Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997

Vol. 473 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Fisheries (Commissions) Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

The purpose of the Fisheries (Commissions) Bill, 1997 is to validate the establishment of the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission and the appointment of Mr. Séamus Keating as member of the commission, to validate the actions of the commission and to provide an indemnity to the members of such commissions against all and any actions or claims.

The House will recall that the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission was established, and had certain functions conferred on it, by an order signed by me on 21 February 1996 following debate and resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. In summary, the Attorney General has advised that the order in question is invalid because the necessary authority to sign it had not been conferred on me as Minister of State at the time. New legislation is needed to validate actions taken by that commission in exercise of functions purportedly conferred on it under that order.

I would like to recall for the House the circumstances which gave rise to the establishment of the commission. The Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, provides that the Minister for the Marine may, by order, following a request from a Fisheries Board or after consideration by him of a report on the management, organisation and performance of a board, appoint a commission to carry out particular functions of that board.

The legislation was enacted on foot of a review of the existing legislation governing intervention by the Minister in the affairs of a fisheries board where exceptional circumstances warranted. It was prompted by recurring allegations concerning the Southern Regional Fisheries Board.

As soon as the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995 was enacted, I appointed Mr. Dermot Rochford, personnel consultant, to report to me under section 2 of that Act, on the management and organisation of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, and the exercise by it of its functions in relation to its finances and staff. His report concluded that the affairs of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board were not, nor in the foreseeable future likely to be, managed in an effective manner.

He recommended that the Minister consider exercising his powers to establish a commission under section 3 of the 1995 Act while ensuring a working structure which would continue to harness the undoubted capabilities within the board itself.

I wrote to the Southern Regional Fisheries Board on 13 January 1996, giving notice under section 4 of the Act of my intention to make an order appointing a commission and conferring on it the management, conservation and protection functions of the board.

The board would continue to be responsible for the development and improvement of fisheries; the encouragement, promotion, development of angling; the issuing of licences; fisheries rates and the preparation of development plans. The Southern Regional Fisheries Board responded positively to my proposal on 24 January 1996.

In accordance with the Act, a draft order establishing the commission was laid before each House of the Oireachtas on 9 February 1996. On 21 February 1996, each House passed a resolution approving the draft order. I accordingly made the order on 21 February 1996 under section 3 of the 1995 Act, providing for the appointment of a commission for a period of one year from 23 February 1996, to take over the protection, conservation and management functions of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board.

Mr. Séamus Keating was appointed as the sole commissioner with effect from 26 February 1996. In causing a report to be prepared on the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, signing the order providing for the appointment of the commission and appointing Mr. Keating to the commission, I proceeded on the understanding that I was exercising powers conferred on me by the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995 and the Marine (Delegation of Ministerial Functions) (No. 2) Order, 1995 (Statutory Instrument No. 199 of 1995).

The latter order delegated certain specified functions of the Minister for the Marine to the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine. These functions included functions under the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1994 in so far as they relate to inland fisheries.

It was in the course of routine preparation of a draft order to extend the term of the commission last December, that the Attorney General's office discovered that the original order establishing the commission was invalid. It transpired that because the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, under which the order was made, post-dated by several months the delegation of functions order, the specific new powers conferred on the Minister under that Act had not been delegated to me.

The Attorney General's office advised the Department of a potential problem on 18 December last and at a meeting the following day. Pending clarification of the legal situation, it was decided to proceed in any event with the laying of a draft order extending the term of the commission in the name of the Minister for the Marine. This was laid before the Oireachtas on 20 December 1996.

Following definitive clarification of the problem after the Christmas break, in consultation with the Attorney General's office, the Minister and I agreed on the need for immediate action to address the legal difficulty. The Attorney General advised that primary legislation was required to validate the appointment and the work of the commission since its establishment.

I regret that this situation has arisen, resulting in the need to introduce this legislation. I assure the House that I signed in good faith and with the agreement of the Minister and the approval of both Houses, the order establishing the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission. I had at the time no reason to doubt that I had the necessary authority under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995 and under a delegation of ministerial functions order made earlier in 1995 to make that statutory instrument. Indeed, I would say that we were all proceeding in good faith in the course of the debate on the order in this House last February.

Equally, the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission has subsequently acted in good faith in exercising the functions conferred on it, as has the Southern Regional Fisheries Board in co-operating and working with the commission. I will refer later to the constructive work carried out by the commission since its establishment in February 1996. Clearly it would be neither in the public interest nor the interest of the Southern Fisheries Region, nor in keeping with the intentions of the Oireachtas, if we were not to address the legal deficiencies which have now come to light.

The commissioner was informed of the legal deficiencies on 14 January last and the chairman of the southern board has been briefed on the matter. I understand that he has briefed board members and staff. The legal situation pending the enactment of this Bill is that the Southern Regional Fisheries Board has all the functions of a regional board under the Fisheries Acts. The Bill is designed to enable the constructive and valuable work of the commission to date to be validated and preserved, and will allow that work to be completed in the best interests of the southern board and southern fisheries region.

In that context, I can advise the House that since taking office the commission has undertaken a review of fisheries protection and surveillance in the southern region and has, where necessary, formulated revised working procedures in this operational area. The commission has worked closely and constructively with the board which, under the purported order, retained responsibility for fisheries promotion, development and licensing and for fisheries rates.

The commission is also reviewing management systems within the board and, in conjunction with the Central Fisheries Board, has undertaken a review of the board's finances and financial systems. I am satisfied, on the basis of regular reports to date from the commission, that it is in the interests of the efficient and effective management of the board for the commission to be allowed to complete the work it has begun.

The detailed provisions of the Bill are as follows. Section 1 governs the interpretation of terms used in the Bill. Section 2 provides for the validation of the order signed on 21 February 1996 which established, and conferred certain functions on, the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission and of actions taken in fulfilment of conditions precedent to the making of that order. Section 3 provides for the validation of all actions taken by the commission in the period since its establishment to the date, 14 January 1997, on which the commission was informed of the legal difficulties and the validation of the appointment of the sole member of the commission. Section 4 subjects validations under sections 2 and 3 to the necessary constitutional provisions. Section 5 provides for the extension of the order which purported to establish the commission and which is to be validated under section 2, to 20 February 1998 or to such earlier date as the Minister may specify. This will make the draft order laid on 20 December 1996 redundant.

Section 6 provides for the continuation in office of the existing member of the commission. Section 7 provides for the indemnification of members of the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission, and members of commissions which may be established in future against actions brought against them by virtue of their actions or omissions as members of commissions. Section 8 provides for the non-abatement of prosecutions brought prior to the enactment of this Bill by either the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission or the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Section 9 gives the short title of the Bill, collective citation and construction.

I commend this Bill to the House. It will enable the commission to be put back on track, and will allow for the substantive work already under way to continue and be completed as everyone had intended.

Mr. M. Smith

The problems of the Southern Fisheries Board still beset us. The original legislation was designed to address shortcomings in existing legislation. On examination it became clear that it would not be possible to deal with the board's problems and that new provisions would have to be introduced.

This is extremely embarrassing for the Minister of State, but I do not lay the blame at his feet. We have had problems in the Attorney General's office before. I distinctly recall the Smyth case — the new Government did not act very quickly regarding correspondence in that matter. We had the conflict in the Goodman case, the Dunnes case and the delisting of Mr. Justice Lynch. In no period of our history has this House been confronted with such problems in the Attorney General's office as it has been in recent times. That is why it should be possible for us to introduce legislation, make orders and establish commissions of this kind without this embarrassment.

Both here and in the other House people on all sides supported the necessity to introduce legislation quickly in order to validate the work being undertaken by the commission. I am glad there has been co-operation and that we are likely to see good developments arising from this intervention. It is a great pity that this good work and co-operation has to be tarnished in the way it is because the advice to the Minister's office from the Attorney General's office came a year too late. It is not good that we have to introduce extreme measures to deal with current problems. Most of us are reluctant to give those powers, to overcentralise the work we do. We prefer to leave local people in charge to take control of their own lives and business. When extreme measures are introduced with the full support of both Houses of the Oireachtas, it behoves those men and women who advise the Government on legal matters to make sure they are adequate and that we do not end up with the kind of mess we have on our hands. That kind of faux pas is not acceptable and we cannot overlook it just because the Minister regrets that it happened. It is high time the ability of that office to respond to today's needs is improved so that we do not find ourselves in situations like this.

Did we find ourselves in this situation because the Department of the Marine is viewed by the Attorney General's office as the "Cinderella" Department. Is it not high time Cinderella got a new dress to go to the ball? Are the resources of the sea, inland fisheries, sea angling and marine development not viewed by the Attorney General's office as an extraordinary national asset which has to be protected, preserved, developed? Are we to believe that that office deals with items of this kind in a way that leads to the problems we are faced with?

On the question of clearly defined objectives as to the value and potential of our fisheries, a number of important developments have taken place, not least the investment in the operational angling tourism programme. Other areas should clearly be developed and policies improved, and this is not enhanced by this kind of debacle.

We on this side of the House support the validation of decisions that have already been taken — I hope they can be truly validated. I would like the Minister to deal with that question since already there are legal cases pending. Can any actions taken up to now be challenged in court? Are we finished with such cases or will we be faced with other difficulties of that kind because of the inadequate legal advice given to the Minister?

There is no need to trot out again many of the statements made in both Houses with regard to the value of our inland fisheries, sea angling, etc. However, when introducing extreme legislation, which is not usual in the House, conferring extreme powers and involving fairly radical intervention in local management and which could be quite embarrassing for all of those who have performed well over the years in the Southern Fisheries Board and elsewhere, it is important that we have legal sanction and are not faced with continuing embarrassment.

Mr. O'Malley

In the circumstances outlined by the Minister of State, I have no objection to this Bill because it is essential that it be passed. However, I have comments to make on why it is necessary. I am not blaming the Department of the Marine. The drafting of this order was not its business. It was the business of that most sacrosanct of places, the office of the Attorney General. Yet again the Attorney General and his office have made a serious mess of things, necessitating this emergency legislation, and we have not had one word of apology either from the Minister or State or from or on behalf of the Attorney General or his office. That is regrettable. These are the very people who are currently lecturing Members of this House in a sub-committee of the House of which I am a member dealing with the compellability of witnesses Bill as to what is allowable and what is not allowable in this House, and how their office in particular must be exempt from any normal examination. These are the people who claim to be the font of all wisdom. This is a most elementary mistake and, in their usual arrogant fashion, they simply advise that it should be rectified and this House has a duty to rectify it. I am quite sure this House will rectify it but I want to place on record my disgust at the elementary error which was made by the Attorney General and his office for which they will accept no responsibility.

The Minister of State read out a speech tonight which suggested that this was some kind of technical error which could not be avoided. It was not; this was a fundamental mistake by people who should not make that sort of mistake and this kind of legislation should not be necessary. Unfortunately it is necessary, and Members might bear in mind in a wider context that the mistake was made by people who regularly tell us what we are and are not supposed to do and who seem to regard themselves as superior beings above the law and, in particular, above political criticism even though they are headed by a political appointee who should have the grace to accept responsibility for this.

The purported order was invalid because the delegation order predated the legislation and, therefore, could not have encompassed the legislation. If there had not been a delegation order or if the Minister rather than the Minister of State had made the order, the problem would not have arisen. While delegation orders may be seen as desirable politically, they frequently give rise to legal problems and this is certainly an example of one such problem.

The delegation order was described in the purported order and in the legislation as Statutory Instrument No. 199 of 1995. If the date of the order was given rather than its statutory instrument number, which is not very enlightening to anybody inside or outside this House, then this problem would have been avoided because any Member of this House would have spotted it, but it is impossible for me or anybody else to know the date of an order if one is simply going by its statutory instrument number because the number of statutory instruments varies greatly from year to year.

To move on to some of the more substantive matters which arise under the purported order and the order which this Bill now proposes to validate, I see that the commissioner was appointed on 26 February 1996, that is over 11 months ago, and I must express disappointment at how relatively little has happened since that date. When the Minister introduced the original legislation and made the original order, he led us to believe that things would happen very quickly but there seem to have been very few changes. In particular, the whole management structure of that board was supposed to be revamped. Nothing appears to have happened. The only event which has taken place which is relevant to all of this is that two officials of the board have been returned for trial on charges of corruption and I understand the trial has been transferred at their request from Waterford Circuit Court to the Dublin Circuit Court, with the result that the trial will presumably be delayed.

Apart from that there have been no changes at management level. It was recognised over a year ago in 1995 in the report by Mr. Rochford that it was desirable that changes be made expeditiously. For that reason it was desirable that an order be made establishing the commission. The purported order was invalidly made but we did not know until recently that it was invalid. The commissioner was acting all along until January of this year in the belief that his powers were valid. The Minister of State should explain why so little has happened in a period of 11 months.

There has, of course, been at least one major development so far as salmon and the protection of inland fisheries are concerned, that was the making of an order within the past few days on 24 January. I hope that one was valid, although in a sense I would not mind if it was not because it legalises for the first time, or certainly the first time for a very long time, the use of monofilament netting in drift net fishery and it increases the maximum depth of mesh permitted from 30 to 45 meshes deep. That is a most retrograde step. I am concerned for the preservation of wild salmon in Ireland. It is one of the most valuable national assets in every sense, not just the financial sense. To legalise monofilament netting and increase the depth of the net by 50 per cent — that seems to be the purpose of moving it from 30 to 45 meshes deep — seems to be quite retrograde and I thoroughly and fundamentally disagree with it. The other matters which are included in the Minister's order are matters of detail to a great extent and involve shifting a few dates, times and such like around. The real crime is committed by the use of these monofilament nets and I did not think I would see the day when that equipment would be legalised. It is absolutely fatal to the survival of wild salmon and, therefore, in time to the survival of salmon as a species and it is deeply regrettable that this should have happened.

We are moving in the opposite direction to most European countries. Drift netting of all kinds is forbidden in many countries in order to try to conserve salmon and allow the species to regenerate itself. I cannot understand why Ireland has moved in this way and I am surprised that there has not been wider outcry. I know this is based on a report which was published some time ago but I could not see any merit in it and I am surprised that the Minister has followed its recommendations in this respect. When something like this can happen, it makes one wonder whether revalidating subsequently the actions of the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission makes any difference.

The Minister of State proposes to ask the House to insert an indemnification clause in section 5 of the original Act. I presume that the commissioner asked for that and I am not surprised, given that he was allowed to operate for nearly 11 months without legal powers. In one way it is surprising that it was not there beforehand. On the other hand, it draws a very clear distinction between the commission and this fisheries board or any other fisheries board because they do not have indemnification. Will they now look for indemnification because they operate on the same legal basis as the commission?

Section 8 of the Bill proports to say that all prosecutions brought before the commencement of this Act by or in the name or on the complaint of the commission shall be deemed to have been brought in the name of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Subsection (2) goes on to say the opposite, that all prosecutions brought in the name of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board shall be deemed to have been brought by or may be continued as if they had been brought in the name of or on the complaint of the commission. I do not understand how each one substitutes the other name. Perhaps there is some explanation for it that escapes me.

I understand that in the past week in Waterford a number of prosecutions were dismissed because they were brought by the commission which, by then, had been found not to validly exist. Does this affect the more important and fundamental prosecutions in train relating to corruption within the board and its officials? Will those prosecutions fail because of this mistake made by the Attorney General? I hope not because while it took ten years for something to happen in relation to the activities taking place in the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, at long last something has happened. Now we find that everything that happened was, apparently, invalid.

It is not surprising that people might be sceptical of this officialdom at all levels within the Department of the Marine and in the Central Fisheries Board which seemed to become paralysed when it came to dealing with what was going on in the Southern Regional Fisheries Board.

I said before that the chairman of that board in December 1987 wrote an official letter to the then Minister pointing out that corrupt practices were taking place and asking him and the Department to do something about it. They never even bothered to reply. They ignored it, turned a blind eye to it, as is so frequently the case, unfortunately, where certain types of activity take place here. This gives rise to the belief that it is fair game for people to carry on in a certain way. The letter was ignored for ten years. I gave credit to the Minister of State when we debated the Bill for being prepared to do something about it. It is a pity that what he tried to do was invalid and useless and we are here tonight to try to retrospectively validate it in the hope that something will come of it.

I referred before to the injustice that has been suffered and continues to be suffered by one individual who was employed by the board and who, technically, is still employed by this board. He did the unforgivable in Irish life — he blew the whistle. He drew attention to the corruption that was taking place and has paid a very severe penalty. First, the man is crippled for life having been attacked by convicted criminals in the course of doing his duty. He suffers severe spasms of pain from time to time and is unable to work. He is in his late forties and faces a future in which he will never work again. What is the reward the Southern Regional Fisheries Board and/or the commission and/or the Department and the central board gave that man? They gave him an income of £133 per week. That sum is made up of £103 which is paid to him by the Department of Social Welfare for disability benefit. He is forced to go to the post office in his local town every week with that cheque and cash it and from there proceed to the office of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board and hand over the £103 in cash. When it has got the cash it will send him a cheque the following week for £133; in other words its contribution is £30 to a man who was so severely injured in the course of his duties and in the course of trying to enforce the fisheries Acts.

Let us contrast that with two individuals who have not just been charged but returned for trial for alleged corruption in the course of their duties with this board. The board pays them their wages in full every week and allows them retain various perks. I call that gross injustice. I ask the Minister of State to examine the way in which this man has been treated and contrast it with the way in which certain others have been treated and to tell the House whether he stands over the treatment of this man whose only crime, in the eyes of many people here, is that he committed the unforgivable, he blew the whistle.

Is it any wonder there are so few whistle blowers here when this is the treatment meted out to them by officialdom? On top of the miserly £30 per week he is given by the board, he has been unable to get any recompense from an insurance policy which the board claimed it had for the purpose of reimbursing employees who lost their income. The company concerned has turned him down and will pay him nothing. This is a grave injustice.

I have enough regard for the Minister of State to believe he does not want to stand over this. The only way he can desist from standing over it is to put a stop to it and to change it. He has power to do that. If somebody is suspended for good reason from their duties, how is it they can be paid in full while a person who is unable to carry out his duties because of severe injuries inflicted on him, in the course of carrying out those duties, should be penalised and get only £30 per week from a publicly funded body? That is entirely wrong.

I do not blame the Minister or his Department for this mess but the Attorney General and his office. It should be clearly recognised that they made a silly error that should not and need not have happened. It was an elementary error, not some complicated legal conundrum where one had to make a judgment subjectively and where one might have been right or wrong — it was a purely fundamental error that a Minister of State, to whom powers had not been delegated, purported through an order to exercise those powers which he did not have. This elementary error should not have happened. Given that it has happened the House should allow the rectifying legislation to go through.

There are many spheres of activity here crying out for legislation. I could name half a dozen or perhaps a dozen that have been waiting years for the production of a Bill. This Bill, consisting of nine sections, was produced in a week because officialdom in the Attorney General's office made a mistake and wanted to rectify it as quickly and as quietly as possible. I wish they would display the same anxiety in producing legislation on other matters that are a great deal more important than this.

Mr. Deasy

This seems to be much ado about very little. It is a technical mistake and reflects in no manner on the Minister of State who has been the best Minister responsible for fisheries in my 20 years here. It is unfortunate that the delegation of functions order was not in place when the original legislation was brought before the House. The Minister of State assured us that anything which transpired during the past 11 months will not be invalid as a result of this slip-up in the Attorney General's office or the Department of the Marine. The mistake probably originated in the Department of the Marine and was spotted by the Attorney General. One might say the Attorney General should have identified the problem at the outset but the major fault lies with the Department of the Marine. It is very difficult to ascertain which is to blame, but it is purely a technical matter.

I disagree with the points made by Deputy O'Malley about the legislation of a certain amount of monofilament net. The restrictions on the use of such nets has meant the virtual extinction of inshore fishermen. I would like Deputy O'Malley to face some of the coastal communities in my constituency and explain to them why they should go hungry because they do not have the equipment to catch salmon. It is disgraceful that for the past 20 years, 70 and 80 feet trawlers which do not have a licence to fish have been using monofilament net to catch tens of thousands of salmon while inshore fishermen cannot do so. This is an indictment of previous Governments and Ministers for Justice and Fisheries. This is the issue about which we should be concerned.

It is proposed in the regulations to allow the use of a limited amount of monofilament net by inshore fishermen inside the six mile limit. This is a correct decision and should have been introduced years ago. I would like Deputy O'Malley to visit the village of Ardmore in west Waterford where 40 fishermen who were employed gainfully during the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s were driven off the seas because they could not catch salmon using nylon net, the only legalised netting allowed.

One cannot survive in the open sea in small open boats without the right type of gear. These fishermen did not have the right gear and were driven off the sea. If they were prepared to pay bribes to certain individuals they could have continued to fish. I agree with Deputy O'Malley that it is long past the time when people who took bribes were brought to book. Seven or eight years ago I wrote to the authorities about this matter but nothing was done. The problem was not outlined to me initially by the official to whom Deputy O'Malley referred. He has done tremendous work and shown tremendous bravery and courage in speaking out, but several years prior to his blowing the whistle another fisheries officer told me what was happening. I wrote to the relevant authorities — the Minister for Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Commissioner — but nothing was done and the alleged taking of bribes and other illegal activities continued. Those people in high places who were informed of the activities taking place should be called to account for not taking action. That is where the fault lies to a significant degree.

We all know that the bigger the crime the more likely one is to get away scot-free. People caught driving over the speed limit for a few miles or without a light on a bicycle are prosecuted and convicted, while those who commit horrendous crimes are most likely to get away with it. Who has ever seen a big businessman, a wealthy person or a person of stature sent to prison? This bugs the ordinary person on the street, particularly fishermen who were hounded, prosecuted and imprisoned for trying to make a living. Some of these fishermen were sent to prison on the basis of very tenuous evidence, as may be shown by subsequent events in the courts. This was a disgrace.

I give a qualified welcome to the regulations because the Minister has, to use a nautical expression, rowed back from what was proposed initially. I hope we get an opportunity to debate the regulations in more detail during the coming weeks. It was proposed to allow the use of a limited amount of monofilament net during June, July and August. However, it will now not be permitted in August. I would like the Minister to explain the reasons for this. During the fishery year 1995-96 fishermen could fish for 2,600 hours but they will only be able to fish for 600 hours if fishing in August is not permitted. One cannot expect fishermen to accept a reduction of more than 75 per cent in their fishing capacity. I ask the Minister to include August, otherwise there will be major problems. We could convince fishermen to remain law-abiding if they were allowed to use monofilament net during June, July and August, but if not in August we will see a return to the old ways of law breaking and indiscipline, something none of us wish to see. We want people to be given a fair chance to make a reasonable living.

There was reference to the summons issued and the prosecutions taken during the past year. The Minister said these prosecutions will be validated. However, we have heard that before and it has not always transpired. The prosecutions taken while the commission was not properly constituted could be open to a High Court challenge. I would like the Minister to be explicit on that point. The commissioner has worked well and most people would say the present arrangement is more satisfactory than the one which pertained prior to his appointment, however tenuous that might have been. For example, there is peace on the high seas off the south east and south coast and there is not the same level of confrontation as previously. Will the Minister refer to the task force report on the conservation of wild salmon? As that report has far reaching consequences for many people, the sooner the better its terms are implemented. I accept the Minister has implemented some of its recommendations, but some months ago he promised that prior to their implementation he would allow a debate on the matter. I hold the Minister to that commitment.

There is nothing wrong with this legislation. A mistake was made and there is no reason for a ballyhoo about it. I hope this legislation will rectify the mistake and that there will be no far reaching consequences.

Mr. Ferris

I support the Bill and commend the Minister on approaching the matter in an expeditious manner and on consulting legal advisers and the Whips. The support for this measure reflects the need for the initial legislation to appoint a commission to deal with the particular problems in the Southern Fisheries Board. Deputy Deasy raised some of those unbelievable problems on many occasions.

While Deputy Smith stated this must be an embarrassment for the Government and not for the Minister as such, the need for the commission must have been a major embarrassment for Fianna Fáil, particularly having regard to the personages currently before the courts because of misdeeds over many years. Even though those misdeeds were brought to the attention of people in high authority, no action was taken. It was embarrassing to discover that legislation was necessary to appoint a commission. In hindsight I am sure we should have been more vigilant. Pinning blame is easy to do. People who do not make mistakes rarely do anything. It is important that the error is being rectified.

I also support Deputy Deasy's views on the new regulations published by the Minister, whom I compliment on the consultation he painstakingly initiated with each fishery board in an effort to reach a consensus about what needs to be done to preserve our salmon stocks, particularly our wild salmon stocks. Because of the competing interests in this area, it is virtually impossible to reach agreement on what should be done and where facilities should be provided. There has been much controversy about monofilament and so on, but once the problem is controlled ports such as Ardmore could be brought back to life. The livelihoods of many fishing families have been gradually eroded because of regulations which were impossible to adhere to. Unless they bribed officials, fishermen ran the risk of being arrested or having their gear impounded. They risked their livelihoods trying to survive under difficult regulations, but the Minister has gone some way towards addressing that problem.

I am also pleased that as a result of representations the Minister has addressed the question of snap-net fishermen. As the management plan for the River Slaney was successful he is prepared, in consultation with the boards, to introduce a similar plan for the River Suir. I am familiar with the traditions of snap-net fishermen in Carrick-on-Suir who provide the only source of income for many families in the area. I am pleased the Minister identified their special needs, particularly in regard to changing tides and the restriction on the number of hours and days they can fish. The needs of snap-net fishermen in Carrick-on-Suir are different from those in Mooncoin. I am pleased the Minister is prepared to examine the specific needs of those fishermen in an overall plan.

The Minister has addressed many of the problems that have lain under water for many years. While it is difficult to meet all the needs of fishermen, he has gone some way towards addressing their needs. We are all aware of the importance of fishing to our tourism industry. Wild salmon can only breed in the wild. They spawn in our mountain rivers and streams and then go back to sea, a wonderful evolution of nature. The regulations introduced by the Minister and this legislation will ensure that responsible people are in control of our fisheries boards. I hope those charged with fraud, bribery and corruption will get their due comeuppance in court.

Mr. Sheehan

I wish to share time with Deputy Kavanagh.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Mr. Sheehan

I congratulate the Minister on the forthright manner in which he tackled this problem. He is the first Minister to grasp the nettle and give a clear direction on how the salmon fishing industry can survive. Successive Ministers failed hopelessly to tackle the problem. It could be described as "Nero fiddled while Rome burned".

Deputy O'Malley attacked the drift-net salmon fishermen. I thought he understood the position more thoroughly. Does Deputy O'Malley think that the hundreds of fishermen trying to eke out a livelihood can be swept aside? Everyone has a right to earn a living.

I congratulate the Minister of State on the forthright way he has tackled the problem and legalised monofilament nets for draft net fishing. Successive Ministers for the Marine have turned a blind eye to this problem which was at the root of the salmon fishing industry's troubles. Successive Governments had no difficulty collecting VAT from unfortunate fishermen for monofilament nets at the point of entry into the country. However, it was illegal to use the nets and the fishermen were hounded like criminals by the Navy. The Minister of State has now resolved the problem.

He has reduced the fishing week to four days and he has also reduced the volume of the nets that can be used. The fishermen are delighted with the Minister of State's forthright vision for the industry. He is ensuring that fishermen can work without being hounded by the fishery protection vessels. Those vessels should patrol the sea areas in which factory ships are taking up large amounts of our salmon.

The salmon hatched in Irish rivers swim to Greenland where they feed before returning to their native rivers. Alas, the journey to Greenland is long and they face many difficulties. Therein lies the threat to the extension of our salmon fishing, not from the few salmon caught by small operators with boats no bigger than 24 feet who are only trying to make a just living. I am glad the Minister of State has had the courage to tackle the problem — a courage which no Minister over the past 15 years has shown.

I sought to have this anomaly sorted out once and for all on many occasions in the past. The Minister of State consulted with the salmon review group which reported to him and set out the measures to be adopted to protect the salmon stocks. The legalisation of monofilament nets will diffuse a serious situation that had arisen which put people trying to protect their livelihoods at loggerheads with the authorities. It is all very well for the well-heeled in society to attempt to remove the fishermen's opportunity to earn a living and to put them on the dole. The parties in this House who would espouse such a policy should face the facts. The Minister of State has made a realistic decision. The fishermen are ready to co-operate to ensure the industry will prosper.

There is a minor amendment I would like the Minister of State to consider with regard to the date of the closure of the season. Three months have been taken off the start of the season but it has not been extended. If the Minister could extend the season to the end of August the Bill would be perfect.

Mr. Kavanagh

I congratulate the Minister of State on the action he has taken. It was necessary to give a legal basis to the commissioner's operations and I wish Mr. Keating well with his task in the future. There were protracted problems in the southern fisheries region which were aired vociferously in this House on many occasions. I am glad the Minister of State has taken the necessary action, appointed a commissioner and given him the necessary legal backing.

I represent a constituency on the east coast and salmon fishing in that area is virtually extinct because very few salmon make it as far as that. Draft net salmon fishing was a valuable source of employment in Wicklow in the past. If the Minister of State's conservation measures are successful we hope to see a revival of salmon fishing in the Wicklow area.

There is a particular problem with the change in the date of the start of the season to 1 June for the Wicklow coastal area. A seaweed, locally known as wrack, appears in the area in early June each year. It makes salmon fishing, draft fishing in particular, virtually impossible during June, July and August. I ask the Minister of State to contact the fishery authorities in the area and they will supply him with the details of the problem that will arise if the limits on the season are introduced. It is accepted that there must be reductions in the fishing effort, in the licences and the days of the week on which fishing is allowed.

There is a problem on the east coast, particularly the coast of County Wicklow, in respect of draft salmon fishermen. I am aware that the same problem exists in the Minister of State's constituency because of the efforts of two fisheries boards north and south of Wicklow Head. Perhaps he will give some attention, through the Fishery Board, to the problems that will arise from the new conservation measure to shorten fishing efforts from 1 June. I met the fishermen involved who are willing to speak to the Minister of State or his officials in connection with this problem. I would like every effort to be made to meet a reasonable request that consideration be given to changing the date, which is causing problems to fishermen in my area. I thank the Minister of State for his co-operation. He has visited the Wicklow constituency on several occasions and, in each instance, there have been positive results.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I remind Deputy McGinley that I am obliged to call on the Minister of State to reply at 9.45 p.m.

Mr. McGinley

I thank the Minister of State for sharing his valuable time. Like previous speakers, I will refer to the most recent communication we received from his Department in connection with the conservation of wild salmon. People living in the constituency I represent in County Donegal are aware of the value of wild salmon and the necessity to conserve the species.

I entered this House 15 years ago and Deputy Deasy, from his time as Minister, will remember the difficulties experienced each summer, during the months of June and July, regarding wild salmon fishing and drift net fishing. The kernel of the problem was that fishermen were not expected to use monofilament gear which was illegal for many years. However, I fear that was more honoured in the breach than the observance. There were running battles each summer between fishery protection vessels and those legally charged with protecting wild salmon and fishermen. This led to awful pressure being exerted on public representatives and Deputies such as myself and others living on the west coast. Ministers came and went and reports were initiated and published. The salmon review group was established in 1986 or 1987 by the then Minister for Fisheries, Mr. Paddy O'Toole, and its report was published and has languished in the Department ever since.

The Minister of State, who is charged with responsibility for wild salmon fishing, grasped the nettle in a serious and meaningful way on assuming office. He established a committee which issued recommendations in its balanced and responsible report. It is true that not everyone got what they wanted and people were obliged to compromise. However, that is what occurs when there are competing interests. If a solution, which will be acceptable to everyone, is to be reached, there is a necessity for compromise on all sides.

I compliment the Minister of State for taking the initiative and publishing the report. He travelled to each county where there is an interest in salmon fishing, met the people involved and discussed the report with them, took account of their comments on the recommendations, returned to Dublin fully informed, kept in touch with the various interests in the interim and he has now submitted his regulations. I congratulate the Minister of State for engaging in such a widescale consultation process. There is a hackneyed phrase which refers to people "taking the gun out of Irish politics". In my opinion, the Minister of State has succeeded in taking the aggravation out of wild salmon drift net fishing. I look forward to the coming season which will prove my theory.

There are a number of issues to which I will now refer. For example, the fishing week has been shortened from five days to four. The hours in which it is legal to fish have also been curtailed to 21 hours, from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. That is quite reasonable. There are a number of measures which will affect fishermen working off the coast of County Donegal. These people were given their licences at the most recent meeting of the fisheries board. The fishing limit has been reduced from 12 to six miles, which will cause some difficulties. The fishing week for estuary fishermen, or draft net fishermen, is also being reduced from five days to four. These people do not have the same liberty, freedom or scope as drift net fishermen who operate six miles off the coast and they are concerned at the reduction. I do not know whether the Minister of State can change this matter but I ask him to consider it.

There was a great demand for drift net fishing licences this year. A man living in my constituency has been a licensed fisherman for 35 years but he was deprived of a licence this year because he submitted his application on a Monday morning instead of the previous Saturday evening. It is very harsh that a board should act in such a manner and deprive a genuine fisherman of his licence because he was a day or two late in applying. He could have submitted the application on the Saturday but was not aware he could do so. He delivered the application at 9 a.m. on the following Monday, having hired a car to travel 60 miles from his home to Ballyshannon, but he did not obtain a licence because it was too late. It is a pity that fishery boards act in such a harsh way. I do not believe the Minister of State intended the regulations to be interpreted in that way. It is against the spirit of the regulations that a genuine fisherman should be deprived of his licence because of a simple oversight.

I compliment the Minister of State who grasped this nettle. Other people living on the western seaboard talked about what they could do and what should or should not be done but they did nothing. The Minister of State, who represents a constituency on the east coast, has proposed a solution and engaged in a wide consultation process. My party appreciates his actions. There will be growing pains and initial difficulties but I am sure everyone will become used to the new regulations. In the past, efforts were made to legalise monofilament fishing nets but to no avail. However, the Minister of State has been successful in doing so and, while there is a price to be paid, we know where we stand. Fishermen can now use the most modern equipment available with limitations and restrictions. However, if he can find a solution to this problem, the Minister of State will be known as "Solomon" in the future.

Mr. Deasy

The most ineffective Minister of all was a Fianna Fáil representative for the constituency of Donegal South West who remains a Member of this House. The individual in question did nothing.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

I thank Members for their co-operation and their support for the Bill. In particular, I thank Opposition spokespersons for agreeing to take the Bill this evening. A mistake was made regarding the order which was signed last year. I regret that mistake and I wish I did not have to come before the House to seek approval for legislation to correct it. It does not help matters to apportion blame for that mistake. I take responsibility for it. I reject the criticisms of the Attorney General and the Attorney General's office. The mistake was identified in that office and was brought to our attention immediately. We acted to correct it by introducing legislation to put the commission back on side. It is much better that the problem is dealt with in that way than be discovered at a later stage in the courts or elsewhere. I am sure Members will be aware of many cases where a flaw in legislation was discovered in the courts, causing a subsequent problem. The problem in this case was identified in the Attorney General's office and appropriate action is being taken to deal with it.

I disagree with Deputy O'Malley on the functioning of the commission. The commission, in the person of Mr. Séamus Keating, has been working satisfactorily in the Southern Fisheries Board. The original Act provided that the commission would be appointed for a period of up to two years. It has not yet completed its work. I am confident Mr. Keating will be able to complete his work, that the management difficulties identified by Mr. Rochford and signalled by him in his report will be addressed by the commission and that the matters which are a cause of concern to Members on all sides of the House will be resolved.

I am not in a position to refer to matters which are before the court. On the case of the individual referred to by Deputy O'Malley, the information he put before the House is not entirely factual. I will not go into detail on the methods of payment, concessions and so on made to the individual concerned other than to say the individual has received payments in excess of those to which there was a strict entitlement under the existing schemes that apply to the individual. The schemes concerned are under negotiation at present and I hope a new scheme will be introduced which will provide for a more generous arrangement for officers who find themselves in that position.

A number of Deputies referred to the new management arrangements with regard to the salmon fishery generally. The report of the salmon task force, which I established in October 1995 and which reported to me last year, has been referred to the appropriate committee of the House. I look forward to discussing that report in greater detail at that committee. The area of salmon management is a very difficult one. As Members have stated, there are many competing and conflicting interests in regard to the salmon fishery. What concerns me about the wild salmon fishery is that stocks of wild salmon have been continuously in decline for the past three decades. When the salmon review group reported ten years ago it pointed out that salmon stocks were about half those of the early 1960s and when the salmon task force reported to me last year it pointed out that stocks were about half that again. There is a necessity to address the problem of declining stocks and to put in place a management regime for wild salmon stocks which is pragmatic and will work and command the support and compliance of the broad spectrum of interests in the salmon fishery.

The regulations I have introduced in recent weeks are not a matter of tampering with days, as Deputy O'Malley said. They are significant in that they reduce the area of sea in which drift net fishing can take place from the 12 mile limit to six miles, reduce the number of days from five to four, confine fishing to daylight hours, set the date for the start of the drift net fishing season at 1 June and legalise the use of monofilament net, which has been banned for the past 30 years during which time salmon stocks continued to decline. As the salmon task force reported to me and as the salmon review group reported ten years ago, monofilament net was in widespread use. It was concluded that a much better way to address the conservation of our salmon would be to put the emphasis on the fishing effort rather than the type of gear used. Because most people used monofilament net the minute they put their foot in a boat they were, by definition, fishing illegally. It would be much better to have a culture of compliance in our salmon fishery than widespread non-compliance with the regulations.

The regulations will be enforced. A number of new patrol vessels have been put in the water in the past two years and a national fishery protection co-ordinator has been appointed. This is the first phase of a two-phase move on salmon management. The second phase will be the introduction of a quota system and a catchment management system, which will address the difficulties with the snap net fishery, raised by Deputy Ferris, and the draft net fishery, raised by Deputy Kavanagh, whereby the problems which apply in local areas or particular estuaries may be dealt with at local level. There is a very good model for such catchment management in the Slaney, and under the regulations the Slaney plan will continue to operate in that area.

I wish to briefly refer to the point about prosecutions. Section 8 provides that prosecutions brought by the commission before the commencement of the legislation will be deemed to have been brought by the board and prosecutions brought but not concluded by the board before the commencement of the legislation may be continued after the commencement of the legislation as if they had been brought by the commission. The invalidation of the purported order means that the commission had no authority to bring prosecutions in respect of fisheries offences. Until such time as this legislation is enacted, therefore, any new prosecutions will have to be taken in the name of the board and prosecutions taken by the commission and due to be concluded before the commencement of the legislation cannot be proceeded with in the name of the commission until such commencement. The effect of this legislation will be to validate the prosecutions which are being taken. From memory, about four prosecutions were concluded during the lifetime of the commission and about 40 prosecutions are under consideration. Those prosecutions are validated under section 8 of the Bill.

I thank Members who contributed for their support for the legislation and their general welcome for the new approach we are adopting to salmon management. I thank in particular the Opposition spokespersons for their co-operation in the timetabling of the legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 10 o'clock I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: That the Bill is hereby read a Second Time, that sections 1 to 9, inclusive, and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee and the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed.

Question put and agreed to.