that I have no such intention. I have said time again that I did not want to rush the Bill through the House, that I wanted it thoroughly debated and discussed. We, in our parliamentary party, had a long and searching discussion and most of the people who wanted to contribute had already contributed——
The Floor of this House is the place to discuss the matter, it is a democratically elected institution.
——so I have the benefit of their wisdom on the matter. I hope the Deputy is not implying that the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party are not democratically elected.
There have been repeated suggestions that they are not.
Party politics were introduced to the debate——
The Minister was discussing other things instead of giving time to Bills of the House.
The political shell has been dissolved.
The political shell is being put on the backs of the taxpayers.
A statement was made that Fianna Fáil canvassers had to leave a town in west Galway during the election because of this but I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Fianna Fáil vote in west Galway went up in the election. Deputies may draw any conclusion — or confusion — which they wish from that.
I share Deputy Hogan's concern about the Nore River and I know that the various interests of drift and draught fishermen and rod anglers clash; there is an obligation on everybody to try to form a modus vivendi between them as their interests are mutual. There is no centralised control, I am not looking for any powers, I am looking for funding for this very important industry. Everybody is agreed on its importance and that there should be local control, local funding and proper development.
I wish to inform the learned contributor from the opposite benches that I have already purchased the £20 book token.
Question put.
Vótáil.
Acting Chairman
In accordance with an order of the House yesterday, the division is postponed until 8.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 December 1990.