Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 1979

Vol. 91 No. 2

Fisheries Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Lenihan)

The object of this Bill is to give effect to the main recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission by securing the more effective conservation, protection, management and development of inland fisheries through the reorganisation and strengthening of the existing administrative structure.

This will be done by replacing the existing 17 boards of conservators, which are responsible for the day to day work of conservation and protection of inland fisheries, and the Inland Fisheries Trust which conducts large scale development work on brown trout, coarse fish and sea angling, by a Central Fisheries Board and seven regional fisheries boards.

The central board will be responsible for the co-ordination and, if necessary, direction of the work of the regional boards. They will also have planning, education, advisory and limited research functions. Regional boards will have the function of identifying the fishery resources within their regions and of drawing up programmes for the development and protection of these fisheries.

The regional boards will comprise elected members with a limited number of members appointed by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry following consultation with relevant fisheries interests. The elected members will be elected in a democratic fashion by licence holders, ratepayers and trout and coarse fish anglers who avail themselves of their right to be registered in the Register of Trout and Coarse Fish Anglers on payment of an annual subscription.

The number of elected and appointed members on each board will be fixed by order. The size of a region and the nature of the fisheries therein will be a factor in deciding the membership of the board. The rules governing the elections will be laid down in regulations and I have in mind a system of panelling the various groups and allocating a specific number of seats to each panel according to its strength in each region. Pending the setting up of the system of elections the Minister will nominate all the members of the first regional boards but these boards will be replaced by elected boards within one year.

Initially the staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust will be transferred to the central board and the staffs of the boards of conservators to the regional boards. There is provision in the Bill for movement of staff between the central and regional boards. I have provided that these transfers will not entail any worsening of remuneration or conditions of service for any person; neither will any superannuation allowances to which a person was entitled prior to his transfer be reduced.

The central and regional boards are enabled, subject to the approval of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry and that of the Minister for the Public Service, to appoint such staff as are necessary to carry out their functions. I have included provision for the preparation of a staff scheme and a superannuation scheme by the central board for their staff and the staff of regional boards. The staff scheme will provide for the regulation, control and management of staff, transfer of staff between boards and will indicate the remuneration, tenure of office, qualifications for appointment and conditions of service in respect of different grades of staff. I consider that the introduction of more acceptable conditions of employment is overdue in the case of inspectors and waterkeepers engaged in the difficult task of developing and protecting our inland fisheries.

Provision has also been made for the acquisition of fisheries and rights of way by agreement or compulsorily. These acquisitions will be subject to the payment of fair compensation and there is also provision for appeal against compulsory acquisitions.

The main thrust I see coming from this Bill is that of switching the emphasis from protection to development of our inland fisheries.

As Senators are aware, illegal fishing for salmon is one of the major causes for declining salmon stocks. Last year's salmon catch was just half that of 1975. Even more serious is the fact that the numbers of salmon reaching the spawning grounds are much reduced. Rivers that carried fine stocks of salmon at one time have been almost denuded of spawning stock. Every assistance will be given to the board to stamp out illegal fishing and in the matter the boards will have the full support of the Garda and the Navy.

I have also included some new provisions in the Bill that should prove of great assistance in fishery protection. The most important of these is the increase of the penalties for fisheries offences to a realistic level. The Bill prescribes penalties of up to £600 and/or six months in prison on summary conviction. For the more serious offences provision is made for trial on indictment and the penalty on conviction for such offences can extend up to £1,000 and/or two years in prison.

It is provided also that the courts must disqualify any person convicted of a third or subsequent offence of a particular kind from holding a fishing licence for three years. I consider that it is only just that a fisherman should lose his licence if he flouts the law.

The powers of protection staff at sea are also increased. They may now take a boat believed to have on board unlawfully caught salmon to port, detain the boat and its occupants until it is searched and use such force as is necessary in bringing the boat to port.

I have included provisions which will enable a commercial fishing licence to be used only by the licensee or his nominee. This will help to eradicate the practice of transfer or sale of licences by licence holders and make the work of the protection staff that much easier.

The great potential of fish farming is recognised in the Bill. Briefly, the new provisions make it an offence to engage in aquaculture unless one holds the appropriate licence. The Bill enables an order to be made following the usual investigations and, if necessary, an inquiry designating an area of the sea as an area where aquaculture may be carried out, and licences may then be issued for the carrying out of aquaculture in that area. This procedure will obviate having to hold an inquiry in relation to the issue of individual licences.

Implementation of the proposals in the Bill will, of course, require substantially increased expenditure—perhaps I should better call this increased outlay investment rather than expenditure in view of the many ways the fishermen will benefit the economy.

At present those who benefit directly from inland fisheries development and protection—principally anglers and commercial fishermen—contribute by way of licence fees and fishery rates. The receipts from those sources are supplemented by an annual grant from the Exchequer. Obviously new sources of income must be found to meet a fair share of the greatly increased costs and greatly increased development envisaged.

To secure additional income the Bill provides for payment of a voluntary subscription by trout and coarse fish anglers. This subscription will entitle them to registration in the Register of Trout and Coarse Fish Anglers and such registration will carry a vote in elections to boards. Quite apart from the financial side I consider this to be a very important provision of the Bill as it recognises the increasing importance of trout and coarse fish angling and affords trout and coarse fish anglers an opportunity to have a say on the boards which hitherto they were not afforded. The Bill also provides for the payment of a levy on the first sale of salmon which would be paid in most cases by salmon dealers or by hotels or restaurants.

I have no doubt that, having regard to the development programme being implemented, fishery interests will have no reservations about their contributions. Even so, while these provisions will provide increased revenue, the Exchequer will still have to bear the major burden of the cost.

The Government gladly undertake this commitment knowing that, not only is the protection of our inland fisheries heritage an essential obligation, but that it also makes very sound economic sense.

Our inland fisheries provide very valuable employment in rural areas, particularly along the western seaboard. They provide exports running at about £5 million a year and add about £15 million every year to tourist earnings. What is particularly encouraging is that the opportunity exists for a considerable expansion of the resources available.

I recommend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Cooney

As far as this party are concerned the general principles in the Bill are welcome. We must all be agreed on the overall objective of the Bill, that is, to improve our level of fish stocks. A natural bounty such as fish is something we have taken for granted and have not been sufficiently alert to or aware of the danger this natural bounty is in at present. Fishing has primarily a great commercial benefit for the country because it provides a livelihood for a great number of people. As the Minister says, very often this livelihood is provided in what are called the disadvantaged areas. It is very important that the State ensures that this livelihood will be in no way threatened by its source, the fish, becoming in any way diminished.

Next in importance of the benefits we have from our fish is the social or recreational aspect. Fishing is a widespread national pastime and forms part of our national pattern of life. It is important that the opportunities to fish would be preserved. Thirdly, there is the tourist element arising from our fisheries. It is important that they be available as a tourist attraction, but I would put that as number three in my list of priorities.

We are all agreed that our fish stocks need to be better protected, better managed and better developed. It would appear from the report of the Inland Fisheries Commission—which I suppose forms the genesis of this Bill—that we have been less than successful in the protection, management and development of our fisheries up to now. That report makes quite depressing reading with regard to the repletion of some species, particularly salmon, and the lack of development and protection in regard to brown trout and coarse fish. At this stage it is apt to pay tribute to the members of that commission for their report. It is a very lively, commonsense report. It is a pleasure to read a report written in straightforward, simple language, rendering its message very clear indeed. The members deserve the thanks of everybody for the work they put into it.

The new structures proposed by the Bill are those recommended, not precisely in that form or under those titles by the commission. In regard to the expertise within the commission there will be total acceptance of the new structures proposed, the central board and the regional boards. They are being given very wide powers under the Bill. There is also in the Bill provision for the Minister to give extra powers to the boards. I can well understand the Minister wanting to keep that right for himself so that, as the scene develops, he will have discretion to give extra powers to the boards. But I wonder is it right that his discretion would be untrammelled by any lack of having to refer the giving of these powers to the Oireachtas in the first instance. It would be more democratic; more in keeping with the general nature of how legislation should be made, that it should come through the Oireachtas so that there should be a parliamentary input. If the power is exclusively administrative there is that much lessening of the democratic control. We should be conscious always of this element. The Minister might indicate if he just kept this power as a general precaution or whether he has, even at this stage, anything specific in mind with regard to what extra powers he might be disposed to give the boards in due course, powers over and above those which they get, admittedly in general terms, from the Bill.

I might mention just two of the powers which could be controversial—the powers of acquiring fisheries and the powers of acquiring rights of way to fishing waters. It is quite clear from the arguments of the commission that these are powers which are needed and I do not quibble with the granting of them to the central board. There is provision for compensation, as there must be, and provision for arbitration in the event of disagreement on the level of compensation. Likewise with rights of way—as I read the Bill—there is provision for compromise with the owner over the exact route of a right of way or any other rights that may be acquired to provide access to fishing waters. The implementation of these powers may disturb situations on the ground which would have inured possibly for many many years, possibly centuries. I have no doubt that the spirit in which these new quite drastic powers will be exercised will obviously have to take that factor into account.

The new bureaucracy decided on—I do not use that word in any pejorative sense—consists of the central board and a number of regional fishery boards. Provision is made for them to keep them in touch with each other, for the regional boards to provide details of their plans and estimates to the central board and the central board then to be in touch with the Minister via an annual report. There is power for the Minister to direct the central board on what they should do and power for the central board to give directions to the regional boards. I wonder is there room for conflict, duplication or even confusion between the three authorities, the Minister, the central board and the regional boards. It will be very important to see that there is a clear pattern of communication and responsibility as between these different authorities to ensure that sight will not be lost of the basic objective of the protection, management and development of our fisheries and a plethora of regulations and plans that may be duplicating and even possibly conflicting with each other. The Minister, of course, will have an overview of the whole scene and presumably will be able to take steps to ensure that nothing like this occurs.

The most important species of fish is the salmon. This is the species in greatest danger. The statistics, as the Inland Fisheries Commission in their report pointed out, are not terribly reliable. Nevertheless there are very clear trends indeed from statistics that are available to show that salmon stocks are diminishing fairly consistently. If these trends are not rectified, halted and changed there is a real danger that salmon may become a very rare fish indeed.

It also seems clear from the commission's report that conservation of salmon must be the priority for the new fishery authorities. The conservation of salmon has to be looked at principally by the prevention of poaching. It is notorious that off parts of our coast—particularly the south and south-west—there is salmon poaching on a wide scale by trawlers fishing well out to sea. It is notorious, in these coastal areas, that this poaching is doing immense harm to salmon stocks. It is notorious also, for example, that the nets which are being used are excessively long, they are excessively deep, 60-90 mesh deep instead of 30 mesh, which I understand is an approved norm. I understand also that the mono-filament net in frequent and possibly universal use, is illegal.

I understand that the Minister, shortly after taking office, indicated his agreement with the seriousness of the problem of poaching by illegal drift-netting and indicated that if he had not solved it within a year he might have to resign. I will not hold him to that because it is a very difficult problem. But it does indicate how seriously he considers the problem when he was prepared to say that about it. His year is up, indeed, two years will soon be up, and my information is that the problem is as large as ever. Unless it is tackled and solved there is no point in setting up new structures or in us here making pious statements about the need to protect and develop our fishing if, at the same time, salmon stocks are being dissipated by illegal fishing. That is the hard reality.

The Minister recently restricted the salmon fishing season off the coasts in question and I think restricted the number of days in a week in which licensed fishermen could fish. This was presented as a conservation measure. Of course, it is not a conservation measure because all it does is make more salmon available for the poachers and it does not in any way help to increase the total stock of salmon. Possibly it prejudices the men who are entitled to fish legally and who do fish legally. This must be the priority for the Minister.

I readily concede that it is a most difficult problem to try to stamp out illegal salmon fishing some distance out to sea. But the problem is so serious that, irrespective of how difficult it may be to tackle, some drastic approach will have to be organised. The Minister did involve Naval Service boats but there are not enough boats in the Naval Service effectively to patrol all the areas of the coast, particularly the area I have mentioned, where illegal drift-netting is taking place. Because of the importance of the salmon in the whole fishing industry—its commercial importance to those who make their living from it, its social importance to our fishermen and its value as a tourist attraction, and as such an interesting part of our environment—it would be criminal if anything should happen to the salmon stocks. I would urge the Minister to take whatever steps need to be taken to fulfil the promise he made and to save him having to implement that promise, even at the end of two years.

It is also clear from the commission's report that there are other areas in which conservation of salmon has been neglected. There has not been sufficient attention paid to scientific aspects of salmon spawning. A great deal of damage is done to spawning beds, and casual poaching on the rivers can do much harm to the breeding stock. There is a necessity for strict implementation of the law to ensure that these things are ended. In comparison with the problem of illegal drift-netting off the shores, the ending of those malpractices would be comparatively—I emphasise comparatively—simple.

In addition I would recommend to the Minister for his consideration a matter touched on by the commission in their report. That is the education of the people of an area where there are salmon rivers, particularly in the upper reaches or wherever spawning takes place. There should be some special programme for educating the schoolchildren in those areas about the importance of this natural resource. They should be told what happens in the salmon's natural cycle and made conscious of the need to protect the species and protect the environment in which the salmon live. In using the schools to get that message across much good could be done for the idea of conservation. That was a very practical suggestion in the commission's report. I would urge the Minister to see what he can do about it. It might be possible for the new regional boards to set up some system whereby they could provide the education needed to ensure that the next generation will be fully aware of what is involved.

In relation to the question of enforcing the law and preventing poaching by illegal drift net fishing, I wonder is there any possibility of tightening controls on the disposal of the salmon? Illegally caught salmon have to be sold and if some method could be devised for homing in on the problem at that point there might be a potential solution there. As I understand it at the moment, illegally caught salmon are sold through the medium of licensees. I am also told that the number of salmon sold by the licensees is so out of proportion to their numbers, that it is patently impossible for them to have caught them all. If the licensees caught and owned all the salmon they sold they would be veritable millionaires. So it would seem to me that it should be possible to devise some administrative system that might home in on the problem at that point.

I would emphasise to the Minister that the preservation of our salmon stocks must be his number one priority and, through him, the number one priority of the new central board and regional boards. It would be a terrible thing indeed if, through greed, we were to be condemned in the eyes of the world as a people who so misused this natural resource as to destroy it. The obligation to ensure that our reputation remains unsullied lies with the Minister.

Another element in the conservation of our fishing stock is the question of keeping our waters clean. I recall receiving a booklet last summer from the new body which has been set up under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. It is a body set up to advance the cause of keeping our rivers and lakes free from pollution. It is an attractive booklet about what is being done in this regard. It draws attention to the statutory measures that are available to ensure that pollution does not take place. I thought it ironic that the body charged with enforcing this law is the local authority because I have not the slightest doubt that the greatest polluters of our waters are the local authorities.

I live in a town on the Shannon and raw sewage from that large town is discharged straight into the Shannon. The same happens with all the towns on the Shannon. We are told by the experts that the Shannon is so big and there is so much water in it that it can safely absorb all this deleterious material. But it is ironic that the body which is charged to see that factories do not pollute the water is itself polluting the water and it is no answer to say that this pollution does no harm. Shortly after receiving that booklet I read in a local paper that Leitrim County Council had provided a new sewerage scheme for Carrick-on-Shannon and they wanted to add an extra stage to the treatment process. Carrick-on-Shannon had been discharging raw sewage into the river and this new sewerage works was providing some treatment but the council, on the advice of their professional advisers, wanted to add a further stage of treatment for the sewage before it reached the river. They were refused sanction by the Department of the Environment, the very same Department that had issued this book advocating the need to keep our waters clean. They had been refused sanction by the Department of the Environment to spend the extra £10,000 or £12,000—whatever the amount, it was a comparatively small sum—on this extra stage, again on the grounds that the river was well able to take the partially treated sewage without danger to the river.

At this stage we are too careless about the problems of water pollution. There will have to be a changed attitude on the part of the Department of the Environment and, through that Department, the local authorities to ensure that the tragedy which occurred in Lough Ennel will never occur anywhere else in Ireland. I confess with shame that I was a member of Westmeath County Council for six years and during that time the sewage from Mullingar town was pumped directly and untreated into Lough Ennel while, at the same time, the Inland Fisheries Trust were making a substantial and large investment in that lake and had reached a stage of development where Lough Ennel was among the foremost, if not the foremost, game trout lake in Europe. Eventually the continued discharge of sewage killed that lake stone dead as far as trout fishery was concerned.

I grant that the problem was compounded by a certain run-off of artificial fertilisers from surrounding lands but the expert opinion was that the lake would have been capable of absorbing the agricultural run-off if it had not also to try to deal with the discharge of raw sewage from Mullingar. Lough Ennel was killed stone dead as a game lake. It is a matter of great shame for us all that this should have happened but it should be a lesson, a terribly expensive lesson, to us that we should ensure that the like will never happen again.

Lake Garadice in Leitrim is mentioned by the commission as a leading coarse fish lake. One morning, out of the blue, the local people noticed something wrong about Garadice. On inspection it was found that all the fish there had died and were floating on the top. Putrefaction had taken place by reason of the discharge of agricultural run-off of fertiliser and, more particularly, pig slurry. The lake has been poisoned and it had reached the stage that as there was no more oxygen all the fish died. That lake too was killed. While we are setting up structures here it is very important that these new boards be given the power to ensure that they will be able to carry out what the Minister says is their job, the more effective conservation, protection, management and development of inland fisheries. Unless pollution is ended, particularly pollution by local authorities who are in a position, as part of the arm of Government to give a lead, we are only wasting our time setting up these new structures.

Second in my order of priorities as to the value of our fisheries is the fact that they are a social and recreational amenity. Fishing for trout, and coarse fishing to a lesser extent, are common pastimes throughout the length and breadth of the country. Traditionally, these pastimes have been, to all intents and purposes, freely available and available free to any citizen of a mind to do a bit of fishing. The commission in their report—and this is the one matter that caused much controversy at the time—recommended that there should be a charge or a licence fee for everyone who wanted to fish. I am glad to see that that recommendation has not been brought into the Bill. But I want the Minister to be explicit on this when he is replying to the debate. I want him to confirm that it is not his intention to obtain licence fees through any sort of a backdoor method because I notice that the Bill provides for the setting up of a register of trout and coarse fishermen and by paying an annual subscription to the regional board a fisherman can get his name on that register and thereby be entitled to vote in the election of members to his regional fishery board. That is a commendable objective indeed. It is also provided that the people who are on that register will be entitled to fish free in the various waters controlled by the board and presumably by the other regional boards that are to be set up. There is nothing in the Bill to say that people who do not pay a fee and become registered will be entitled to fish free as heretofore. In other words, if I decide not to become a registered coarse fisherman or trout fisherman and do not pay a fee, can I continue to fish for pike or perch or trout as I and my forebears have done in the past? I would like the Minister to be very clear on that. Or is it to be the case in the future that the only people who can fish for trout or for coarse fish will be those who appear on the register, having paid their annual subscription? The subscription is referred to as a voluntary subscription in the sense that a person does not have to pay it but if, by failing to pay it, I am going to lose my rights to fish then I am afraid it is very far removed from being a voluntary subscription.

On the question of subscription, who is going to fix the level of subscription? Will it be the regional board, the central board or the Minister? What level is it going to be fixed at initially and how are we going to be sure that it is going to be kept to a reasonable figure? This is an important question.

The new structures are welcome and the motivation behind them coming from the commission will have general support. But there are two essential preconditions necessary to ensure success for this new departure. The first is that there should be adequate financial support for the new boards to do what has to be done. We are coming from a long way back in terms of conservation and development of our fisheries and the efforts to bring them up to date and realise their full potential will be that much more difficult and onerous. How successful we will be in removing those difficulties speedily and effectively will depend eventually on how much finance is going to be made available to these new boards. The Minister, in his opening speech, made what I think is an important distinction. He said that any money given to these boards will be an investment; it will not be expenditure. That is an important distinction. I have no doubt that, notwithstanding the rather threatening clouds that are appearing on the financial horizon, the Minister will be able to assure his colleague, the Minister for Finance, that this is an investment in jobs and livelihood for people and we will be able to ensure that it will not be treated as expenditure on a purely recreational or frivolous object. In assuring his colleague in the Department of Finance of the national importance of this from an investment point of view he will be able to procure adequate funds for the new central and regional boards.

The other pre-condition that is essential is that these new boards be set up without delay and all the administrative work necessary got under way immediately because we are coming from far back in the question of conserving, protecting and developing our inland fisheries and every week that is lost is compounding the situation.

I will conclude by urging the Minister to ensure that the new order prescribed by this Bill will be implemented without delay. I wish also to express thanks to the members, executives and staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust for the work they have had to do and the work they have done over the years in preserving our fisheries and ensuring that we did not go even further back. They were underfinanced and under-staffed and did not have the legal powers that they should have had but, within those serious limitations, they did an immense amount of good work. It must have been a most disappointing experience for them having brought Lake Ennel up to being a premier lake in Europe and to see the lake being totally destroyed. On that depressing but very personal note I will end and hope that we will never see that again. I would like to see many Lough Ennels all over the country. I would like to see fisheries, as a means of livelihood, social recreation and tourist attraction here, being second to none anywhere else.

Mícheál Cranitch

I wish to convey our congratulations and thanks to the Inland Fisheries Commission for the work they have done and for the recommendations they have made. Likewise I convey our congratulations and thanks to the Minister for bringing in such an all-embracing Bill giving effect to most of the more important recommendations of the commission.

While it is, in the main, a Committee Stage Bill with all its 86 pages, I propose to raise a few points at this stage. The Minister stated that the object of the Bill is to give effect to the main recommendations of the commission by securing more effective conservation, protection, management and development of inland fisheries through the reorganisation and strengthening of the existing administrative structure. That, indeed, is a very big task and I was glad to note that, so far as this sort of work is concerned, Senator Cooney mentioned some points about which I was also concerned. The point was realised at one time and there will have to be a re-realisation of it that water—whether it be that in our rivers, our rain water or of the sea around us—has a very special significance for our people and our race. It is something which we will have to emphasise in our educational system at all levels. We came here mostly over sea. The sea has been our road to prosperity in other countries in other times. The sea always had a welcome for us. It provided us, to a large extent with our food and so, indeed, have our rivers. It was along our rivers that our peoples came when they came to this island first and the rivers fed them to a large extent.

Our traditions, folklore and stories deal time and time again with rivers, water and fish, particularly the king of the fish so far as we are concerned, the salmon. I could not help thinking, as I was giving thought to these particular points, that it would be nice if Fionn Mac Cumhaill could pass on some of the wisdom he got from the salmon of knowledge not alone to our Minister but to all those who will be working under him in completing the great task the Minister has had put before him.

Another thing which should be of great help in the development of our fisheries is research. Unfortunately we have not a great tradition as far as that is concerned in our fisheries. There is a great deal to be learned from studies made by marine biologists, men who deserve every possible encouragement. I had occasion last year to visit Sherkin Island off the west coast of Cork and there I saw excellent work being done by a man, mostly with his own resources, Matt Murphy. A tremendous amount of knowledge is to be obtained from such ventures.

Similar study could be made so far as our inland rivers are concerned. The great difficulty with our rivers is the matter of pollution. We must make up our minds sooner or later whether we want polluted rivers followed by the extinction of our fish stocks or clean rivers giving us healthy fish. Fish have always been regarded as the healthiest form of life in existence. If we wish a neighbour well at any social gathering we always say: "sláinte an bhradáin", "the health of the salmon"; no fish should be healthier. We must take every step possible to keep our rivers and lakes clean.

The stories mentioned by the previous speaker, Senator Cooney, about Lough Ennel could be repeated as regards many other lakes and rivers. I always feel a pang of despair, I feel actually hurt, whenever I hear of a fish killed in a river whatever the cause of that killing may be. One of the greatest tasks before the Minister is this question of avoiding polluton. We must tackle this problem in a big way, otherwise fishing will cease to be a pastime or a tourist attraction to say nothing of the loss in revenue to so many of our people who make a living by fishing either inland or on the seas.

The other great enemy we have is the illegal fisherman or the poacher. The poacher should be outlawed just as his brother, the drunken driver, has been outlawed. We will have to get a proper sense of proportion in our thinking so far as poachers are concerned. There was always great sympathy for the poacher; he was the kind of person who was down and out, and perhaps something could be said for that sort of reasoning. There was a time when people were forbidden to fish in certain parts of the river due to the rights, upheld by the law, of various landlords and foreign interests. But if we want to preserve our fish for the honest fisherman, for the poorest and for those who take up fishing as a pastime and as a means of relaxation—and a good healthy pastime it is—we must deal with the poacher just as the drunken driver has been dealt with.

The Minister mentioned fish farming.

He said:

The great potential of fish farming is recognised in the Bill. Briefly, the new provisions make it an offence to engage in agriculture unless one holds the appropriate licence. The Bill enables an order to be made following the usual investigations and, if necessary, an inquiry designating an area of the sea as an area where aquaculture may be carried out, and licences may then be issued for the carrying out of aquaculture in that area.

I am sure the Minister will give consideration to representations made on behalf of Gael Linn by Domhnall Ó Moráin. They have a very good case and they deserve every consideration so far as the oyster beds in Fenit, Tralee, are concerned. There is a great potential in fish farming or aquaculture. While it is not exactly a new concept it is in its in itial stages here and there is great potential for such a venture.

I was very glad to see that coarse fishing gets honourable mention. The Minister said "To secure additional income the Bill provides for the payment of a voluntary subscription by trout and coarse fish anglers." Coarse fishing is increasing in popularity and has become an outstanding tourist attraction. I have in mind my own town of Fermoy where it has brought a considerable amount of money to the town and has resulted in great fishing activity. Visitors come not alone from Britain but from the Continent and further afield. The three great points so far as inland fishing is concerned are that it is a means of livelihood, a splendid recreational pastime and it brings in revenue from tourists.

I commend the Minister for bringing such a comprehensive and thorough Bill before us and I hope it will get a speedy passage through both Houses. I wish the Minister every success. He will need all the knowledge from the salmon of knowledge to which I referred earlier to carry out the task facing him.

Mr. Moynihan

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome this Fisheries Bill. The only criticism that can be offered is that it is belated. It relates to a very important aspect of our economy, our fisheries. First, those fisheries have a tremendous bearing on the employment and livelihood of a substantial section of the community because of our long coastline and also because of our inland resources. Secondly, they have a social and recreational aspect for the Irish community as a whole. Thirdly, they are a tremendous attraction for tourists. Therefore, there is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that not only are our existing fisheries protected but that they are developed to their very fullest potential.

In the past the enemy of the salmon and the trout has been the poacher. In recent years poachers have been fishing illegally in our seas with massive nets and destroying our especially valuable salmon stocks. Inland poaching has diminished over the years. In fact, the poacher was never regarded as a criminal. He was a legendary figure trying to beat a foreign law and a foreign landlord. Our traditions had much to do with the respect the community generally afforded to poachers. A substantial volume of fishing rights was held by outsiders or absentee landlords. I am glad to see a section in the Bill setting out the basis on which they can be taken over by the new area boards. Does the Minister feel this will be an easy job? In the past it was regarded as a very difficult task to attempt to take into local control the rights that had been held for so long by alien interests in some of our best fishing areas.

The new and the greatest enemy of fish is not the inland poacher but the inland pollution. As Senator Cooney said, the success or failure of the Minister and his Department in their effort to protect and expand the development of our fisheries to their greatest potential, with the resultant value to the country and to the State, will depend entirely on how we can control pollution of our rivers and lakes. The lakes in my area and in other areas got considerable publicity in recent years because of the increasing loss of fish life. It is a good thing that attention is being focussed on that aspect. In my own area there has been very substantial development in controlling pollution in lakes.

All our rivers and lakes are equally important and unless there is the utmost co-operation between the Minister and his staff and the Department of the Environment the Minister's legislation cannot succeed. He should try to ensure that local authorities, through the direction and guidance of the Department, no longer treat the pollution of our rivers and lakes in the haphazard manner in which it has been treated in the past. This is the most fundamental matter the Department of Fisheries have to look at. If we can bring back the crystal waters to our rivers and lakes, legislation within this framework will certainly guarantee that in the future we can look with pride on the very valuable fisheries we have to protect and safeguard. On behalf of the Labour Party I congratulate the Inland Fisheries Commission on outlining the Bill originally, and the Department for bringing it forward. I trust it will have a very speedy passage through both Houses with a view to giving the Department of Fisheries and the Department of the Environment the opportunity to go ahead with the full protection and development of our fisheries.

Mr. Crowley

I should like to join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill. It is a tremendous step forward in ensuring that mistakes made in the past will not be made in the future. I think it was Hemingway who said: "When we arrive a continent ages quickly". He was talking about the arrival of the white man in Africa. Where you have development, progress and prosperity, inevitably there is an invasion of the environment to a certain degree.

It is our duty not alone to provide industrial advancement for our people and give them the opportunity to get jobs and positions in their own country but also to ensure that we preserve the integrity of the whole atmosphere around us. The combination of these two objectives is not easy to reconcile. While there is a very strong and vocal lobby pushing for industrial development, the other lob by is not as strong and as vocal as it should be. We have an obligation as legislators to ensure that legislation is loaded very much in favour of conservation and preservation. We may only get the opportunity once of ensuring that we conserve our rivers, our lakes, our seas with the life in them. The Mediterranean became known as the dead sea because of massive pollution. We do not want any dead rivers, dead lakes or dead seas within our area.

It is important on occasions like this to reflect on what is gone and to try to ensure that in the future we do not make some of the mistakes we made in the past. As Senator Cooney said, it is really an educational process the whole way. It is very hard in rural areas—and Senator Moynihan touched on this—to find condemnation of the poacher. He is looked upon as a fellow who is making a few dishonest shillings, but not in any malicious way.

The only way we can get rid of this benign attitude towards the poacher is to ensure that all of the fishing rights and all of the rights in rivers and lakes are held by our own nationals and not by absentee landlords and I mean "lords" in the literal sense in some cases. It is endemic in our nature that where we see the big landlord suffering a rebuff, no matter how slight, we relish it and take a certain amount of enjoyment out of it.

As a priority—and the Minister referred to this—we must start immediately with the acquisition of all foreign-held rights in relation to our rivers and our lakes. I am not too sure that some of those landlords are not the greatest poachers. It is very hard to confirm stories and rumours but I suppose many public representatives have been told of the massive killings of salmon by so-called landlords and owners of the fishing rights in an area. The sooner that situation is righted the sooner we will have respect for the law.

I come from an area, south-west Cork, which is ultra-sensitive to all forms of pollution. We have just had the disaster in Bantry. Before that, there were so many instances of pollution, especially on our seashore, that every individual living in those areas which were affected became ultra-conscious of the necessity for proper supervision, proper legislation, and strict enforcement of the law. Senator Cooney rightly condemned the local authorities. There is no doubt that the local authorities are the major polluters of our rivers and streams. They have this schizophrenic attitude of pressing for conservation on the one hand and, on the other hand, allowing pollution to run wild. If the ordinary individual is to have respect for the law he must be shown that the Minister and the Government mean business when it comes to prosecutions and the enforcement of the law for all, and not just for the individuals. Local authorities should be proceeded against if they are seen to be breaking the law. It is ironic that one section in the Department of the Environment are working assiduously day and night to try to protect the environment and another section are going about their business in a perfectly legal manner but contributing towards the pollution of our country.

We all must be serious about this question of conservation. We take clean water for granted. We must remind everybody that this is something we cannot take for granted in the future. Unless we now take the necessary actions and steps to ensure that we have clean water, we will not have it. What a tragedy and a catastrophe that would be. One has only to travel to countries abroad, and especially in the Middle East, to appreciate the value of water and to see how inconsequential oil is in relation to the importance of water. We have one of the greatest national resources available to mankind: in the main clean water, clean rivers, clean streams and clean lakes. The Minister is rightly placing a tremendous importance on this Bill because of the necessity of preserving those blessings we have from nature.

Another aspect the Minister touched on is that of research. In my area we have a unique lake called Lough Inagh. All the officials of the Minister's Department and the Minister are familiar with what is going on down there. The research being carried out there and the good work being done should be passed on to the rest of the country. By this type of research and this type of development we will be more and more able to take command and control of our environment.

The question of aquaculture was raised—fish farming. On the surface this is a very good and a very wise idea, but in some cases you can act prematurely in relation to fish farming. I had an unfortunate experience in my own constituency when people, probably well-intentioned, set up a fish farm and went through the necessary legal process in order to set up this fish farm. They put an advertisement in the paper and got a licence eventually from the Minister. The people of the area were not aware of what was involved in this fish farm. They were not aware that this fish farm was being situated and built on their traditional scollop fishing grounds. This immediately created a conflict. It created antagonism towards fish farming which should not have been the case.

Everybody welcomes new development in relation to marine research and aquaculture, but let us make sure we bring the people along with us. It is an idle exercise to have a development on one side of the fishing industry at the expense of fishermen on the other side who are making their living from catching other types of fish. We have to set out on the educational process which is so necessary to make a success of this whole business. I have no doubt whatsoever that the regional boards under the control of the central board is the right method of doing it. I urge the Minister to ensure that these boards and the staffing of them are adequate and that they have enough finance to carry on, that they have their own officers who will be the watchdogs on behalf of the people of the area to ensure that we do not have a repetition of the type of pollution experienced up to now.

Overall, everyone welcomes the Bill. I do not believe there is a line in it that one could criticise. We hope that in the years to come because of legislation such as this we will have the cleanest and purest country to live in.

Dr. West

I wish I could share Senator Crowley's optimism. I have raised some of the problems which this Bill is tackling on a number of occasions in this House. I wonder whether the situation has not gone so far in some areas that it is beyond redemption and out of control.

A great deal of the discussion on this Bill will take place on Committee Stage but I want to make some general points on Second Stage. The first one concerns, the depletion of our salmon stocks. This was recognised by the Minister when he said: "Last year's salmon catch was just half that of 1975." That is the catch for the whole island. That is an absolutely frightening figure. Clearly, if the deterioration goes on for, say, another three or four years, it is likely that our spawning salmon will be reduced to virtually nil. I wonder whether the new legislation we are contemplating, the powers we are giving to the boards, the finance and the back-up we are giving to the central board and the various fishery boards, will be sufficient to remedy this situation.

I have raised the problem on a number of occasions and I should like to quote some of the figures I quoted in this House previously. In Volume 83, column 1881 of the Official Report I gave the Foyle Fisheries Commission's figures on spawning salmon. In 1964 the number was 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. The Foyle Fisheries Commission made it clear in their report that they felt that, whereas there may have been other contributory causes, the basic cause for this was the extent of the drift netting in the Foyle Estuary. Today the Minister said:

I have also included some new provisions in the Bill that should prove of great assistance in fishery protection. The most important of these is the increase of the penalties for fisheries offences to a realistic level. The Bill prescribes penalties of up to £600 and /or six months in prison on summary conviction. For the more serious offences provision is made for trial on indictment and the penalty on conviction for such offences can extend up to £1,000 and/or two years in prison.

I wonder whether these penalties are sufficient to deter people considering that in a night's successful drift-netting one can catch about £2,000 or £3,000 worth of fish. I wonder if a fine of £600 will really deter people who on a good night will perhaps get away with a couple of thousand pounds worth of salmon. I should like to quote from an article in The Cork Examiner of 26 June 1976 some remarks by the Chief Fishery Inspector, Dan Good of the Cork fishery area 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 that a 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 that some of the nets were on rollers which meant one man could operate them. "We also visited the Dursey and Garnish area", continued the report, "and it was obvious that the place was a minefield of fixed nets. The piers were full of nets especially mono filament and there were boats in that area where drift netting 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 prevention of drift net fishing can be undertaken with our present equipment.

One constantly reads reports of this sort of problem throughout the country. I wonder whether the legislation we are discussing now will really remedy the situation. At least from the tone of the speeches in this House, more people are aware of the problem than when I spoke in 1976. It has got through more to the general public. Will the legislation we are discussing affect the situation?

Like other speakers I pay tribute to the Report of the Inland Fisheries Commission. In company with Senator Cooney I welcome the very straightforward way in which the recommendations are set out and in which the information is given. I should like to look at the section dealing with our salmon and sea trout stocks and discuss some of the report's findings. One of the illustrations is of the Bantry Bay fishery, and Appendix 11 of the report discusses the findings on that fishery. In 1963, there were approximately two drift nets operating in Bantry Bay. In 1971, the number had gone up to 76 and in 1972 to 150. That was the peak. In 1973, it dropped to 130 and in 1974 it dropped to 80. The number of spawning salmon in the rivers in the Bantry Bay area at the last count which was 1973, 1974 and 1975 was nil. Since these counts were done fairly thoroughly by the Inland Fishery Trust over a three-year period, we can take it that salmon are extinct in the rivers flowing into Bantry Bay.

In that situation the Minister should ban all forms of drift-net fishing and, if necessary, ban the local anglers from fishing in the Bantry Bay rivers. If there is to be any chance of recovery all fishing must stop for a sufficient period and the rivers must be restocked. As far as drift-netting is concerned it has been a case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. It was not very difficult for the drift-netters, legal or illegal, to operate because they were operating under legislation introduced in 1848 when the only power by which a boat was propelled was by oar or sail. No boat propelled by this method could haul a very long or deep net. It just was not possible. In recent years we have been witnessing situations in which power boats are tearing around pulling nets a couple of miles long at the mouth of the bay, even a bay as big as Bantry. The result has been the virtual extinction of salmon in the Bantry area.

The fisheries commission although certain representations were made to them, do not advocate in their report the total banning of drift-net fishing because they recognise that in some areas, particularly some of the western seaboard areas, the contribution to the livelihood of the local people is important. These are areas in which farming is perhaps subsistence level farming and where it is a question of striking a balance.

I would urge the Minister that in the areas in which the salmon stocks have dwindled to what is virtually extinction level the question of the revocation of all net licences should be seriously considered. Otherwise, there will never be any salmon in these areas. Again drift-netters, draft-netters or anglers will never get anything from these particular areas. On this question, paragraph 3.7.2 of the report reads:

Salmon fishing in the sea is virtually unsupervised. Regulations regarding nets, and particularly the permitted maximum lengths of drift nets, are ignored on a widespread scale, the weekly close time is often openly infringed and some fishermen fish without licences. The extent of this problem should be fully appreciated as well as the consequences for the salmon stocks, and therefore salmon fishing in the sea should be effectively controlled.

The report goes on to advocate the purchase of patrol boats by the board's conservators. In some cases this has happened but further boats will have to be purchased if adequate surveillance is to be carried out. The report also advocates the possibility of surveillance by air, light aircraft and helicopters, an operation that has been successfully carried out in Norway.

There are other recommendations. There is the recommendation that penalties be greatly increased. This Bill increases them, but whether the increases are large enough is open to question. The commission recommend that all licensed nets be tagged in a prescribed manner so as to identify the licence owners and that the boats used for salmon fishing be clearly numbered for the same purpose. They recommend that it be obligatory for salmon drift-nets to remain attached to the fishing boats at all times because in many cases they were either staked or they were just let drift and then collected later.

These are problems which the central board and the regional boards and the Minister and his Department will be faced with, and it is not really a question of legislation although it is important that the legislation be updated, particularly the legislation that was brought in in 1848. It is a question of will, and it is a question of feeling that there is public support for the saving of our salmon stocks. This debate is showing that there is such support and I would urge the Minister to take the action that is necessary, however drastic to ensure that our salmon stocks are saved.

Of course there are other reasons for the depletion of salmon stocks. There has been fishing off the coast of Greenland. There is the problem of pollution. There is the problem of arterial drainage. These have contributed somewhat to the depletion of salmon stocks but I think the experts by and large agree that the main reason for the depletion has been excessive drift-netting. Unless that is controlled and regulated and unless the regulations which are made are strictly enforced, if necessary by the Garda, the Army and the Naval Service, there is little hope of saving our salmon stocks. If we fail in this regard, then in five years' time when another piece of legislation comes up dealing with fisheries we will not be discussing the problem of salmon at all.

I should like to move on to another problem of a more technical nature with which this legislation is concerned, that is the construction and the powers of the central board. In a number of other countries where such central boards exist they are executive boards with executive powers. This was clearly recommended by the commission in paragraph 8.1.2 of their report, I quote:

We are satisfied that the varied complex and far flung functions we have in mind could not be operated efficiently by the type of departmental Executive Office which the Public Services Organisation Review Group, 1966-1969, considered appropriate to non-commercial State-sponsored activities. They will require in our opinion an organisation which requires a high degree of continuity and specialisation at all staff level and a degree of freedom, flexibility, personal responsibility and general acceptability greater than that which is normally associated with conventionally organised departments of State.

The commission go on to say that they are acutely conscious that the success of the new organisation will depend on its being acceptable on the whole to the various and often conflicting interests with which it will be involved. They say that in a civil service situation this would not be readily achievable. I do not want to appear critical of the civil service but I would tend to agree with that assessment.

One matter that is distressing is that the central board is too much under the direction of the Minister and the executive powers which the commission recommended should be given to the board are all being vested in the Minister. In other words, this gives his Department more control over the central board than I believe they should have. I believe there should be freedom and flexibility and that the board should have more executive powers. The commission's report made this very clear in paragraph 8.3.2 which reads:

We envisage the Fisheries Minister as being advised by a small, highly-geared Fisheries Department of the type recommended by the Public Service Organisation Review Group. In broad terms his function in relation to inland fisheries would be to indicate general lines of policy, set goals, and maintain overall control over the activities of the Fisheries Authority.

In this case this is the central board. It would appear on a close reading of section 7 of the Bill where are set out the powers of the central board and their relationship with the Minister that the Minister has taken the powers which the commission's report envisages for the central board, and that the board will be so much under his control that they will not, so far as I can see, have the initiative and freedom or the flexibility they should have if they are to work effectively. I should like to draw a parallel which the Minister will recall. I am sure it has not been completely worked out but it is something with which I sided with his party, against the recommendations of the former Minister for Agriculture in regard to shackling An Foras Talúntais. We had a long debate in this House, during which there was a three-hour hold up, and I discovered that An Foras Talúntais had been set up by a treaty between the US and this country by means of money coming from the Marshall Aid Plan. It was clear when one read the terms of this treaty that the Americans had insisted that An Foras Talúntais should be absolutely independent of State control. This was right and far-sighted and it gave this institute, which has achieved a great international reputation, the flexibility to carry out the programmes that it wished to carry out and it did not necessarily have to have the say-so for every single item of its business from the Department of Agriculture. The Department did not like this and did their best to bring An Foras Talúntais back into the fold. I am glad to say that the Government have reversed the decisions of the previous administration concerning An Foras Talúntais.

The Minister should look again at section 7 particularly in relation to the present position of the Inland Fisheries Trust because they operate with a good deal of freedom and a good deal of flexibility which I am advocating. The commission give the Inland Fisheries Trust great praise. I quote from paragraph 4.10.1 of the report:

... the story of development work for brown trout, coarse fish, and indeed sea angling, is in large part the story of the Inland Fisheries Trust.

In their present form, the trust have freedom and flexibility. When they become a part of the structure set out here the researchers and the members of the trust, and in fact their policy, will come much more under the direction of the Minister.

I am against excessive centralisation of bureaucratic control. I always protest about it on every possible occasion and I should like to protest on this occasion. The Minister should look again at section 7 and should see his way to giving the central board greater initiative and not have every direction coming down from the top which would be a sure way of dampening the spirit of enterprise which we want to see this board adopting. As the Minister has said in his speech—and I welcome this—we are not just talking about the negative aspects of fishery development, about protection, about cutting out the drift-netters, about cutting out illegal fishing, we are also talking about the positive aspects, about the promotion of the whole area of our fisheries. The board would have to be able to take the initiative that is required.

The Inland Fisheries Trust, as well as doing the work in inland waters, have done a considerable amount of work in sea water particularly in the areas of the fish such as bass and mullet and anglers' fish such as sharks, skates and rays. This is work which complements work done by the Department which is mainly concerned with commerical species. What will be the situation regarding this development of sea fishing under the central board? Will this be moved from the central board and operated by the Department of Agriculture? I often find the jargon in which these things are set out rather difficult to disentangle but it seems to me that there is a danger that this work may not continue under the central board. Section 7 (1) (g) refers to it but I should like more than assurances from the Minister. I should like some changes made in this section and we can discuss them at the appropriate time. The main point I want to make is that the central board should have freedom and flexibility, should be allowed show initiative and be able to operate on their own lines.

There are two other main points I should like to make. One is the problem concerning arterial drainage. Senator Cooney has mentioned the difficulties experienced in Lough Ennel. They were mainly from the problem of sewage being pumped into the lake but there is another problem which many of our inland lakes are suffering from, that is, that the drainage of rivers tends to lower lake levels and if there is a tendency to putrefaction this would greatly increase that tendency. Therefore, drainage should only be carried out with great circumspection. I note that the commission are so worried about this problem of drainage that in paragraph 9 they recommend a change in the law which this Bill does not encompass.

The report points out that the drainage commission of 1938 recommended that the drainage authority should be exempt from complying with the Fisheries Acts. Essentially the Commissioners of Public Works have only to consult with the Minister for Fisheries but they are not bound in any statutory way by his advice. They need only ask him for his advice and then they can go ahead. The report recommends—and I am sorry that this Bill does not put forth this recommendation—that there should be some statutory obligation on the Commissioners of Public Works to receive the agreement of the Minister rather than merely to consult with him on drainage. The commission submit, at paragraph 9.14.3, that when drainage is being carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works:

... they be obliged by statute to conserve the aesthetic and fishery values of waters on which they operate.

Public opinion has changed greatly on this question in the last ten years and what drainage people would have got away with some years ago is much more likely to be questioned for its effect nowadays than it was ten or 15 years ago. There is no doubt that a great deal of damage was done to rivers in their fishery aspect by some of the large drainage schemes of some years ago. With a bit more care the drainage could have been carried out and the spawning beds and so on need not have been so drastically affected.

I should like to see a statutory requirement in this Bill to insist that from now on all arterial drainage carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works should have the agreement of the Minister, in other words, agreement that the fisheries would not be affected or if there was damage caused to the fisheries by the carrying out of the drainage that the commissioners would be obliged to repair this damage.

My final point concerns aquaculture. Senator Crowley has spoken sensitively on this issue. He has been directly involved in disputes which have gone on in his constituency. There is no question that there is a fear among traditional fishermen that fish farming will affect their livelihood and their traditional fishing beds. It is a question of balancing the rights of the traditional fishermen, the boat fishermen, with the developing industry. It is an important developing industry and if we can strike the right balance a great deal of good can be done. I do not think that section 51 of the Bill goes far enough. I imagine that in the course of this discussion the Minister may be thinking of certain amendments. It is right that people involved in aquaculture should obtain licences. Aquaculture should be licensed and regulated because it can do a great deal of damage. There is the question of holding an inquiry when a licence is issued. I am not against the holding of inquiries. Public discussion is a good thing. In some cases an inquiry can dissipate a lot of heat locally if there is a reasonably frank discussion of the pros and cons of a case.

I wonder what will happen, when this legislation is passed, to existing operators of fish farms. How will their operations be looked at? The legislation will affect them considerably and could, if operated harshly, put some of them out of business. I do not think this sort of thing will happen but there are problems. For example, there is the salmon levy. I do not think that the levy should apply to farmed salmon up to the time of harvesting because the problem with fish farming from the financial point of view is that it needs a great capital investment and there is a considerable waiting time before one gets any return. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the position regarding the levy.

Mr. Lenihan

It will apply only on first sales of salmon.

Dr. West

But when salmon harvested from a fish farm are sold will there be a levy on the first sale?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes.

Dr. West

That would be the sale by the operator?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes.

Dr. West

I would argue that perhaps the Minister should think again about that levy on fish farming.

Mr. Markey

He is already thinking about levies.

Dr. West

One of the difficulties is that there is always a problem of malicious damage. It is easy to put a fish farm out of business—if it is in the sea you just cut the nets or if it is inland a couple of handfuls of poison in the top pool would ruin the whole farm. We could look at the problem of malicious damage when we are dealing with section 51. There is a more positive thing that one might do; for example, one might insist in section 51 on the monitoring of the plankton in a fish farm in the sea. This could help to give early warning of things like the red tide. That might be done by way of statutory requirement or it might be done by order but it would help to increase the flow of information. If it were done by way of statutory requirement it could help to alert the people to problems such as those of the red tide.

I do not think any of us is under any illusions as to the importance of this Bill. The most serious problem confronting the Minister is the problem of our dwindling salmon stocks. The authorities I have asked about this Bill are of the impression generally that it has a good chance of doing good if it is put into practice in the right spirit and if the back-up in terms of resources is forthcoming. I trust that the Minister is successful in this area as well as in the other areas which the Bill is designed to deal with.

Lady Goulding

I should like briefly to make a few points of a parochial nature. Other Senators have dealt with the subject in a most interesting manner and I have learned a lot from listening to them. I should like to speak as one who has no connection with fishing. However, we are lucky enough to have a small river and we allow young people to come and fish it for salmon. Up to a year-and-a-half ago the salmon reached our part of the river beheaded having gone through nets which we took down every night but which were put up again. When they had been taken down about 50 times gunpowder was then thrown into the pond. This was in one of the most beautiful counties in Ireland—Wicklow. The tourist traffic was affected because people went to visit Wicklow to engage in some minor fishing which they enjoyed.

I welcome this Bill very much but I should like to let the Minister know the good work that has been done in the past year-an-a-half by the fishery protection officers and the Garda in the Wicklow area. These people have gone out at all times of the day and night, have caught many poachers and have brought them to justice. Several of these young boys who come and learn to fish are now catching up to 10 lb. salmon. At the same time, I should like the House to know that something is being done by the fisheries protection officers and the gardaí in the County of Wicklow.

Mr. Markey

The House is almost unanimous in welcoming this Bill. For quite a number of years, pending the introduction of this legislation, we have had to renew the procedures for the election of boards of conservators. Judging from the Minister's speech, the shadow of finance appears to hang over the successful implementation of this legislation. In quite a number of instances he mentions the need for greater finance, from no matter what sources. He has mentioned the implementation of a levy, which has already bred some discontent in other quarters. I hope it does not breed similar discontent among hoteliers, restaurant owners or fish dealers. However, that remains to be seen. This legislation could be called a new deal as regards inland fisheries, preservation and development. If it is a new deal, certainly as regards the working conditions of those most overworked people in the boards of conservators, it is to be welcomed. Perhaps it will succeed in this respect. The Minister has mentioned initially the figure of seven but I am glad to see that he has kept his options open to extending this number, or even restricting it, as experience will show. We are, when all is said and done, asking seven boards to do the work of what 17 boards of conservators do at present. The history of the existing boards of conservators, in the areas in which they operate, have something to show us as regards the problems and the difficulties which confront anybody involved in the protection of our inland fisheries. It is imperative that the boards should not be too remote from the actual areas of operation; the boards of conservators, as geographically situated at present, would seem to have met this criterion. Unfortunately, the boards of conservators had to cope with other difficulties, principally in relation to finance, staffing and inadequate equipment. Whatever number of regional fisheries boards is adopted, it is essential that they should be localised, and I would ask the Minister to pay special attention to this, even after the introduction of the seven regional boards. If the members of these boards feel it necessary that the number should be extended, that should be done. It is not easy to exercise the proper protection and deterrent measures in regard to poaching, and the proper measures in regard to prevention of pollution, if the central bodies, the regional fisheries boards, are remote from the actual areas where these things happen.

I welcome the democratic aspect of the election to the new regional boards. The Minister has not indicated when the boards will be set up or when he will introduce the first system of elections. In the meantime, he indicates that he will nominate all the members of the first regional boards. I would ask him to ensure that his nominees will reflect in calibre, experience and qualification the type of personnel who will, let us say, be introduced by the electorate in subsequent elections. It is important to begin on the right basis. Certainly, the conditions of service of the people involved in this most important work must receive special attention. The Minister has indicated that he will do everything in this regard to ensure that they have the same conditions of service as they have at present and that he will introduce superannuation schemes and the like.

One of the greatest hindrances to personnel involved in the existing boards of conservators was lack of adequate facilities. I found, from personal experience and involvement with complaints made to me by anglers, that there was a lack of even basic requirements, such as an adequate number of telephones, vans and the proper mechanised equipment to enable personnel in the boards of conservators to get around their areas. Improved facilities must be put at the disposal of the personnel.

The Minister said that the main thrust he sees coming from this Bill is that of switching the emphasis from protection to development of our inland fisheries. I have been unable to find in the rest of his speech any elaboration on this concept that it will lead to a great development of our inland fisheries. The speech seems to be concentrated on future personnel structures and their election, the penalties and other aspects of illegal fishing. Would the Minister give some indication of how our inland fisheries can be developed in the sense envisaged in his speech?

There is no doubt that we are all agreed that the attitude of the public towards poaching has changed in recent years, which is welcome. With the introduction of these new regional boards, with their new personnel and staffing structures, the Central Fisheries Board and the regional boards should avail of the opportunity to show the public the unsocial and illegal aspects of poaching. The fisheries boards could do much through education in our schools and by adult education through the media.

There is no doubt the question of pollution has angered the public mind much more in recent years than in the past. Apart from the economic aspect of the £20 million indicated by the Minister as what the inland fisheries are worth to the national economy, clean waters and clean fish are two matters which we want to preserve and time is of the essence in this regard. It has been disappointing to me that, since we put through this House the Water Pollution Act of 1976, so little has been done in regard to the employment and recruitment of properly qualified staff in this respect. My own county council are, at present, only contemplating advertising for personnel to look after the implementation of that Act. There is no doubt that even a couple of years of neglect in regard to keeping waters clean can have a most serious long-term effect. We might never be able to catch up on the time that was lost. Certainly, the fisheries boards that are being introduced will have a lot to do in regard to educating the public at large in regard to the unsocial and illegal aspects of poaching and pollution.

The penalties envisaged by the Minister seem adequate in present circumstances. However, like all penalties introduced in an Act, they need to be modified at regular periods, otherwise they lose all power as a deterrent. When all is said and done, these regional boards will need finance if they are to be successful. Whatever the alternative sources of finance suggested by the Minister, the main burden will fall on the Government of the day, to ensure that adequate financial subvention is available to these boards to do their most important work. I should hate to think that this would not be so. As the fisheries board should avail of the different public attitude towards illegal fishing, the Government should avail of the different public attitude now, to ensure that the finance necessary to do this most essential work is available to the boards.

We all welcome this Bill and wish it the best of success. Whether it will be as successful in practice as in theory remains to be seen. Given the present public climate towards the matters at issue, the Government should not spare, in any respect, the financing of whatever is needed by the boards.

Dr. Whitaker

This Bill is an important measure of reorganisation. The administrative reforms it introduces, and the increased penalties it provides for are urgently necessary. I welcome the Bill for the prospect it holds out of effective future action in conserving and developing our inland fisheries, particularly our salmon fisheries, which I have described here recently as not only an important natural, but also an important national resource. The effectiveness of the new structures will depend on the success of our efforts to ensure that salmon reach our inland waters in sufficient numbers at least to maintain, but preferably to increase, the breeding stock. Clearly, there is no future in Ireland for the salmon unless the over-fishing at sea is stopped, unless commercialised poaching, poisoning and other forms of illegal predation in rivers, estuaries and lakes are stopped and unless pollution is brought under control. Otherwise, the salmon faces extinction in a short space of years. This fate has already befallen it in many other countries and in several famous Irish salmon rivers, such as the Erne, the Boyne, the Lee and the Liffey.

When I spoke here on 14 December, I mentioned two facts to highlight the salmon crisis. Most important is the single figure which shows that salmon are no longer reproducing themselves, but are in steep decline. The net reproduction rate for salmon, as established in what are virtually ideal conditions at Lough Furnace in County Mayo, is now not two, as it should be, if the population were to be maintained, but less than one. The second figure I quoted on that occasion and, again, it is a hard figure, it is not an unreliable one, is the experience at Thomond Weir in Limerick where there is a complete count of fish. The intake there, that is, of salmon entering the Shannon to spawn, is now only one-eighth of the average intake of the years 1963 to 1967; a mere 2,100 as against over 17,000. The reason why so few fish are entering fresh water to spawn is that their survival at sea and in the estuaries is being drastically reduced by over-fishing.

The Minister, of course, is well aware that, apart from over-fishing at sea, stocks are being depleted on a scandalous scale and quite blatantly by commercial poachers—greedy, organised poaching. These people defy and attack the inspectors and protective staff of the present boards of conservators. Several Senators tried to conjure up a congenial picture of the hardy, jaunty native having a "go" at the absentee landlord. Nobody would mind that, but the Minister knows what is happening and it is being applied not only to absentee landlords but to fisheries under his own ownership and control—by organised gangs raiding the fish constantly, and virtually with impunity.

I am very glad to hear, from the Minister's speech, that the new central board and the new regional boards will be adequately staffed and equipped and have sufficient support from the Garda Síochána and the Naval Service to do their job effectively. I hope, also, that the Minister will be able to ensure that the new close period will be observed. As he well knows, scant notice has been taken by net fishermen of the present shorter period. I would like to emphasise a point made by other speakers, that uniformly strict enforcement is necessary if the observers of the law are not to feel let down.

To put the problem in perspective I would like to give the information I have gleaned about who is catching the fish and in what quantities. Over the past 20 years, the official figures show a great upsurge in the total catch of salmon, rising to a peak in 1974-75. For those years the catch, in weight and numbers, was nearly three times what it was 20 years ago. Over the last few years, as the Minister has said, it has been cut by half. The strong upturn in the Irish catch began in 1962 and steadily increased as drift-nets caught up with, and passed out, draft nets as the main instrument of capture. The drift-nets were responsible for less than one-quarter of the total catch in 1962 but they accounted for three-quarters of the total catch by 1974 and have roughly maintained their position since. Draft nets are now down to less than one-quarter. Between them, drift and draft nets account for 93 per cent of the total catch. Other forms of capture, including rod and line, are so small as to be negligible. Anglers accounted for just over 2 per cent of the total catch last year according to figures given in the Dáil recently by the Minister. When one bears this proportion in mind, it supports my suggestion that restrictions on anglers are something of an unnecessary penance. They may be part of the cosmetics of this situation but they make no real contribution to conservation. Indeed, I would suggest to the Minister that there would be less poaching, less opportunity at any rate for poaching, in September if anglers were walking the river banks. I am glad to see that the Minister has allowed the sea trout angler to do so.

In the light of these facts about who catches the salmon, I suggested in December, and I repeat today, that the restrictive measures so far taken are quite inadequate. The Minister cannot rely in the future, any more than he could in the past, on completely success ful enforcement of the law. Conservation to be effective must do something more serious about drift-net fishing, if only because it accounts for three-fourths of the total catch. I cannot see that it will curtail drift-net fishing greatly to prevent it starting before 15 March or continuing after 20 July. The Minister might reassure me if he could indicate that a substantial proportion of the drift-net catch occurs outside these dates. But I suspect that there is very little drift-net fishing before 15 March and not a great deal after 20 July. The drift-net men still have the whole summer influx of grilse from mid-May to mid-July within reach of their nets.

To sum up, I am worried by the possibility that all the new structures and dispositions may fail in their objective to rescue the salmon from extinction simply because the restrictions being imposed on salmon fishing are not adequate. I would rather see restrictions that really bite being introduced for a few years, even if this meant compensating, within reason, those licensed fishermen who habitually draw their main livelihood from net fishing for salmon.

I might be permitted to put two questions to the Minister for clarification. The first concerns aquaculture. Reference has been made to this point by two previous speakers. Senator Cranitch referred to certain oyster beds. As the Minister knows, aquaculture covers also the rearing of salmon and rainbow trout in cages off the coast and possibly other forms of fish. As I read what the Minister said in his opening remarks it seemed that the new provisions—by making it an offence to engage in aquaculture unless one holds the appropriate licence and by not being explicit that anyone who is already operating has, if not an automatic at least a presumptive entitlement to a licence—might put in jeopardy a lot of pioneering research, experiment and investment. Perhaps the Minister could reassure me on that point. The second specific question relates to the entitlement to vote in elections to the regional boards. It is quite clear that a person who subscribes and is registered as a trout and coarse fish angler will have that entitlement. Will that also be the position of persons holding the ordinary individual's salmon fishing licence?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes.

Dr. Whitaker

Thank you.

Mr. McAuliffe

Anybody having the interest of the fisheries industry at heart will welcome this Bill because it contains some excellent suggestions. I do not think anyone could find fault with the Minister on the manner in which he has decided to elect the various boards. It constitutes a democratic system after one year. Also he has done something that has not been done before, he has given recognition to the people who spend their lives in coarse fishing. If we take the example of the English tourist, he would prefer to spend one day on the canal than ten days on the River Shannon looking for salmon. He prefers coarse fishing. For that reason I believe that the Minister is right to give these people a say in the election of the board he is about to set up.

In regard to heavier fines, the Minister was somewhat lenient in that, after a third offence the provision is that a person would not receive a fishing licence. That is too lenient altogether because there are offences every day of the week as regards the catching of salmon, trout and so on, in various rivers. I come from the Boyne catchment area where there are three rivers. In the month of November these three rivers are crowded with salmon coming up to the spawning beds. I am ashamed to say that many times I have seen lights down the river. When one sees a light on the river at night on can be sure that there is someone poaching salmon. To take out a salmon cock is not too bad but when they take out the female of the species it absolutely murders our salmon stocks. In the Boyne area there are certain people who will not allow fishermen to fish at all. The Minister is now making provision about rights of way by agreement or by CPO. I fully agree that that should be done.

The Minister says the main emphasis of the Bill switches from protection to development of inland fisheries. Senators are aware that illegal salmon fishing is one of the major causes of declining salmon stocks. It is one reason only; development in other directions is doing much more harm. For example, we have the Boyne arterial drainage scheme. That has done more harm to salmon stocks than any other form of development and we can do nothing about it. The land must be drained, there is too much at stake. But fishing will suffer anywhere arterial drainage is undertaken. It happened in the Moy and various other rivers throughout the country. The gravel beds are taken out. There must be sand or gravel to have spawning beds. If the gravel is taken out and perhaps sunk down to the rock they cannot create another spawning bed. Hundreds of salmon used to come up our rivers every year. Now the water is so low that, unless there is extensive rain, they do not come up at all. Until the heavy rain in November we did not see any salmon up the river.

Fortunately, I saw fewer people trying to destroy salmon this year. It is a move in the right direction. The Minister says that the boards will have the full support of the Garda and the Navy. That is no good unless the general public and landowners near the spawning beds cooperate with the Garda in ensuring that these spawning beds and our salmon are not destroyed. Salmon fishing is our greatest tourist attraction. We must not allow our salmon to be destroyed on the spawning beds. Everyone knows they come up the small rivers. They do not stay in the big rivers; they do not stay in the sea; they come right up to spawn in the months of October and November and they must be protected at that time. It is child's play to take out salmon from small rivers like the Monagh, the Dell and the Yellow, three tributaries of the Boyne where it can be done with a lamp and a four-pronged fork. I am glad to say there has been less of it this year. I have not seen anyone on the river this year. It is a good sign. Every encouragement should be given. As the Minister said at the beginning of his speech, we must educate our people to respect this wealth of ours and the dangerous period for the destruction of that wealth is during the winter months.

I hope the Minister will not have to increase the penalties for illegal fishing. I hope it will become a thing of the past, but it is unlikely to happen overnight. It is realistic to impose heavy penalties on anybody who attempts to destroy that wealth. It is well known that Lough Ennell is no longer a trout lake because of certain pollution. But the Government are taking precautions in that respect, as they are doing in Killarney, to ensure the minimum amount of pollution of our lakes. Something was done in Lough Ennel that never should have been done. Hundreds of tons of coarse fish were taken out and thrown in heaps on the banks; the finest pike were thrown there in tons. The fisheries board took them out and left them to rot there where one could see them from any reasonable distance. It was a mistake because, when the pike were in the lake, there was less pollution. Pike is a fish that will eat anything that comes its way. The trout were stronger and better. It was the survival of the fittest. Everybody knows that trout can swim almost twice as fast as pike and for that reason we had better trout fishing when the pike were in the lake. It would not have been a bad thing to have left them there.

I read about an estate in England where they said they would get rid of all the vermin, where there were pheasants and so on. They spent a good deal of money getting rid of them on six square miles of land. It was great the first year. But subsequently the pheasants got weak and inbred. It was child's play to shoot them down, and when you shot them down they were not worth anything. Fish are coming back into Lough Ennel but the fisheries board have not decided to stock it up. It would be a worth-while exercise to consider what could be done with Lough Ennel because it was one of the finest fishing grounds in the country.

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill. It is a step in the right direction and, as far as I am aware, there will be no division on it here this evening.

Mr. Mulcahy

Many complimentary statements and comments have been made about this Bill, with most of which I would agree. I shall not delay the House by repeating them but rather take them as read. This is the first occasion on which the Minister has introduced a Bill in this House. We welcome it, as we do also his trust in the Seanad to ensure it receives good treatment.

The first point on which I should like to comment in relation to the Bill is the Minister's emphasis on development rather than conservation. I think it was Senator Markey made the same point. I hope that in his reply the Minister will develop that point somewhat. When one changes one's strategy, when one adopts a development rather than a conservation stance it is inevitable that one must change one's structures as well. This Bill is about changing structures. It seems to me that it is a job well done. Now it is just a matter of making them work. I cannot help suggesting to the Minister that he might seek the help of people skilled in organisation development, one of the fields of study in modern management receiving a lot of attention at present, to help in getting the new groupings to work effectively together. These things do not happen by chance. There will always be inbuilt inertias and power positions in various corners of an organisation that need to be moderated somewhat. Their ways of doing this and possibly also those of some of the people in the Department of the Public Service who are becoming skilled in that area might help. It might seem a light point to make at this point in the Bill but perhaps in a year or a couple of years' time it might not seem so light.

The other aspect of the organisation side on which I would like to comment is the old one I have brought up many times in the House, that is, that the role of the technical people should be emphasised, that in setting up the organisations and in their staffing we should ensure that we do not get a reproduction of the dual system existing in the service, rather that the technical people who have the skills and who have to do the job will be those who have the responsibility.

As a more particular point and arising from some of the comments made earlier by Senator Cranitch, and just recently by Senator Whitaker, I should like to address myself to the question of oysters. Chaith mé tréimhse in mo shaol mar bhainisteoir ginearálta ar an eagras sin Gael-Linn agus san am sin rinneamar iarracht ar bheirtreacha oisri i gCill Chiarain a fhorbairt agus tá mé ag caint anois ar an mbliain 1969. Ag an uair sin ni raibh an teicneolaíocht i gcomhair oisrí forbartha go dti an bpointe go bhféadfaí dul ar aghaidh go tapaidh, ach anois cloisim le déanaí go bhfuil an teicneolaíocht tagtha go dti pointe go bhfuil sé eacnamaíoch dul ar aghaidh le forbairt oisrí. Tá an job seo á dhéanamh ag Gael Linn le cabhair ó Ghaeltarra Eireann agus an bord i gcomhair eolaíochta agus teicneolaíochta agus mar sin de. Is breá an rud sin a fheiceáil. Ach tá cúpla constaicí ann.

I will switch back to English on the obstacles. The difficulties existing have been raised already. I gather the Minister will deal with them from the nod he gave to Senator Whitaker's point—that where an organisation already is working on aquaculture their rights should be recognised. There is a sort of implication in the Bill that they will have to go seeking them again. I am sure the Minister will promise to——

Mr. Lenihan

Just to reassure the House, they will get a fish culture licence automatically under section 51 (1) (a).

Mr. Mulcahy

Excellent. That will be a relief to the people concerned.

Mr. Lenihan

Existing operators.

Mr. Mulcahy

Those who have existing rights. There are extensive oyster beds running through Cill Ciaráin in the west which an organisation like Gael Linn for many years has been trying to develop. Private organisations of that kind have contributed a tremendous amount to the development of technology in this area. As I was saying in Irish, in my time the yield from a spat of oysters was 1 per cent. Indeed, one was lucky if one got 1 per cent. At that time we felt that if we could get that yield to within 2 or 3 per cent we were really in business. More recently I gather the yields are reaching that economic level. It might surprise Senators to know that there was a time in this country when there was consumption of oysters of the order of 50 million or 60 million a year. It was the shellfish on which the ordinary man on the coast almost lived.

Over-fishing and ill-treatment in earlier days depleted stocks to the position they were in in the last few years and from which they have been recovering only recently. In that regard I would draw the Minister's attention also to the difficulty of protecting beds of those kinds where one is farming the sea, switching oysters from one section to another depending on the plankton count. It would appear that the authorities can protect only the undersized oysters—the ones that will go through the ring—whereas for various legal reasons they will not protect those which have grown to the right size.

I hope all of this will be looked after in the new Bill. I am very heartened to see there is a tightening up on the policing. I recognise there are difficulties about this. It is very hard for a person who has been living on the coastline, who for many years has been accustomed to sitting into a boat rowing out, drawing up a few oysters or whatever from the natural bottom of the sea, to understand that. When the economic conditions are taken into account attendant employment and everything else of a more utilitarian value protection must be provided.

I know very little about salmon fishing as it has been developed; I am not going to add to it. A figure was mentioned to me recently which really impressed me and, I think, highlights the point—that where a salmon is brought out by rod and line it is worth £240; where it is brought out by net it is worth its face value. The Minister mentioned a figure of £15 million being the yield from the tourist industry. Put in those terms—£250 when removed by rod and line, as opposed to the face value removed by net—it brings it home. Taking a line, say, very roughly, west of Ballina and Cork we have some of the finest fishing attractions available. Perhaps a few places in Scotland might come near them. It is a pity that the netting of fish is a problem. I know the difficulties, I know it gives employment—and Senator Whitaker again mentioned that point— but I cannot help being impressed by the fact that countries like Canada just said: "No netting for one year". In other words, some more draconian methods are needed. Hopefully the powers in this Bill will place the Minister in the position that, if he has to, he can say: "No netting for one year".

It is interesting that Senator Whitaker raised the point that there might be some form of compensation given to make that possible. I heard recently that in Limerick the ESB have lifted up all the gates on the weir in an attempt to let the salmon up. Where they used to take out about 18 per cent they are not now taking out anything. That is another indication of the way things are going. I heard a story recently about a country like Kenya, which is a developing country and I gather they take a really strong line in relation to the protection of shellfish and other fish on their beaches, with marshals walking up and down making sure that they are not fished. In fact they do not allow a rod within 480 yards of a beach. We have been in this business for a long time and it is about time we put it right. The Minister has introduced a Bill which I think sets us on the way to doing so.

Mr. Kilbride

I am not from a maritime county. I am perhaps what might be described as somebody at the other end of the sea, if such description were appropriate in any sense of the words. I am what is known as a landlubber, an inland resident with no contact with fisheries to the extent that I would not be acquainted with what happens at sea, in the estuaries of our larger rivers or in relation to the effect of transport on our larger rivers as far as fisheries are concerned.

An Cathaoirleach

I have to interrupt to ask the Senator to move the adjournment because An Seanad agreed that motion No. 2 would be taken at 5.30 p.m.

Debate adjourned.