Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 23 to 33, inclusive, are cognate and may be debated together.
Fisheries Bill, 1979: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 10, to delete "and Coarse Fish Anglers" and substitute ", Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers".
This amendment is similar to amendments put down by certain Senators, in particular Senators West and Martin. It is related to other amendments that have been mentioned. Its purpose is to enable sea anglers to be registered in the same way as trout and coarse fish anglers. That is the spirit of the amendments of Senator West and Senator Martin. We have met this by the Government amendment. I agree that sea anglers should be included on the Register of Trout and Coarse Fish Anglers on payment of voluntary subscription. It was an omission in the first instance, and following publication of the Bill we received representations from the Federation of Sea Anglers. I am glad to be able to accede to the suggestion and the amendments that define sea anglers as having a similar right to be included on this register on payment of a voluntary subscription will entitle them to their voting rights to the regional boards in the same way as trout and coarse fish anglers.
I appreciate the Minister's alacrity in meeting this amendment tabled by Senator West who cannot be here this evening because he is in America. It is consequent upon the definitions on page 10, section 8, line 50, that
(i) in any area of the sea to which the internal or inland waters of the State extend by virtue of section 5 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959,
(ii) in the portion of the sea which lies between the base-line for the purposes of the said Act and the line every point of which is on the seaward side and at a distance of twelve nautical miles from the nearest point of that baseline.
Could I take it that the Minister is tabling amendment No. 1 in acceding to this amendment that for "Coarse Fish Anglers" we substitute "Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers" more or less through the Bill?
Yes, trout, coarse fish and sea anglers will be included right through the Bill wherever at present "Trout and Coarse Fish Anglers" occurs.
In that case I on behalf of Senator West and myself, express our appreciation to the Minister with regard to all those amendments. Granted that substitution, there is no point, as far as we are concerned, in wasting the time of the House in debating them point by point. In other words, I concede in advance, I do not wish to debate those issues piecemeal.
The logic of Senator West's and Senator Martin's amendments is quite clear. Sea angling people carry the same rights as coarse and trout fish anglers, as regards voting rights, fishing rights or any other rights contained in the Bill.
That was the sense of the sequence of amendments. As long as that is carried on——
That is carried through.
Is the Minister aware that the grouping of trout anglers with coarse anglers is not at all a popular decision? I would like the Minister to be aware of that.
We will come to this in a subsequent section. They will each have their separate——
It is section 54——
That can be dealt with on the section rather than on the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister give us an idea of his timetable?
It is a good question. I would like to have it some time in the summer, hopefully in June or July.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (1) (b), line 25, to delete "(including administrative policy)".
Section 7 (1), reads:
(b) The Minister shall from time to time give to the Central Board directions containing general policy (including administrative policy) for the management, conservation, protection, development and improvement of fisheries or for the protection of molluscs, and the Central Board shall, if so directed by the Minister, as soon as may be, communicate to every regional board any direction given by the Minister under this paragraph.
It seemed to us that the Minister should give generously to the Central Board control over their own internal working with regard to staff and with regard to day-to-day arrangements. The subsection by and large is unexceptionable. The Minister is seeking too rigid a control, too large a role, too minute a supervision when he says that he shall:
... from time to time give to the Central Board directions containing general policy——
That is fine for the management of conservation, but when he says for
——general policy (including administrative policy),
that seems to get very close to the small day-to-day, minute workings of the central board. Senator West and I would feel happier if that parenthesis "(including administrative policy)" which seems obtrusive as it stands and does not even help the syntax of the section, were deleted. Why is the Minister so jealous of that opportunity to intervene?
I studied this amendment since it was put down by Senators West and Martin and am inclined to the view that Senator Martin expressed, that it really is superfluous and sticks out needlessly. The Minister has sufficient power in the global introduction of subsection (6), that
... the Minister shall from time to time give to the Central Board directions containing general policy for the management, conservation, protection, and so on.
It should not include administrative policy. That should be a matter for the board. Accordingly, I am willing to accept the amendment to delete the three words in parenthesis "(including administrative policy)".
I express my appreciation of that concession by the Minister.
I do not want to sound churlish, having regard to the manner in which the Minister has met the amendment, but the Minister is not taking away from the section by deleting the words, because when he retains power to give directions containing general policy for the "management", that obviously lets him into the administrative field in great detail. This sub-paragraph gives to the Minister undue powers over something that the Commission intended to be autonomous or almost autonomous. I can see that the Minister who has the role of big brother in this whole area, might feel the need to retain some legal powers, but it shows a lack of confidence in the boards that are going to be set up to run their own affairs. They should have autonomy, as was recommended by the Commission. I criticise the entire paragraph on the grounds that it retains for the Minister powers of excessive control and interference in the workings of the Central Fisheries Board and through the central board, the regional boards. Has the Minister anything to say as to how, if at all, he sees this power being excercised? Is it just there as a back-stop in the unlikely event of the central board not discharging their functions in the way we all hope they will? Will the Minister just have this power in reserve, to come in and keep up their operations? Is that the spirit in which the Minister has included this paragraph in the Bill, or does the Minister mean to lay down policies for the Central Fisheries Board for the management, conservation, and so on? Is the Minister going to tell them in advance how to do their business?
This kind of point comes up in every situation where one has to strike this balance between the Minister and whatever board or authority is being set up under the Minister. I envisage this board being very much an autonomous board that will make their own policy and will operate in conjunction with the local feeling as it comes through the regional boards. This should not preclude the Minister for Fisheries of the day from giving directions to the board concerning general policy about management, conservation, protection, development and improvement of fisheries from time to time, as an additional function. For example, a situation which arose last summer may rise this summer, that is, the question of co-ordinating the Garda Síochána and the Naval Service with the various protection staffs throughout the country in the protection of our salmon stocks and in dealing with illegal fishing. That is obviously an area where the Minister for Fisheries would have to co-operate with the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice to ensure that certain directions were given to the central board and through them to the regional boards to ensure co-ordination and co-operation between the various State forces, in ensuring the conservation of a certain species. I envisage a situation arising from time to time where the Minister of the day should, in the interests of fisheries development and conservation, give the required directions to the central board, but I envisage such functions being exercised very much in a supplemental capacity. The board would be, largely, the maker of their own policy.
What would be the position in the event of disagreement between the board and the Minister in regard to a direction? I know that the Minister has power to change the board, but as they will be elected that might not be so easy.
All that the subsection envisages is that such direction be conveyed by the central board, if directed to do so to every regional board. In the last analysis, the Minister has financial control of the Estimates and so on, and, as Senator Cooney said, of removal. That sort of thing is unlikely to arise. It is not intended that it should arise, but it is important that this should be there so as to ensure that where the central board is incapable, by reason of its structure, as in the case I just mentioned, the Minister can come in and tell them to tell all the regional boards throughout the country that the Naval Service and the Garda are co-operating in X manner in fishery conservation during a certain period and to make sure that the staffs are ready at particular points to co-operate in this sort of operation. In the last analysis there are only two controls, the removal of the board and the withdrawal of finance. But one should not approach what I regard as a constructive measure in that way. They are the kind of eventualities which I hope will not arise.
It would be more consistent, perhaps, with the explanation the Minister has given of this power as a supplemental one, if he would agree to change the word "shall" in the first line to "may". The use of the word "shall" implies, as far as I am concerned, that the Central Board is dependent on the receipt of directions from the Minister.
As yet we are only discussing amendment No. 3 and this may arise on the section later on.
It seemed to be relevant to what has just been discussed.
If I may be as irrelevant as the Senators, I will give consideration to that between now and Report Stage, with a view to bringing in an amendment to make that discretionary rather than mandatory, by substituting "may" for "shall".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, subsection 1(b), to substitute a full-stop for the comma at the end of line 27 and to delete lines 28 to 31.
The deletion of the last three-and-a-half lines in subsection (b) (i) would give something positive to the board. Having had the consultation with the Minister and a direction from him with regard to policy they could decide on what basis they would carry out their policy subsequently in relation to the regional boards. The Minister will see the desirability of this. The central board, in accordance with its constitution as drafted in this legislation, will be a board of people with very great expertise, who are involved in and have a deep interest in the fishing industry and will be people in whom this Minister or, indeed, any Minister will have the fullest confidence. It is somewhat unique that there should be control to the degree that the section here would dictate. I am sure the Minister would agree with that.
I have gone some of the way to meet the point expressed in this amendment. It has already been referred to in previous discussions by Senators Cooney and Whitaker. I will consider making that overall direction requirement discretionary by introducing "may" rather than "shall". That is a better way to deal with it rather than the way Senators Moynihan and Robinson suggest. What they are asking me to do in their amendment is to delete the conveying of this direction to the regional boards, so that the direction having been conveyed to the central board would not be conveyed by them to the regional boards. That is the essence of the amendment, as I read it.
That it would allow autonomy.
I have met that by suggesting that I will, between now and Report Stage, prepare an amendment to make the overall power discretionary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, subsection (1)(c), line 32, to delete "in each year" and substitute "in respect of each consecutive three-year period".
Paragraph (c) provides that
The Central Board shall in each year prepare and submit to the Minister for his consideration an inland fisheries development programme
The logic behind the amendment is to extend this to ensure that a development programme is put before the Minister every three years. There is a lot of sense in that. An annual development programme may not make a lot of sense, as much of the work that must be done to develop fisheries would be more appropriate to a policy or a programme extending over a longer period than one year. I do not know the problems but I cannot foresee any problems that would prevent the preparation of a three-year programme rather than an annual programme.
It is not really necessary to incorporate the point of view expressed here in a section of the Bill. Much of the programming necessary with regard to the development of inland fisheries is, by its very nature, long term or medium term. That goes without saying. That would follow as a matter of practicality. Putting in any period, such as a three-year or a five-year period, actually adds if anything to the restrictive nature of it. The very nature of the planning and programming involved is either medium term or long term. Any annual programme that will be submitted will be a programme which will take into account the medium term and the long term. There is nothing in the section as it stands to preclude medium term and long term planning. Within that context an annual programme can be submitted. I really do not see the reason for what is envisaged in the amendment, as that can take place within the scope of the section as it stands. The annual submission of a development programme will in effect take account of the medium and long term aspects involved.
The Minister would see his own role being fairly benignly remote from the inner workings of the central board. To the layman it looks as if having to submit a yearly plan, would really be holding the central board accountable in a very schoolmasterly way. It would almost seem as if it were policing the operation very closely. From what the Minister says I gather that he would not wish to exercise that kind of draconian surveillance over the whole operation.
The board would perhaps operate more creatively, if it were not held accountable in a short-term way for what they were doing but given a chance to initiate programmes which would begin to bear fruit in a long-term rather than a short-term way. That is the spirit behind the amendment. It is not an amendment that I would press with any great force; indeed, it is not an amendment that would occur to me at all if I thought that a Minister of the noted benignity of the present Minister could be perpetually envisaged in the role. Would the Minister not agree that less charismatic people may come in his place and it might be better to have a three-year rather than a one-year programme?
The Minister made the case for the amendment when he said that most of the programmes would have to be designed to cater for medium-and long-term fisheries interests rather than annual or short-term ones. Presumably, the central board will produce an annual report. In that report the ordinary year-to-year problems or ideas that might emerge can be dealt with.
I am sorry to hear that Senator Martin is now hesitant about pushing the amendment. We feel it is a very good amendment because, particularly so far as inland fisheries are concerned, the great numbers of people interested are ordinary people who will not be that involved in programming of any sort if it is done on a very regular basis. If people, particularly fishery clubs around the country, know that the fisheries board have a policy or a programme designed for a three-year or five-year period they can make their contribution and work to that.
For that reason it is important that so far as programmes for development are concerned, instead of having something which might develop into a stop-go policy, certain fundamental policies are laid down in a programme that everybody knows will last for three years or five years and everybody can work to that. The Minister said it does not matter whether it is three years, five years, or ten years. I accept that. We can speak in terms of three years or five years, but to make it annual makes a farce of the programme.
There is not much between us. We all agree, of course, that we cannot carve up fisheries development or planning into a 12 monthly cycle as it were. At the same time, I would suggest there must be some degree of accountability or discipline involved if only to get the necessary finance each year, which is an important aspect, and to make the necessary financial case. What I would envisage here is an updating or adjusting of a continuing on-going programme or plan. I envisage that sort of programme. We are not dealing here with consumer products, or anything of that kind. We are dealing with a basic, living, continuing thing.
People eat fish.
Each year the programme for development will be updated, adjusted, changed, and new ideas will be introduced as a gloss on the programme. Really the important aspect is the financial aspect. Each year the Central Fisheries Board will be looking for money and, in order to obtain money, the plan will have to be updated, adjusted, modified, switched, or approved, and these changes may involve cost and money may be required. It is in relation to the actual accountability and financial requirements of such a programme being presented each year that I envisage the yearly aspect. It certainly should not preclude what I referred to as the medium- and long-term planning which is the very essence of the sort of work that will be involved here. I would envisage something like a ten-year programme which could be drawn up fairly quickly by the existing personnel within the various organisations like the Inland Fisheries Trust, and so on. I would imagine that the first task of the new Central Fisheries Board would be to prepare such a long-term plan with medium-term variations and as a necessary discipline in order to secure the necessary finance from the Minister of the day, they could come forward within that overall umbrella planning with their financial requirements to fit in with the forward planning in each financial year. In the context of making sure that there is discipline in regard to planning and that the case will be made properly for the necessary finance each year, the section as it stands meets both points of view.
On this amendment, I am sure the Minister will bear with me if I draw attention to the fact that there is a fair amount of the Minister in the section. When we discussed this on Second Stage I mentioned the difficulties which might arise if full delegation did not take place and, on rereading the whole section, the Minister's approval——
We are on amendment No. 5. We will deal with the section later.
I thought we were dealing with paragraph (c).
We are dealing with amendment No. 5. We will go on to the section later when we have disposed of the amendments.
I have dealt with the point already by saying I was bringing in the discretionary "may" instead of "shall".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No.6:
In page 7, subsection (1)(e)(i), lines 46 and 47, to delete "with the approval of the Minister".
Subsection (1) (e) is very important in the whole consideration of the new board. It envisages the board providing education, training facilities and instructions on conservation, protection, development and improvement of fisheries that cover a very wide and responsible field. Because of their prestige and image the board should not have to seek approval for each or any of these developments. I know the Minister desires to remain remote from their activities but, because of subsection (1)(e), the board may feel they have to contact the Minister and get his approval for anything they want to do under this section.
I will have a look at that between now and Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, subsection (1) (g), to delete all words after "functions" in line 7 to and including "Principal Act" in line 11.
This amendment is intended to give greater powers to the Central Fisheries Board with regard to research. It is desirable that their research function should be quite clear, that they should have full powers of research and that the present work being done by the Inland Fisheries Trust in that area should be continued untrammelled and possibly expanded by the central board.
I am afraid I cannot agree to this amendment. I want to make it quite clear what we are trying to do here. We are trying to avoid any duplication with regard to research. As everybody knows, research work of any kind is very difficult to control. It is expensive and it is a most important area in which there should be some control and co-ordination. As it stands at present, as far as the administrative structure within my Department is concerned, marine research work and experimental work are within the scientific section of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. I had the pleasure of opening an excellent new laboratory concerned with fish biology and pathology at Abbotstown recently. It is a fully staffed modern research scientific laboratory concerned with marine biology, marine pathology, marine life and the various species of marine life.
The Inland Fisheries Trust are doing a different job. They are concerned with inland fish as against marine fish. They have laboratory, scientific and research facilities available at their headquarters. The new Central Fisheries Board will subsume the operations at present being carried out by the Inland Fisheries Trust in this area. What I am providing is a clear line of demarcation for what the new Central Fisheries Board will do, that is, continue to develop and expand the work of research and experimentation which heretofore has been carried out by the trust. Work in regard to various species of trout and coarse fish now being done by the trust will be done in future by the Central Fisheries Board. Marine fish as a species will remain separated from that and continue to be under the division where it now resides in a division of the Department of Fisheries. That is the purpose of the section as it stands. The amendment would lead to the danger of an obvious duplication where the new board will be going away from fresh water experimentation and research and into marine research and experimentation.
Between now and the next Stage the Minister might think a bit about that again in the light of what normally goes on in any organisation and who does what. The Minister has defined the best way of handling it, but I am told that some forms of sea fish which have no commercial value but are very good from a tourist point of view have been getting some development work from the Inland Fisheries Trust, fish such as shark, tope and skate. I should like to be sure that, when something is being passed from one Department to another, any existing work of this kind would be continued.
At the moment in regard to inland waters the trust and the new board have got laboratory facilities and specialists who can deal with various species of trout and coarse fish. That is fair enough. The inland waters or fresh waters are within their ambit and control. When you are into the marine area, you are into a different area altogether. The trust go in for the sporting side of sea angling and, consequent on the amendment in the names of Senator Martin and Senator West which I have accepted, sea anglers will now be incorporated into the Bill in the same way as coarse and trout anglers.
Research and scientific investigation into sea fish is a far different discipline because you literally cannot corral them in inland waters and tanks to the same degree. There is a different discipline and a much more complicated discipline. The Inland Fisheries Trust do not intend to go into that area, nor will this board try to do so. We have a very highly specialised professional staff dealing with that within the scientific division of my Department. They are fairly independent. They are located in a specific premises in Abbotstown. They work in regular conjunction and consultation with their professional colleagues attached to similar divisions of marine departments throughout the world; members of such international organisations as ICES, and so on. They are, in the scientific terminology and discipline, regarded as being two separate areas—the marine and the fresh water, not just nationally but internationally. They are two separate areas and the disciplines are separate and the methods of going about the job in scientific terms are different.
I have looked into this from the administrative point of view. The two are there as separate organisations at present. The new board will be taking over one of them, the fresh water one, from the trust. It will be subsumed in the new organisation. The other marine side is a highly specialised international area. The findings and investigations carried out with regard to marine experimentation and research are world wide. what happens off the coast of Ireland happens off the coast of Greenland or Japan, and there is a mutual exchange of information, research, knowledge and so on. They are two separate areas in this field of biology and scientific research. The inland and the sea are two separate areas, two separate disciplines.
Could I ask the Minister in good faith is he assuring us that there is no conflict of interests between inland and marine?
There is no conflict of interest. In some areas they overlap. The obvious one is the salmon. It is very hard to define which is which in regard to the salmon. It is half marine and half fresh water. It is sui generis, a case on its own. The sort of work in which they will be engaged is a different type of work, with a different type of concentration. There is no conflict at all.
The Inland Fisheries Trust personnel concentrate on their investigations into the development of coarse fish and trout in fresh water. They are quite happy with that. They will be subsumed in the new board. The marine side is embodied in the scientific division of the Department of Fisheries located in Abbotstown. That is a separate division concerned with marine shellfish and salmon life.
To be clear, I gather some voluntary tagging is done by anglers of fish caught when they are much younger. This type of work will continue where there is an angling influence. That is really what I am after.
That will continue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask one question in relation to section 7 which sets out the functions the Central Fisheries Board will have in the future. It seems to me that, of all the functions given to them, one of the most important functions they should have is authority to deal with the present pollution problems that exist in some rivers. Does the Minister envisage that the central board will have any such powers? A short time ago legislation was passed giving the local authorities such powers, and very great powers in the area of pollution. At that time many people made the point that local authorities are quite frequently themselves the creators of pollution disasters.
A new board like this should be concerned about pollution. We can talk about research and development, and conservation and poaching, but surely the greatest problems in our inland fisheries today arise from pollution and the absence of good quality water in our rivers. In view of the doubts in some people's minds about the responsibility of local authorities in this respect powers should be given to the central board and, through them, to the regional boards and they should have an important say where private businesses or local authorities are guilty of polluting our waters.
I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that. It is a very important point. It is unquestionable that, over the past five, six or seven years local authorities have been successfully prosecuted for polluting inland waterways. What Senator Molony raised is a little oblique to the amendments Senator West and I have tabled. I am happy with the Minister's answers to these amendments. I am graeeful to him for accepting one of them in particular. On the question Senator Molony has raised, will this board have any statutory powers, any role at all in relation to local government and the operations of local government or their agents in the whole area of the pollution of inland waterways, fisheries and so on? Will it have teeth of any kind in that connection? This is a very timely inquiry from this side of the House.
Could I add to the Minister's problem by adding to the query? If the central board have power to prosecute for pollution, does the discharge by a local authority of raw sewage into, for example, the Shannon at Athlone, constitute pollution and enable the board to mount a prosecution against the local authority? I should like to know that because that type of pollution is taking place all over Ireland. It has to be stopped.
This discussion is more relevant to the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, which I have here to hand and which has been passed, as everybody knows. There is no point in going back over-much on that Act. The fact of the matter is that for good or ill we have decided here—and enshrined it in legislation—to give the enforcement powers to the local authorities. If you like, it is an act of faith in the hope that the poacher turned gamekeeper will work out. Undoubtedly, as has been said by Senators, local authorities have been polluters over the years, unfortunately.
And still are.
There is no question about that. They now have extensive powers under this legislation. Practically all of them have set up specific units to deal with water pollution, with an engineer in charge in each local authority throughout the country. They have specific powers to deal with this problem and they have the function of implementing the Act. There is provision here in the Water Pollution Act for close liaison between the county councils and the boards which will be established now and which will stand in the place of the boards of conservators. Without having a complete debate on the rights or wrongs of placing this responsibility on local authorities, I do not see much point in following it up here. That decision has been taken for good or ill. Hopefully it will work. I could talk here for an hour on the terrible wrongs of pollution. The hope is that the local authorities will now get to grips with the problem.
The various interested fisheries bodies, including my Department, are represented on the overall council, the Water Pollution Council who act as an advisory council to the Minister for the Environment and serve as his watch-dog in seeking to ensure that the Water Pollution Act is fully implemented. Beyond that, there is very little I can say about it on this measure. That has been decided in the Act passed by the Oireachtas.
May I ask the Minister one question? Is he saying the new central board will have no power in relation to the control of pollution? Is that the position?
The actual enforcement powers are vested in the local authorities under the 1977 Act.
The central board will have no power at all?
Beyond the advisory and monitory powers, but not enforcement powers. Since 1977 enforcement powers have resided with the local authorities.
I take it then that the central board will not be able to mount a prosecution?
Yes. That is correct.
Will the central board be able to prosecute in the same way as the boards of conservators could prosecute?
I want to reassure the House on that. The regional boards will stand in the same situation as the boards of conservators stood heretofore and the central board will also have the power of prosecution.
Will that power enable them to take proceedings against a local authority?
Yes.
That is good.
I am sorry if I misled the House there. Unfortunately I have not got the section of the Act to hand. I am informed that under section 4 of the Water Pollution Act the situation is that the local authority, by reason of their new power given under this Act, are now exempt from prosecution. The situation is now that the regional boards and the central board can prosecute anybody else, any factory, or person, or association, or group, but cannot prosecute a local authority who are exempt from prosecution under section 4 of the Act.
We will have to amend that on Report Stage.
I would ask the Minister to rethink this area because everybody accepts that local authorities cause pollution. The Minister was careful to say over the years rather than currently. It is happening currently. I did not know it happened in Athlone, but I know it happens in many places throughout the country. I doubt that the local authorities needed the saver they have under the Water Pollution Act. I would imagine that on the same reasoning or apparent logic, one local authority, Dublin City Council, could pursue Dr. Martin, Chairman of the mediaeval Dublin group, for costs and damages to save the taxpayers' money. By the same reasoning they could not prosecute themselves for doing damage because the damages would come from the taxpayers' money.
The Central Fisheries Board will be primarily responsible for the development of our fisheries. The number one hindrance to proper development in fisheries is pollution. We have problems with poaching and problems with research that should have been carried out before. Those things may all be done but, unless proper control of pollution is brought into effect straight away, many of our rivers will be completely without fish. Then there will not be any reason to have a central board or regional fishery boards. Between now and Report Stage would the Minister seriously consider giving powers to the Central Fisheries Board to prosecute where necessary, anybody causing pollution whether it be a private interest or a local authority? If they have not got some power in that regard, their other powers are superfluous.
I should like to add my voice strenuously to that. This aspect has emerged in the discussion on the section. When we give our assent to it, it is gone. But, of course, the Report Stage does arise. I could almost sense in the Minister a certain anxiety about this. It is admirable to have a Central Fisheries Board. All the functions and ministries that have been granted to them, and all the amenities they will grant us are very reassuring. They would seem to me to be seriously stripped of essential power if in going about their daily business they were frustrated by the pollution of the waters by a noted agent of pollution, the local government authorities. That they should suddenly become immune from prosecution by the Central Fisheries Board seems to me to emasculate the powers of that board very considerably. There is a perplexity here and I sympathise with the Minister with regard to it. There is a definite problem here and it has to be faced. Poaching and pollution: I do not know which of them is the more grievous.
Pollution by far.
If pollution is the most grievous threat to our fisheries, to our inland fisheries, and if local government is demonstrably, which it is, one of the most serious offenders in terms of pollution, and if it has been, as it has been, frequently and successfully prosecuted for pollution, there is something seriously wrong with a Bill which makes local authorities uniquely immune from prosecution by the Central Fisheries Board who, after all, are now being given paramount authority for the protection of fisheries. With all due respect, there is a hole in that legislation which needs looking at.
As I said, we are straying into another piece of legislation now. I was sitting where Senator Cooney is sitting now when that Bill was passed and I remember making some noises to this effect about local authorities.
The Minister has the opportunity to do something about it now.
History is not repeating itself over here.
The Act is quite specific and all of us here and in the Dáil who participated in the debate on the Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill remember that a major issue in the debate on that Bill was whether the local authorities who were such dreadful sinners in this respect should be given the job and the burden of dealing with water pollution and enforcing the very stringent regulations and licensing arrangements under what is now the Act. The balance of decision as come to by the previous Government—and indeed I agree with them in this respect—was that the local authorities, by reason of where they are situated and the personnel available to them, the engineering personnel in particular, were the people best equipped to deal with this job. Time will tell whether or not that was a right decision.
I understand, the local authorities have been very active in recruiting staffs for this job and are setting up units or departments within each county council and corporation area specialising in pollution matters, and the type of misdemeanour they committed in the past should disappear under this administrative thrust. It is hardly practicable for me in this Bill to incorporate an amendment of a separate piece of legislation. If we were discussing the Water Pollution Act it would be hardly right or proper to have a situation where the actual enforcing body, itself given by law the whole task of enforcement in regard to water pollution, could be prosecuted. In other words, a prosecution would lie with any other body in the State against the actual enforcement authority. When you examine it the whole way it does not appear to make sense that the people who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law would in effect be open to prosecution themselves. The Water Pollution Act removes the right to prosecute the local authorities but retains the right to the regional board or the central board, replacing the old boards of conservators, to prosecute anybody else other than the enforcement body.
If the central board or the regional boards make a case of pollution known to a local authority, and the regional boards will have the staff who will know when a river or lake is being polluted, they make it known to the officer in charge of the enforcement authority, that is, the county council. They make it known to the engineer or the officer charged with responsibility for dealing with pollution under this Act that a particular body is polluting a particular stretch of water. One can take it that in that situation the officer in charge of enforcement will take the appropriate action. Otherwise, the whole situation would be absolutely mad. That is the situation. There are two separate schemes in the legislation, one dealing with water pollution, and the other dealing with fisheries administration.
In Athlone if the local authority are causing pollution by letting raw sewage into the River Shannon, what is the point in the Central Fisheries Board writing and saying: "We know you are doing this now and you know it"? In the past when people complained that local authorities were polluting rivers, and the local authorities took no action, a prosecution had to be brought. In many instances, I believe that even after the prosecution pollution continued.
I can understand why the local authorities were given those powers initially. In the structures that are being set up now under this Bill, an opportunity arises to improve on the position. I favour the fisheries regional and central boards having full power in this field. I accept there might be administrative difficulties involved in doing that. There is one blind spot, that is in relation to the local authorities being immune from prosecution. They had to be immune from prosecution or they would be prosecuting themselves. Why not give the power to the Central Fisheries Board or the regional boards in this measure to deal with that blind spot and tighten it up to the extent that we might save some of our waters.
I will have the matter examined between now and Report Stage. I will consult with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, who is charged with the responsibility of enforcement in this area. I will come back to the Seanad on it.
The Minister has been very forthcoming on this matter and I do appreciate the difficulty in which he finds himself; it is not for him to legislate for another Department. To anticipate slightly, surely the question that will arise in section 10 might be asked before we close this section—the question of submitting a yearly report to the Minister? A very effective way around the difficulty would be for the board to have the right to publish that yearly report. Such yearly report could be turned to very good effect, if not to prosecute, if it were possible, in this report, to put the finger on whoever was, in fact, polluting or in any other way endangering our fisheries. In default of being able to bring an action in court it would be very useful if the central board could publish a report yearly in which they could, in fact, either accuse, condemn, or criticise what local authorities were doing in the whole area of pollution.
I will have a look at this whole area between now and Report Stage and come back to the Seanad on it.
I just want to add two small noises to the Minister's words in regard to the section.
Excuse me one minute. It is almost 7 o'clock and on ordering business at the beginning of the day it was agreed to take Item No. 6—that is the EEC motion—at 7 p.m. Is the section agreed?
I just wish to make a few brief points. Section 7 (1) (ii) says that the central board shall ensure:
that any fishery, hatchery or fish farm which is in its possession or occupation is managed, conserved, protected, developed and improved....
This is an important power being given to the central board. That power, however, is limited by the section to waters in the possession or occupation of the central board. There must be many miles of trout river and coarse fishing rivers, and many thousands of acres of lakes—coarse fishing lakes in particular—which are not in the possession or occupation of the board and are unlikely, at any stage, to come into their possession or occupation. Consequently, the board will have no power to manage, conserve, protect or develop the fish in these particular waters. The board should have power to improve the fishing in waters that might not necessarily be in their possession, or waters to which the title would be obscure or, indeed, to which there would be no title in any identified person or corporation. If the ambition of the commission report—to improve fishing generally throughout the country—is to be achieved, the powers of the board cannot be limited to waters within their possession or occupation. That is the first point I would like to make to the Minister.
The second point again arises from the non-implementation, if you like, of the recommendation of the commission; the commission had in mind that a single authority would be provided for the State. The Bill, as we know, sets up a central board and there is power for the Minister to set up regional boards and to define the areas in which they will operate. It would be more efficient, and less administratively wasteful, if one body were to be given control for the entire country.
I am always apprehensive when I see regional boards being provided for; there always follows a certain inevitable duplication of administrative procedures. Inevitably, Parkinson's Law has a fertile area in which to operate in that sort of situation. There should be a single authority, one that would enable more mobility to be achieved in relation to the staff serving the board. If there are regional boards there will be staff for them who will not be anxious to move outside their regions. You could have administrative blocs with less efficient operation. This would be avoided if there were a single authority and a single staff, with the mobility which that would give.
I would like to deal with Senator Cooney's points. First of all, with regard to 1(a)(ii) of section 7 to which the Senator referred, that is not an exclusive power. The subsection states that a central board shall ensure that any fishery, hatchery or fish market in its possession or occupation is managed, and so on. That does not exclude the far wider power which is included at (c), where the central board shall, each year prepare and submit to the Minister for consideration an inland fisheries development programme prepared under this section, and so on, and it may contain recommendations regarding the conservation of such fisheries, and so on. The board has a very positive function under that subsection in relation to fisheries that it does not actually possess or occupy. That is the wider and more important power and function of the board, and I agree with Senator Cooney that it would have to have such a wide and important power or function in relation to fisheries, not just in its ownership or occupation but over the area of fisheries as a whole.
The other point that Senator Cooney mentioned is, of course, a fundamental one. It is the question of whether or not the board should be regionalised in the manner in which it is; and, on balance, I am in favour of regionalisation. There are arguments for what Senator Cooney says; there will, however, be mobility of the central board staff who would be there to do research, development and promotional work on a nation-wide scale, in that the Inland Fisheries Trust staff that is now there will be, in effect, the staff of the new central board. They will do research and development work across the board in all the regional areas. The regional areas, as such, would be largely concerned with protection work on the ground, which by reason of its police nature, can be done better by a regionally organised body containing, in a particular river catchment area, staff with local knowledge and the local know-how and information to deal with the prosecution or enforcement side of the protection aspect. That requires local or regional management, I would suggest, but the overall national development work and research work, much of which is done by the present Inland Fisheries Trust, will now be absorbed into the structure of the new central board that will operate on national basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.