Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Apr 1976

Vol. 83 No. 20

Foyle Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. M.P. Murphy)

: The purpose of this short Bill is to remedy a technical defect in our Foyle Fisheries legislation as found in a recent High Court judgment related to convictions obtained against two fishermen in the District Court in Newtowncunningham, County Donegal in respect of fishery offences committed within the area of jurisdiction of the Foyle Fisheries Commission—some in County Donegal and some in County Derry. The offences in question were in breach of regulations made by the commission in 1966 with the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in Dublin and the Ministry of Agriculture in Belfast.

The Foyle Fisheries Act of 1952, under which the commission were established, states that for the purposes of the Act "the Minister" means the Minister for Agriculture and "the Ministry" means the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland. On 1st April, 1963, the functions in relation to Foyle matters were transferred from the Ministry of Commerce in Belfast to the Ministry of Agriculture under the Ministries (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1963. The High Court ruled, however, that this order did not render the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture sufficient to validate the regulations under consideration, namely the Foyle Area (Control of Netting) Regulations, 1966 and stated that an Act of the Oireachtas would be necessary to effect a statutory transfer of the power of approval of commission regulations from the Ministry of Commerce to the Ministry of Agriculture. Accordingly, the High Court ruled that the regulations of 1966 were not validly made.

The Bill proposes to give statutory recognition to the transfer of functions in relation to Foyle matters from the Ministry of Commerce to the Ministry of Agriculture and to any subsequent changes that might arise on the Northern Ireland side in this regard. This will enable the commission to carry out their functions in regard to the management, conservation and protection of the Foyle fisheries.

I accordingly recommend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Lenihan

It is clear that in order to ensure the proper administration of the Foyle Fisheries Commission in regard to conservation and preservation of stocks this legislation had to be introduced. If the decision was allowed without this change it would render impossible the proper prosecution of the commission's activities. For that reason there can be no opposition to the Bill. I am sure that is the view of all Senators. It is absolutely necessary to ensure the proper administration and management of the fisheries. The introduction of this legislation will ensure that the transfers of functions which have already been effected by the Northern Ireland authorities from the Ministry of Commerce to the Ministry of Agriculture will be recognised by our legislation.

Dr. West

I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Lenihan. I understand the problem which is that the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland was the ministry which was referred to in the original Acts. Then, regulations made by the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland were not regarded as valid in law. This became a problem when people were charged with offences against regulations made by the Foyle Fisheries Commission. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell the House what the alleged offences were. Presumably, they involved some form of poaching with some net or other engine. This is of more importance than appears on the surface because the Foyle Fisheries Commission are one of the very few bodies who are jointly under the North-South Administrations. It is important because it sets a headline, and one is loath to make any trenchant criticism of the operation of the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

On the other hand, the Foyle Fisheries Commission are, in that sense, responsible both to this Parliament and to the Administration in Northern Ireland. They face the extremely severe problem experienced by fisheries throughout the country in their administration.

I have referred to these problems at length in previous debates. If we are in the position which the Parliamentary Secretary has outlined, that it is not possible to prosecute offenders against the regulations in our courts because of a loophole in the legislation, then we obviously have to close that loophole at once.

I should like to set on record the point that not only should these prosecutions receive due importance but that the main problem the fisheries face is the dreadful decrease in the number of salmon spawning in the Foyle area. The rivers which make up the Foyle fisheries system are well known as some of the great salmon rivers, not just of Ireland or the British Isles but of the world. Anybody who has had any interest in salmon fishing will be aware of this fact. To drive home my point, I have the report of the Foyle Fisheries Commission which is the latest report 1972-73. These reports are laid before the Oireachtas. The figures for the slump in the number of salmon spawning in the area are drastic, so it is essential to tighten up the legislation connected with it. I want to give some of the figures in regard to salmon spawning: 1964 13,000; 1965 22,000; 1966 22,600; 1967 15,000; 1968 7,000; 1969 3,800; 1970 5,300; 1971 4,300; 1972 2,100 and 1973 1,500.

I regret to have to say that it seems to be part of a general phenomenon. One of the reasons for this decline is the tremendous increase in drift netting and draft netting. I believe the Foyle Fisheries Commission are not severe enough and their regulations are far too liberal. Unless something is done very soon, that figure of 1,500 spawning will be less than 1,000 having been 22,000 in 1964 and 1965. It is a dreadful situation. I regret that having made many appeals in this House very little seems to have been done. In this case, something jointly would need to be worked out with the Northern Ireland Administration. We seem to face a situation in the Foyle area where all netting of salmon will have to be closed down if it is to be restored to its former glory. That is the only solution I can see. I should like to know if there is any way of putting this into effect before the spawning salmon in the Foyle Fisheries area dwindle to a mere handful.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. M.P. Murphy)

I should like to thank Senator Lenihan and Senator West for their contributions and to point out, as indicated in my opening brief, that this legislation is designed—as Senator West stated—to close a loophole which unfortunately existed in the legislation for the past 13 years.

The offences which brought this to light—and which were referred to by Senator West—were having possession of unlawful nets, having possession of salmon illegally caught. The cases were brought before the local court and, on appeal, it was discovered that the law did not meet the requirements of the High Court; hence the change. Along with the change from the Ministry of Commerce to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, we foresee a possibility of other changes taking place, namely, to some United Kingdom authority. We have accordingly legislated for any future changes that may arise. It is quite unlikely that a Bill of this kind will again have to be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I agree fully with the sentiments expressed by Senator West so far as the conservancy of salmon in the Foyle Fisheries area is concerned. This is an exceptionally large area. I understand that the total catchment is in the region of 1,400 square miles. The commission are taking all necessary measures to ensure that adequate conservation measures are imposed and, as well as that to try to preclude or wipe out, if at all possible, illegal fishing. Our representative now will be the current chairman this year and the point mentioned by Senator West will be taken into account by the commission.

I am grateful that the House has seen fit to acknowledge, that this loophole needs closing and that this flaw needs to be removed. I thank the House for its co-operation.

Dr. West

Could I ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary arising out of his speech and the 1972-73 Foyle Fisheries Report? I am very glad he has been able to tell the House that something is being done about the very serious situation, but I note that in the report for 1972-73 two experts, Dr. Elson and Mr. Tuomi, from the Fisheries Research Board of the Department of the Environment in Canada, were doing a report of the Foyle fisheries area and that they were due to present that report in 1974 covering the problems I have raised. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say if this report has reached him. It says in the 1972-73 annual report that the commission understand the report to be submitted by Dr. Elson and Mr. Tuomi would be presented in 1974. Has this report reached the Parliamentary Secretary via the commission and, if so, have the recommendations been acted upon?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I have a report for 1975, and I am very pleased to say that it indicates an improvement in the spawning fish. The number is 3,268. I shall get the Department to send Senator West a copy of this report. Any other Senators who require one will get it also.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Business suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.