Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Second Stage.

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 two objects of this Bill are (1) to postpone elections to Boards of Fishery Conservators, due to take place this year, until 1977 or such later time as the Minister may by order decide, and (2) to abolish the present limit of 100 per cent in the increases which may be made by order in the scale of fishing licence duties under sections 68 and 279 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959.

The postponement of the elections to 1976 was effected under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1974. I had hoped that it would be possible to introduce legislation providing for a new administrative regime for our inland fisheries by October next, the latest time for holding elections to Boards of Conservators under the existing system. The report of the Inland Fisheries Commission, which had taken five years to complete, was received in July 1975. However, examination of the various recommendations contained in this report and in the many submissions received from fisheries interests has taken longer than expected and as I consider it undesirable to hold further elections to boards under the existing electoral system, I am seeking power in the present Bill to postpone elections due in October next, thus prolonging the life of the present boards.

The Bill also contains a provision enabling the Minister to postpone the elections beyond 1977, subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, but I am confident that such a postponement will not be necessary as I expect that it will be possible to have the necessary legislation for a new system of inland fisheries administration ready for enactment by the end of this year or very early next year.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to again express appreciation of the fishery conservancy work done by the Boards of Conservators. This tribute is all the more deserved when it is considered that the members of the boards have worked on a voluntary basis and they have been so generous and helpful in their work for the good of the fisheries for so many years. I look forward to the boards' members being prepared to continue their help by remaining in office for a further year.

The second proposal in the Bill is to abolish the present limit of 100 per cent in the increases which may be made by order in the scale of fishing licence duties. I have in mind raising the existing rates of licence duties beyond that limit with effect from the 1st January, 1977, but at this stage I cannot say what the level of the increases will be as these have yet to be determined. As the House is aware, the licence duty payable in respect of drift-and draft-nets has remained unchanged since 1848 and 1925 respectively and salmon rod licence duties were last increased in 1959. Higher licence duties would provide much needed additional funds for the further protection and development of our inland fisheries. Increases in the licence duties would have to be made by Order, the draft of which would be submitted to each House of the Oireachtas for approval.

I recommend this short Bill to the House.

Mr. Lenihan

The Bill is acceptable. There are two aspects in it: (a) to postpone the elections for another year—the Minister may, by order, postpone further if the proposed legislation is not law, and (b) the 100 per cent maximum increase in regard to existing rates of licence duties is being removed. We can have an argument about whatever increases the Minister brings when the Order is laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, which it must be. At this stage there is not much point in speculating about what the increases will be in regard to the various fishing licence duties. Drift nets and draft nets and salmon rod licences were mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. We have to await whatever the proposed increases are. We can only speculate that if the 100 per cent ceiling is being removed the increases are going to be substantial. We can argue that when the matter comes before us.

I agree with the postponement in the absence of the proposed legislation. It is sensible to postpone the elections for a further year. I should like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary—and this was raised in the other House—the importance of getting this legislation together. The Inland Fisheries Commission Report is an excellent report to have. It is a report commissioned six years ago. It is now a year with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a report which contains many excellent recommendations and provides the basis for a new system of election, supervision and control by boards of conservators in particular, amongst many other aspects for the conservation, preservation and enhancement of our inland fisheries. It is a long overdue measure and I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will get down to it. We cannot afford another delay.

It is proposed in this Bill that he may, by order, postpone the elections next year. We do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to produce an order this time next year on the basis that the Bill is not yet ready. He has all the material to hand and it is only a matter for the draftsman now. I know that the draftsman is a difficult person to deal with, but basically it is only a drafting problem as of now. I take it that in the past 12 months policy decisions have been taken in regard to what aspects of the report are acceptable to the Government. I hope that policy decisions have been taken and that the past 12 months have at least achieved that. If that has been done, it is merely a drafting matter and there should certainly be no excuse for not having legislation to hand within the next three to six months.

Mr. Deasy

I am not perturbed about the postponement of the election of boards of conservators. It is a minor issue. The present boards of conservators, as they are constituted, are doing an excellent job. While this proposed legislation will be an improvement, they can well do with it next year or the year after.

Not alone should the method of election to the boards of conservators be improved but the employees of the boards of conservators should get a better deal. At present, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, most of them are employed on a temporary basis. They have a dangerous and trying job and are working under very difficult conditions. Their remuneration is low and their conditions of employment are quite awful and would not be accepted by any other group in the country. Although I look forward to the revision of the method of election to the boards of conservators, I look forward more to a better deal for the employees of fishery boards.

I am concerned about the protection of our salmon and trout stocks which are governed by this Bill. I should like to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that not alone is there a grave danger that our stocks of white fish will be annihilated or seriously threatened by foreigners but that our salmon stocks are also threatened. Along our coast particularly in my own county, Waterford, on days like today there are dozens of salmon boats fishing. They are earning a very good living at present. The tales of gloom and doom that we have heard for the last six years have fortunately not come true. The salmon fishing industry is in a very healthy state. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government are to be congratulated for the way in which they sustained the employment that this industry gives, when, three years ago, they amended a Bill which had been passed by the previous Government. In my county alone this industry has given good employment to a large number of people. There has been no depletion of salmon stocks off our coasts or in our estuaries. The last couple of years seem to have been better for fishing than many years previously. This contradicts the allegation that drift-netting at sea would ruin our salmon industry.

There are several things which have to be guarded against. One is the probability that the fleets of foreign trawlers which are operating on our limits at present and sometimes inside our limits—but generally, the continentals and the Russians do stay on or outside the limits—will start netting salmon if they discover runs into our territorial waters in huge quantities, thereby doing irreparable harm to our salmon industry. The Government should press for a 200-mile limit within the EEC and for a 50-mile limit for Ireland. This would be a step towards conserving our stocks. As things stand I can see a likelihood of our salmon stocks being mopped up at the existing 12-mile limit, as have our mackerel shoals. Our mackerel and herring shoals have been decimated on the limit and outside the limit. There is a grave danger that the same thing will happen to our salmon stocks if their passage into Irish waters is discovered by the foreign trawlers.

The Parliamentary Secretary should try to influence his colleagues in Government to seek a 200-mile limit for the EEC and a 50-mile limit for Irish fishermen. A 12-mile limit is not sufficient.

A Water Pollution Bill was introduced in the Seanad a few weeks ago. Pollution is a much greater threat to our salmon stocks than anything else. The River Barrow in North Cork was poisoned by some sort of pollution a short time ago. Fifteen thousand fish were killed and a five-mile stretch of river was denuded of any form of fish life. This type of pollution occurs every year in several rivers. The Parliamentary Secretary should back the boards of conservators in their efforts to combat this type of pollution.

The boards of conservators do their best, but the legislation which was passed in the Seanad last week and which will go before the Dáil will not solve the problem. If anything, it will reduce the powers of the boards of conservators, who do an excellent job within their financial resources. It is imperative that boards of conservators be given power to prosecute people who pollute lakes, rivers, streams and canals. It would be in the best interests of the salmon industry if the boards of conservators were given the powers which are being given to local authorities. Pollution is widespread. These are the people best suited to deal with it.

I do not envy the job of the conservators in certain parts of the country. Last week we read in the papers of armed bands of poachers operating in West Cork. This has also occurred on the River Moy in Mayo. These unscrupulous poachers can make as much as £1,000 in one night. The boards of conservators need strong support. Are they getting the necessary financial backing? They can do a great job if they are given the support of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

I am not worried about the postponement of the election of the boards of conservators. I am concerned about the two aspects mentioned—that foreign trawlers will start netting within our 12-mile limit and that pollution will not be combatted as it should be, especially under the new Water Pollution Bill.

Dr. West

I have an interest in this legislation. I do not always agree with the views of my colleague, Senator Deasy, but I admit he is in a position to speak with feeling on this Bill because he comes from a constituency in which a lot of people earn their livelihood from the fishing industry.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

Do the graduates of Trinity College spend all their time fishing?

Dr. West

We would certainly make more money if we were drift-netting for salmon than we would as academics. Perhaps we should take it up seriously. I support two measures in this Bill. Firstly, the postponement of elections of the boards of conservators and, secondly, the increase in licence fees.

As the Parliamentary Secretary said in his speech, the licence duty payable in respect of drift-nets and the regulations under which drift-netters operate have remained unchanged since 1848. The 1848 Act was constructed in an era when the boat had to be rowed or sailed around the coast. Now they have large power trawlers with drift-nets which can be drifted several miles long. There is a restriction on the length but that restriction is not being obeyed. The board of conservators and their employees have a lot of difficulty in enforcing even our minimal regulations.

I totally disagree with Senator Deasy's assertion that the increase in the amount of drift-netting around the coast is not likely to affect our salmon stocks. I have given figures on a previous occasion, which are on the record of the House, of a system of rigorous monitoring of salmon coming up rivers and spawning in this country. That is the Foyle River system, and the monitoring is done by the Foyle Fisheries Commission. They produce figures every year. There has been a drastic decrease in our salmon stocks. A recent television programme showed what the Foyle Fisheries Commission are doing about this problem. They are curtailing the length of the netting season. Mr. Haddock, who took part in this television programme, said:

It is the belief of the Foyle Fisheries Commission, and it is borne out by a report of two Canadian experts which was commissioned and which has just been completed, that the drastic decrease in the number of salmon travelling up the Foyle River system is directly connected with the increase in the netting in the River Foyle area.

The Foyle Fisheries Commission do not take the happy and optimistic view of Senator Deasy that drift-netting is not affecting salmon stocks. I must impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that, while I agree that water pollution is a serious hazard— and I agree with Senator Deasy's comments that the Water Pollution Bill will not solve the problem—the number of drift-netters, both legal and illegal, is a very serious threat to the survival of our salmon and sea trout stocks. If the large foreign trawlers find the salmon runs they would certainly be a factor which would seriously affect our salmon and sea trout stocks, but salmon runs have been notoriously hard to determine, except in a close in-shore area where they must run up the river. Even 12 miles out it has been difficult to detect their runs, although modern sounding devices may overcome this and create problems. To my mind, the main threat at present is the number of legal and illegal drift-netters.

I have belaboured this point at great length on other occasions. I shall quote from two articles in The Cork Examiner of 26th June, 1976. Both quotations are remarks by Chief Inspector Dan Good of the Cork Fishery area. The first article is headed “Would need Army, Navy, Gardaí, to beat poachers” and I quote:

Army, navy or special Garda assistance in a combined operation would be necessary to prevent a certain type of illegal fishing in the Castletownbere area stated Chief Inspector Dan Good in the course of his monthly report presented to yesterday's meeting of Cork No. 5 Fishery District, presided over by the Administrator, Mr. G.E. Byrne.

Chief Inspector Good said their 17-foot boat was too small for patrol work and most of the fishermen were only laughing at them.

He said he had taken the Administrator on their last patrol to let him see for himself the size of the nets that were being used.

These, said another fishery protection officer present, were a mile long in contrast to the legal limit of 800 yards and some of the boats had two.

He said some of the nets were on rollers, which meant one man could operate them.

"We also visited the Dursey and Garnish area," continued his report, "and it was obvious that the place was a minefield of fixed nets."

This is the Parliamentary Secretary's constituency. The quotation continues:

"The piers were full of nets, especially monofilament, and there were boats in that area where drift-net is prohibited.

"No water-keepers will ever have a chance of preventing this type of fishing without the help either of the Army, or the Navy or special Garda assistance, and it will have to be a combined operation.

"You would be attacked immediately by about 30 fishermen using oars, sticks and knives.

"Yesterday, accompanied by Mr. Byrne, we visited the Ballycotton area, and again the fixed nets were quite obvious and seemed to be an accepted fact.

"Unless something drastic is done little or no protection of the drift-net fishing can be undertaken with our present equipment."

The Administrator said he would report on the matter to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries with a recommendation that the size of the boats be limited as recommended in the Inland Fisheries Report.

All I can say is that this underlines more clearly than anything that has been said in this report the need for the legislation which the Parliamentary Secretary has talked about to implement the vital sections in the Inland Fisheries Commission's Report. It is essential that this be done as quickly as possible.

There is another problem and I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with it. It, too, is mentioned in the same edition of the Cork Examiner. It is an article headed “‘Impossible situation’ on fishery summons” and I quote:

The impossible situation in bringing fishery summonses before the courts was referred to by the chief inspector of the Cork No. 5 District at a meeting held in Cork yesterday at which the Administrator, Mr. G. E. Byrne, presided.

Chief Inspector Dan Good, in the course of his report said the court would not now apparently accept summonses served under Section 324 of the 1959 Act. This was through the medium of registered post, ordinary post, through the medium of the Gardaí or through personal delivery by himself.

The summonses were not accepted by the people for whom they were intended and they could not send them under District Court rules as there is no summons server in Cork.

Mr. Good's report went on to state that there is no doubt in his mind that courts at the present time were being treated as a joke.

"You have on the one side," he said, "the Board's solicitor being paid by the taxpayer and the poachers with a solicitor and a barrister with free legal aid on the other. How can you win?"

He added that the position at present was the most hopeless one could experience. "Last week", he said, "I approached four men who were strokehauling and when I went to seize the gear, they wanted to know whether I really meant it.

"When I requested their names and addresses they only laughed. This situation is happening with the other water-keepers and inspectors as well. Only for the Gardaí and the help they give us at times we would have no business whatsoever operating in the city area."

The problem is the problem of summonses served under section 324 of the 1959 Act which are not being accepted. I submit that this problem should have been dealt with in this legislation. It is a minor matter. It concerns the boards of conservators and their servants and the summonses that they are issuing under the 1959 Act are not being accepted by the courts, so even the Act itself is now being considered as a joke by the fishermen and the legislation that we have is not being put into force because the courts will not accept the summonses.

This situation should be dealt with in this legislation as well as the two minor matters which I support and which are dealt with here. I want to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about these two specific points, but I would urge very strongly since he has referred to the 1848 Act and raising the licence fees that he should overhaul all the regulations in connection with drift-net fishing and draft-net fishing as recommended by the Inland Fisheries Commission. They took five years to produce a report. Let us hope that it will take the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department considerably less to produce the legislation that is necessary to give our fish and legal fishermen some chance of surviving into the last quarter of this century.

Dr. Martin

I listened with much interest to the speeches of both Senators Deasy and West on this very important subject, and I think nobody could fail to be impressed by the degree to which they had informed themselves on the issue. May I say from the start that I support the Bill as it stands but have the same kind of reservations about its limitations that have been expressed specifically by the two Senators I have mentioned.

The parameters within which the Bill are operating are endless and the Bill itself is perhaps not substantial enough within the parameteres that are available to it. The job of the boards of conservators, for instance, with regard to the inland fisheries situation is enormous. I would see three particular problems involved or at least three headings under which the Bill itself can be scrutinised.

The first, the most dangerous and persistent and damnable abuse of our inland fisheries is that of poachers. Senator West's quotations from one issue of the Cork Examiner were scarifying and were true, that you have in the first place a total flouting of the law, that you have wholesale and unauthorised drift-nettings, you have the inability to bring the culprits to book and you have a total impotence on the part of the law even to catch up with them or to serve summonses on them. This is a deplorable situation, particularly in reference to one of our most cherished resources, that is, the magnificent fishing facilities which the country has to offer.

I am not sure I agree with Senator West as distinct from Senator Deasy on the matter of drift-netting. I do not think drift-netting is the worst enemy of our salmon runs. After all, it happens out at sea. By comparison with draft-netting it seems to me to be comparatively harmless, but it is an activity that has to be limited severely.

Dr. West

Hear, hear.

Dr. Martin

But what is required is the legal limitation and the imposition of that limitation and the necessary teeth in order to enforce it. Indeed legislation of this kind is hardly worth the paper it is written on unless it can be backed up with proper law enforcement facilities. This is one of our biggest problems. I wonder if again, like the previous Bill, we are not really just doing kind of piecemeal and patchwork activity on it.

The second thing is the question of pollution. In other words, the first problem of poachers seems to me the primary one, that everything having to do with these precious salmon runs has to be tightened, the law enforcement facilities have to be increased. The Government will have to get very serious about it. That is the poaching aspect of the problem, perhaps the primary one. The pollution one is even more puzzling and difficult in the situation in which we find ourselves.

The water pollution legislation that has been passed recently has given to local authorities powers which, as Senator Deasy very properly says, should be given to the boards of conservators because some of the worst offenders in terms of water pollution are local authorities. They have been successfully prosecuted frequently for water pollution. Almost every week I am sent a report by some local conservationist society. The most recent I got was in respect of Lough Sheelin. This related to angling facilities at the lake being despoliated by pollution in recent times. Who are the best conservators of that? I would say the board of conservators, the inland fisheries people themselves, rather than the local authorities because it is happening over and over again that some of our best inland fishing grounds are being polluted as a result of the casual savagery on the part of local industrialists, farmers, pig raisers and so on.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I might remind the Senator that this is the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill dealing with election to the boards of conservators. It is not the water pollution Bill which we had last week.

Dr. Martin

I take the point. The Bill is of course a limited one but it points out, by its limitations, the enormous problems that are not being solved by its terms. In particular I should like to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take into account these matters which have been raised with much more eloquence and information by Senator Deasy and Senator West than by me. The whole situation of our fisheries is one of extreme crisis and only very vigorous action in the framing and imposition of legislation and making it work on the ground as on the water will save the situation which is at the moment drifting rather disastrously.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I remember speaking last year on the related Bill which sought to postpone the election of fisheries conservators and on that occasion I referred to the conditions which had arisen in the area in which I live in Galway in which fish were taken indiscriminately from the river. You will be delighted, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, to note that I have decided in what I have to say today to confine myself narrowly within the limits of the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Leas-Chathaoirleach is very relieved.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I referred last week and on other occasions to the entire corpus of our conservation legislation. In that I included the Wildlife Bill, the Water Pollution Bill and other Bills and I said that these when taken together would be reregarded as the corpus of our conservation legislation. As someone who has not had the time to fish I spend more time in this House speaking about conservation and such matters than a number of people who speak as professional anglers and one wonders about the opportunities for reflection provided by angling. Let us be clear what the crunch is in this Bill. There is nothing controversial in it but there is this which is important: the Murphy Report and the commission's report was late in being submitted to the Minister. I will be very blunt about what I have to say. The Inland Fisheries Commission when they reported so late placed the Parliamentary Secretary in a number of difficulties. The boards of conservators were also in difficulty because how could they conserve when they had no policy stated? Let us be clear about the terms of reference of the commission—what it had to deal with: Who was to put the fish into the rivers of Ireland; who could fish under what conditions; what conditions were to prevail at the estuaries in Ireland; what effect would that have on rivers? I will give a striking example, and I know Senator Martin will be sensitive to this, in regard to the statements I made last year on a related measure. At that time I condemned the indiscriminate dragging of salmon from the Corrib but of course people will know and I hope the Press, if they decide to report anything I have to say on this matter, know that I also condemned the commercial dragging of salmon in a most indiscriminate fashion by the authorised authorities who are allowed to operate the river Corrib and places like it. After I had spoken on that occasion numerous defences were made of private fisheries but an interesting point occurred to me about that. It was suggested to me in many private conversations because of my attack on poachers that I was somehow attacking people who were working-class people at a precarious level of existence. I had pointed out that I was speaking about the preservation of rivers and the fish life that exists within them for future generations and I had been quite unrelenting in my attack on the private operators of fisheries who butcher fish carefully and systematically under the gaze of the public in Galway. Tourists can watch an English-based company butcher salmon which are exported giving no employment content except to two people. This raises the kind of questions which affect legislation like this. What do we want to happen in the waters of Ireland? Whether people like it or not there have been in the last years some good measures.

The Wildlife Bill has been introduced. The Water Pollution Bill has been introduced. We have been interested in cleaning up our waters but this is not accidental. People have felt that the kind of pressure which has come from such enlightened Senators as Senator Deasy is often a crank activity but it is not a crank activity. It is an activity which must be commended because we were always told in the Seanad that this is the place where you could take the long view on legislation or you could have the shorter view on legislation.

A Bill which was debated with eloquence in this House and with a considerable contribution was mutilated by political partisanship in the other House. I refer to the Wildlife Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is out of order.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

On the other legislation which has come here and which relates directly to conservators —conservators are mentioned in the Water Pollution Bill——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator will relate his remarks directly to the Fisheries Bill?

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I am grateful for the guidance of the Leas-Chathaoirleach in this matter. What questions should arise when you take a simple Bill like this? Should the boards of conservators be abolished or sustained? Should their election be postponed? What power should boards of conservators have? Should those powers be expanded in the Bill? In what atmosphere are we considering the postponement of the election given that we have information about pollution and information about the danger to salmon and trout stocks which have been mentioned earlier? Finally is there an alternative structure? I should like now to deal with these four points.

The Bill, must be seen in the terms of the other Bills which come before us, that is, as legislation which affects generations other than ourselves. The word "conserve" raises the hackles of a number of people.

It is sometimes seen as anti-progressive. People who conserve are conservative and are retaining an existing status against what might be an imaginative alternative development. Fishery conservators are referred to in previous legislation but we have never put our money where our legislation is. Neither have we displayed public spirit. Senator Deasey spoke about the difficulty of being a fishery conservator. The cute person speaks about giving more drift-net licences or of easing the penalties on poaching. It is very difficult to argue politically in the pragmatic sense against the advantages which accrue to such a person, in favour of saying the salmon stocks are not ours that the salmon stocks are the property of the people who came before us and the people who will come after us. Our contribution, sadly, has been for the most part that we polluted rivers sufficiently so as to make it impossible for future generations to fish properly. Regarding my deliberate points about the boards of conservators, I know the Parliamentary Secretary is receptive to this idea of having one body in charge of rivers rather than to have, for instance, a harbour authority in charge of the mouth of a river and a board in charge of the channel in the river. We might have another body in charge of conservation. Is it not time that we had a single authority in charge of fisheries in general and, in relation to water management, that we should bring it under the control of some single accountable authority? This is what people want. I am a member of two local authorities, Galway Borough Council and Galway County Council and we hear reports from the board of conservators on occasion. Do they have enough money to educate the young people that to take a fish by the most inhuman means possible is an ugly thing to do? Is there enough money for education towards the genuine value of conservation, towards the idea, even though it has not existed up to now, that the River Corrib and what flows in it, is ours and will be ours?

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has within him the spirit that wants to say that the control of fisheries is at its most precarious and at its worst when it is in the control of private interests—the people who have the most investment in taking everything out and the least investment in putting anything in. It is wrong to suggest that one could suddenly do a transition to communal or public ownership and that a conservation attitude would develop overnight. A public which would maul and take the fish out would be no adequate substitute for what takes place under private management or control of fisheries. What would be adequate would be an educated attitude towards river life. Boards of conservators should have far more contracts with the Department of Education and should have far more money to enable them to publicise the value of conservation to the public. Otherwise, you have on the one hand the licensed fishery people who are referred to as coming from the privileged class and the poachers who are referred to as coming from the working class. Is it not an appalling indictment that in the location of the river one man would be a criminal and another would be recreating himself? Is it too much to look forward to a time when we could educate all of our people to the value of our rivers and lakes and when we could have conservators elected popularly? Near my office in Galway where I work every day people were afraid to report blatant acts of poaching which took place last year in Galway city. Why is this so? There is this division between what is a leisure activity and what is regarded as an economic activity to sustain the lower classes? I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has shown so much courage during his period of office against the people who say that a totally open-ended drift-net policy is possible. Such an opinion is the opinion of the mindless.

Debate adjourned.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 1 Jul 1976