I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Elections of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1977,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on the 1st day of September, 1977.
Death of Member. - Elections of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1977: Motion.
Elections to boards of conservators, which under the Fisheries Acts would normally be held every five years, have been deferred by amending legislation since 1974.
Under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1976, the elections were postponed to 1977 or such later year as may be fixed by order. I now propose to make an order postponing these elections to 1978. Before I can do so, however, a resolution approving of the draft of the order must be passed by each House of the Oireachtas. Such a resolution was passed by Dáil Éireann last week.
This further postponement is necessary as it is still considered inappropriate to allow elections under the old system to go ahead in advance of the new legislation proposed to give effect to the main recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission. I expect that I will be in a position to introduce such legislation early next year.
As Senators are no doubt aware changes in the existing structure of boards of conservators are warranted having regard to the fact that the present system, which has been in existence for about 100 years, contains some of the unsatisfactory features of 19th century administrations. Under the proposed new legislation the boards will be replaced by seven regional fishery boards and a central fishery board.
Despite the handicap of their outdated structure the boards of conservators have carried out invaluable work in the protection and conservation of inland fisheries. I wish to record my appreciation of the wonderful work done by the boards and by their staffs. As we know the service rendered by the members of the boards is a voluntary one which takes up a lot of their time and energy.
It is indeed fortunate that our inland fisheries have had the benefit of the service of such dedicated people who have been willing to continue in office beyond their normal term. I have no doubt that the boards' statutory duties will once again be in good hands with the continuance in office of the boards' members for a further year. I hope that many of the people who have done so much for inland fisheries as members of boards of conservators will offer themselves in due course as candidates in the elections to the new boards when the proposed legislation is enacted.
I accordingly recommend to the House that a resolution be passed approving of the draft order.
Might I start by congratulating the Minister on his appointment? I can assure him that any contributions from this side of the House will be constructive and aimed at improving the Department over which he presides.
The necessity for this postponement for a further year of elections to the boards of conservators is regretted. I know it is unavoidable but, notwithstanding that, we hope that when the Minister brings forward the legislation he will have in it many of the proposals which the Inland Fisheries Commission have already submitted. The problem in regard to the safeguarding of fish stocks in our inland waters is a great one. It really boils down to the curtailment of poaching and the prevention of pollution of our waters.
When we look at these two problems, that of poaching and pollution, and ask ourselves how successful the boards of conservators have been in the past, we must honestly say that, while tribute must be accorded to them for the great public services they have rendered, the overall success of their work is far short of what one would desire. They are not altogether to be blamed because they have not been given by successive Governments commensurate financial resources, equipment or even adequate advice to enable them to provide a service of the highest order.
It is alarming to discover that the staffs of the boards of conservators have had to operate under very difficult conditions. The pay which the most important personnel, namely, the inspectorate and like, have received for their duties has not been adequate. They hold positions which carry no great fixity of tenure; they are employed on a year to year basis and at the end of their service there is no pension for them. It is to be hoped that the new legislation will make up for all these deficiencies of the past.
The problem of poaching has existed since the first boards of conservators were established. I suppose it was really to tackle the problem that the boards were established in the first place. Poaching is still going on. It is a running sore. The boards must be provided with adequate resources to tackle this problem. The fishermen and their associations realise that poaching is a great danger to their livelihood. They should be very good watchdogs in the future.
The attempts by the boards of conservators to tackle the increasing problem of pollution are commendable. I wonder if their efforts have not been hampered by initially, the lack of adequate legislation to help them in this important task and also by the lack of conviction with which these legislative proposals that have come through the Dáil and Seanad in recent years have been followed up by the authorities in their enforcement. There have been instances where boards of conservators warned, indeed, threatened, local authorities and have carried out a number of prosecutions in regard to the pollution of our waters.
In the Prevention of Water Pollution Act, 1976, which went through this House, some reservations were voiced then regarding the powers which that legislation gave to local authorities, particularly as it has been obvious for far too long that local authorities are sometimes the worst polluters of all. It is to be hoped that the new central board and the regional boards will be empowered to pursue this matter of water pollution to a far greater extent and with greater success than has been achieved in the past.
It is not remiss to make mention also of the effect of pollution in regard to tourism. In the past two weeks we have seen the result of surveys carried out regarding our tourist advantages. It was somewhat disillusioning to realise that some of the great points we always had over other countries in tourism were no longer there. We seem to be increasingly coming to the day when our advantages over other countries in tourism are shrinking to the point when we have nothing to present to the tourist but the natural beauty of our countryside. If pollution is allowed to continue — unfortunately we can see its increase in recent years — then that great and final advantage over other countries will not be as good as we would like it to be.
It is no harm to reiterate what An Foras Forbartha and the Inland Fisheries Trust have said from time to time. In An Foras Forbartha report of 1971 it was stated that almost 20 per cent of our rivers and lakes ranged from being of doubtful quality to being seriously polluted. In their 1975 report the Inland Fisheries Trust referred to the growing menace that pollution presented to our inland waters. In their 1976 report they stated that there had been a 50 per cent increase in the instances of pollution in only a two-year period between 1973 and 1975.
The Minister I know does not wish that this motion should be debated. As I said at the outset, it is regretted that there must be another postponement. I know we will have further opportunities when the Minister brings in legislation. I hope that will be very early, perhaps in the next six months. We will have a further opportunity then of going into the matter in greater detail. I would not wish to conclude without paying tribute to the boards for the very good service they have rendered in very difficult circumstances. I know that if they were given the tools to do their job, they would be the first to acknowledge that by giving a service commensurate with the task which is entrusted to them. I hope this will be the last postponement and that the Minister will come forward with his legislation.
Would the Minister like at this stage to mention if the central board which he envisages will act in an advisory or an executive capacity and if it will be responsible to him? I feel that the existing boards in their independent nature — they operate almost independent of each other — do not operate to the best possible overall advantage for the safeguard of our waters. There can be divergence between one board and another as regards the number of licences issued and the interpretation of the criteria which should preside over the distribution or the allocation of licences. I ask the Minister to try to ensure that the criteria under the new structure will be such that they will not be capable of any undue divergence in interpretation between the different regional boards. I again regret the postponement of these elections but I look forward to the restructuring of the board of conservators. I am sure in that restructuring a number of important matters, which the Commission on Inland Fisheries have submitted, will be embodied.
I, too, am very glad that once again the Minister is among the big fish. Ag an am gcéanna ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil saráthas orm gur ceapadh Cathaoirleach as Cúige Uladh. Tá a fhios agam go ndéanfaidh sé a chuid oibre go maith.
Senator Markey stated that one of the primary purposes in introducing boards of conservators was to eliminate poaching. As we all know, poaching is one of the greatest threats to our fishing stocks. I ask the Minister to work with the Minister for Justice and, indeed, the Minister for Defence to eliminate this threat to our fishing stocks.
A month or so ago I met licensed fishermen along the river Foyle in County Donegal. I was appalled to learn from them that since the season closed they estimated that 15,000 salmon were poached from the river Foyle on the Donegal side and that the counter for counting fish, which at this stage should have recorded 30,000 salmon, was recording 450. This meant that in one river alone a month ago some 15,000 salmon had been taken illegally. Their main complaint was that the gardaí were too involved in security matters, that they had not the time to devote to this problem and that, when they did, they were stoned and attacked by these poachers. I asked a garda officer if any action could be taken in this matter. He told me that if the men were provided with the facilities they could deal with this problem.
Not alone should the Minister ensure that the Garda be involved in this matter but he should appeal to the Minister for Defence to use the Army personnel who are stationed nearby to ensure that poaching on the scale I outlined is stopped. There is no point introducing legislation for the election of conservators unless we take stern action, unless we declare war on poachers and people who are out to cripple our salmon and fishing industry in the years to come.
Firstly, let me add my voice to previous speakers in welcoming the Minister for Fisheries. In regard to our present and recent jobs and the fact that I once represented the same constituency, we have reverse roles. When I look at his travels and his travails, I allow myself to doubt as to which of us is the happier in the present situation. He is very welcome and we wish him well.
That is a warning.
There would be concurrence everywhere about the value of the work done by the boards of conservators and especially the work done by their staffs for so many of whom it is a labour of love performed in bad circumstances. They have served the country well within a framework of completely inadequate legislation. We understand the reason for this postponement and will not oppose it, but the problem is a very pressing one, as I am sure the Minister knows.
Poaching in Ireland is embedded psychologically in our past and our current attitudes are vastly damaging socially and are irrelevant to present reality. It is like our attitude to trees. Trees and the fish in the rivers belong to the landlords and if one is against the landlords one feels psychologically entitled to rip off the trees and the fish. It has enormously damaged our countryside. We have not been able to rejig ourselves in the past 50 or 60 years to look on these as social wealth. We are a bit permissive and even softhearted about poaching. It involves shattering violence at times and willingness to inflict injuries on people. It involves the impoverishment, not of the landlords as such in the traditional sense, but of areas where tourism related to fishing is a vastly promising growth area.
The poaching situation is desperately serious, particularly in regard to the salmon. It is relevant to say this to the Minister because his area of responsibility extends, as does the range of the salmon itself, down the rivers and out to sea. The salmon is not just threatened in the rivers, it is also threatened in the seas and off the coast by drift netting and it is threatened further afield in its spawning grounds in the North Atlantic. It is a superb species, one of the great fish of the world, and we are so lucky that our rivers are rich in this marvellous fish. If we do not look to all of the aspects in an integrated way we will be profoundly the losers, not just in tourism and in sport but in relation to a superb fish and one that is very seriously threatened by simultaneous attack in a number of places.
In regard to pollution there are too many different hats, too many different authorities. The Minister is perfectly entitled to ask why did we not do something about this when we had the power, and it is a valid argument. There is pollution coming from industry, with my old Department and the HRS having a role. A lot of pollution comes from agriculture, particularly from intensive pig breeding and the intensive uses of fertilisers near to catchment areas. There is pollution coming from unprocessed urban sewage, which is a local authority matter. There is a spread of powers between different Departments and a lack of cohesion, a lack of unity and, therefore, a lack of efficiency.
This is partly a matter of bringing science to bear on all of the aspects of our fresh water, mainly on the question of its purity and the preservation of the stocks that exist and also of the strengthening by biological research and applied biology of the availability of fish. That is an almost incalculably valuable tourist attraction. The Minister said:
I expect that I will be in a position to introduce such legislation early next year.
I find that the phrase has a certain echo. We all agree that it is urgent. We hope that it is early next year. I know how with the best ministerial will in the world these dates can slip and the slippage may occur outside the Minister's own jurisdiction and outside his own Department. Indeed, if he wants questions planted in the Dáil which might serve to jog certain elbows, those that he cannot directly jog himself, I am sure we know people who could arrange to do that. We will support this motion with the proviso that, please, let us see the new legislation as quickly as possible.
I support and give my full acquiescence to what the Minister proposes here but I should like to make a few points. These are directed specifically at the Minister, who I know is a man open to ideas and who, because he has brought his not inconsiderable intelligence to bear on this many-faceted problem, will be open to the few remarks I have to make.
In the first place we speak about poaching. Poaching is, perhaps, a mechanical problem; one prevents people from poaching if one can dissuade them, catch them or prosecute them. Pollution is a different matter. Senator West and I had on the Order Paper of the last Seanad a plaintive motion which stood there for three of the four years and which had to do with the fact that we needed a Department of the Environment. This Department would have to do with the rivers, lakes and seas around us; it would have to do with Wood Quay and the archeological dimensions of that, with national monuments, with tourist amenities and with all kinds of things.
When the new Government came into power and created a Department of the Environment it could be reasonably said that we should have thrown up our hats and said "We have got what we want". When one looked more closely at it one saw what had happened was that the Department of Local Government was made the Department of the Environment. One of the most disturbing aspects was that the Department of Local Government had frequently been successfully prosecuted under the last Government for sins against the environment and particularly for pollution. A good deal of the pollution of rivers had been done by that very same Department which now has been made the Department of the Environment. That is not a consoling development in our polity at present. I am not making this as a polemical point.
Since the Minister is here and listening to us with that impartiality for which he has become legendary, I would like to make the point with regard to pollution that motivation is most important. It is a fact that 50 years ago the Thames was polluted and there was no life in it. It is now true that one can catch trout off Tower Bridge. The reason that happened was not that a number of people in Parliament made decisions, but that an entire population was brought round to the view that our environment is crucial to our health—our social, spiritual and, indeed, mental health. Britain has discovered that. We have not discovered it yet, even though there is nothing like the same rape of the environment that has happened in Britain, as a result of an Industrial Revolution, which Ireland never experienced. In Ireland, without an industrial revolution, there is an extraordinary degree of pollution of our natural resources, something quite out of proportion to the amount of productivity on the industrial level which is responsible for it. It is quite ludicrous. It is disquieting that the best the Government can do is to convert the Department of Local Government, one of the great sinners against the environment, into a Department of the Environment.
One of the biggest challenges facing the Minister and several other Ministers is the problem of making everybody realise the importance of the environment, the air we breathe, the water we drink and pour into our whiskey, the water in which we wash ourselves, from which we make our minerals and in which the fish live and propagate their species. The sense of that is lost and the real reason is that the responsibility has been divided between so many Departments in the past. The Department of Lands are involved, together with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries and the apparently hostile Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy and there is a feeling that only confrontation can produce results.
We know how a very important chemical industry was lost to the Waterford area because just a few conservationists stood up and fought. We know the rows about Asahi in the west and about the difficulties in Dublin Bay. It would be marvellous if we could have a genuine Department of the Environment which would tease out all the difficulties in advance and which could advise the other Departments.
The chief point, and I end on this, is that the people have to be persuaded that, within the next ten or 15 years, unless we have a really enlightened attitude towards the environment we will have no environment towards which to have an attitude. It is as rapid and as difficult as that. I do not want to raise the question of plutonium and the Windscale situation. That is threatening enough. We are concerned with the motivation of our people and the leadership given by Parliament and by the various Departments. Poaching is a matter that can be quickly controlled. I would like to recommend those few exhortatory thoughts to the Minister as he launches himself on his very serious sea of responsibility.
Ba mhaith liom ar dtúis cúpla focal gearra ar an moladh agus fáilte a chur roimh an Aire ar a chéad cuairt ar an dTigh seo. I do not propose to go over the ground that has been adequately covered by other Senators. We are all rightly concerned about the destruction of natural resources arising out of pollution and naturally we are concerned about the very broad extent of poaching.
I believe that the new Government will come to grips with the problem of the destruction of amenities and the creation of what amounts to cesspools in some of our rivers. I would urge the Minister to tackle this problem, together with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, adopting the approach that this should have been done yesterday. I am glad that the Minister intends to introduce legislation early next year. I would urge him to do so as quickly as possible. We all have a fundamental responsibility for what is happening to our environment. We must prevent the destruction of life in our rivers. Other Senators have covered this subject adequately. I hope the Minister has the support of all sides of this House.
I am heartened by the constructive level of this debate. We have a report to hand on the whole area of inland fisheries, one which covers a wide range of viewpoints. On the basis of that report, which a previous Fianna Fáil Government commissioned, the last Coalition Government proceeded to put the bones of legislation together. I am now completing the proposed legislation. There are one or two problems with the Attorney General's office but most of the legislation is now in draft form. I can guarantee the House that it will be published before the end of the year and we should have it in the first session next year. It is a measure which can command a wide spread of support in an area which is non-contentious but very important from the national point of view. I propose to introduce an enabling-type Bill so that we can discuss the various forms that regulations may take to ensure that we have the best type of administration. The enabling aspect will ensure that we can have a wide committee-type debate on this matter because there are many points of view. It will be a major reform in regard to inland fishery administration and it is long overdue.
In my capacity as Minister for Fisheries I will not preside over the extinction of our fish stocks. Climatically we have tremendous advantages and it would be criminal if a Minister for Fisheries were to allow our fish stocks to be eroded either by pollution or by poaching. I am referring particularly to inland fisheries. That is what the motion relates to. We now have the pollution legislation to hand. I take the point that was made about the Department of Local Government, now the Department of the Environment, and hope that the poacher-turned-gamekeeper will be effective here. They have the responsibility of dealing with the pollution problem. Unfortunately, through the local authorities and through not sanctioning proper treatment plans, the Department have been participants in much of the pollution that has taken place. Let us hope that under the legislation they will now act in an effective way as gamekeeper.
Poaching will have to stop. I have already initiated talks with the Department of Defence and the Department of Justice with a view to mobilising the Naval Service and the Garda in an all-out sweep against illegal fishing methods of every kind, particularly in regard to salmon and sea trout.
Salmon is a very valuable species which is now seriously threatened. There is a very serious downward trend in the graph of salmon numbers going into our rivers at present. This is being caused by wide-scale illegal poaching off our coasts, not by legitimate salmon drift net fishermen who have traditionally fished in certain coastal and estuarine waters but by high-powered fishing vessels without any licence, using in some cases—and this may appear to be shocking but it is factual, particularly off the north-western coasts—nets in the order of ten, 12 or 14 miles in length. I want to serve notice now that this will stop, that such nets will be confiscated and removed from the scene of the operation. In my view that is the way to deal with it rather than through long drawn out court proceedings. There are provisions under existing fisheries legislation whereby such nets can be confiscated and removed and this constitutes the most effective penalty of all.
Owing to the high price that salmon has been commanding in the past few years, there is a very definite policy of greed which can do serious damage to a basic resource and it is my duty to see that this will not happen again. This year will be crucial in this respect. As far as marine and inland fisheries are concerned, I regard 1978 as conservation year.
Will these nets not be bought back again by fake auction immediately afterwards?
I propose to move the nets to an appropriate place away from the scene.
Burn them.
If necessary, that can be done as well. It is the most effective penalty and I am serving notice on everybody concerned that this sort of operation will stop this year. We can invoke the enforcement authority of the Naval Service and the Garda for this purpose.
Although the legislation will have new enforcement powers and stiffer penalties, fundamentally the law as it stands is adequate if it is enforced. Enforcement is more important than new regulations or new legislation. What is required is the political will on the part of the Government to see that the job is done, that we recruit sufficient officers to do it and that we mobilise the basic enforcement services of the Navy and the police force to back up the staffs of the boards of conservators and the Inland Fisheries Trust. I intend also to strengthen those staffs substantially. I have approval from the Minister for Finance for that purpose, pending the legislation.
I will not tarry or delay waiting for the legislation. It will improve the enforcement aspects, the penalty situation and so on, but the situation is so serious that we must plan for the coming salmon season and I propose to utilise the existing law and regulations and to adopt a very strict, thorough and tough enforcement procedure. We cannot afford to await because the legislation to be introduced in the new year will not be in operation until the following year. At the rate at which salmon stocks are diminishing, we just cannot wait until 1979. We will have to deal with this problem in 1978.
The legislation itself will be effective in providing the long-term framework. The Inland Fisheries Trust and the existing boards of conservators will be integrated into one central fisheries authority so that the development work that is being carried out by the Inland Fisheries Trust and the protection work being carried on by the boards of conservators will be merged within a single authority. We will have under that authority seven regional boards around the coast which will function under the Central Fisheries Board. Basically it will be a properly financed developmental board. At present there are a number of fisheries boards around the coast, all using different systems of administration and doing excellent work within their own limited terms of reference, but not really financed and without adequate staff and a co-ordinated national policy.
I think everybody recognises the limitations of the system. Under the new system we will have a properly financed inland fisheries board. This is all important. Some of that finance will be raised from the industry itself by way of a commercial levy on the sale of salmon, for instance. That is fair enough. I have also discussed with angling interests the bringing in of a reasonable rod licence fee as well. The legitimate, responsible angling interests agree with that and see that there is nothing wrong with it provided, of course, that the revenue raised from the commercial sale of salmon and by way of licences for angling rods will be devoted to the Central Fisheries Board and not become part of the general body of revenue for the State as a whole.
The other points raised by various Senators have been noted by me. Indeed, the consensus expressed here is basically my own view. I have reiterated the points of view expressed by Senators. Our policy will be to have an immediate clamp-down on illegal fishing of every kind by way of enforcement under existing legislation, followed by new legislation that will provide a framework under which the development of our inland fishery resources can be continued in the years ahead. I regret having to bring this order before the House. It is just to carry us over an interim period. I can assure the House without equivocation that this is the last time this order will be introduced and that we will have the legislation in the new year. Hopefully, we will have a constructive and responsible debate on this very important matter.
We have built up over the years an excellent name in respect of our inland fisheries. We have put a lot of money into the development, rehabilitation and the promotion of inland fisheries. We have a name and we want to live up to it, otherwise it can degenerate into a situation where, quite frankly, we are promoting something under false pretences. We cannot have that any more. We are in grave danger of doing so and I am thinking particularly of tourism, apart from the commercial aspects. We must embark on a thorough policy of complete commitment to the conservation of our inland fisheries. I have made much mention of salmon but it applies across the board to sea trout and freshwater trout, to coarse fish and all the resources within the fisheries umbrella, both marine and lake and river. If we are to maintain our good name and reputation as a country promoting a very valuable area of tourism and not just cod people out of what is available, then we must show that we are serious about the whole business of management and conservation of our fish stocks.
Question put and agreed to.