I apologise for the delay to those who are waiting. We had a very informative presentation from Dr. Connolly of the Marine Institute, which was important for the committee. We will now discuss the Lacken weir with the OPW and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. I welcome Mr. Seán Benton, chairman of the Commissioners of Public Works, Mr. Tony Smith, director of engineering services, Mr. John Curtin, OPW engineer, Mr. John O'Keeffe, an engineer from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Mr. Brian Sheerin, chief executive officer of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. I apologise to Mr. Sheerin for the difficulties that resulted in the short notice he received. I understand a rogue e-mail address caused the non-delivery of the e-mail. I am sorry for the difficulty this has caused even though we did send a notice by snail mail and I think there was a telephone communication. I am sure he is delighted——
Lacken Weir: Presentation.
Mr. Brian Sheerin
That is fine. The chairman is unable to be here because of a previous commitment.
That is no problem. I am sure Mr. Sheerin is delighted to be here to share with the committee his views on the Lacken weir which are well publicised and well-noted from the radio interviews he has given and the different commentaries he has made.
I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the House, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. In addition, in regard to the declaration of interests under the provisions of section 7 of the Ethics in Public Offices Act 1995 and 2001, a member who proposes to participate either by speaking or voting in the proceedings of a committee and has a material interest in the subject matter of the proceedings is required to make a declaration of interest.
The committee will receive a short presentation from the OPW followed by a short presentation from the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. I will then open the forum for questions and answers. I ask members not to interrupt or interject during the presentations unless there is a matter that needs to be clarified.
Before asking Mr. Benton to commence his presentation I remind everyone that this committee has taken a very keen interest in salmon. Last year the committee published its Fourth Report on Drift Netting, Draft Netting and Angling. The committee is concerned to ensure the survival of the salmon stock. We must not find ourselves in a position where anglers or commercial fishermen are curtailed while at the same time salmon is needlessly killed in man-made fish passes on our rivers. Senator Kenneally and I have visited the Lacken weir. Today we should seek to find a way forward that assists and does not kill the salmon. It is my hope that today we can bring forward ideas and solutions to do this.
Mr. Seán Benton
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to brief it on what is happening at the Lacken weir on the Nore. I have a longer presentation than I would normally offer but it is important that I put on record all the facts in regard to the matter.
I first acknowledge that there is a problem. I hope I will be able to satisfy the committee that the Office of Public Works, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board are treating this matter seriously and are working hard to come up with a permanent solution to the problem. In the recent past we have been wrongly accused of denying that there is any problem at the fish pass. That is simply not true. The fact that we have introduced temporary measures at the weir to facilitate the passage of salmon upriver is evidence of our recognition of the problem. We have said, and continue to say, that what is happening at the weir is not acceptable but it is far from a crisis or the ecological disaster some commentators have made it out to be.
The facts are that in early 2005, 22 salmon died. In late 2005, three dead fish were found. These figures must be viewed in the context of a salmon run on the River Nore of approximately 5,000 fish plus. I fully accept that the passage of salmon is being impeded. The problem is that the salmon on their way to their spawning grounds are having difficulty finding the fish passes, are having to spend too long at the weir and many of them are jumping at the weir itself rather than moving directly through the fish pass. I was down at the weir on Friday and I witnessed some of that.
It is unacceptable that salmon should spend longer at the weir than necessary. Some people would say it is unacceptable that salmon should have to encounter weirs at all in the course of their migration. I will address that issue from an OPW perspective shortly but before doing that I will outline the actions we have been involved in to date.
A problem with the functioning of the fish pass at the Lacken weir was initially identified in January 2005 when a late run of salmon in unusually large numbers resulted in congestion in front of the weir. A temporary extension to the fish pass was put in place by the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Both this extension and a rise in the water levels due to rainfall allowed the fish to successfully pass through the fish pass on their way upstream at that stage.
During the summer of 2005, further works were undertaken at the weir. These included the permanent extension to the Denil fish pass, the creation of a pool below it and a channel in the river bed to lead fish into the pass. A concrete groyne fish pass was also constructed on the original section on the weir to further enhance conditions for the passage of fish. It had been intended to dig another channel in the bed of the river to guide fish to the Denil pass. However, because of concerns about the structural stability of the weir it became necessary to postpone these works until summer this year. It is not possible, as the Chairman is aware, to work in a river at all times of the year, both because of water conditions and environmental considerations, including the necessity not to interfere with the run of salmon.
We became aware of further problems at the weir in late 2005 and began immediately to monitor the situation in consultation with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Conditions in the river at the time were unsafe for staff to work in and prevented any immediate intervention. On 15 December the Ministers of State, Deputies Tom Parlon and Pat The Cope Gallagher, directed that ameliorating measures should be put in place as early as possible to ensure the easier passage of salmon at the weir in the short term. The earliest occasion on which conditions at the weir were reasonably safe for staff to work on was 17 December when the fisheries board staff placed sandbags on top of the weir and on 21 December staff from the Office of Public Works, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the fisheries board constructed an additional temporary timber groyne pass to still the waters at the base of the weir.
The Minister also directed the officials from the OPW, the Department and the fisheries board to work closely together to address the difficulties that had arisen during the year regarding the salmon passage at the weir and to ensure that the best possible fish passage facilities were identified and implemented to ensure a similar situation would not recur. We are currently arranging for a full review of the conditions at the Lacken weir with a view to determining the measures that should be implemented in the summer when environmental considerations permit and lower water levels facilitate working in the river.
I am satisfied the measures taken during 2005 were effective and that the vast majority of the salmon were successful in passing the weir. Unfortunately, from my point of view, there are no facilities in place to objectively monitor the number of salmon upstream of Kilkenny. I can tell the committee, however, that after the temporary works were undertaken on 21 December approximately 20 salmon were observed passing through the Denil pass in a quarter of an hour. Analysis of a video installed on 22 December confirmed that evidence, with 122 salmon passing through in one 90 minute spell. That recording, which I have here, is available for anyone who wishes to see it. I had hoped I would be able to show it to the committee but I gather the technology is not available for the recording. I have since managed to get a DVD, which is available to anyone who wishes to see it. I should point out that all the monitoring was carried out during daylight hours and therefore only a proportion of the actual run is captured in the recording. The research, and some of the experts can confirm this, indicates——
We will take a copy of that for the committee, Mr. Benton, and while you are at it you might investigate the delay in fitting out these rooms with the plasma screens and other technology.
Mr. Benton
I think you have the latest technology. This is probably old technology.
One of you might take a note of the fact that we are waiting for the plasma screens. Whether the instruction came to you from the commission, I do not know.
Mr. Benton
It is duly noted and we will take care of it.
Thank you.
Mr. Benton
The point is that there is evidence of significant numbers of fish passing through the Denil pass. That is not the whole story, however, because as the committee is aware there are two groyne passes there through which some fish pass. Also, this recording only covers daylight hours and most of the fish will travel during the hours of darkness, as I understand from the research.
I do not say every fish succeeded in passing the weir. We know that 22 dead fish were found in the vicinity of the weir in January 2005 and that three fish died, probably as a result of problems at the weir, in December last. A further five fish became trapped in rock armour placed at the foot of the rock groyne pass in October 2005 but staff from the fisheries board addressed that problem and undertook minor adjustments to the rock armour.
While I have the opportunity I mention the coverage of yesterday's events. There were reports that significant numbers of salmon were seen spawning at the Ossory Road bridge. I have been advised by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources experts and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board that this is a natural spawning ground for some salmon and that therefore there is no problem. I accept, however, that it is also possible that a number of fish may have spawned away from their natural spawning grounds but we do not have any evidence of that.
I am advised by biologists that they estimate that the salmon run in the River Nore would have approximately 5,000 fish, and perhaps a little more. While the loss of any stock is regrettable, experts acknowledge that in the context of this number, the extent of the losses at Lacken weir is negligible.
It is also important to draw a clear distinction between those fish which die before the spawning process is completed and fish which die after spawning. It is normal for spent salmon carcases to be found after spawning in a river system like the River Nore. This is an entirely natural process and I emphasise it is not related to any difficulties at the weir. A similar proportion of salmon in rivers throughout the country will expire having spawned. In saying this, I stress I am not denying the problem. I am merely defining the nature and extent of the problem which is the first essential step in trying to resolve it. I am mindful that if it had not been for the successful interventions by the OPW, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the regional fisheries board, the problem at Lacken weir could have been more serious.
In identifying interim measures which might be taken to solve the problem a number of options were suggested including one which would have required the removal of the weir. While the OPW would have no objection to this from the point of view of the effectiveness of the flood protection scheme, the suggestion is complex and is certainly not a viable, immediate or short-term option since the full implications of such a radical measure would have to be worked out and agreed by all the affected stakeholders, of whom I suspect there would be many.
If Lacken weir was removed tomorrow, the problem would simply move a few hundred metres upstream to the Ormond weir, which the fish pass quite comfortably at present. If the Ormond weir, in turn, was removed or breached to solve the problem there, the result would be a fairly dramatic lowering of the water level in the river through the city stretches. This would be particularly problematic in the summer when the natural flow of the river would be at its lowest. When the OPW designed the flood relief scheme, we were advised by the local authority that it required the water level in the river through the city to be maintained as at pre-scheme levels. This was considered to be a reasonable request and while it limited the design options it presented no insurmountable problems for us in terms of the design of the scheme.
It is sometimes thought that weirs, which are always undesirable from a fisheries perspective, only exist as part of drainage or flood relief works. This is far from the reality. Weirs serve many different purposes. They are used to maintain water levels for aesthetic or sporting purposes. They are also used to divert water into mill races, canal cuts etc. Members of the committee will be aware that weirs are present on virtually all rivers and fish negotiate them successfully, albeit with some difficulty in many cases.
The existence of Lacken weir long predates the Kilkenny flood protection scheme. The flood relief works necessitated the deepening of the river by lowering the river bed, downstream of the weir. This is an essential element of the flood relief scheme and cannot be reversed as the scheme would not then function effectively. A point that may be forgotten in this debate is that the Kilkenny flood relief scheme has already proved its effectiveness. When the benefits are measured, and they have been independently, the value put on the benefits exceeds well in excess of €100 million. It is important not to forget that the flood protection scheme has been successful, has demonstrated its effectiveness, offers Kilkenny city a 100 years level of protection and it is extremely cost beneficial.
One effect of the lowering of the river bed was to increase the height of the weir and thus the height of the obstacle the fish have to pass. It was in order to facilitate the passage of the fish that the Denil fish pass was designed and constructed. I acknowledge that the pass was initially constructed too short but this has since been rectified.
The reality, however, is that the fish are not finding the pass as quickly as they should and are therefore having difficulty passing the weir and continuing their journey onwards to spawn. The interim works we carried out in January and December and the works carried out last summer were effective in the circumstances that prevailed then, but they have not addressed all the issues relating to the passage of salmon at the weir. Further options need to be identified and considered.
We are currently reviewing all aspects of the fish pass together with officials from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. The objective of the review is to identify the permanent measures necessary to alleviate the difficulties associated with salmon passage, to consider their impact on the flood relief scheme and any possible environmental impact. In the course of our review we will consult locally with all the stakeholders and will look objectively at all options being put forward.
I trust the committee will note from my statement that we acknowledge the difficulty for the passage of salmon at Lacken weir, that the situation is not the ecological disaster claimed by some commentators and that we are all actively engaged in finding lasting solutions for the successful passage of salmon through the Lacken weir.
I invite Mr. Sheerin to make his presentation and then I will take questions.
Mr. Sheerin
I apologise to Mr. Ronan Lenihan for being tetchy yesterday. I would always accept an invitation to come in here because I wore out a considerable amount of shoe leather trying to get elected here but I was unsuccessful. I am glad to appear before the committee today and I thank the chairman and members of the committee for the invitation to speak to them on the fish pass at Lacken weir on the River Nore in Kilkenny city.
We will meet in the future about other matters. I take it Mr. Sheerin is aware that all fisheries boards are being reviewed by the Minister and by the Oireachtas.
Mr. Sheerin
That is correct.
As we will meet again, we had better stay on good terms.
Mr. Sheerin
Yes.
The substantive issue here is the free passage of fish over a weir on the River Nore in Kilkenny. It relates to the effective operation of a fish pass on the weir, designed to allow returning salmon upriver beyond the weir to spawn. This is essentially an engineering issue and the OPW is the body responsible for the construction of the fish pass. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the body empowered to regulate the operation of the weir.
The Southern Regional Fisheries Board has no direct responsibility for the construction of the fish pass and its operation. However, in line with its remit relating to the management, conservation, protection and development of fisheries within its region, the board monitors fish movements in all its rivers. In the case of the River Nore in Kilkenny city, the board has been monitoring the upward passage of salmon at the weir over the past two years and has devoted considerable resources to this. Over this period we have worked closely with and supported the OPW and our parent Department, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, in ensuring that the State's resources are operating to best effect in its efforts to address this matter.
When the problem was first identified in late 2004 my board took immediate emergency action. We worked with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the OPW to develop and install a temporary extension to the fish pass. While the board was not obliged to take this course of action we felt, in the unusual situation prevailing at the time, that immediate action was required and the action undertaken had the support of the Department and the OPW. It is clear that the insertion of the extension had a positive impact on escapement.
The board's staff, who are vastly experienced in the area of monitoring and assessing fish movement, are not in a position to provide objective and definitive advice to me and my board on the level of effectiveness of the new fish pass in facilitating the upward passage of salmon. This arises as there is no mechanism in place at the weir to monitor activity on a continuous basis, count the salmon passing through and quantify mortality rates. Unfortunately, there is no fish counter or any other recording device in place at this weir or on any of the major rivers in the south east to provide reliable and definitive figures on salmon going up the rivers and through this fish pass. Neither is there reliable and definitive evidence on the numbers of salmon that fail to traverse the fish pass. To address this the board has recommended to its parent Department and the OPW that in addition to the camera installed at the fish pass recently, a fish counter also be installed to provide improved and accurate information and data on the numbers of fish escaping.
From the observations and ongoing monitoring of its staff and based on their extensive experience in this area over many years the board is satisfied that not all salmon are successfully escaping through the fish pass. The board has endeavoured to quantify the numbers of salmon failing to escape up river on the basis of visual observation and is of the view that while a problem exists, the board is not in a position to quantify it to the board's satisfaction. In an effort to improve our knowledge of what is happening at the weir, the Department, at my instigation, installed a camera at the weir in early December last. This footage shows some fish attempting to leap over the weir without success in low water conditions. However, it does not provide definitive evidence that these salmon fail ultimately to get up river, as individual salmon sometimes make many attempts before being successful at this and other weirs. The board is having this footage analysed and is happy to provide the analysis to this committee when available. However, the board would caution that any data emerging from this analysis may not establish the true or full extent of the problem.
In summary, I am aware of and fully understand the concerns of anglers and other stakeholders about this matter. I would like the committee to be aware that my board shares this concern. However, there is no objective, definitive and reliable evidence available to my board which quantifies the problem. I am satisfied that my parent Department and the OPW are fully committed to resolving this matter at the earliest opportunity. My board will continue to work closely in supporting them in the successful resolution of this matter. My board has monitored and will continue to monitor escapement and will work with and keep angling and other stakeholders informed of developments.
I wish to pose some questions before calling on Deputies McGuinness and Hogan. Prior to the development of the fish pass, were there any difficulties with fish being able to negotiate the weir? Who is responsible for the development and maintenance of the fish pass, as well as seeing that it is working correctly? Given all the dealings we have had about this issue — which is really a parochial one, but can be extended to all parts of the country — I acknowledge the importance of the flood relief scheme. There is no question of it not being acknowledged. Are any other problems being experienced with recently constructed weir designs throughout the country? My colleague, Deputy Broughan, may have a question regarding Carrick-on-Suir.
Will Mr. Sheerin clarify for the committee who the stakeholders are with whom the Southern Regional Fisheries Board is consulting? We will certainly review the video and disk concerning the board's monitoring work. It is an unusual step for the committee to visit a site when it concerns just one part for the country, because we should examine the national picture. It is of concern to the committee, however, given that we have produced an important report on the survival of the species.
Other colleagues, such as Senator Kenneally, will have questions about fish counters. As Mr. Sheerin will be aware, one of the recommendations in our report is that fish counters should be placed on every river. Before the meeting closes, we would like to know when we will have sight of that analysis from Mr. Sheerin.
Before I call Deputy McGuinness, Mr. Benton may wish to deal with those short questions.
Mr. Benton
The first issue the Chairman raised was the construction of the weir. In fact, the weir has been there for many years — probably a few hundred years, although I am not sure for exactly how long. It has been breached in a number of areas. The critical point, however, is that for the flood relief scheme to work and give that level of protection to the city, it was necessary to dig into the river bed below the weir. I think that probably 1.5 metres of it was removed, which effectively increased the height of the weir. Some breaches in the weir were repaired. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources designed the pass.
The Chairman asked about other areas and the experts with me may be able to confirm this. Weirs and fish passes create problems everywhere and can impede the passage of salmon to a greater or lesser extent depending on the conditions prevailing at the time. I am conscious that Clonmel was mentioned on the radio this morning. We have been planning that scheme and we hope to move it on to design stage fairly shortly. However, the OPW had no previous involvement in that river or the construction of the weir. The issue has been raised with us and we are examining it.
What town was it?
Mr. Benton
Clonmel. That was raised this morning.
The question the Cathaoirleach asked was whether the OPW had any data on the salmon run before the current development. If so, did the OPW take that into account before the 1.5 metres of river bed was dug out?
Mr. Benton
The estimated run on the three rivers in the area is about 20,000 salmon. It is estimated that 5,000 or perhaps up to 7,000 would be on the Nore. We have no objective or detailed evidence on that — it is an estimate — because there are no counters on those rivers.
Who are the stakeholders?
Mr. Benton
The stakeholders include the local authority obviously, which had a specific requirement of maintaining the water which is used in the city.
Mr. Benton said he would consult stakeholders. Who are they?
Mr. Benton
Obviously, we want to consult the local anglers as well.
Yes.
Mr. Benton
There are other sports bodies in the area that may be affected, in addition to any other group that has a view on how we might handle it.
I suggest that the OPW should include the Oireachtas Members for the area in that stakeholder review.
Mr. Benton
I would be happy to do that, Chairman.
Thank you. I now call Deputy McGuinness followed by Deputy Hogan.
I welcome the opportunity for this exchange of views with Mr. Benton on the behalf of the OPW and Mr. Sheerin on behalf of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. We have exchanged views on the radio, but it is appropriate and important to do it here also. Both privately at the last meeting of this committee and publicly at the Committee of Public Accounts, I said that the scheme itself works for Kilkenny. There is no doubt about that, but whether it should have cost €48 million is another issue. That is where I take issue with the OPW. As regards the cost benefit analysis, the sum of €100 million was mentioned. Mr. Benton provided some of those figures at the Committee of Public Accounts. It is a feature of the OPW's reports that as one gives a cost benefit analysis, that increases as quickly as the cost of the scheme increases. That must be borne in mind by people listening to Mr. Benton today.
I also wish to draw the committee's attention to what Mr. Sheerin said in his report. Mr. Benton must be disappointed to listen to Mr. Sheerin because he has taken away any shred of credibility concerning the figures given in Mr. Benton's earlier report, or concerning the video evidence. I have asked the Chairman to look at the video evidence supplied by Mr. Benton and the video evidence supplied by anglers on the River Nore over three different periods, which shows fish jumping against the weir and trying to identify any path that would take them up river. While Mr. Benton has video evidence, other video evidence taken professionally by the anglers there is now available to the Chairman and other members of the committee.
I welcome Mr. Benton's comment about the Lacken weir and weir structures in and around Kilkenny. There is no doubt that they cannot be taken out because they are part and parcel of the River Nore. Mr. Sheerin has publicly stated that he would like to see them taken out as he sees no use for them, but that is not my view. My view is that the weirs, including the Lacken weir in this case, would be best left to function as they have done for generations.
To answer the last question, up to the time this one was constructed, there was no difficulty about salmon passing through the weirs. It is amazing that salmon can travel half way around the world, all the way around Ireland and up the River Nore only to be confronted by a man-made obstacle put in place by the OPW, which stops them dead in their tracks. That is a fact.
I welcome some of the statements that Mr. Benton has made in acknowledging that something is wrong. I also welcome the acknowledgement that the weirs are important to the structures on the river. I further welcome the fact that, at long last, local interests will be asked to offer possible solutions. It has been suggested, time and time again, through Mr. Sheerin that both Ministers and both Departments, in partnership with the local authorities, ask fishermen for their opinions. It is downright arrogant of the OPW and those assisting it that they would carry out this work without seeking these people's opinions.
As for the remainder of the report, it is, by and large, a whitewash and a dressing up of the real facts. I have a number of questions I wish to ask. The OPW was wrongly accused of denying the problem, which is an overstatement in itself. Mr. Sheerin and those on the river daily are regularly accused of not listening and of taking the wrong advice. I have tabled parliamentary questions on this matter. It is difficult to get the information from the OPW or the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Who is responsible for this? What consultants did the OPW employ to design the weir that was originally built and not that which exists now with various contraptions attached? The latest vulgar attachment that has been put across it is meant to be a groyne pass but seems to be some type of timber contraption which does not work. Did those consultants approve the work done on the weir, that is, the groyne pass and the other work, which cost €60,000, in 2005? Did they approve or suggest that the OPW should put in place the timber contraption that is now across the weir? How far has the OPW got with the consultants in regard to their responsibility? In reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, seems to suggest they might pay for it.
Mr. Benton said that in early 2005, 20 salmon died but I wish to correct that. Twenty salmon were probably found dead by some officials but that does not mean 20 salmon died. It means 20 salmon were found. Anglers will tell one that substantially more salmon than the number indicated by Mr. Benton died at that time. Mr. Benton suggests that 5,000 fish pass along this salmon run. There are no counters on the river. Mr. Sheerin told us that earlier. He also stated that there is no evidence over which the fisheries board can stand in respect of those figures. In fact, over €89,000 was spent on a fish counter on the River Blackwater. Two fish counters were purchased but I understand they did not work. Mr. Benton seems to know something about counting salmon because he said that there are 5,000 fish on that salmon run but Mr. Sheerin said otherwise. There are no salmon there. I would like to know how Mr. Benton arrived that figure.
The fish swimming upriver are experiencing difficulty with the weir, in terms of the way it was constructed. They are having particular difficulty with the extension to the Denil pass and the pool of 7 ft. or 10 ft. of water created underneath this. I do not know whether the next step will be to place some signposts on it so that one can direct the salmon across to the Denil pass. That is all the OPW is short of doing. It spent a great deal of money building the weir. In 2005 it blocked one third of it with sand bags. It put a wooden structure down the weir. That, in itself, is an indication that the OPW agrees with what has been said, namely, that the Denil pass and the addition of the groyne pass simply do not work.
The footage will show the salmon jumping against the weir. Mr. Benton mentioned 122 salmon passing through in 90 minutes. I stood there one day for 20 minutes with Mr. Sheerin and not one salmon went up the pass. We were told by Mr. Sheerin to count the fish jumping against the weir, which we did. There were four of us. In one five-minute period, 105 salmon jumped against that weir, while in another five-minute period, 45 did so. In a further five-minute period, some other number did so. All this indicated that the weir, the Denil pass and the groyne pass are simply not working. On a separate occasion, I understand other anglers went there but did not see one fish going up the pass. That is a fact.
Mr. Benton said that the problem was identified in January 2005. Mr. Sheerin is correct that it did not happen in 2005 but at Christmas in 2004. That is when it all began to go wrong on the OPW, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the fisheries board. Mr. Benton mentioned there was no congestion at the next weir — the Ormond weir. Of course that is the case because it is a different pass. It is a pool pass. The fish have no problem going up there. Mr. Benton mentioned the fish are seen up river which is correct but he did not mention that the majority of fish which pass along by the Lacken weir pass through what is known as the McGuinness mill race or the Lacken mill race. My brother owns a property near there.
We saw that mill race.
That mill race functions exceptionally well and allows the fish up. The OPW's man-made obstruction does not. Mr. Benton is burying his head in the sand if he does not agree that it is time to deal with the Denil pass and to do something with it as has been suggested by——
Mr. Benton has indicated there is a difficulty. The OPW is acknowledging the difficulty to this committee and is undertaking to rectify it. We must acknowledge that.
I acknowledge and welcome that. I want to set out the bare facts rather than dress them up. These sand bags and so on are being washed down the river.
Mr. Benton made other startling remarks in regard to the river. Using scientific evidence used by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the river is way below its figures in terms of the conservation of salmon. In fact, it is suggested that not one salmon should be taken from that river. The OPW's obstruction in the river has taken more than enough salmon up to now. I have been told that some of the salmon found dead in the River Pococke and down from that weir are spent — they have spawned and have died. Recent pictures given to us by the anglers have shown that when the fish have been cut, they have been with spawn. The fishermen had to do that in order to put an end to the lie that these were spent salmon. That was untrue.
Mr. Benton referred to the Ossory Road Bridge saga, and another half-baked answer has been given today. Anglers, who I hope will be given the opportunity to put their story at another date in light what Mr. Benton said today, will tell one, from their 40 years of fishing on and knowledge of the River Nore, that this spot is not a spawning ground for salmon. That is a fact. Some 40 years experience will tell one that it is not a spawning ground for salmon and that the dredging of the river makes it less attractive for spawn at that location. Given that they cannot get past the OPWs obstruction in the river, they are now going back down it and are trying desperately to fulfil their natural role by spawning anywhere. Fishermen say that is not the way that should be done because the fish are creating beds on beds and the ground beneath them is shifting. While they are fulfilling their natural role, nothing will arise. The OPW is standing in the way of nature. I walk that river every Sunday and that area has never been known for salmon spawning. I have never seen as many people pull in and look over the bridge as I have over the past number of days to see what is going in the river. I do not know whether Mr. Benton or Mr. Sheerin appreciate they are the laughing stock of the country because of what is happening on that river. The sooner they arrive at a solution to this, the better.
Mr. O'Sullivan submitted a report to this committee and the Committee of Public Accounts, which I also handed to the junior Minister, regarding what is required for the future. That is where the focus should be when the mish mash of a report presented by the delegation is out of the way. Mr. O'Sullivan states a simple pool pass is required to allow the salmon to gently travel through the weir. The board and the OPW are outside the comfort zone regarding the gradient of the weir which is 1:6 when it should be 1:5. I wonder what consultation took place to understand what the river was about when the original work was done. Mr. O'Sullivan's report was put to one side and not considered. He works on a concept used throughout Europe and America related to the conservation of fish and the movement of fish up and down a river. The Denil pass was constructed wrongly. It should have been built for the weakest fish and it should have had reference to the depth of the water at that time but that was ignored.
I encourage the OPW and everybody else involved to focus on a solution. Replies to parliamentary questions have acknowledged that the churning that takes place is a natural occurrence at weirs. An amount of misinformation has been put in the public domain. One reply to a parliamentary question I tabled in mid-2005 states, "While churning is a normal feature of weirs, a precautionary inspection to establish stability of the weir will be carried out". In September 2005 the OPW issued a press release, which stated:
In the course of these works concerns arose regarding the workmanship of the new section of weir. The work also provided an opportunity to investigate further concerns raised locally regarding tow protection to the old weir. Further investigation has established that remedial measures are required to remedy the problems identified. In essence, there are construction defects in the new section of the weir and the tow protection to the old weir must be replaced with one of more robust design.
The defects identified do not have any implications for the flood relief scheme but they have implications for the conservation of salmon. Will the OPW ensure the consultation process, which it has stated it will put in place, is put in place immediately? Will those who are interested in the weir and the conservation of salmon, including Mr. O'Sullivan, be consulted? Will the OPW examine the Denil pass and the pass on the Ormond weir to determine if they can be modified during the construction work it will undertake? That is critical if we are to move forward. I am willing to set aside the baggage of the past right up to this day and look immediately towards the solution. That is what the OPW should do.
Mr. Benton made it clear in his opening contribution that he is anxious other stakeholders should become involved and knowledge will be shared. We are all anxious to find solutions to the problem. I hope the stakeholders group will comprise public representatives from the area and fishing industry experts so that everybody can work towards a solution. I would like Mr. Benton to respond to all the questions put by the Deputy, otherwise I will have to ask him to repeat the questions because serious charges have been made against the OPW and I would like Mr. Benton to have an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Benton
I thank the Deputy for his comments. He questioned the validity of the figures I used in my presentation. I used three sets of figures. The first set relates to the number of dead fish and they were supplied by the fisheries board. The second set of figures relates to the number of fish passing through the Denil pass. They can be counted on video. We have 12 hours of tape that will show the passage of fish through the Denil pass and, therefore, that evidence cannot be denied. The third set of figures relates to the cost-benefit analysis of the flood protection scheme. That exercise was conducted by independent consultants using international criteria for measuring such schemes. They are not figures the OPW dreamed up or made up and they will stand up to any analysis. I previously supplied detailed information on them to other Oireachtas committees. They are the three issues relating to the robustness of the figures I used.
The Deputy referred to the O'Sullivan report. A number of suggestions were put forward in the report and I will ask my colleague, Mr. O'Keeffe, to comment. However, a number of assertions in the report would be challenged by the Department.
Another issue was the absence of evidence of the number of fish. I made it clear in my statement that the figures I was using were estimated by the experts in this field. The best of expertise has made those figures available to me and Mr. O'Keeffe can comment if he wishes.
The Deputy asked about the problems at the weir. I made it clear in my statement that the problems at the weir arose principally because of the dredging work immediately below the weir. The Deputy made a number of other points, which I am happy to take on board when we review this process. I will talk to the public representatives and other interested groups in the area. A number of statements were made and questions put. I have responded to as many as I can recall. If I have missed an important one, I would be happy to take it on board.
Can I take it from Mr. Benton's response to Deputy McGuinness's analysis that, while he accepts there is a difficulty, he has not found a solution but is willing to work with the stakeholders in order that a solution can be found to address this problem?
Mr. Benton
We will do everything possible to bring about a satisfactory solution to this problem.
Excellent. Will Mr. O'Keeffe outline what he does in the Department?
Mr. John O’Keeffe
I am an engineer in the Department and I have special responsibility for inland fisheries and for fish passage.
Did Mr. O'Keeffe design the fish pass at Lacken weir?
Mr. O’Keeffe
That is correct. I designed the fish pass at Ormond weir, the upper weir.
Did Mr. O'Keeffe or a consultant design it?
Mr. O’Keeffe
No. There was a design which I deemed would be ineffective. We, therefore, changed it.
Was it Mr. O'Keeffe's hand which designed it?
Mr. O’Keeffe
Yes.
Does Mr. O'Keeffee accept there is a problem?
Mr. O’Keeffe
Not specifically with the fish pass.
Will Mr. O'Keeffe give us his explanation?
Mr. O’Keeffe
The type of pass to which the Chairman refers is a Denil or battle type pass which is in common use throughout the country, western Europe and North America. As the Chairman said, the pass installed initially was too short. It was added to last year to bring it to the correct length. Hydraulically, it is working perfectly and complies with all standards of design. It is also free of debris. We checked the hydraulics and are satisfied from video evidence that it is hydraulically capable of allowing all the salmon to pass through the weir.
Why was it too short?
Mr. O’Keeffe
Initially, we were given downstream levels that proved to be incorrect.
Where was the mistake made?
Mr. O’Keeffe
We got them from consultants in the OPW.
Did they get the measurements wrong?
Mr. O’Keeffe
They gave us incorrect levels.
Does this relate to the data from the OPW?
Mr. O’Keeffe
From the consultants.
Would one normally have data available before designing a fish pass?
Mr. O’Keeffe
Yes.
The data did not come from Mr. O'Keeffe but from some other body?
Mr. O’Keeffe
Correct.
Which body?
Mr. O’Keeffe
The consultants for the OPW.
Who are they?
Mr. O’Keeffe
Mott McDonald.
Are they consultants? Is it a Cork company? These are the people who gathered the data required before the initial design was drawn up.
Mr. O’Keeffe
Yes.
Mr. Benton
May I offer a comment from Mr. Tony Smith, director of engineering, who engaged the consultants and has been dealing with the issue?
Mr. Tony Smith
Mott McDonald provided the consulting engineers for the flood relief scheme and carried out the engineering design. One of the post-works water levels they gave to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was incorrect. This led to the problem with the short pass.
Are they taking responsibility for this?
Mr. Smith
We are in discussions with them about it.
We will not go into the matter in detail. We will let Mr. Smith conclude the discussions.
Will Mr. O'Keeffe give us the length of the Denil pass? I understand it should be 10 m but is now 13 m. Is that correct? Should the Denil pass be 6 m in length if trout and other fish are to pass through? Will mature salmon with eggs have to be taken into consideration in the pass being constructed? The gradient which should be one in six is one in five? Will Mr. O'Keeffe comment on these aspects?
Mr. O’Keeffe
The pass is 10.5 m long, not 13 m as commonly stated. That is a misunderstanding on the part of the consultant of the actual water level. It is the difference in water level in the pass that determines the height difference. Given a one in five gradient, this gives a 10.5 m pass.
The 10.5 m Denil pass is well within the design criteria for salmon and trout in excess of one foot. Smaller trout can get through but they have difficulty in doing so. The pass is designed primarily for salmon and lamprey. It allows both species to pass with ease. Its length is within design parameters. These passes can be designed to work to a gradient of one to four. In fact, they will work at a figure less than that, for example, one to 3.5. Typically, there is a one to five or one to six gradient. There is no question that a gradient of one to five is typical for this type of pass, of which there are many throughout the country.
Where are they located?
Mr. O’Keeffe
There are approximately 30 or 40 in operation.
Will Mr. O'Keeffe send us a list?
Mr. O’Keeffe
It will not be comprehensive because I do not know where they all are.
A list of five or six would be sufficient in order that our representatives can check them.
Mr. O’Keeffe
Probably the best one is to be found on the River Blackwater. It has an identical gradient. Last December 2,700 salmon were recorded passing through it.
Where is it to be found on the River Blackwater?
Mr. O’Keeffe
At Clondulane, downstream from Fermoy.
Who is in charge of the river? Is it Mr. Sheerin, the OPW or the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? Will Mr. O'Keeffe give us his view on the reasons the pass has not worked? If the Denil pass had worked in its original design, one would not have had to add 3 m, to sandbag one third of the weir, or to construct the timber contraption that runs across it. I was with Mr. Sheerin when he telephoned department officials to advise that the red flag should be raised.
Mr. O’Keeffe
I have explained that hydraulically the Denil pass is working fine and that fish are passing through it. We have video evidence which is available for anyone to see. The problem is that the fish are finding it difficult to locate it. There is no problem once they pass through it. This is the major problem with the weir. No matter what type of pass is used — the pull type would be even more difficult to find than the Denil type which was specifically designed to make it easier to find — fish are finding it difficult to locate it. As there is a delay, there is a time lapse in jumping. It is not desirable to have excessive jumping at a weir.
We included these temporary measures with the express purpose of trying to make the pass more accessible to fish. However, these are temporary measures because one cannot have sandbags at a weir. The same applies to the wooden groyne pass which is temporary and does not provide a permanent solution. However, there is a problem which is being examined.
I want to make it clear that fish passes do not work and fish do not swim at all times. One could look at the river for an hour and not see any fish and an hour later see 100 fish. They come and go. People are often disappointed when they do not see any fish. Also, at this time of the year it is dark for two-thirds of each day. One will not see any fish for two-thirds of the day because we do not have a system which allows us to see them when it is dark. However, fish — spawning fish in particular — will move at any time, day or night if it suits them. Their movement relates to flow conditions in the river rather than to daylight or darkness.
I am concerned about the delays. The efforts which we have made concede that. However, I am satisfied that we have temporarily dealt with the bulk of fish. There is plenty of evidence that upstream of the system fish are spawning well up in the head waters. They could not get there other than by going over the weir or through the passes.
Hundreds of fish can be seen passing through the millrace on the Lacken side. That is from where they are gaining their greatest access to the waters beyond the Lacken weir. There is sufficient evidence to suggest they are not getting up the weir because they are spawning in an area that is not a spawning ground for salmon. The dead salmon and spawn were found in the River Pococke and along the banks of the Nore. Some of them were found at the weir. I am not referring to those counted by Mr. Benton but to other fish. That is a fact.
Mr. Sheerin works on the weir on a daily basis. It is amazing that during the 21 minutes I stood at the weir, I saw no fish; the group following, who watched for a further 21 minutes, saw no fish and the next group, having also watched for 21 minutes, saw two fish. I am concerned about the number of fish counted in such recordings. Attempts are being made to corral the fish into the Denil pass but they are jumping at the V which is close to the Denil pass when viewed from the Lacken side. It is these fish about which we are concerned.
I do not wish to be argumentative but I would like the officials to take account of what the public is saying. Mr. Sheerin stated on radio in Kilkenny that everything is fine and that the fish are passing through. However, the general public standing on the bank of the river or on Ossory Bridge have seen a great deal of fish in difficulty and are concerned about them.
I would like the delegation to address the bigger picture. What we have heard relates to the technicalities of the Denil pass. I ask the delegation to address the reason the fish are not going up the Denil pass and state what works will be undertaken on the river to assist them on what should be a natural journey for them. That has been done for generations without fish suffering the type of torment they are now experiencing.
Mr. Benton has stated — I have received this information by way of parliamentary question — that he recognises the toe piece in the weir needs to be underpinned and that some churning has caused problems with the construction of the new weir. Taking into consideration all of those issues and the fact that consultants provided OPW with wrong figures, much work remains to be done on the weir. It is important that a way to the pass is constructed for the salmon. It is now recognised that the ten-foot pool created at the Denil pass is not working. I would like the delegation to tell the committee what it will do to encourage anglers in Kilkenny to discuss with them the options available. It is important we are all involved in bringing this matter to a conclusion.
Mr. Benton
We all share a common objective, which is to ensure the unimpeded passage of fish to the greatest extent possible. I acknowledge the Deputy's local knowledge and the fact that he walks the banks of the river on a weekly basis. However, I am told by the experts that the area near Ossory Bridge is a natural spawning place for salmon. I have no reason to second guess that expertise.
Many of the people in the Visitors Gallery who have fished that river for 40 years have never witnessed that type of activity.
We are entering dangerous territory. We have all seen the results of some of the expertise applied in this area.
Mr. Benton
I am accompanied by some of those experts.
I shall give Mr. Benton some time to reflect on the questions asked. I now call Deputy Hogan, following which we will hear from Mr. Sheerin and Mr. O'Keeffe. Members are less than satisfied with some of the answers they are getting.
I share Deputy McGuinness's concern in relation to what is deemed to be a cruel situation on the River Nore. It is unsatisfactory to everybody. Anglers and the stakeholders involved in inland fisheries on the River Nore believe it is a disgraceful situation. Much of that has already been acknowledged.
Have we established that it is the Office of Public Works which has responsibility for resolving the issue?
Mr. Benton
The Office of Public Works is responsible for the construction work that takes place on the river.
Who is co-ordinating the response?
Mr. Benton
The design of the fish passes is a matter for the marine authorities and fisheries board. The OPW is working closely with both organisations.
Things can often slip between one place and another. I suggest that the Office of Public Works or one of the other agencies should take a lead role in finding a permanent solution to these matters.
Mr. Benton
The Office of Public Works will chair the review.
The current problem has been in existence for more than a year. Mr. Benton stated earlier that it took until 15 December 2005 to obtain direction to resolve the fish pass issue. Does he accept that is a disappointing statement?
Mr. Benton
I accept it is unfortunate that a problem arose. However, we have been working towards addressing it. Both Ministers involved have expressed concern about the problem and have attached an urgency to resolving it. We have at all times been conscious of the problem and will do whatever is necessary to resolve it.
The general public in Kilkenny have been aware of the problem for some time and are aghast it has taken so long to address it. What studies have been undertaken, in the context of the flood relief scheme, to ascertain the type of solution required to deal with the issue before us? The company, Mott McDonald, was mentioned. Has other specific specialised expertise in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, in terms of design and so on, been brought to play in dealing with this issue?
Mr. Benton
The consultant mentioned is a large company with significant international experience. We commissioned it to——
Are we dealing with fish passes or the design of weirs?
Mr. Benton
Flood relief schemes.
Yes, but not specifically with fish passes.
Mr. Benton
No, not that I am aware.
Mr. Benton mentioned that in identifying interim measures the OPW considered a number of options, including removing the weir. How could the weir be removed if that option were taken? Would it need to be blown up?
Mr. Benton
I said that a number of options have arisen. In the context of the review we will consider all options objectively. To remove one weir, I suspect, would not solve any problem and would just move it on to the next weir. To solve the problem totally it might be necessary to remove all the weirs, which would have implications for the water levels through the city. As I mentioned in the course of my statement, the local authority had a specific requirement to ensure that water levels were maintained through the city. There are many issues. The Deputy is correct in that it is a big river. They are huge construction projects and to remove the weirs would be hugely expensive and time-consuming.
I am not in favour of removing the weirs. I am just trying to tease out what Mr. Benton had in mind if the OPW were to take that option. Are the Ormonde weir and the Lacken weir in State control or ownership? Are any stakeholders affected? Mr. Benton said that the full implications of such a radical measure would have to be worked out and agreed by all the affected stakeholders. Who would be the affected stakeholders if the OPW were to adopt that policy as a permanent solution regarding the weirs?
Mr. Benton
I mentioned stakeholders in the context of the problem of the salmon. There are anglers' interests, public representatives' interests and, as the Chairman pointed out, local authority interests and sporting interests. There may well be other commercial interests along the river that have a concern and we would need to ensure that they all get an opportunity to voice their concerns. The Office of Public Works does not own the weirs.
Who owns the weirs?
Mr. Benton
They may well be in private ownership.
Does that cause legal difficulties in finding a resolution to the matter in the context of what we are discussing today?
Mr. Benton
I do not believe it poses difficulties. The difficulty we have is in crystallising the permanent solution. We did not experience any difficulties with the stakeholders when we went to the river in the first case. We would have contacted all the landowners and property owners in the area to notify them of our intention to work on the river. There were certainly no insurmountable difficulties then. I am not aware that there would be any problems now. If the weirs are to be removed, it would be a totally different matter and I suspect many people would have concerns.
It surprises me. I thought that anything on the river, including weirs, was in State ownership.
Mr. Benton
As I understand it, the weirs were usually associated with the ownership of the mills.
I do not want to muddy the waters with regard to who owns what. Mr. Benton has introduced a new dimension to the discussion. I presume that before any works are carried out on the weirs, the OPW determines the ownership question. Is that correct, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith
Under the Arterial Drainage Act, we are required to notify the owner, if known to us, the reputed owner, and the rated occupier. We sent out——
Did the OPW do all that?
Mr. Smith
We did, of course, as part of the public exhibition and statutory process.
Were there third parties other than local authorities?
Mr. Smith
There were private individuals as well.
Was there any difficulty with them?
Mr. Smith
We did not have any particular difficulty of access during the scheme.
Deputy McGuinness has already mentioned the millrace. There is a sluice gate. Is there potentially a permanent solution taking account of those options in addition to the improvements required in the pass?
Mr. Benton
The sluice gate solution that was suggested was considered. While I do not have the technical expertise, it was described to me as having the effect of creating a giant washing machine with tremendous turbulence and would not allow the passage of fish. It was rejected on that basis. It was only proposed as an interim measure.
When does Mr. Benton expect to have a permanent solution?
Mr. Benton
The review process has, in effect, started. The opportunity we get to go back on the river will be in the summer when the conditions allow it. The aim is to have the solution determined and the design defined so that we can start work in the summer.
Mr. Sheerin mentioned that the Southern Regional Fisheries Board has recently installed a camera to see what is happening. Mr. Benton said it was not possible to quantify the number of fish that died at night. Do we have a facility to monitor the activity of fish in both day and night?
Mr. Sheerin
No, we have not. All research and the counting of fish etc. takes place under the auspices of the Marine Institute. I asked the Department to install a counter to count the fish in both day and night. The camera will not count all the fish because, as Deputy McGuinness pointed out, some fish go through, let us call it, the "McGuinness millrace" and others go up the temporary weir and the groyne pass. This is why it is very hard to get a handle on what fish go where at particular times. Apart from the camera it is all visual.
I welcome the witnesses. It strikes me that the OPW and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources must be hugely embarrassed by what has been done in Kilkenny. It certainly does nothing for their reputation. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. First the OPW gave the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the wrong levels, resulting in it designing the wrong pass. When it gets the right levels and lengthens the pass, the fish cannot find it. The whole episode is ludicrous. We are now told it will do other designs etc. to try to get it right. How could the committee have any confidence in them getting it right after what has transpired so far?
The OPW has rubbished the O'Sullivan report, which I have also seen. As I am not an expert in these matters I do not know. However, how can Mr. Benton say that report is wrong and the OPW is right when clearly it is not right, as it has not been able to resolve the problem? I have no confidence in the OPW sorting it out. I say this as one who went to see what was going on. I accompanied the Chairman and representatives of the committee to the Lacken weir to see it for myself.
Including the consultants involved, the design work the OPW did in-house and the construction work, what has the project cost to date? What does Mr. Benton estimate it will cost if the OPW eventually sorts out the problem?
Mr. Benton referred to the validity of the figures, which seems to be an ongoing problem across the fisheries industry. We spoke to Dr. Paul Connolly of the Marine Institute earlier and this problem arose regarding fish catches. I have a bee in my bonnet about the use of fish counters. Eight or nine months ago, Dr. Ken Whelan of the Marine Institute gave the sub-committee on salmon drift netting a commitment that fish counters would be put in place on all our rivers. I understand no such counters have been installed to date, even though a commitment was made. Mr. Benton said earlier that "there are no facilities in place to objectively monitor the number of salmon upstream of Kilkenny". Mr. Sheerin responded to Deputy Hogan by also mentioning that no fish counter is in place in that district, even though the Southern Regional Fisheries Board has requested such a counter. What was the nature of the response to the request for a fish counter to be installed? I would have thought the installation of a counter would have been eminently sensible. Not only would it have been in line with the commitment given to the sub-committee last year, but it also would have given this committee the information it needs if it is to resolve this debacle.
When I spoke to Mr. Sheerin after I visited Lacken weir — I was asked to do so on behalf of the joint committee — he said a camera was to be installed. It is obvious he informed Deputy McGuinness and others that he wanted to proceed in that manner. Perhaps it was not intended to be a final solution to the problem. Mr. Benton has said such an approach would move the problem upstream. How do we know that, given the weir located upstream is of a different type? Would it not have been possible to breach the weir in certain parts of it for a certain amount of time, while we were waiting for an ultimate solution to be put in place? Is it not possible to provide for a partial breach? Was such an approach not suggested? Did any of the experts in the Office of Public Works, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources or the Southern Regional Fisheries Board suggest such a temporary solution could be put in place until the ultimate solution was provided for? I have grave reservations about the ability of the authorities to resolve this problem.
I will allow Senator Browne to ask a few questions before I allow Mr. Benton and Mr. Sheerin to respond.
I would also like to ask a question.
I will call Deputies Durkan, Eamon Ryan and McGuinness to conclude the questioning later.
I have followed this comedy of errors through the local media, but I have not taken a direct role in it. I share Senator Kenneally's views about the inability of people to solve this problem. I know from personal experience that it is almost impossible to find out who is responsible for doing small jobs on rivers. People became very frustrated when some debris needed to be cleared from the River Barrow in Carlow recently, because they were bounced between the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Office of Public Works and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Some local anglers eventually decided to do the work themselves, having been given the necessary equipment by Carlow Town Council. The failure of the relevant authorities to take responsibility also seems to be a feature of the fiasco being discussed today. Perhaps the committee should consider a wider issue in this regard, which is that no single body has sole responsibility for rivers. I am not sure I agree with Mr. Benton's assertion that the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, has serious concerns about this matter. The Minister of State recently made a vicious and farcical assault on what he called "a few silly fish". The local radio station broadcast the relevant comments on many occasions, which would have been quite funny if this were not such a serious issue. The relevant Minister of State has now gone to ground and cannot be contacted to clarify his attack on the "silly fish".
He was making a very important announcement last night. He has not gone to ground at all.
He cannot be found to discuss this issue.
Senator Browne knows that members of the committee should not be political.
I am not being political.
I told the Senator that the last time he attended a meeting of this committee.
I am certainly reflecting——
In fairness to the Senator, what he has said is accurate.
——the views of people in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency.
I think the Minister of State also said people should not put expensive carpets downstairs, for fear of flooding.
There is a very happy relationship among the members of the joint committee. Senator Browne and Deputy McGuinness are most welcome to attend the committee's meetings, but we will not get into politics here.
He is trying to be clever.
There is a clear need for somebody to take responsibility for rivers, in order that work can be carried out on them. I refer not only to the River Nore but also to other rivers. I would like to ask some technical questions. Is it possible for 24-hour counting of fish to be done?
It is.
Perhaps fish numbers can be counted over a longer period. It has been mentioned that 20 salmon were seen trying to jump over the weir. How do we know that five salmon were not seen jumping four times each? Is it possible to clarify that figure? I am sure it is next to impossible to do so, even if cameras are used, but that problem is encountered by all sides. Everyone wants this problem to be solved. I think I heard Mr. Sheerin on local radio saying he is not in favour of weirs. Given that he is at the river bank on a regular basis, does he feel the best solution is the removal of the Lacken weir? Should such an action form part of the solution?
I will allow Mr. Sheerin answer the questions which have been asked by Senator Kenneally, Deputy McGuinness and Senator Browne. I hope he has been keeping track of them. I will then allow Mr. Benton to comment.
Mr. Sheerin
It is obvious that the Southern Regional Fisheries Board has on many occasions asked the Marine Institute to install fish counters on the Barrow, Nore, Suir and Munster Blackwater rivers, which account for 33% of this country's productive salmon potential. There are no counters on the rivers at present. There is no smolt tagging at present, which means the young salmon which go to sea are not tagged. Therefore, we do not know what returns we are getting. It is obvious the fish are being caught along the coast, from Donegal to more southerly areas. As long ago as 2001, the chief executive officer of the Marine Institute and Dr. Ken Whelan promised representatives of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board that counters would be put in place, but we are still waiting for them. The fish pass at Lacken weir was designed in a way that would enable a counter to be installed at it, on foot of a request made by the board. I received a written reply from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to the specific request that a counter be installed to ascertain how many salmon were travelling upstream in a 24-hour period. The reply states that the counter in question would be put in place as part of the 2006 counter programme.
Would it be helpful to Mr. Sheerin and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board if the joint committee were to make it quite clear to the Department and the Minister that a fish counter needs to be installed as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Sheerin
Yes, that would be very helpful.
That will be done.
Do I understand correctly that the Southern Regional Fisheries Board requested a fish counter on the River Nore in 2001?
Mr. Sheerin
Yes.
Why was it not provided?
Mr. Sheerin
The Marine Institute received approximately £1 million under the tourism angling measure to install fish counters in salmon and salmonoid rivers throughout the country, as part of the operational programme for tourism. Neither the River Nore nor the River Barrow was included under that measure, for some inexplicable reason. A counter that was installed in June 2000 at the River Suir, which was included under the measure, was washed away at the end of October 2000 when there was a massive flood in Clonmel.
I ask Mr. Sheerin not to say any more. I ask Deputy Eamon Ryan to forgive me for interjecting. Perhaps we should raise the issue of counters with the Minister at our forthcoming meeting with him.
Does the Chairman refer to the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon?
Do I understand correctly that the counters cost approximately £100,000?
Mr. Sheerin
That is right.
Was the budget of £1 million to which Mr. Sheerin referred for the entire country, or just for the south east?
Mr. Sheerin
It was for the entire country.
Was the counter that was washed away found?
Mr. Sheerin
Some of it was there, but the rest was taken away.
Was it insured?
Mr. Sheerin
That is a matter for the Marine Institute. I do not know. I do not think so. I do not know.
Is responsibility for fish counters shared by the Southern Regional Fisheries Board and the Marine Institute?
Mr. Sheerin
No. Responsibility for all salmon research is completely under the ambit of the Marine Institute. The counting of salmon is regarded not as a management tool, but as a research tool. The Marine Institute did not prioritise the south-east rivers because they are too large. The rivers in question, which are the second, third and fifth longest in this country, are quite wide. I understand they were not prioritised for that reason. I was not the chief executive officer of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board at the time, unfortunately, as I would have ensured that the rivers in the region were prioritised. The Marine Institute concentrated on smaller or narrower rivers, on which fish counters are more effective. I have a file that would fill this room of requests for counters and explanations of why they could or could not be used.
I am sure Mr. Sheerin appreciates that representatives from the Marine Institute are not here today. I have to be fair to all sides. The Department is not represented and the Minister is not here either. I propose that you send us further information on the counters and an explanation——
On a point of order——
I am trying to deal with this matter and do not know how much time we have left.
I am also a very patient man but I have been here all day. Even a patient man loses patience sometimes. I wonder if we should not also have the Minister attend the committee to provide us with further information on this subject. The longer I listen, the dafter the whole thing becomes.
We can do that.
You need to look at that very carefully.
The Minister of State is to attend on 26 January.
Excellent. I presume he will be able to enlighten us further on his hydrological proposals.
We are going off on a tangent.
I am not.
I propose we have the clerk write to the Marine Institute to clarify these issues and to the Department to allow us to raise the matter with the Minister of State on 26 January.
Could the clerk include in the letter the commitment the committee was given?
Mr. Sheerin, will you send further information to the clerk? Hopefully, the e-mails will not go astray. As for the current discussion, you are to answer no more than the three sets of questions put by the members and not to answer a further member unless I direct you.
Mr. Sheerin
Senator Browne asked me about my attitude to weirs which are, on a personal note, the bane of my life. If they are non-functional and there for aesthetic reasons, they impede the passage of fish. I have a duty, as I manage, protect and conserve fish, to get them up the weirs. My board has a programme, operated through me, of improvement of weirs in Clonmel, Kilkenny and Fermoy, which is a significant component of our work. The battle is long and drawn out. Members may know the defunct Portlaw weir which was the subject of a long, extraordinary planning process but the permission to remove it was appealed by the Heritage Council as the weir was part of the built environment. It was four years before I got the weir out. I would prefer if the weirs were not there, but will work with any participant to get salmon up the Lacken weir. It would be easier if they were not there.
I had a conversation with Mr. Sheerin who informed departmental officials that a red flag should go up on workings on the Denil pass and the Lacken weir. Is that Mr. Sheerin's view?
Is that my view on what?
When we met on the Lacken weir, Mr. Sheerin said in a call to an official that a red flag should be raised on the Denil pass and the Lacken weir as we had seen no fish go through.
Mr. Sheerin
That is right. On 24 October, I wrote to——
This was at Christmas. Mr. Sheerin agreed at Christmas that this was not working. In view of the fact that he is responsible for ensuring the safe passage of fish up the river, what are his intentions? Mr. Sheerin's statutory role is to ensure the fish pass up the river. What will he tell the OPW and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? He is the person who said it was not working.
Mr. Sheerin
As a result of the telephone call a temporary wooden groyne was installed on 21 December, two days after I met the Deputy and the anglers with him.
My point is that Mr. Sheerin does not have the same confidence as Mr. O'Keeffe seems to have on the workings of the Denil pass and the Lacken weir. When such conflicts are expressed publicly, it causes great concern. Mr. Benton should note that I would like to see the issue ironed out as the various groups are brought together. I did not touch on Mr. O'Sullivan's involvement but hope Mr. Benton will have conversations with him until we get things moving again.
We have already got agreement to establish a stakeholders advisory working committee as soon as possible. I have no doubt that it will include Mr. O'Sullivan. Mr. Benton will answer a number of questions before we move to Deputies Durkan and Eamon Ryan and Senator Daly.
Mr. Benton
Senator Kenneally asked me about costs. The overall costs for construction on the weir was approximately €213,000. Temporary work was carried out when the original pass was found to be functioning inadequately, which cost approximately €19,000 between materials and labour. The work on the permanent Denil pass cost €21,000 and approximately €39,000 was spent on the permanent groyne. The Senator also asked about the possible solution of a breach in the weir, which was considered in some detail. The professional engineering view was that the original suggestion of a 4 ft breach was not feasible. To get the right flows, a more significant breach was required prompting concerns about the stability of the structure. The idea was rejected on that basis.
Senator Browne spoke about the difficulties of identifying who is responsible for the management of rivers and waterways. A major review was conducted two years ago under the chairmanship of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, the conclusions of which were adopted by Government. The review set out very clearly the roles and responsibilities of all authorities in relation to rivers.
It is impossible to get even a small job done.
Mr. Benton
While I accept what the Senator says, the review exercise brought clarity for the first time as to the respective roles and responsibilities of various authorities.
I apologise to Deputy Durkan, who is our spokesman on communications and natural resources, for the delay.
I said I was a very patient man. I am appalled that such a simple issue could take so long to be resolved and that a solution required so much energy. I saw a programme on television over Christmas on the construction of the Hoover Dam in the United States of America. If the same difficulties had arisen in that case which arose in ours, it would never have been constructed. It should be noted that fish counters are readily available day and night. If witnesses do not know about them, they should inform themselves. What is this about them being washed away?
The Committee of Public Accounts is finding out about that.
I cannot understand it. Not to be facetious, but if Laurel and Hardy were still alive, they would be inspired by this scenario. I saw a photograph of the Chairman with a pained expression on his face which reflected his concern on the issue six months ago. I mean no disrespect to all concerned, including Ministers, when I say that while it may sound funny, it is a serious matter that an issue of this nature, which is simple to resolve, has required the combined efforts of so many people for so long. I rest my case.
Does Deputy Eamon Ryan have further questions?
I wish to return specifically to Mr. Sheerin. Our inability to count salmon moving up a river is central to this issue. We have a battle of the DVDs between opposite sides in this debate giving the joint committee two different versions of the current position. The only scientific or policy response must be to install counters. If Mr. Sheerin places on record answers to our questions, the Marine Institute will be able to respond to them at a later meeting. What is the Southern Regional Fisheries Board's annual budget?
Mr. Sheerin
It is approximately €2 million.
Would a fish counter cost approximately €90,000?
Mr. Sheerin
Yes.
Is it not the case that such a fish counter would provide information of incalculable value on whether fish were passing through Lacken weir and on the general management of salmon and sea trout on the River Nore? Mr. Sheerin's statement told me nothing. The only information to emerge from it was that he did not know what is the current position. Would it not be worth spending €80,000 or €90,000 of a budget of €2 million on a fish counter or is it not possible to find the money in the fishery board's budget? Over the past six years, has the only funding available for fish counters been the €1 million available under the national development plan's European funded operational programme for tourism?
Mr. Sheerin
Given that 86% of the budget of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board is pay-related, in other words, it must be used to pay staff, our non-pay budget is small. In addition, the only moneys provided for counters, of which I am aware, were available under the operational programme for tourism, 1994 to 1999. The objective of the programme was to develop the product, namely, the angling resource, by determining what fish were in rivers in order to develop the sector to attract anglers.
There is in the public service a distinct delegation of duties. The Marine Institute is charged with providing fish counters. If I had the money, I would install counters but as I do not have the money, it must come from the Marine Institute's budget. The latter must secure this money either through various EU budgets or from within its own budget. Fish counters are part of its remit and are not in the remit of the fishery board.
Is Mr. Sheerin indicating that the tourism money available for counters was in the 1994 to 1999 programme?
Mr. Sheerin
Yes.
No money has been available in the past six years. Was the Marine Institute allocated money for the purpose of introducing fish counters?
Mr. Sheerin
Is the Deputy referring to the period prior to 1999?
I refer to the period up to 2005.
Mr. Sheerin
I do not believe funding was allocated for that purpose.
Mr. Sheerin is not in a position to discuss national issues. He is discussing the fishery board in his region. Would it not be preferable to direct the questions to the Minister when he appears before the joint committee?
As the Chairman is aware, the joint committee has spent considerable time discussing salmon and one of the most telling facts we have come to realise is that the lack of fish counters makes it impossible——
Certainly.
Fish counters are crucial to the survival of salmon.
Yes, and as the Deputy is aware, the installation of counters is one of the recommendations of the report produced by the joint committee, including the Deputy.
I understand the Marine Institute did have a budget for installing fish counters and was supposed to introduce up to 30 such devices. I am interested in hearing Mr. Sheerin's views on the reason this did not occur.
Mr. Sheerin stated he had a file full of letters regarding the application for a fish counter on the River Nore. How many letters has he sent seeking a fish counter? Was the first one sent in 2001?
Mr. Sheerin
I became chief executive officer of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board in July 2000. At that time, two fish counters were installed, one on the River Blackwater and one on the River Suir. I subsequently invited the CEO of the Marine Institute and Dr. Ken Whelan, also of the institute, to visit the Southern Regional Fisheries Board in order that we could put forward a case for the counters the Marine Institute had promised to install on the rivers in question. For whatever reason, perhaps due to the usual budgetary priorities or on technical know-how grounds, they never appeared. Many letters were sent to the Marine Institute and the Department seeking funds.
Will Mr. Sheerin supply the joint committee, through the clerk, with a copy of the correspondence in question in order that we can pursue the matter? Deputy Eamon Ryan understands better than I do that we must pursue the matter at that level.
We spend approximately €250 million per annum on fisheries and marine protection. The Marine Institute has an annual budget of roughly €30 million, while each of the fishery boards has a budget of several million. It is remarkable that we cannot afford to invest €80,000 in installing a fish counter on one of our most important salmon rivers.
We shall discuss that issue later when we review the legislation on fishery boards as part of our work programme in the year ahead. We will meet Mr. Sheerin again and engage with him and his fishery board on the issue.
I am concerned about the fish which cannot gain access to spawning areas as this is an immediate priority. The longer these fish are left, the less effective will be the spawning system. I advised the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board and worked on the Thomond weir in Limerick, the largest in Ireland I believe. Many members will be aware of the difficulties encountered in that weir.
I concur with some of the views expressed on the movement of salmon through Lacken weir. Many factors, including weather conditions, must be taken into account. I have seen 500 to 600 salmon below Thomond weir in Limerick not moving for nine or ten days until weather conditions were right, at which point they moved through like a shot. However, we will not dwell on that issue.
Are salmon which should be moving through Lacken weir to spawn being held up downstream from the weir? If that is the case, it would not matter if one had 40 counters. I was involved in the installation of a fish counter through the falls on the River Cullenagh in Ennistymon. While it is possible that fish counters have been modernised in the meantime, they were notoriously unreliable in the past. Unfortunately, at that time the device counted much more than fish. That is a separate issue, however.
If fish are held up at Lacken weir and cannot pass it to spawn, are the numbers involved quantifiable and can they be moved beyond the pass to enable them to get into the upper catchment area? The salmon species is at a critical stage.
I understand spawning will continue until Easter.
Mr. Sheerin
The latest day on which fish spawned on the River Nore, of which I am aware, was St. Valentine's Day.
Please answer Senator Daly's questions.
Mr. Sheerin
My staff inform me that fish are held up down river from Lacken weir as far as Thomastown. It is hard to quantify the numbers because it is a question of sightings and vision. As salmon do not all stay in one spot, it is virtually impossible to count them. All sorts of figures are being bandied about. We examined the possibility of trying to net the fish over the weir but it would be nearly impossible to corral fish in a river as wide as the Nore. There is also the question of causing stress and disorientation among the fish when getting them over the weir and the possibility that they might fall back down the weir again. I wracked my brains considering various possibilities.
The fisheries board would prefer if all the salmon were able to reach the spawning grounds above the weir. Some will spawn downstream of it but we still have three or four weeks in which to solve the problem. We will re-examine the possibility of introducing temporary measures before moving on to finding a permanent solution.
Will the Southern Regional Fisheries Board require assistance from the Department and the Office of Public Works to try to achieve a temporary solution until the works are carried out after the water has receded?
Mr. Benton
Yes, we work together regularly.
This has been a long meeting and before I conclude——
I apologise for intervening again but I wish to correct something which is extremely important. Senator Kenneally asked a valid question about spawning salmon going up the river and Mr. Sheerin responded that a high number of salmon may be down the river waiting to get up. I ask that the record of the House would be corrected in regard to a reply I received to a parliamentary question on 8 November 2005 which stated:
Since the remediation works were carried out there has been no evidence of a hold-up of salmon at Lacken Weir and fish have been seen ascending both the Denil pass and the groyne pass. It is regrettable that inaccuracies in recent newspaper reports on the subject in both national and regional papers may have lead members of the public to believe otherwise.
We are being told the opposite here today. That information was given in response to a parliamentary question. It is on the record of the House and should be corrected. Mr. Sheerin's reply to Senator Kenneally is the opposite to the information given on 8 November 2005. That kind of misinformation is causing concern to everybody.
Who asked that parliamentary question?
I asked it.
Who replied to it?
The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon.
Mr. Sheerin
I am not saying that the weir in Lacken is the cause of all the salmon being held up down the river because salmon move——
I did not say that.
Mr. Sheerin
I am sorry. I thought that was what the Deputy said.
What has been stated here contradicts the information given in the reply to the parliamentary question. I will make the reply available to committee members.
It is a valid point.
It is debatable if fish are held up at this stage, but if they are, some effort should be made to get them up river.
Will Deputy McGuinness please quote the number of that parliamentary question?
It is reference No. 32402/05 of 8 November 2005.
Is the Deputy stating that there are inaccuracies in the response?
Yes. I have highlighted the last paragraph of the reply.
Mr. Benton
The reply was given on 8 November. My information is still that at that time the reply was accurate.
It is not accurate and it was not accurate at the time. Had it been accurate at the time we would not have witnessed the difficulties experienced during Christmas 2004 and in November and December 2005. That is a fact. If it were accurate the work on the weir which involved the placing of sand bags would not have been carried out. Therefore, the accuracy of the reply must come into question. Perhaps we can make the reply available at the next meeting and debate it.
As chairman of the Office of Public Works, I am sure Mr. Benton realises that the giving of incorrect information to a Minister by way of reply to a parliamentary question is a very serious matter for the House.
Mr. Benton
Absolutely.
I will give Mr. Benton an opportunity to consider what was said by Deputy McGuinness regarding the information that was supplied at that time so that he can respond to the committee. These are very serious charges and will have to be raised in the Dáil Chamber if it is necessary to make a correction to the record.
Mr. Benton
I would be very pleased and willing to clarify the record for the Chairman.
Will Mr. Benton come back to the clerk of this committee with that information?
Mr. Benton
Certainly.
If Deputy McGuinness is agreeable, I suggest that the matter be dealt with in this forum and that the information would be made available to the committee before the House is back in session.
I am agreeable to that, Chairman.
I know Mr. Benton for a long number of years. He has also appeared before other committees. He is responsible for very successful OPW projects of which we as a country can be extremely proud. The last thing he wants is to come in here with this millstone around his neck and give us a progress report month after month. Can I take it that having listened to the concerns of committee members on behalf of the stakeholders involved, he will do everything in his power to resolve this issue? I hope we will receive a note from him and the other statutory bodies involved stating that the matter has been resolved and that we will not have to return to this issue. That would be my intention and I hope it would also be the intention of Mr. Benton.
Mr. Benton
I can certainly confirm that everything possible will be done to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. The Chairman is quite right. I do not particularly like having to come in here on a regular basis to respond to what is perceived as embarrassing situations. In this case we are determined to come up with a solution that works to everybody's satisfaction, bearing in mind that there are many stakeholders, sometimes with competing interests.
Mr. Benton has indicated to the committee that the OPW will take the lead in this matter.
Mr. Benton
That is correct.
Will Mr. Benton keep the clerk advised of progress through his officials? The committee does not want to revisit this issue, we want to see it resolved.
Mr. Benton
I hope the determination and resolve to come up with a permanent solution was evident in the very detailed statement I made. I would be happy to keep the committee briefed on progress in that regard.
As I said in my opening remarks, we are here to look for solutions that will resolve the matter. I will not go back to Mr. O'Keeffe in regard to the design. Taking into consideration what Mr. Sheerin and all the other contributors said, I hope we will soon see a resolution to this problem and that everybody involved will be satisfied. As a politician dealing with people and groups every day, I consider the way forward is to involve other stakeholders that can contribute to a solution in the advisory working group. I thank Mr. Benton. Mr. O'Keeffe will send us a list of the successful fish passes he or officials in his Department have designed in order that we can look at them.
Mr. O’Keeffe
I understood the Chairman wanted a list of the Denil-type passes.
Yes.
Mr. O’Keeffe
It will not be a full list but it will be fairly comprehensive.
We want to be able to see that it works.
Mr. O’Keeffe
I will forward that to the Chairman as soon as possible.
I remind members that we have a meeting with Irish MEPs tomorrow at 4.30 p.m. about the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005.
The joint committee adjourned at 6.10 p.m. sine die.