Would the Minister like to say something about it?
Private Business. - Fisheries Bill, 1979: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
The main purpose of section 8 is to ensure that the present properties and everything relating to them held by the various boards of conservators are transferred to the central board. The properties are specified at (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), five hatcheries at Carrowmore, Innistioge, Mallow, Cong and Virginia. There is nothing more really in the section than that, the transfer of all rights appertaining to the particular hatcheries from the present boards of conservators that own these hatcheries to the central board. They are specified salmon hatcheries.
Are these owned or operated by the trust at the moment or by the——
No, by the boards of conservators.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to check with the Minister that these regions include the coastal waters attached to each, that is up to the 12-mile limit.
They do.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Government amendment No. 7 (A):
In page 13, subsection (1) (a), lines 42 to 48, to delete subparagraph (i) and substitute the following:
"(i) subject to the provisions of this Act, protect the fisheries in such region and generally enforce the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1979, therein,".
Section 10 (1) (a) as drafted at present requires each regional board to appoint staff for the protection of their fisheries to the extent that the board's funds permit. The section is based on a similar provision in the principal Act which enables a board of conservators to appoint staff for the protection of their fisheries to the extent that the board's funds permit. I consider that the inclusion of this provision is unnecessary as staff numbers are controlled in another section of the Bill, section 24, to which we will be coming. It is sufficient to require regional boards to protect the fisheries in their regions. That is the purpose of the amendment. Really, it is a drafting amendment. There is no point in having a superfluous provision here in section 10 (a) when in fact the intention is contained in section 24. It is a matter that came to the attention of the draftsman after the drafting of the Bill.
Will the substituted paragraph not be superfluous in that it is going to charge the board with the enforcement of the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1979 generally? Is not the board already well charged with such a duty by virtue of the earlier Acts and this one?
It is. That is why it is regarded as superfluous.
Have the amendments exactly the same effect?
Is this a substituted amendment for an earlier one? Is it superfluous?
No, it is the actual section as it is framed in section 10 (1) (a); it is covered under the latest section 24. We are substituting by this provision here "subject to the provisions of this Act, protect the fisheries in such region and generally enforce the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1979 therein." So, "subject to the provisions of this Act" brings you on to section 24. It is a tidier drafting. Section 24 says: "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to section 28 and 29,... the Central Board or a regional board may, subject to the approval of the Minister, given with the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service, from time to time appoint such and so many persons as it thinks proper to be its officers and servants." That is the general section? It then goes on to deal in detail with that. By reference back between section 24 and the main Act we feel we have covered this area that we are seeking to cover here. Basically, we are trying to make it more flexible; it is more restrictive as it now stands. We are trying to meet the wishes of the Seanad. Criticism was voiced here generally on Second Stage that there were a number of unduly restrictive provisions in the Bill. We are trying to make the Bill more open.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 has already been discussed with amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 14, subsection (1) (b) (ii), line 14 to delete ",development".
I believe that it would be better if the development of the inland fisheries was the responsibility of the central board. The case I wish to put forward to the Minister is that whereas it is proposed that the great coarse fishing area in this country, comprising Counties Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Roscommon, part of Westmeath and Meath, would be under the control of four different regional boards, I believe it would be better and lead to more effective work if that area were under the control of one board. The way to meet that situation is to ensure that the work of developing the inland fisheries is the responsibility of the central board and that the regional boards look after the question of pollution and so on. That is the principal case.
I cannot accept that, because I want to embody a regional principle here and really what the Senator is arguing for is centralisation as against regionalisation. There are tremendous variations between the catchment areas around the coast, tremendous variations with regard to development requirements and with regard to the runs of fish and so on, so that you cannot have a generalised or uniform system in regard to the development of fisheries. What the Senator is suggesting in effect is to delete development from the mandate of the regional board under section 10. This, I would suggest, is an undesirable proposal if one has regard to the whole nature of Irish fisheries. The development work will be a matter for implementation by regional boards under the aegis of a central board that will seek to co-ordinate it under the Bill itself. To delete development here would in my view unduly restrict a regional board in regard to carrying out their developmental functions as appropriate to the particular region, or catchment area, or estuary, or river, or lake, requiring particular treatment or attention as the regional board might think fit.
Might I suggest that in view of the fact that this is the great coarse fishing area and because of its great potential as a coarse fishing area that the counties and parts of the counties I outlined would become a region under the Act?
The Senator has referred to a matter now that is really running counter to the amendment that he proposes because I am thinking seriously—I can do it by way of order under the previous section—about defining the region with which the Senator is associated, that is, the northern region generally that happens to be a strong coarse fishing region. I am thinking seriously—there are difficulties in the way—of making that a specific region of its own. That is a matter I am considering at the moment. But again that runs contrary to the spirit of the Senator's amendment which does not seek to delete development activities from the region inself. What the Senator is suggesting now is a constructive step and one that I am giving consideration to but it does run counter to the notion of deleting development here. It is precisely the point that the Senator is making now which I was making earlier on in reply to his amendment: that that particular region does require particular development treatment which might be forthcoming from a central board but may be very appropriate to a regional board.
If the Minister can overcome his difficulties in establishing a homogeneous regional board for that area.
Yes.
Senator O'Brien's amendment is that in the event of the area being fragmented between different boards, you then could have different levels of development perhaps even in the same county.
The purpose of the central board is to co-ordinate and to prevent duplications. It would be a mistake to adopt the amendment here, as it rather tends to mitigate and reduce the particular regional function of the regional board. You are cutting the regional board at source and giving to a central board total authority in regard to development activities. One must ask is that desirable? Candidly, I do not think it is. I would see the central board essentially as a co-ordinating authority, making sure, obviously, that there should not be duplication in regard to development work as between different regions. That would be the function of the central board. Surely one must not seek to emasculate the regional board by removing any development interests or activities from their ken.
I thought that four regional boards with responsibility for looking after this one area would not be as effective as it should be, but in view of what the Minister has said, if he would take steps to meet this situation by implementing the serious thoughts that he is having on this area, I would be quite happy with that.
Yes, I am glad that the Senator has brought this to my notice because this is one area in which I am having second thoughts. It is an area with particular problems peculiar to that area—the whole region stretching from Louth to Longford, north Leinster and south Ulster, and north-east Connacht.
I am interested in this because of the problems of central versus regional distribution of power. It was drawn to my attention that there might be a possibility that the resources would be too widely spread. Does the Minister foresee any difficulty there? Will each regional board have the resources to do the development work? For instance, in relation to industrial development we had to centralise. I would like to hear the Minister's view on that.
It depends on which way you look at it. I was faced with the problem of structuring this Bill. If you want a centralised board with no regional boards and no democracy, you can have that. I would imagine that the whole trend today, and particularly in regard to an area like fisheries where you want to mobilise public opinion, get an interested public and interested local angling associations——
Anglers do not march.
It is important to have a regional aspect. Bord Fáilte found this out when they, after many years, decided to devolve from being a centralised board to the regional boards that they now have. I would envisage these boards operating rather like the regional boards of Bord Fáilte with, as in the case of Bord Fáilte, the central body operating in an overall grant-giving capacity to supplement local requirements and to co-ordinate the various regions for tourism purposes. I would envisage the central board here operating with such regional boards rather in the same manner and hopefully in a complementary manner. I appreciate the fears that have been expressed here by certain people who are very concerned about angling development, especially Senator O'Brien. He expressed a point of view that has been raised with me and what Senator Mulcahy mentioned has been raised with me also. I appreciate the point of view. The view is that funds may tend to be dissipated to various regional authorities and the view has been expressed that one central board could maximise the utilisation of funds and make greater use of them rather like what the fisheries trust do at present. It is attractive in its own way in a short-term view. In the long term what we have to do is to mobilise public interest and public opinion.
I will just mention salmon. The State through all its legislation, regulations and enforcement is not going to preserve the salmon species unless there is a public opinion built up. You can only build up that public opinion through a democratic regional organisation and a regional input into the importance of the conservation of particular lakes and rivers and the preservation of particular species in particular areas. That sort of mobilisation is best done through a system where various angling interests are represented democratically, through a form of election, on regional boards where they can be mobilised with voluntary people who are concerned on the ground with this matter in the interests of protection and the interests of the preservation and conservation. That is my argument for having it on a regional rather than an over-central basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 14, lines 59 to 62, and in page 15, lines 1 to 4, subsection (6), to delete paragraph (b) and subsitute the following:
"(b) (i) The Minister may by order provide for the issue by any regional board, on payment of such duty (if any) as may be specified in the order, of licences for fishing of a class or description specified in the order.
(ii) In case an order under this section provides for the issue of licences for fishing with engines which are not scheduled engines, then for so long as the order is in force the following provisions shall have effect, namely, any engine which is of a kind described in the order shall for the purposes of section 65 of the Principal Act be regarded as being a scheduled engine and any such licence shall for the said purposes be regarded as being an ordinary fishing licence.
(iii) In case an order under this paragraph is for the time being in force, the powers conferred by the order on regional boards shall be in addition to and not in substitution for the powers conferred on such boards by subsection (4) of this section."
At the moment section 10 (6) (b) states that the Minister may by order provide for the issue by any regional board of fishing licences other than those issuable under the Principal Act. The object of the section is to enable regional boards to issue licences to cover a region or part of a region. The amendment was necessary in order to ensure that any person fishing with such a licence, if the engine licensed was not a scheduled engine would be fishing legally. The intention at present is to enable boards to issue licences for scheduled engines only. Scheduled engines are those listed in the Fourth Schedule of the Principal Act. If, however, at some time in the future the board wish to issue a licence for an unscheduled engine under this section the amendment now inserted enables such an engine to be added to the list. Again, it makes for more flexibility in regard to the issuing of licences for such engines. At present the situation is over-restrictive whereas under the amendment here it gives a greater degree of flexibility to the board in respect of the issue of licences for this purpose.
Just a couple of questions on this—can the Minister give us an undertaking that no order by him, and in so far as he can control the regional boards, no decision by the boards will require the payment of any duty or licence fee for angling for coarse fish?
Yes. I can assure the Deputy that that is protected under a later section.
It will continue to be free angling?
That is right.
With regard to the position of eel fishermen inland—the Minister is aware of the problems in that regard—will the problem of the traditional eel fishermen resident in the Shannon area but fishing over a wider area be in any way eased by the provisions here and will the Minister's amendment, specifically with reference to scheduled engines and unscheduled engines, have any adverse effect on them?
That will not affect them one way or the other.
They may still seek the licence in the ordinary way. Could the Minister tell us how the country is going to be divided as between the regional boards? At the moment these people know to which particular board of conservators to go for their licence for particular waters. When will information be available in regard to the functional areas of the new boards and generally when will the administrative machinery be available for applications for licences?
I would hope to have that ready inside a few weeks. I have made up my mind actually on the seven regions. The only one that is concerning me is the one I referred to earlier in replying to Senator O'Brien, the north Leinster one and the Shannon catchment generally north of Athlone, which also includes parts of Cavan, Leitrim and Monaghan. That area, because of its coarse fishing predominance, may require special treatment. At the moment it is included in the Shannon region. The regions can be roughly defined as the Donegal-Sligo region incorporating two existing boards; the Mayo region incorporating two boards; the Galway region incorporating three existing boards. The Shannon region as it is now is unchanged.
That takes in the lower river too?
It takes in the whole catchment region from Cavan right down. The Kerry-west Cork region makes five: the Lismore region, which is the Blackwater region, east Cork, Tipperary and Waterford. Then there is the Leinster region running from Wexford up to Louth. That makes seven regions instead of the existing 17. The north Leinster region is the predominant coarse fishing region in the country and the difficulty is that it covers a number of catchment areas. I have tried to keep the arrangement as rationalised in the way I mentioned to catchment areas, estuaries and the catchment areas of particular rivers. But the Shannon region does present problems because there are very real differences between the sort of fishing and the angling situation in the lower Shannon region and the upper Shannon region. I am trying to reach some solution in respect of that particular one.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 15, subsection (2), to delete from both lines 37-38 and line 44 "and Coarse Fish Anglers" and substitute ", Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am interested in hearing—perhaps it has been discussed before—about the sea anglers' side of it. According to the figures pointed out to me sea anglers are very heavy users of fisheries and they are not on the register, for instance, which will be coming up later. I am just interested in getting the Minister's views on that, why the sea anglers in fact are not included.
The two amendments that have just been dealt with concerned them. They were discussed earlier in conjunction with cognate amendments in which I agreed to a general amendment running right through the Bill substituting in all cases for—which I agreed was an inadequacy—"coarse fish anglers" the words "coarse fish and sea anglers."
I would like to make one comment on section 9 which is related to section 11 in that they are both about the constitution of the new boards. I was astonished that section 9 went through without anyone saying a word because that section is the kernel of this entire Bill. However, maybe somebody will think of something for Report Stage. I would like to ask if the Minister could give us an indication of how many of the people who are likely to be on the regional boards will be elected and how many will be appointed? Perhaps he would answer that question first.
All of this detailed data is contained in the Schedules to the Bill.
If it is more convenient——
Far be it from me to suggest it, but looking at Part I, page 59, Members will see the details in regard to the Central Fisheries Board and at Part II, page 61 there is reference to the Regional Fisheries Boards.
I must admit I have not read the Schedules. I would like to know whether or not the number of people who will be elected to the board and the number of people who will be appointed by the Minister are included in the Schedule.
I think the Minister has the power to fix the numbers.
Yes.
Can the Minister give some indication as to what balance he would hope to strike between those whom he appoints and those who are elected?
In that area we have to be flexible but I would envisage a board of 12 elected members and four to six appointed by the Minister to rectify any imbalance. One would envisage having boards having a total of 14 to 16, of which ten or 12 would be elected. The usual number would be 12 elected and four added, although it might vary a little.
I am a bit puzzled as to how the first board is going to be constituted.
The first board will be nominated to get it off the ground.
It will be in existence for how long?
One year.
In other words, the fishermen in that particular board's area have a year to decide whether or not they will pay a subscription to the board. They may for local or other reasons decide not to subscribe to the board and you could end up with a situation where there could be a tiny electorate and the elections the second year might be very unreal if the Minister wanted to have the majority elected. I see practical difficulties there in the feedback from the area where there will be a lot of support for this idea of applying for licences in order to obtain a vote to the regional board.
The feedback is that the genuine trout angling fraternity in the country are very interested because up to now they have had no representation on existing boards of conservators and their only involvement has been through the trust. Now, for the first time, there will be a panel for them. The same thing applies to the coarse and sea anglers who have no representation at present. The only people who have representation on the boards of conservators are the salmon rod anglers, the drift net salmon fishermen and draft net salmon fishermen, the rated occupiers of weirs and so on. The rest of the fishing fraternity are excluded. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to bring in the rest of the fishing fraternity and I know that there is tremendous interest among not only the trout anglers but also to a very substantial extent among the coarse and sea angling people in becoming involved.
I can see a certain area of conflict, particularly in the region of the country that we were discussing on Senator O'Brien's amendment which is predominantly coarse fishing country but, at the same time, has within it quite an amount of good trout water. If, as the Minister says, the major interest in these elections is going to be taken by the brown trout fishermen and they become the predominant element on the boards—which I think is likely to happen because they are, by and large, the keener fishermen and more likely to take an interest and they are in charge of developing in their area—does the Minister foresee a situation where, in order to develop brown trout fishing there will be widescale cleaning out of coarse fish and can he see any conflict arising in that regard? In the area to which Senator O'Brien referred—the south Ulster/north Leinster area—I feel that coarse fishermen are unlikely to participate, initially anyway, in the electoral process. Consequently, the boards in the earlier years may be composed almost entirely of brown trout fishermen who may direct their activities to an emphasis on brown trout fishing to the detriment of coarse fishing, which might not be a bad thing, depending on one's point of view. If any imbalance should arise, with potential conflict in a particular area over different stretches of water, does the Minister see his right to nominate members having a role to reconcile such conflicts?
I should like to support what Senator Cooney has said because in the area to which I referred there is a belief among the coarse fishing enthusiasts that perhaps too much is being done for the trout anglers and, because of the tourist attraction and other attractions of the coarse fishing in this area, it would be important to ensure by whatever means within the Minister's power that the development of coarse fishing would not be neglected and that it would be developed to the maximum degree. There is the danger, as outlined by Senator Cooney, and I would like to have some assurance from the Minister that everything will be done to prevent things going in that direction because it would be resented by people in the area to which I referred.
I intend the Minister's nominees to redress any imbalance on the boards. That is the main purpose of reserving these additions or nominees which the Minister may make. It is also a way of redressing the possibility of a wrong balance in that I propose to have a panel system of voting in so far as the interests are concerned. For example, in an area like the area being referred to, where there is a strong coarse fishing interest and a strong trout fishing interest, I would propose of the 12 seats I mentioned that would be selected by fishery interests to have three seats allotted to coarse fishermen and three seats allotted to trout fishermen. The registered coarse anglers would vote for the coarse angling nominees and the registered trout fishermen would vote for the trout fishing nominees. In certain areas this would not arise. In the north Leinster area you would not have drift net fishermen. In other areas their interests would predominate and they would have a stronger panel, for example, in the Lismore area. This emphasises the regional aspect, that the interests are different in various regions and, depending on the predominance of fishing and angling interests, the panels can be weighted accordingly. It is the job of a politician to draw up these regulations and I think I am reasonably suited.
Is the Minister aware that the Munster Trout Angling Council are concerned that many of the clubs will lose their autonomy under this new system? I do not know if that will be the case. Much will depend on the representatives appointed to the regional boards. I am interested in what he says and I would like his confirmation specifically in relation to Munster, that the trout anglers will have a separate panel of their own and will not, for example, be lumped with coarse fishermen.
The Senator can take it that in every board area of the seven regional boards the trout anglers will have a separate panel of their own. In the brief time I have been in this position I have been very impressed by the dedication and the attention displayed by trout anglers and their overall association and by the various clubs, regional groups and associations interested in brown trout fishing, who have sent in most helpful suggestions to amend this Bill. They tend to be very dedicated people. There is no question about that. I would see them for the first time taking a very positive part in the administration of our inland fisheries and there will be a panel specifically for trout fishermen on each regional board in Munster and everywhere else.
There is an important message that the Minister should propagate in connection with this section and the Bill in general, particularly in terms of the clubs and angling associations that are in existence, and which may come into existence, and that is that the principle of self-help is really a fundamental one and that the setting up of a structure like this should not be taken as a panacea for all our ills. It should be looked upon as a body which will regulate, assist and encourage the clubs of coarse and trout fishermen and the sea anglers to increase their efforts to preserve, conserve and develop fishing in their areas. It is very important to get this across. The idea of this Bill is not to hamper the effort locally but, in fact, it is to give it increased impetus. The bodies operating locally at present shall be given every support and encouragement because it is really what they do that ultimately will count.
Is it envisaged that non-residents of the State will have a vote in these elections?
Non-citizens?
No, non-residents.
That is a good question. I should like to put it on a residential basis.
What is the position? I have not read through the Schedule. I have read through the Bill but perhaps it is covered in the Schedule.
Is this in section 11 (2) (b)?
It is in section 12 but we are on section 11 now.
To get back to the question of possible conflict of interests, I should like to instance a situation which could arise in the area to which we have been referring, the area of north Leinster, south Ulster, east Connacht. A large number of lakes are in that area and many of them have both trout and coarse fish. Let us take a situation of a lake near a village with guesthouses doing business with visiting coarse fishermen but where the lake in question is suitable for ecological reasons to be developed particularly as a brown trout lake and where the particular regional board decide it should be developed as a brown trout lake for those reasons. There is immediate conflict then with the local tourist interests. What mechanism is provided in this structure to resolve such a conflict, particularly to resolve it, if possible, harmoniously? It may not be possible but perhaps there may be a mechanism for making the ultimate decision where a decision will cause conflict.
I can see the Senator's point here. That is the whole purpose of having the central board and it was something to which objection was taken, the Minister, to some extent, in the scene also and having the Minister's nominees on the regional boards and the central board. Because of the very nature of fisheries and the varying interests there is bound to be some degree of, let us call it, difference of opinion. I would see the Minister's nominees resolving such difference of opinion and ultimately the Minister and the central board, through the allocation of finance and the coordination of the central board, ensuring that resources are allotted where the best ecological advice suggests they should be allotted and decisions taken accordingly.
What this new structure of elected members should do is to bring a greater element of voluntary responsible people to these boards who will take the broader view. Perhaps I am being optimistic here, but I hope that the sort of people who will be elected by the brown trout fishermen and by the sea angling associations will take a broad view. They will not have a vested interest in the situation. One of the matters which has bedevilled the activities of the existing boards of conservators has been that the commercial interests have predominated, be they commercial driftnet fishermen or draftnet fishermen, the rated occupiers or salmon fishermen. While there is nothing wrong with it, that whole area of commercial activity has tended to predominate that issue. Now we have provided for an influx of voluntary people who are genuinely interested in fishing as an amenity and a resource, as part of our heritage, who are interested in its continuation in a voluntary non-commercial capacity. I hope that they will exercise their views on the boards in that sort of spirit and way.
In many ways the Bill is a vote of confidence in the voluntary people who are in the angling clubs and associations around the country to exercise their responsibilities in that way. In order to ensure that it is done properly, we have this balance of election, a panel system, panelling out the various fishery interests in a particular region, and the Minister's own nominees, plus the overall coordination of the central board, with the allocation of funds ultimately residing with the Minister. Within these various checks and balances I hope it will work out all right.
Will careful research work be done to ensure that before coarse fish are taken from a lake that is stocked with trout it is likely to be a success? Much research work is necessary in that field. It is said that in some areas, in the regions to which I referred earlier, where coarse fish were taken from a lake which was then stocked with trout this trout stocking was not successful. That gives rise to lack of public confidence in boards operating such a scheme. In addition to that, the hopes and the aspirations of the people in that area should also be taken into account. If a tourist business is being built up in an area mainly on its attraction as a coarse fishing area as distinct from a trout angling area, the board should favour the development of coarse fishing in that area because of its appeal and tradition.
Is it correct that section 12 is saying that you have to be three years registered?
We are on section 11.
To answer Senator O'Brien's point, I feel very strongly that legitimate tourism interests have a very strong case and very valid reasons why they should be represented on these boards. That is a matter I would bear very much in mind in regard to the Minister's nominees, that in any area where there is a strong tourism interest with an hotel or guesthouse I would certainly be predisposed to appoint such a person to the board as one of the Minister's nominees. That makes sense. That person could bring, as it were, another dimension to any kind of constructive proposal for the development of fisheries. Senator O'Brien is right: there is a certain conflict here between the purist in regard to brown trout development as against coarse fishing development. I do not agree with the extremes on either side; there is room for the two. We have enough inland waters to carry out a whole range of fishery development if we keep them unpolluted and provide the proper measures to maintain them in an unpolluted state. I would not go overboard for any particular type of development. It is important, and I emphasised this in discussions with the various angling interests, to preserve a sense of balance. There can be a range of fishing activities in different places with the facilities available. That is tremendously important. I would hope that that is the sort of attitude that would permeate the administrators of the future.
The Minister told me that the election to the regional board will take place every year.
Just the first one. It will be five years after that.
I know the trout anglers were in touch with the Minister but I understand the Munster association suggested to the Minister that their regional council perhaps should be allowed to nominate somebody to the board with the sanction of the Minister. Has the Minister any view on that?
That is something I would be disinclined to do. The association to which the Senator has referred are very strong in the south-eastern region, in Tipperary, Waterford, east Cork, Kilkenny, embodying the Blackwater, the Suir and the Nore. They will be very strong in that area and I think at any rate, through the registered procedure, they will tend to predominate. They will have a very adequate panel and will be strongly represented, not for a statutory reason but because they are strong anyway.
Would there be a situation where the regional council might nominate somebody?
I would prefer to leave it to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendments Nos. 12A, 14A and 14B are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 12A:
In page 16, subsection (1) (a), line 14, before "shall" to insert "and who is ordinarily resident in the State on the date fixed under this Act for the receipt of nominations at an election to be held under this Act in that year".
This amendment refers to a matter we were talking about earlier and it confines voting powers to people resident in the State who otherwise are entitled to vote. That is the purpose of the amendment. I am proposing the same action in amendments Nos. 14A and 14B. The purpose is to confine the election to people resident in the State and it is desirable from the voting point of view. It is not necessary to include tourists. The Bill is basically concerned with national development of our own resources and it might be dangerous to have tourists there. It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to collect a lot of tourists to sign the register and so on and somebody could have a bloc of votes at the election. It is better to confine the matter to the residents of the State, which the Bill does not do as it stands.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 20, to delete "and Coarse Fish Anglers" and substitute ", Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Government amendment No. 14A:
In page 16, subsection (1) (b) (i), lines 21 to 24, to delete all words from "shall" to the end of the subparagraph inclusive and substitute the following.
"and who is ordinarily resident in the State on the date fixed under this Act for the receipt of nominations at an election to be held under this Act as regards the regional board by which the register is maintained, shall be entitled to vote at the election".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14B:
In page 16, subsection (2), line 35, to insert "and who is ordinarily resident in the State on the date fixed under this Act for the receipt of nominations at an election to be held under this Act in that year" before "shall".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would like to ask the Minister if I am reading this wrong, because even the experts seem to be confused about the voting rights of brown trout and coarse anglers. Have they to be registered for three years whereas other people have only to be registered for one year? Am I correct?
Yes.
Does the Minister think it is right?
It is a test of the bona fides of the voter that he or she should be the holder of a licence for three years. Senator Cooney raised the query. It will not arise in the first election but for second and subsequent elections it is only right and proper that the people voting on the coarse angling, sea angling panels or on the trout angling panels who volunteer to vote, who are on the register and have paid their voluntary contribution should have done so for three years. The point made by Senator Honan is slightly different because the salmon fee is a licence. It is a statutory obligation to pay under penalty of court proceedings—prosecution and fine—whereas what we are talking about here is a voluntary contribution on the part of sea and coarse anglers and on the part of trout fishermen. What Senator Honan is talking about is the salmon anglers. In that case they must pay a licence fee under penalty of law. To that extent there is a difference. Once they pay their licence fee they are entitled to vote. The three-year provision applies to voluntary contributors—they become voluntary contributors at their own request. Originally in this Bill I proposed to bring in a situation with a licence fee attaching as far as trout and coarse fishermen were concerned but I relented in the face of mounting antagonism to such a compulsory system and substituted a voluntary system. Those people cannot have their cake and eat it and if it is going to be a voluntary system let us prove the voluntary nature of the person who is seeking entitlement to vote by stating here that he or she should have voluntarily paid his or her contributions for three years at least.
I agree with the Minister, but earlier he gave the impression that he was encouraging the persons who had fished for a long time in the local anglers' association and now he is asking them to register for three years before he gives them a vote. Senator Cooney said he would be worried about these people not registering and not being interested or knowing where votes were going but they know what registration means. I wonder is it right to ask the man in the Ennis and District Anglers' Association, who has fished for 25 years, and his father before him, to be registered for three years before he has a vote when somebody else can vote after one year. That is what I am asking the Minister.
I wanted to put to the Minister for clarification a somewhat different point. He has given a fair amount of comfort to the trout angler, the coarse fish angler and even the sea angler, but I want him to clarify a point on behalf of the optimists who still hope to catch salmon with rod and line. Let us suppose a person has taken out a £10 licence, called a salmon fishing licence, issued by a particular fishery district, but described to be valid to the end of the season in all districts. Am I too much of an optimist to hope that such a person would have a right to vote in all the regions, or would he be confined to voting in whatever particular region, which almost by accident happened to be the first place he went to fish in the year? That might not be the district he was most interested in.
In answer to the last question, it is one man, one vote, he or she must opt. Senator Whitaker, being a master of the salmon angling art, knows his favourite waters and I am certain he would have no difficulty in opting. I will leave that to himself and I am certain any salmon angler would be in precisely the same situation. I would defend the matter raised by Senator Honan on the basis that the salmon licensee is a compulsory holder, he pays £10 a year for it, and must pay under penalty of prosecution. In the other case we are talking about volunteers. The best way to test genuine volunteers is to ensure that they are interested in the art of trout, coarse or sea angling. In order to remove any fear that the Senator may have, I might say the association concerned welcome this. They do not want any more than any Senator wishes some flight-by-night operation in the last year where somebody comes in and proceeds to pack the electoral college for a particular panel. They are as aware as we are of the importance of ensuring that the genuine anglers are the voters. They regard the test of genuineness—and have agreed with me in discussions—as being reasonably expressed in this three-year provision, which means that when a positive contribution has been made a person is entitled to vote.
I gather from what the Minister said that, if a person pays a registration fee and gets on the register of trout anglers, he is entitled in the same year to get on the register of coarse anglers, but when it comes to voting he can only have one vote——
That is right.
——and use it either on the coarse angling or the trout angling panel. I suggest that when we have the panel system a person who is on both registers should be allowed to vote on both registers.
We are into a very difficult area here. We are trying to get away from that because that was the system until now. For instance, in the salmon area a rod angler and a rated occupier had two votes under the present system and if he or she had a drift net or a draft net he or she had even more votes. We are trying to get away from this system of having power concentrated and a multiplicity of votes obtaining. This is one of the big matters of concern to the commission—the whole notion of democratising the system of administration of our fisheries and also the whole idea of involving as broad a spectrum as possible of the fishing interests in order to have the whole range of fishing interests involved in the administration of inland fisheries and to dilute the privileged position that heretofore obtained. I do not like going away from that, and that is the principle we are trying to work on and develop.
While I agree with the principle the Minister is implementing, I respectfully suggest that what I suggested would not in any way take from what he is doing, because the most a person could have would be a second vote and it would be cast for a different panel of candidates. That person would not be exercising any extra power. It could encourage revenue for the boards if a person could go on both registers knowing he is going to be given the vote for both panels. It could have some small beneficial effect there. However, it is not an important point.
There is merit in what the Senator is saying but having hitched to the other principle I would like to stay with it because the motivation there is to open it. I would not like to be introducing that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I am disappointed to see the disqualification for membership applying to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. They are disqualified from being elected to nearly everything. Every Act of Parliament providing for appointments or election invariably disqualifies Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, generally for good reasons, in the bodies concerned. Is it necessary to go so far as to disqualify Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas from serving on a regional fishery board? They might be able to bring a lot of interest and knowledge to the particular board and, after all, it is a recreational rather than a business matter. I do not see that there could be a conflict of interests in that regard, nor do I see that one's duties in the Oireachtas could lead one into conflict with any actions of the regional board, particularly if the regional board is subject to the central board, and again subject to the overall control of the Minister. It would be a pity if keen anglers who are Members of Parliament should be excluded from contribution to the development of the fisheries of the country.
I would like to support Senator Cooney's argument. I protested on a number of occasions at this clause appearing in other Bills but I think there is a greater argument in this case. This is not a substantive board of a semi-State body in which being a Member of the Oireachtas might give a certain advantage at some stage or might give one undue influence on the board. In this case, being a Member of the Oireachtas will not affect the situation in the slightest. The Minister might look at this again and make a suitable amendment on Report Stage.
In these days of special interests and pressure groups I am by nature and emotion inclined to the side of the Oireachtas trade unionists. I will certainly look at that between now and Report Stage. From the contributions made here so far there are a number of people in this House who would be excellent members of regional boards. I am inclined to agree with the point of view that has been expressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
This is an extraordinary section. It suggests a great amount of caution, or a pessimistic long term view on the part of the Minister when he puts in a section that envisages that no member might be elected to regional boards. His caution is commendable, but it is not encouraging for the future of the board.
It is over-protective. I see the Senator's point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
On the question of the removal of disqualification, subsection (2) gives power to the Minister to relieve the person from disqualification in certain situations. I am thinking of the situation on local authorities where there is an analogous provision where persons can be disqualified after absences for a certain length of time. The provision in the local authority code—and I am speaking from recollection—contains allowances for a person who has been ill or who can satisfy his colleagues on the local authority that his absence has been for good sufficient reason. The best judges of whether a member of a regional board should be disqualified for non-attendance would be his peers on the boards who would know his individual situation more precisely than would the Minister.
I will have a look at the Senator's suggestion because I would like to have it pari passu with the disqualification that he refers to in the local authority code. I would like the regime here to be on the same basis as that in local authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
This is a central section. It gives powers to the central and regional boards for the improvement of fisheries generally, which is the kernel of this Bill. It has very wide powers with regard to acquisition, gaining access and rights of way. Would the Minister like to flesh out the section for us in layman's language?
When one reads the section one sees it is reasonably explicable. It is concerned with the powers for improving any fishery, whether or not it is the property of the central board or the regional board. Subsection (1) sets out the various steps under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). It is important to write out those powers. There is also provision for consultation with the Commissioners of Public Works. That is reasonable where certain works are required. In the case of a dispute I have authority to arbitrate between the Commissioners of Public Works and the central or regional boards. There is a notice provision in the case of any owner of a fishery where there is an intention to make such improvements, and if the owner cannot be found I may issue an authorisation saying the conditions need not apply.
Other authorities, such as the ESB, have enabling officers or servants of the central or regional board who may come on to any such land to gain access—it is important to gain access to a fishery—to do the required works or to improve a bridge, a road, or a pathway. There is a provision for a certificate of authorisation such powers to be issued by the regional or central board. Under subsection (7) there are limitations on these powers in the interests of privacy, vis-a-vis entering a private house or garden. The section is reasonably self-explanatory.
I know that some of the trout angling clubs at present manage small fisheries which are owned by the Land Commission or other State agencies. They are proud to manage and control those areas and are concerned that the regional boards might wish to take over these small fisheries. Could the Minister indicate if it would be the intention of the regional boards to take over these small scattered fisheries and deprive existing clubs of the rights they have had, and the responsibilities that they have been given to manage them?
These rights already exist with the Land Commission, in particular, and the Office of Public Works. There is a provision here enabling such fisheries to be transferred to the regional or central board, not under this particular provision, but as agreed between the Land Commission and central or regional board, or between the Office of Public Works and the central or regional board. The same policy approach will obtain. There is no question of the compulsory appropriation of such fishing rights. The same arrangements will continue in regard to letting and leasing to anglers' associations, anglers' clubs and so on, on the normal tender basis.
Two points have been made. One of them I suppose is a selfish one on the part of such clubs, that is they have been able to get membership fees and charge people for going into these fisheries. The second point is that they are concerned that if they are deprived of the responsibility of managing these fisheries, there might be a freefor-all, within legal limits; for example, if a club had a particular fishery, they might be interested in conservation and might limit fishing to fly fishing. I am not talking about large clubs which would be concerned with massive improvements but small scattered clubs. Would the Minister not consider it better that they should be left with the responsibility of managing these clubs and doing what they can to conserve them in their own way?
There is a lot of sense in that. That can be done within the Bill itself. Perhaps this whole area might be more appropriate to sections 39 and 40. I agree with Senator Molony that under this section any sort of arrangement is open to the central or regional board. It is the sort of arrangement that obviously would be desirable. Here again the regional advice comes in, provided they were happy in the knowledge that a strong angling group was in the area, had some funds, were concerned about development and were doing it, the obvious thing would be to transfer such fisheries to them.
This section gives wide powers to the boards for the purpose of improving fisheries. To implement those powers the various bodies have to be given rights to access to water. This includes obviously getting right to enter land at any reasonable time. These words are taken from subsection (3). The powers contained in subsection (3) are very wide and are not confined just to the central board or regional board or their work people, but are given in addition to any contractor or workmen employed by such a contractor. They have right to enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of gaining access to the site of fishery improvement works or for the purpose of gaining access to a fishery in order to inspect it or maintain it. The reasonableness relates to the time of entry. It does not relate to the method or place of entry. It would appear that the power of entry there is very wide. Section 42 provides for compensation. As I read section 42 the compensation is to be paid by the person in whose favour the power is exercised. I wonder if it is any use to a landowner if the person is a workman employed by a contractor and decides to take a short cut across a particular piece of ground.
According to the strict reading of section 42 is the person who pays the compensation, if that landowner subsequently seeks it, the workman who entered the land? All he has to do is enter it at a reasonable time. There is no compulsion on him to enter it in a reasonable way, or to seek agreement. The power contained in subsection (3) is very wide and is perhaps not careful enough of the rights of landowner whose land is going to be crossed for the purpose of exercising the powers under section 17 generally.
The reason for the section being so positively worded is that the access aspect, for obvious reasons, is all-important. One can have all the powers in the world in regard to improvements in relation to fisheries—at a later stage when we are talking about the acquisition of fisheries this matter will be relevant—but when you analyse the situation, if you do not have fairly stiff powers of access you are not in a position to do much about it. That is the reality of the situation.
I agree there is a dilemma there but is the dilemma solved too much in favour of the fishery board and a bit carelessly with regard to the rights of the individual? This could raise a constitutional question—that powers are given to enter on land at any reasonable time and there is a provision for a post factum compensation. I agree that in the compensation clauses there is provision for interest to be paid, and I suppose that is intended to make up for the retrospective nature of the compensation. It seems to me that in providing for “entry at any reasonable time” there might be a constitutional conflict with the right of private property. If the right of compensation is not concurrent or in advance of the diminution of the property right, there might be a difficult situation. I do not press the point but I raise it as something with seeds of trouble within it.
That is a very valid point. I agree with the Senator and I was glad he brought it to my notice. The drafting phraseology can be described as being between positive and drastic. I will look at this between now and Report Stage.
In section 17 (1) (c) the board are given power to—
...keep under surveillance and from time to time ascertain by any means the quality of water in a fishery,
That is a very desirable and obvious power for the board to have, but can they do anything about the quality of water in a fishery after they have kept it under surveillance?
We are back again to the debate we had on an earlier section the last day, that is on the implementation of the water pollution Act which resides with the local authorities. When it becomes law I see this Bill operating in conjunction with the water pollution Act. The officers of the various boards will ascertain the facts, monitor the situation, collect the data and, if a pollution aspect is involved, transfer the data to the local authorities. That is the way I would see this working. The unit of the local authorities dealing with pollution will take whatever measures necessary under the water pollution Act.
I think I asked the Minister this question before and I have forgotten his reply. From now on will prosecutions that have been hitherto taken by boards of conservators for pollution be henceforth taken by the local authorities?
That is right.
The new regional boards will not take water pollution prosecutions any more?
Not against local authorities.
Individuals.
Yes.
I want to give notice to the Minister that I will put down an amendment on Report Stage so that we can discuss the matter further to try to give the regional boards or the central board power to move against local authorities.
It would be more appropriate to the water pollution legislation.
I was not there then.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Government amendment No. 14C:
In page 22, subsection (4), lines 6 to 12, to delete all the words from ", and without prejudice" to the end of the subsection.
This amendment is brought in to meet points of view that are being expressed by the various angling interests. In particular the Trout Anglers' Federation and other interests brought this point to my notice. The section itself is designed to lessen the restriction on the payment of grants to regional boards in connection with trout and coarse fishing development. The purpose of the amendment is to lessen the restriction. The section as originally drafted, has caused some controversy and apart from the various angling associations certain Senators have raised the point with me. As the Seanad is aware, subsection (4) of section 20, as drafted, and as the Seanad now sees it, was designed to achieve a situation which, while desirable in theory, I am now satisfied would not quite work out in practice. The theory behind it was that grants from the central board to a regional board would be loaded or weighted in favour of areas with a high subscription content. However admirable as that theory was, a number of angling associations and very interested parties, while agreeing with the principle behind what I was trying to do under that section, have satisfied me that there are a number of practical difficulties.
The point was made, also, by a number of Senators during the Seanad debate, that there were obvious anomalies and, indeed, individual representations were also made to me. The main, fairly obvious, anomaly is that it is unscientific, in the sense that an obvious resource crying out for development, say a potentially excellent trout lake in a poor, or a remote area, with no anglers living near it or in its general area, might not be developed if an overrigid view were taken of the criterion as now written into subsection (4).
Another obvious point made is that the density of population on the east coast, or in relatively well-off areas on the east coast, could result in the subscriptions in these areas being far greater than in less well off areas, which could be a factor that might mean the weighting or loading of grants from the central board towards these particular areas. In other words, there could be a disproportionate amount of money spent in areas where there might be a high degree of payment of subscription but not the same degree of importance in regard to the actual resource itself, as might obtain in a less-favoured area, amongst people less well endowed to pay subscriptions. An obvious wrong could be done in that respect.
Having looked at the pros and cons of the whole matter I have decided to bring in the amendment which is before the Seanad. The best way to amend it is by a straight deletion, as suggested; the section will, therefore, end after the words "central board", the last six lines of the section being deleted. That leaves the matter much more open and far less restrictive than envisaged in the subsection at present. I am quite satisfied that I cannot achieve, in the section as it stands, what I am trying to achieve and that it is better to delete it and trust to the good sense of the boards concerned that they will develop the resource in accordance with requirements; that each development of a fishery will be assessed on its merits and that this need not necessarily take the grant into account, to the degree sought by the section.
The section, briefly, was designed to act as a carrot to encourage subscriptions. Candidly, while our intentions were excellent, I do not think it would work as originally drafted and I am asking the Seanad to accept this deletion.
The Minister's arguments are excellent to support not just the amendment but the deletion of the entire subsection. To be logical, he should delete the entire subsection and give real force to what he has been saying. If the last six lines were deleted, we should be left with a subsection reading:
In determining the amount of a grant to be made under this section by the Central Board to be a regional board the Minister shall have regard to the total amount of the subscriptions paid to the regional board in pursuance of section 53 of this Act, as shown in the accounts...
It does not say what the Minister is to do then, having had regard to the amount paid. The explicit threat, now removed, is still there, impliedly. What do the words mean: "the Minister shall have regard in determining the amount of grant to be paid" and "the Minister shall have regard to the amount of subscriptions"? There is a slightly threatening note to that when read by itself, with the explicit threat removed by the amendment. Unless the Minister has regard to the level of subscriptions for the purpose of raising or lowering the grant, for what other purpose is he going to have regard to the total amount of subscriptions? Unless he is going to have regard to it for some reason, there is no point in leaving the words there. His reason is either to increase or reduce the level of the grant. Why leave it there, when the Minister has indicated in his speech supporting his amendment, that he is not in favour of this principle? I think he should go the whole way and delete the entire subsection.
I support the view stated by Senator Cooney. I agreed almost entirely with everything the Minister said. If, in determining what funds are to go to the development of a lake with great potential in a very remote and sparsely populated area, the Minister must have regard to the subscriptions, that can only mean, in the long run, that such an area would be neglected. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that is not intended. I agree with Senator Cooney that the best way to ensure that is to drop this amendment or part of it.
Are the grants, anywhere, to be based on the number of registered anglers?
No. There will be a number of flexible considerations borne in mind in regard to the allocation of grants. The primary and logical one, is the potential of the particular fishery and the resource. The section as it is put down means that the Minister shall have regard to the total amount of the subscriptions paid. That is simply a factor, along with a number of other factors, that would have to be taken into account.
I defend the idea behind the whole section, as originally framed, in that it is desirable—as was I think, referred to by Senator West—to encourage local interest and self-help. An area that is acting in a fairly positive way as regards fishery development, clearance, restocking, putting in beds and so on, and expending money and paying its subscriptions—Senator Molony referred to the Munster anglers, in particular, who have an outstanding association, substantially in funds—will be very strong voluntary contributors. There are some people in Senator O'Brien's area who are in the same category I would like it to be acknowledged in some way in the manner of distribution of State funds through the central board. I should like to see acknowledged in some way the voluntary strength of people of that kind who are doing their work on the ground. That was the whole thinking behind the section as it stood.
Earlier I mentioned the objections that were raised with me and the objections were such that I watered down the section to the degree that I have done, by saying that the Minister "shall have regard to the total amount" and "have it as one of the considerations in his mind."
For what purpose shall the Minister "have regard"?
I think it should be a very important factor in his mind if there are people in a fishery area who are making the effort and putting the money in; who are active in becoming voluntary contributing members; who are substantial contributors, playing an active part in the election of members of the board in their particular panel. I am thinking of an active trout angling association like that, and there are a few very good ones around the country. These people are all voluntary members and contributors, taking an active part in developing fishing grounds in their particular area. The fact that they are making the local effort should be an important consideration in any Minister's mind or any central board's collective mind in the allocation of grants.
I see the other point, that you can have excellent fisheries in remote areas, perhaps, poor and underdeveloped areas, that do not have anything like that local voluntary strength and that they should not be neglected. I do not see very much harm in asking the Minister, in pursuance of this Act, to bear in mind—or "have regard to," is the phrase in the subsection—the total amount of subscriptions paid to the regional board as a factor in the allocation of grants. That is why I have decided to leave it as it were, as a guiding consideration in the Minister's mind, and deleting the more specific aspects that tie down the Minister unduly—to leave it there as a general aspiration to be borne in mind by the Minister. In the last analysis, nothing that we do in this Bill, or in any regulation under it, will have any real effect unless there is a great groundswell of voluntary interest and voluntary commitment by angling associations, clubs and interested people throughout the country. The people who are doing that work on the ground are the people I should like to see helped. Whether or not it should be written into the Bill is another day's work and I think that is the burden of what Senator Cooney stated.
While I agree with the spirit of the Minister's reply, I do not think that he can really include a section like this in legislation. Ministers have regard to lots of things when they are making grants to certain areas. One of the things they have regard to is the number of votes their political party may get from a certain grant in a certain area. We all know that, but it is not the sort of thing one puts in legislation. That is being slightly facetious, but I think that legislation should be legislation, and asking a Minister to have regard, in the Bill, to something is a meaningless clause. There are lots of things that Ministers will have regard to and certainly the strength of the local fishery association will be something that he naturally will have regard to. However, if you put a clause like this in the Bill, if one local fisheries region has 40,000 votes and the region next door has only ten, the first will say that they should get four times the money. There is that sort of problem. I feel that the legislation would be tighter if this subsection were removed altogether, as Senator Cooney suggested.
I should like to support the point made by Senator West that the words "shall have regard to" appear, at the moment, to be meaningless, but suppose a particular regional board with rather a poor subscription record say that we should have this phrase interpreted. They could say to the court "We think that these words mean that, because of the lack of money being generated within the board, the Minister should, therefore, give us an enhanced grant." On the other hand, the board that has a big local membership might make the argument that because of their large membership, they should have an enhanced grant. I do not know what the words mean. Legally, they are awkward words and could, within the present proceedings, create legal difficulty for the Minister. If he wants to retain the "carrot" principle in this subsection, and reward the people who are contributing well locally, there then is the situation that they would be a high local contribution and a high Government contribution, and what funds will be left for the area where, perhaps for very good and valid reasons, there is not a high local contribution? This is why the Minister could be laying a trap for himself by putting that obligation on himself, to have regard to something for unspecified reasons, reasons which might subsequently be specified by the court, to the embarrassment of the Minister. I think those words are dangerous from a strictly legal point of view.
Can it be extended to mean having regard to the amount of subscriptions paid and the amount of work done by a comparatively small population in the catchment area of a certain lake?
Well, I want to make a confession. I was never very fond of the subsection in any event, but I was trying to do my best to meet the views that I expressed earlier on, that people who help themselves should be helped, unfortunately, aspirations do not often work out well in legislation. I should hope that, in the administration and the disbursement of the grants, what I said earlier would be taken into account and the people who are helping themselves will be helped. I am certain that will be done in actual administration and management. Taking that into account, I am inclined to go along with the views expressed in the past in the Seanad. On Report Stage I will delete that entire subsection. I have already deleted half of it and I might as well go all the way.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I thought amendment No. 17 was cognate with amendment No. 6.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 6 was withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 23, subsection (1), to delete from "that" in line 3 to "(b)" in line 8, inclusive, and in line 11, after "this Act," to insert "that".
The purpose of the amendment is to weaken somewhat the Minister's power to remove members from the board, the feeling being that the powers given to the Minister in this respect were too drastic.
In this respect, I am not inclined to go along with the Senator's amendment. There is already similar power under section 51 of the Principal Act which enables boards of conservators to be dissolved. From time to time, boards have been dissolved under the Principal Act; the Cork board were dissolved in 1973; the Drogheda board were dissolved in 1975 for refusing to collect fishery rates. There are similar provisions in local authority law in regard to local authorities.
This section is involved with the fundamental matter of whether the board are doing their job or not. Section 7 sets out the various functions of the board, what they should do and what they should provide; this section is involved with a board not doing their job in accordance with the functions assigned to them by the Minister. This is really an essential nexus between the Minister and the board. I am not disposed to accept the amendment at all. I feel this type of legislation depends on a balance of powers between Minister, the central board and the regional board; one cannot let any one of the three off on tangents away from control. There are so many dedicated and involved people in particular areas of fisheries that if you do not have some measure of central control this fear was expressed already by some Senators—the regional boards may get too much power against the central board. If one allows this sort of area to become unbalanced and to allow people to chase their own particular pet notions in regard to particular fisheries development, without an overall built-in control system, there would be a high degree of wasteful expenditure. It is not an area that is accountable in terms of profit and loss or commercial criteria. It is an area that could become very loose in the accountability aspect, unless there were a degree of ministerial presence and ministerial power to act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
As I read it, the Minister either removes the whole board or none; he cannot remove certain individuals. He must either wipe out the whole board or——
Correct.
Under subsection (6) a new election is held.
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 25, subsection (2), line 22, to insert "transfer effected by section 28 or 29 of this Act or to a" before "case".
This section as it stands provides that the chief executives and professional officers of the central and regional boards be appointed through the Local Appointments Commission; that is, in my view, an excellent principle to have established. It is also provided in the Bill that employees of the Inland Fisheries Trust and boards of conservators, as they are now constituted, would be transferred without any worsening of conditions to the central and regional boards. That is done by later sections 28 and 29.
Convincing representations have been made to me by some staff members of the Inland Fisheries Trust that as section 26 now stands, taken in conjunction with sections 28 and 29, these staff members of the trust—most of them very experienced and able officers—would have to apply to the Local Appointments Commission for their existing posts. There would be a reapplication situation which would be very unfair to the officers concerned and could not be sustainable. That is the reason behind this amendment, which specifically provides that transfers of staff from either a board of conservators or the Inland Fisheries Trust will be exempt from the provisions of section 26 and they will not be under the constraint of having to apply to the Local Appointments Commission. The spirit, therefore, of the later sections allowing for their transfer will be observed and they will not have to go through this reapplication procedure. It was an omission and this amendment now properly links up this section with the later section which guarantees the position of existing staff.
I should like to say that the officers or members of the Inland Fisheries Trust have given excellent service for a period of about 27 years. I am happy to see that this Bill ensures their rights.
Section 26, as amended, agreed.
Sections 27 to 34, inclusive, agreed.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
This is an important section as far as the existing trust members are concerned. The section is included to safeguard their position. It reserves the right of the ordinary subscribing member of the trust to fish in trust fisheries for the remainder of the period to which the last annual subscription paid by him would have related. The important thing to remember is that, under section 54, the right of the life and donor members of the Inland Fisheries Trust to fish in trust fisheries is maintained under section 54. Taken together, this section and section 54 means that the excellent people who over the years have subscribed, either annually or by way of life subscription, to the Inland Fisheries Trust, will maintain these rights into the new situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 36 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section the Minister mentioned when I raised the point of the Land Commission giving to local trout angling clubs the right to manage fisheries. This arises where the Land Commission take over land and land rights are separated from fishing rights. I would like clarification on this because I am not clear from what the Minister said on the earlier section. Is it going to be policy in all such instances? I notice the section says that the Land Commission may hand over their fishery rights to the central or regional boards. Is it, in fact, the policy that the Land Commission will in future hand over those rights to the regional or central board and that the regional or central board will either decide to manage the fisheries themselves or will ask local clubs to do it?
There is no black and white situation with regard to all of these fisheries. To put the matter into perspective for the information of the Seanad, the Land Commission are in possession of approximately 100 fisheries all over the country. These fisheries are managed for the commission by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. My Department organise lettings and so on as agents for the Land Commission. That is the present position.
As the Senator said, preference is given to angling associations or hotels. Practically all the fisheries go either to angling associations or hotels. Lettings are very reasonable. The total lettings from the 100 come to £5,000. The money is not a real consideration and priority is given to local interests. That situation will continue. All the section does is to enable the Land Commission to transfer them to me or, with my consent, to the central board. The reasoning behind that is the whole reasoning behind the Bill, that the central board can deal with it either directly or through its regional board or I can deal with it directly with the central board or regional board and that proper development can take place. That is why, as I said in my Second Reading speech, that the whole thrust of this is towards development. As it stands, the Land Commission have no mandate to develop fisheries and neither do I. All the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry does is manage the letting on a purely legal basis, collect the money and so on. Some of these excellent fisheries around the country are not being developed. Where you have a good angling association or where there is a conscientious hotel owner they are being developed, but there are a number of them that, candidly, are not developed or are in a state of underdevelopment or are neglected. Where this arises, we have now a situation where they can be taken over. It is not mandatory. It is at the Land Commission's discretion. If the central board or the regional board express an interest to me that a Land Commission stretch of water is neglected and should be taken over and developed I can move in and allocate it to the central or regional board, have it developed and so on and possibly lease it then to an angling club.
The matter is discretionary and there is no intention to interfere with existing arrangements with angling associations and clubs. It is designed to ensure that neglected fisheries or fisheries that are not being developed as they should be can be taken over by a body that is now being charged with the responsibility of developing these fisheries. There is no intention of interfering with any leasing or letting arrangements that obtain between the Land Commission and angling associations who are doing their own work, or hotel interests. All that will obtain in such cases is that the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry and the central board will step into the shoes of the Land Commission.
I sympathise with what the Minister is trying to do and I agree with it. I gather from what he says that he is assuring those clubs that have lettings of fisheries and that are maintaining and developing them properly that they have nothing to fear, that they will continue to have them.
They have absolutely nothing to fear. I welcome their involvement because it is their positive involvement that helps to make the situation work.
I am satisfied. There is one final question I will ask. The Minister has already referred to the fact that the Munster Trout Angling Council seem to have reasonable financial resources. I gather that the resources have been helped considerably by the fact that they have been able to get some money for their clubs out of the management of these fisheries. I assume there is no intention to increase the rent or to impose any additional charge?
No.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 41 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That section 45 stand part of the Bill."
The reason why I rise here is that, although I have no specific amendment at this stage, I will have one on Report Stage to meet the point of view that was expressed here on Second Stage as to the inadequacy of the fine on conviction. The view was expressed by several Senators that £1,000 was inadequate in view of the world in which we live today and the need to deal with illegal fishing on a much more stringent basis than heretofore. I will be moving an amendment on Report Stage to raise that figure of £1,000 to £2,000.
Is it because of inflation that the figure has been increased?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 46.
Question proposed: "That section 46 stand part of the Bill."
Is the Minister satisfied as to the constitutionality of these provisions?
The jurisdiction aspect? I am, yes. I have taken into account the Supreme Court decision, if that is what the Senator is talking about, vis-á-vis the limitation on the jurisdiction of the District Court.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 47 agreed to.
SECTION 48.
Amendments Nos. 18A, 18B, 18C and 18D are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 18A:
In page 40, subsection (3) (a), line 38, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£2,000".
In section 48 I have raised the £1,000 to £2,000. What I said in relation to section 45 obtains and I will do it on Report Stage. I am doing it here on Committee Stage for section 48. There is nothing sinister about it. It was simply an oversight. I have the amendments ready for section 48 but not for section 45. I am raising the indictment fine penalty from £1,000 to £2,000.
What was the fine under the Principal Act?
£100.
Was the fine £100 for each day in the Principal Act or was it less?
Under each of the two sections, this section and section 45, it was £100. This has now been raised to £2,000. I originally suggested £1,000 but the Seanad put the view that that is too little so it is now £2,000. The £100 per day for the District Court has not been changed. Under the original Bill it was raised from £100 to £1,000 and that has now been raised to £2,000.
I congratulate the Minister on getting his mind around the ups and downs of this. I am finding difficulty. Do the fines of £2,000 apply to all transgressions in relation to coarse fish, salmon and other fish? For instance, would they apply to aquaculture, to oysters?
They apply only to indictable offences. Under the point mentioned by Senator Molony, I am limited to a fine of £500 in the District Court, but I can go up to £2,000 and imprisonment in the case of a more serious offence on indictment. The offences are set out in section 48. The Senator can see that anywhere there is reference to indictment, for instance, it states that that person is liable to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. That means a trial by a jury, in effect. What we are doing is raising that £1,000 to £2,000. We are not interfering with the £100-a-day point referred to by Senator Brugha or with the District Court jurisdiction which is up to a fine not exceeding £500. There is a long list in section 48. For clarification, we are changing subsections (3) (a), (b), (c) and (d). For £1,000 in each of those, read £2,000. I shall be doing the same thing on Report Stage in section 45 but I have not got the actual amendment to hand.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18B:
In page 40, subsection (3) (b), line 46, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£2,000".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18C:
In page 40, subsection (3) (c), line
55, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£2,000".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18D:
In page 40, subsection (3) (d), line 62, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£2,000".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18E:
In page 41, the Table, to delete "213," from the entry in the second column opposite reference number 2 in the first column.
The reference is wrong there and this is a correction of that reference. It is a reference to the Principal Act. It is the wrong section and should not be there. It is as straightforward as that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are related and may be debated together.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 41, the Table, to delete "164" from the entry in the second column opposite reference number 3 in the first column.
These amendments are both the same type of amendment as the previous one. There were mistakes in the actual typing in the column. Amendment No. 19 is to delete "164" from the entry in the second column because that section is not relevant to where it is placed. The position is similar with regard to "164". Amendment No. 20 is to insert "164" before "165" in the entry in the second column opposite reference number "11" in the first column. So it is just a typist's error in the setting out of the relevant sections.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 42, the Table, to insert "164," before "165" in the entry in the second column opposite reference number 11 in the first column.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Question proposed: "That section 49 stand part of the Bill."
Section 49 (1) provides for forfeiture of a licence by a court when a person is convicted of certain offences. If a licence is forfeited in that way, will it be open to the person to obtain a licence on a later occasion?
Yes. What we are saying in subsection (2), which provides for a new offence, is that where a person is convicted of a third offence under these sections the court must make a consequential order, as in a road traffic offence with regard to drunken driving. The court must make an order disqualifying a person from holding a commercial fishing licence for three years.
I understand that but with regard to the position under subsection (1) which is separate altogether—a licence can be forfeited—is it open to the licensee to apply again one week later to the fishery board for a licence?
What Senator Molony means is: can the Minister restore the licence?
In effect, yes. He loses it for three years.
Under the first part of the section it provides that a licence may be forfeited. The second part relates to different offences—I hope I am reading this correctly—and where there are a number of convictions there is a consequential disqualification. That is the second part of the section but the first part of the section is the one in which I am interested. It provides that where a person is convicted of any offence under this Act if he is the holder of a fishing licence, the court may, in addition to any other penalty, direct such licence or licences to be forfeited. If such a licence is forfeited can the same person apply for a licence subsequently?
Subsection (2) sets out various offences. These are offences under the Principal Act. In those cases it is mandatory for the court to make an order disqualifying the person holding a commercial licence for three years.
If there are three convictions for such offences.
No. Under any of the offences that are set out under subsection (2) of section 49. Where a person is convicted of a third offence under that section, the court must make an order disqualifying the person from holding a commercial licence for three years. Subsections (3) and (4) confer jurisdiction on the court of appeal to make, confirm or annul an order, disqualify a person from holding a licence but may not annul such an order unless the conviction which was appealed is reversed.
What is the position about subsection (1) of this section?
Subsection (1) re-enacts the provisions of the substituted section for section 90 of the Principal Act. In that situation the licence is forfeited and the question the Senator asks is, what is the situation in regard to his reapplication for a licence. As the section stands, there does not appear to be any provision in that regard.
There is a difference between a person being disqualified from holding a licence and a licence being forfeited. It seems to me that if you give the court the responsibility to determine whether a licence should be forfeited or not, to make any sense of such power you need also to give the court the power to disqualify such a person from holding a licence.
Subsection (1) does not appear to provide any time limit.
The licence is a yearly licence. In effect, the subsection states that the licence is forfeited for the year. To answer that, the person can re-apply the following year and there is no particular bar on that.
He can re-apply the following day, if I read the section correctly. For example, if the Minister should decide to give somebody a licence the following day, he could get it.
No. The licences are issued on an annual basis. This goes back to the nature of the licence. All of these fishing licences are issued on an annual basis so what is forfeited under an order of court under this subsection is the annual fishing licence, for instance, the licence for 1979. That means that the applicant can only apply for a licence for the year 1980. The section goes on further to say that if there are three offences in subsequent years, he can be disqualified from holding a licence for three years but until he reaches the stage of the third offence, where there is a mandatory three years' disqualification, the only disqualification is for the year in question for which the licence is held. For the year in question he is disqualified but he may re-apply the following year. The Senator appears to be saying that it is not clear from the subsection that it does, in fact, obtain for the year.
It seems to me that the courts have been given the right to order that a licence be forfeited. Regardless of whether it is for a year or a number of years or whatever, it seems also that the Minister or the fishery board has the right to re-grant a licence the following day to a person. He is not disqualified from holding a licence. It is just that the licence itself is forfeited. It is not of great consequence whether the annual licence is the case. It does seem to me generally that it would be better if a decision was made where the court could disqualify a person holding a licence for a period of, say, three months or six months as the case may be.
The Senator would like to have it made more clear that the forfeiture does, in fact, obtain for the rest of the year. Is that what the Senator wants?
Yes. I think we could get over that by providing that a person would be disqualified from holding a licence for the remainder of the year.
I will look into that aspect if it makes it more positive. But the interpretation by the courts of that forfeiture section has been that all these licences are annual licences and that the forfeiture obtains for the balance of the period, that the licence expires at the end of the year and that the licensee has to go forward again to get a licence for the next year. The only change we are making here is to provide for the three year forfeiture in the event of a third offence. This is the new element we have brought into the section. Otherwise the section is taken from the Principal Act.
If there is a substitution of section 90 of the Principal Act then this section, as Senator Molony argues, does not provide for a period of disqualification and there does not seem to be any reason why a person under subsection (1) could not reapply the next day.
I promised Senator Molony to look into that. I can see the point. It is a bit bald; it leaves it open to wrong interpretation. I will have a look at it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 50 agreed to.
SECTION 51.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 46, subsection (10), lines 31 to 36, to substitute the following for paragraph (a):
"(a) An aquaculture licence shall not be granted to engage in aquaculture within the limits of any oyster bed or oyster fishery which is either an oyster bed or oyster fishery described in section 245 (2) (b) of the Principal Act or one to which an oyster bed licence or oyster fishery order relates, without the consent of the person who for the time being is beneficially entitled to the oyster bed or, as the case may be, oyster fishery."
This is primarily a drafting amendment and is designed to protect the rights of owners of private oyster fisheries, whether or not these fisheries are subject to oyster fishery licences or oyster fishery orders under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 46, subsection (10), between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) An aquaculture licence shall not be construed as taking away or abridging any right on, to or over any portion of the seashore which is enjoyed by any person in any manner described in section 267 of the Principal Act or any right of several fishery, without the consent of the person who is beneficially entitled to the right."
This is a similar type of amendment, although it is more important than the previous one in that it meets a point that was expressed here by a number of Senators on Second Stage. Senator Mulcahy, Senator Whitaker and some other Senators raised the question of rights enjoyed by people under the new arrangements for aquaculture licences. This is designed to protect their rights, the rights enjoyed now by any person to or over any portion of the seashore by extending similar provisions in the Principal Act relating to oyster bed licences and oyster bed fishery orders to the new arrangements for aquaculture licensing. By this amendment these people are protected.
Will this get over the difficulty that there is not any authority to give a licence over an area of the seashore, that if there is any privilege enjoyed by any other person, the person who is acquiring the licence from the Minister would have to purchase any rights from the person who had a previous enjoyment?
That is correct. It preserves the existing rights.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 51, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Why is it an offence for somebody to engage in aquaculture? Why should that be? I could understand if it were on a big scale but for somebody, say an amateur or someone engaged in it as a hobby, what is the objection?
This section on aquaculture brings in for the first time a regime in regard to aquaculture which has been lacking heretofore. At present there are no statutory rights whatever beyond some rights acquired under charters and so on and vague or undefined rights held by certain people. We are setting out here the precise code or umbrella under which aquaculture can be developed in the future. As I said in regard to one amendment already and as I shall be saying in regard to further amendments later on, while protecting the rights of the existing licensees who are operating aquaculture operations in various ways, under charter or otherwise, what we want to set out for the future is a positive regime for development so that we open up section 51 by saying it shall not be lawful for any person to engage in aquaculture save under and in accordance with a fish culture licence, an oyster bed licence, a licence granted by the Minister under this section or an oyster fishery order.
With the exemption of the existing operators who are covered by the amendments I have referred to and subsequent amendments we are now initiating a new regime for this development which has been advanced to a very substantial extent by certain firms, the ESB and Guinness particularly, who have put forward some very progressive plans for development in this area, an area in which there is tremendous future for which many of the indentations around our coast on the south-west, west and north-west are ideally suited. It is an area in which very substantial investment in the way of research and development has to take place before money is put in. It is an area where there is very high research, developmental and back-up investment and where such investments can be put at risk if a free-for-all is allowed. That is the reason for what you might call a very tough drafting initiative in this section, that it shall not be lawful for any person, with the existing people—and there are only a few of them exempted—to proceed on this aquaculture basis save in accordance with certain procedures here. This is designed to protect the sort of investment that we envisage now as going to develop in this area.
I am not familiar with aquaculture at all. I was curious to know is there something potentially dangerous involved in it? It is not a criminal offence for somebody to engage in agriculture without having a licence. Why is it necessary here?
The trouble is—and I touched on it here—the investment in it is very substantial particularly on the marine side of it. Aquaculture, by the way, as defined here covers mariculture, sometimes "aqua", water, the more genetic term, covers inland and sea. Sometimes the sea culture is referred to as aquaculture. Aquaculture as set out here covers both inland and marine waters up to 12 miles from the coast.
This operation entails a lot of preliminary investigation, research and development. Climatic conditions, in particular, estuaries or stretches of water have to be examined over a period of years, wind conditions, tide conditions, saline conditions and all of these aspects have to be examined in a very thorough manner before proceeding on an investment basis. For instance, Guinness are about to embark on a fairly large investment in this area. They have been working for many years now and are progressing to a certain level. The ESB also conducted experiments in this area. Other countries such as Norway in particular have conducted experiments also. It does require a lot of investment. Unless there is a regime governing such investment it can be put at risk completely if there is a willy-nilly, free-for-all situation. With fish, the area is not defined. All of this type of long years of investment can be set at nought by any buccaneer who wishes to do what he or she wishes unless there is licence attaching to the areas being developed. Again, it is the type of investment—apart from the type of research expenditure that I have already mentioned—that is prone to wrong-doing because any sort of poison can eradicate in a night the whole investment and that type of poison could be injected artificially. I am just giving that as an example. It is open to nefarious forms of activity. It is very important, having regard to the back-up of investment involved and having regard to the real risks that this investment is open to, that there be a title regime to protect the people who get a licence after due inquiry as provided under this section and proceed to employ the research development to a particular investment. It is very important that such people be protected.
Has the Minister in mind here that commercial interests could take such an interest in this matter that they would take over the whole coastline and that the Minister has in mind controlling the development so that it does not become the monopoly of some——
Very briefly, that is part of the purpose also. That is in subsection (2) of section 51 which provides for designating particular areas specified in the order and so on. The Minister in other words is envisaged under this section to be the overall manager of the coastline so as to ensure an ordered harmonious development, not by any particular person but in a balanced way, so as not to give away, as Senator Brugha says, large stretches of the coastline to one particular operator.
My concern is not about people having to have a licence to engage in acquaculture but about the adequacy of the protection afforded to people who have a licence against human predators. I am concerned particularly with subsection (16) which in fact deals only with people who have an aquaculture licence.
The Minister, on the Second Stage of this Bill, very kindly assured everybody concerned that those who are already engaged in what is now termed aquaculture would in fact automatically be given fish culture licences. My first question is what degree of protection is afforded against trespass or against larceny to people who hold a fish culture licence? It seems to me that taking the terms of subsection (16) as they stand, even if they were to apply to everyone who engages in aquaculture, it is a very poor protection to find that those who are found guilty of an offence are liable only—and apparently it is not an indictable offence as yet—to a fine not exceeding £500. A few dozen salmon taken out of a sea cage would net you at least that amount of money. Therefore, I would suggest that offences involving stealing or poaching of fish, whether they be oysters or salmon or trout from aquaculture operations, should carry as high a fine as any other form of offence, and should be indictable.
It has been argued, I understand, that there is some doubt as to whether in the case of oysters or fish in cages which are being cultivated or reared in any form of aquaculture, a charge of larceny could validly be sustained against somebody who stole these fish, the contention being that unless the fish are reduced to captivity they are still in a sense wild animals and therefore nobody could have a property in them and nobody could steal them. I hope the Minister will be able to assure me that that is not the law here and that those who, as he has just said, have invested a lot of money in these operations are not going to be exposed to predation by people who could really flout the law, because the law regards the fish which are being reared in these cages or the oysters in an oyster bed as not being reduced to captivity and therefore not private property.
I would like to support Senator Whitaker on this and appeal to the Minister to make sure that this opportunity does not go by without making sure all the loopholes in this connection are watched. The cultivation of oysters is a very delicate operation. I spoke on this on the Second Stage of the Bill. Indiscriminate use of the waters in which oysters are growing could ruin the whole operation. I take the point very well that the Minister must licence this type of activity because people not doing it properly might even ruin a neighbouring effort. It is very easy for human predators to ruin the work of years. There has to be some basis for an ample punishment to make it a restriction and a fear. I am not sure that it is quite right yet.
As I said in regard to the earlier amendments Nos. 21 and 22, Senators Mulcahy and Whitaker can be assured that those two amendments do protect the existing rights of present operators. They do not have to go through this procedure; the status quo is maintained so far as they are concerned. The further point raises a very fundamental issue in regard to the legal definition of trespass and it is not as easy as the two amendments I have mentioned. I have taken it up with the Attorney General. There is a sort of open definition situation as to whether or not trespass is committed in relation to fish in such cages, and whether the law of trespass applies as a protection to such operators. That is a point that is not strictly related to this Bill; it is a point related to the general law of trespass. I have taken it up with the Attorney General with a view to devising some method of pinning this offence down —in other words for guarding such fish in cages or traps as being trespassable as it were for the purpose for the offence of traspass and so give the protection of the general law to the operator. At the present time the general law of criminal trespass does not apply and the operator is under an obligation to protect his or her property, whereas if the general criminal law of trespass applied to this particular type of case, then the State would have the law to protect that person just as the State has the law and the duty to protect anybody's property. That point is being teased out with the Attorney General and I hope to have a suitable amendment for Report Stage which will cover it.
The other point that has been concerning the two Senators has been met. As far as existing operators are concerned, the joint effect of amendments Nos. 21 and 22, is to put the existing operators—I think there are six altogether—into the same situation as a licensee will be in respect of protection without having to go through the procedures that will have to apply in regard to any subsequent applications for a licence under this section. The existing licensees are deemed to be people who hold a licence as if they had obtained it under this section, as if they had gone through the procedures to qualify for a licence under this section. They are protected.
The further point in regard to the law of trespass, as far as they are concerned, the criminal law of trespass, is one that I am taking up with the Attorney General and I hope to have a suitable amendment for Report Stage. It is not a simple matter: it is a matter of getting a definition of the whole area of trespass that will encompass this offence.
While the Minister was speaking something occurred to me that might make it more concrete. It is the difference between rowing quietly over the area on which oyster culture has been laid or tearing over it at 50 miles an hour. It is tricky, particularly when you come to deal with devices for stringing oysters. How do you protect those? We have a problem here.
I am thankful to the Minister for what he said. Could I ask him would he also consider the point about making this an indictable offence because a fine of £500 on summary conviction can be very small as a means of deterring operators who want to raid aquaculture installations?
I am glad you made that point because it is an obvious lacuna. The potential damage that can be done in the case of this offence could be quite enormous having regard to the sort of investment aspect that I already outlined and it is rather incongruous to have it limited to summary jurisdiction. I will put in the indictable procedure there for such offences.
On a point of order in relation to legal efficiency, I have always advocated that in circumstances like this where a human predator, as he has been described in the debate on this section, goes in and does damage, or steals from or interferes with a plan such as this and causes the owner of the plan or the licensee to be at a loss, it should be an indictable offence. I would also ask the Minister to consider giving the court the power to impose what is known as a compensatory fine so as to avoid the necessity of duplication of proceedings. If the court at the criminal stage cannot provide for the imposition of a compensatory fine on the defendant it would be necessary for the victim afterwards or the licensee to issue civil proceedings against the predator. It is something that ran into difficulties before on a jurisdiction point. I would ask the Minister to consider that if he is considering making it an indictable offence.
I have great sympathy with that point of view which I have long advocated myself. Some day I hope to persuade my colleague, the Minister for Justice, to do this. But it is part of general criminal law.
It would have to be done in this Bill as it is done in the Road Traffic Acts, for example.
Yes. I shall look at it. I agree in principle that the whole question of compensation as a penalty is one that we could apply throughout the whole criminal law.
Before we leave that section I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that in law the issuing of a licence over what is at the present time a common sea area will give a person a private right to do, as Senator Monoly suggested, take civil action. The word "trespass" is used in relation to property that is owned by a corporation or private person. At the moment this area is part of the sea; it is not private property. It is probably held by the Department of Transport and Power or some body like that, but it is not private. Is the Minister satisfied that his licence can give a right to private ownership in an area like that?
It does not give title. This is a licensing provision. It does not give title to the bed. It gives you a user right, but it is only a user right, rather than a title right.
What is the position? Can one not engage in aquaculture in places other than sea beds? In lakes, for example?
In lakes and rivers. In fact it is done already extensively in rivers, for example rainbow trout fishing.
If somebody happens to have on his land a small lake and he owns it why does he have to apply for a licence to engage in aquaculture?
There are several aspects there, (a) health, (b) pollution and (c) potential damage to other fish life. The erection of fish farms internally is a very tricky engineering matter. A number of them have been built with grants from the State over the years and some of them are very successful but the criteria that go into the assessment of whether or not they should get the right are very important criteria because if you let artificial fish life run riot in a river system you can destroy natural fish. You can cause all kinds of health or hygienic hazards or pollution hazards; so, it has to be a controlled type of enterprise with proper safeguards and so on.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 52.
Question proposed: "That section 52 stand part of the Bill."
What has the Minister in mind? I thought this 2 per cent salmon levy was gone.
That is one of the ways in which we will finance development.
What size levy is proposed on this occasion?
We have not a percentage yet. It will be more than 2 per cent.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 53.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 51, subsection (1), line 16, to delete "and Coarse Fish Anglers" and substitute ", Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 51, subsection (2), lines 31 to 33, to substitute the following subparagraphs for subparagraph (ii):
"(ii) in case the applicant specifies that he wishes to be registered as a coarse fish angler, register him as such in the register,
(iii) in case the applicant specifies that he wishes to be registered as a sea angler, register him as such in the register, and".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 52, subsection (4), lines 11 and 12, to delete "and Coarse Fish Anglers" and substitute ", Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 52, subsection (4), line 27, to delete "and Coarse Fish Anglers" and substitute ", Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 52, subsection (6), line 42, to delete "and Coarse Fish Anglers" and substitute, "Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 54.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 53, in both subsections (1) and (2), lines 12-13 and 24 respectively, to delete "and Coarse Fish Anglers" and substitute ", Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 33A and 33B are related and may be debated together.
Government amendment No. 33A:
In page 53, subsection (1) (b) (ii), lines 18 to 20, to delete "and situated within the fisheries region of the board by whom the register is maintained".
That is to ensure that the actual right by reason of being on the register applies across the board in every region rather than in the particular region where the register is maintained. In other words, the particular region maintains the register but the actual person who is on the register can fish outside that region.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 33B:
In page 53, subsection (2) (b), lines 34 and 35, to delete "and is situated within the fisheries region of such regional board".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 55 and 56 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 54, before section 57, to insert the following new section:
57. The Commissioners of Public Works shall not submit a drainage scheme to the Minister for Finance in accordance with section 7 (1) (c) of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945 without the agreement of the Central Board."
This amendment was designed to cover the point I raised on the Second Stage concerning drainage schemes and the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The situation that pertains at the moment is that the Commissioners of Public Works must consult with the Minister but they do not have to receive his permission for a drainage work which may involve fishery areas or particular lakes, rivers or streams which may affect lakes, rivers or streams in which the Minister has an interest and which are well known for their fishery resources. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the Commissioners of Public Works receive the Minister's permission. One of the problems that comes up specifically is in connection with drainage. When a river is drained the work may, besides affecting the actual spawning beds and so on in the river, in fact lower lake levels. This has happened and this perhaps is more serious than the effect on the contours of the river bed because lowering lake levels can produce this utrification problem which we have in a number of our lakes around the country. This seems to be an irreversible process. To ensure that sort of thing does not happen or, at least, if it happens, it has not been foreseen by the Minister and, to give him power to prohibit the Commissioners of Public Works from carrying out certain drainage schemes which would damage fisheries, with Senator Martin, I put down this amendment which means that the commissioners would have to have the agreement of the central board rather than just have the consultative arrangement.
I think I referred to this in my reply on the Second Stage. The existing provisions work. All I can do is assure the Seanad and the Senator that is the case. There is ample consultation between the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry and the Office of Public Works in regard to what precautions should be taken, what provisions should be made in any drainage scheme for fishing life. The consultation procedure is working excellently. In fact, rehabilitation measures are taken as a matter of course in all rivers where drainage schemes are undertaken. That has been the case for some years. In fact the chief engineer in my Department is an expert in regard to drainage operations. He is well known as such in the public service and he is automatically consulted by the Board of Works in any scheme relating to the rehabilitation of fish life. In fact, there is an excellent pamphlet about the Corrib—Galway scheme which is his own particular work in conjunction with the very intricate engineering operations in connection with the levels of the Corrib which changed during the course of the Corrib drainage scheme and it has led to the enhancement of fish life generally in the Corrib area.
What happens occasionally, and this gives rise to misconceptions, is that the areas of fish life may change by reason of the drainage operation. Area A may not continue to be a fish life area but area B, which did not have fish life before may become so. In the overall the combined operations undertaken by the chief engineer and his staff of my Department with the Office of Public Works under the consultation procedure, which is already there under the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act, have worked out well in practice. If I thought there was a need for this amendment in the practical administration sense, I would gladly adopt it. I go the whole way with Senator West in the spirit and principle embodied in the amendment. What I am saying is that it is not really necessary and requires an amendment of an arterial drainage statute which lays down this consultation procedure and in my view would not be appropriate from the drafting point of view for inclusion here.
However, if I was under any apprehension that existing procedures were not working, I would run to adopt an amendment of this kind and have it in the Bill. I agree fully with the spirit of it, but as I said, it is working at the moment and is well accepted administratively between the two bodies concerned—my Department and the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works are highly conscious of their obligations in this area, and I would like to hear otherwise from any Senator. From our experience the consultation procedure is working very well. The Office of Public Works do not touch a river for drainage without total consultation with my Department regarding its fishery aspects.
I am very glad to hear that assurance from the Minister. I would be worried that in the future, with increasing pressure on water resources—industrial and agricultural pressures—the fisheries interests may not be taken into account fully as they are now. I am also glad to hear the Department have such good relations with the commissioners. This may at any time depend on certain individuals in each Department and that also could change with time. That worries me somewhat. I will not press the amendment but I hope that in five years' time we do not come across situations in which the fishery interests are trodden under foot and steamrolled because of big financial interests involved in a drainage scheme and that we regret that the Seanad did not put this amendment into the Bill and give the Minister for Fisheries some definite powers in this regard.
I want to repeat what I said. I am in full accord with what Senator West stated here, but I want to assure him that automatically there is written into any drainage scheme submitted to the Minister for Finance for approval a specific section relating to the rehabilitation of fisheries. This is an integral part of any such drainage scheme. This rehabilitation section of the drainage scheme incorporates aspects like restocking, the creation of specific fishery pools where others have to go, the replacement of spawning gravels, new spawning beds, where other spawning beds have to go and so on. That is now a matter of practice. That has been established for some years and it will continue. The Seanad can be assured that the matter in practice, is being looked after.
The Minister has been so co-operative all along in his handling of the amendments that I agree not to press the amendment, somewhat against my better judgment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 57 to 63, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 34A:
In page 57, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following new section:
64.—(1) The placing in or on, or in or on the water above, an oyster bed of any device or other thing which is used, or is intended for use, in the cultivation of oysters shall, for the purposes of section 245 of the Principal Act, be regarded as planting an oyster bed in a manner described in that section, and any licence under that section, whether granted before or after the passing of this Act, shall be construed and have effect in accordance with the foregoing.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not be construed as affecting the power conferred on the Minister for Tourism and Transport by section 10 of the Foreshore Act, 1933.
(3) Section 253 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (f):
"(g) without such consent removes, damages or otherwise interferes with any device or other thing which is placed in or on, or in or on the water above, such bed and is used in the cultivation of oysters."
(4) Section 256 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of "or above" before "the shore", and the said section 256, as so amended, is set out in paragraph 1 of the Table to this section.
(5) Section 261 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of "in such manner as he shall consider appropriate having had regard to the circumstances by reason of which the order's amendment is necessitated" for all the words from, "and all" to the end of the section, and the said section 261, as so amended, is set out in paragraph 2 of the Table to this section.
(6) Section 265 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):
"(bb) not being a grantee, the servant or agent of the grantee or grantees or being duly authorised as aforesaid, removes, damages or otherwise interferes with any device or other thing which is placed in, on or over such fishery and is used in the cultivation of oysters, or".
TABLE.
1. 256.—Subject to section 11 and to the provisions of this Chapter the Minister may make orders for the establishment or improvement and for the maintenance and regulation of an oyster fishery on or above the shore and bed of the sea or of an estuary or tidal river above or below or partly above and partly below low-water mark (which said shore and bed are in this Chapter referred to as the seashore), and including, if desirable, provisions for the constitution of a board or body corporate for the purpose of such order, on an application to the Minister by any person desirous of obtaining such an order.
2. 261.—The Minister may from time to time by order amend an oyster fishery order in such manner as he shall consider appropriate having had regard to the circumstances by reason of which the order's amendment is necessitated.
The difficulty here again arises from legal matters. There is some legal doubt as to whether some modern methods of oyster culture—I am thinking here of raft culture, for instance, and other similar methods used where oysters are reared off the floor or bed of the sea—are covered by licences issued under section 245 of the Principal Act. We are back to the legal area we touched on earlier. The purpose of subsection (1) is to remove this doubt and these licences will cease to be issued when section 51 comes into operation. Therefore, it will only affect licences current at that date. In subsection (2) the placing of structures on the foreshore is subject to licence by the Minister for Tourism and Transport. This subsection is necessary to maintain the requirement because of the amendment provided in subsection (1). Subsection (3) makes it an offence to interfere with the structures referred to in subsection (1) and is an effort to extend that subsection. Subsection (4) provides for an amendment to section 256 of the Principal Act under which oyster fishery orders are granted for the same purpose as in subsection (1).
On subsection (5), section 261 of the Principal Act empowers the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to amend oyster fishery orders and requires the same procedures—publication of notices, holding public inquiries and so on—as applies when an application for an order is considered initially. This procedure is unwieldy and unnecessary, especially when an order is being amended with the agreement of the holder of the order or where it is considered necessary to do so in the public interest.
Subsection (6) makes it an offence to interfere with the structures or devices which are covered by oyster fishery orders in accordance with subsection (4) and is an extension of that subsection.
What we have here is a clarification of the position regarding the whole area of oyster culture. The particular amendments are designed to tie down the Principal Act and to ensure that the position is clarified from the legal point of view.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 64 deleted.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 34B:
In page 57, between lines 53 and 54, to insert the following new section:
65.—Section 297 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsections for subsection (2):
"(2) (a) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, a warrant issued under this section shall operate to authorise the person to whom it is issued (and named therein) at any reasonable time or times within seven days of the issue of the warrant to—
(i) enter and search, if need be by force, the garden, dwellinghouse or curtilage thereof named in the warrant,
(ii) require any person found on such land to furnish to him his name and address,
(iii) require a person who is in occupation or is in control or is concerned in the management of such land to furnish to him his name and address,
and if the person so named has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been or is being committed under this Act with or in relation to anything found in the course of the search, the person may seize and detain that thing or anything else so found which appears to him to be something which might be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under this Act.
(b) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, a warrant issued under this section shall operate to enable any one or more of the following, namely, any member of the Garda Síochána, any officer of the Minister and, in case the warrant is issued to an officer of a regional board, any other person employed by that board to accompany and assist the person to whom the warrant is issued in the exercise of the powers thereby conferred on him.
(3) The powers conferred on a person named in a warrant issued under this section shall be exercisable by the person as regards a dwellinghouse only if, and only for so long as, he is accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána."
This is a new section proposing to amend section 297 of the Principal Act. It gives powers to District Justices to grant warrants to enter any enclosed garden, dwellinghouse and so on in order to enforce the fishery laws. Section 297 of the Principal Act made provision for the grant of the warrant but did not empower the holder to do other than enter the place where he suspected a breach of the Fisheries Acts was being committed. This again is touching on the point Senator Whitaker raised regarding the unfortunate Common Law and statutory limitations on the power of the State in this area. The warrant itself under the section of the Principal Act did not empower the holder to do anything other than enter the place where he suspected a breach of the Fisheries Act had been committed.
The section, as amended, spells out the power of search and seizure which goes to the holder of the warrant, and in entering a private dwelling the holder must be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána. This amendment will strengthen considerably the hand of the protection staff in locating poached fish. That is its main purpose. I do not want to go into too much detail but everybody is aware of the extent of unlicensed and illegal fishing that is causing severe damage in particular to our salmon stocks. We are convinced that one of the main ways in which this illegal fishing is being facilitated lies in the comparative ease with which such illegally caught fish can be disposed of. In this respect we have gone through this Bill with a fine comb to ensure that everything possible will be done in the Bill, as we have done in regulations already, to strengthen the hand of the protection staff and the Garda enforcement. Where poached fish are located in a deep freezer—which is an expanding outlet for illegally caught fish, and we know that there has been an increase in the number of such deep freezers around the country—we are seeking to give greater powers of actual search and seizure to the warrant holder, who heretofore could not do anything except go into the place and look around. Now we are giving him power to actually go in, search and seize. He will have power to enter, open a freezer, seize the salmon and depart, and is given the full protection of the law under this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 65 deleted.
Section 66 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Government amendment No. 34C:
In Part II, Article 5 (3), in page 61, to insert "(a)" before "Where" in line 54 and in page 62 to insert the following between lines 3 and 4:
"(b) Where a casual vacancy occurs amongst the elected members of the Board and the member occasioning the vacancy was elected at a poll of an electorate of a particular class specified in regulations under section 11 of this Act, the following provisions shall apply as regards the filling of the vacancy:
(i) in case there was only one unsuccessful candidate at the relevant election, the Board shall, subject to his agreement, co-opt the person who was such candidate,
(ii) in case there were two or more such candidates at such election, the board shall, subject to his agreement, co-opt the person who as such a candidate got the more or the most, as may be appropriate, votes at such election (and in case there is an equality of votes the matter shall be determined by lot), and
(iii) in case the requirements of the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph cannot be complied with the Board shall, subject to his agreement, co-opt either any other such candidate or a member of such electorate.".
This amendment is substituted for amendment No. 35. This is the article in the Schedule that relates to the filling of casual vacancies among the elected members of regional boards. As it is drafted, the Bill would enable a board to fill a casual vacancy amongst its elected members by co-opting any person. It is only right that if a person elected from a particular panel leaves a board, he should be replaced by a person representing a similar interest. The purpose of the amendment is to meet this particular point. As drafted, this part of the Schedule left it open for representatives from some other interests to be co-opted. I want to ensure that if there is a vacancy arising it will be filled by a person representing the same interests. The board under this amendment must appoint the first person on the panel of unsuccessful candidates in the last election. If there is no one on a particular panel a member of the electorate for the same panel or any other candidate may be appointed. In other words, we are ensuring that the panel representation is maintained.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
May I refer to the point I raised earlier about membership of the regional boards in regard to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I can see that the argument might not be as strong with regard to the central board, it having a closer relationship with the Minister, and perhaps it might not be as pertinent a point with regard to membership of the central board. May I have the Minister's views on this? The other point I raised is that if a person becomes nominated for election to either House of the Oireachtas he ceases to be a member of the central board. I think that is a bit harsh. If the Minister is going to retain the disqualifications provided for in section 2 of the same Schedule he should delete section 9 (1). I do not think it will add to a person's candidature that he can say that he is still currently a member. He will say he is a member if it is any use to him, and if he failed in the election and was a valuable member of the board, it would be a pity if he had gone from it.
On the first point, I agree with Senator Cooney that having regard to the local nature of regional boards it is harsh to exclude a Member of the Oireachtas. I am not sure the same consideration would apply to the central board which is concerned with national policy and is subject to the Minister. That might be undesirable.
On the nomination aspect, I will have a look at that between now and Report Stage. It is probably a bit harsh in a regional board context.
In regard to the second part of the Schedule, when the Minister looks at membership itself, a fortiori he might look at the nominations.
I will do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 65, Article 1 (h), lines 40 and 41, and in page 72, paragraph 7 of the Table to the Fourth Schedule, line 20, to delete "for a fishery district".
Article 1 (h) adapts the provision which lays down the format of ordinary fishing licences. As the Bill is drafted at present, the provision would relate to licences issued for a fishing district by a regional board only. This is an incorrect adaptation as the provision should apply to all ordinary fishing licences. I am introducing the amendment for that reason.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment Nos. 36A and 37A are related and may be taken together.
Government amendment No. 36A:
In page 66, Article 1 (u), line 58, to delete "‘region'" and substitute "‘fisheries region'" and in line 59, to delete "‘district'" and substitute "‘fishery district'".
This is due to an oversight in regard to adaptation from the Principal Act. It should be "fisheries region", not "fishery region".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 37A:
In page 67, Article 1 (v), line 2, to delete "‘region'" and substitute "‘fisheries region'" and in line 3, to delete "‘district'" and substitute "‘fishery district'".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are related and may be debated together.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 69, Article 1 (pp), line 26 to 29, to delete "‘or an officer of a regional board' for ‘, a conservators' water keeper or an inspector appointed by a board of conservators' " and substitute "‘a member of the Garda Síochána, an officer of the Minister or an officer of a regional board' for ‘an officer of the Minister, a conservators' water keeper or an inspector appointed by a board of conservators' ".
This is an omission in the Principal Act. Under section 298 of the Principal Act, as adopted in this Schedule, by Article 1, gardaí and officers of the Minister or of a regional board are empowered to board and examine the certificate of registry and the fishing engines of a fishing vessel. Section 298 (2) as adapted here also makes it an offence for the master of a fishing vessel to refuse to show the certificate of registry of his vessel to the officer of the Minister or of a regional board. Obviously it should be an offence also to refuse to show a certificate of registry to a garda as he is empowered to examine it. What we are doing here is bringing the Garda into the situation as well as the Minister's officer and the officer of the regional board, but the Garda have the same power of prosecution and enforcement as have the board officers or officers of the Minister. This amendment is to remedy an omission that existed in the Principal Act. The Garda for some reason were excluded in the Principal Act and we are rightly including them by this amendment so as to correct the omission.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 78, paragraph 36 of the Table to the Fourth Schedule, line 33, to insert "a member of the Garda Síochána," after "by".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Fourth Schedule, as amended, be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill."
This is a formidable piece of drafting and will make reading the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, nearly impossible. While I am aware that there are pressures on the Minister and the officers of his Department, I would nevertheless urge on him to consolidate the Fisheries Acts as soon as possible. They are obviously going to be in great demand by lawyers and others, and it would be of great assistance to everybody concerned with the subject if we could have a single Act into which all these amendments were incorporated. It would be extremely difficult now to read the fishery laws of the country having regard to the way they are being amended by this Schedule. I realise and appreciate that the amendments are inevitable, but it would be well nigh impossible to read the law and most confusing. That is my first point. What is the position if a person is refused a licence by the appropriate board? Is there any right of appeal to any other authority because he is refused a rod licence?
There is no specific right of appeal—but I presume there is a general right to go to the courts—in regard to the refusal by a board to grant a salmon rod licence or drift net licence application. They have to observe the criteria set out in the law in regard to any granting or refusing of an application. It would be a general legal right residing in anybody who was unjustly refused a licence to mandate the board to grant a licence if they acted illegally or if they did not observe the rules. There is no right of appeal to a minor court, as it were, from such a decision as I understand it.
This is not providing for trout licences. That is new, is it not?
That is true but we are not bringing in a licence provision as such in the case of trout and coarse sea angling under the voluntary system I mentioned for which there is provision in the legislation. The only licensing system that obtains is in regard to salmon and there is also a licence system in regard to shellfish cultivation.
Section 21 (1) of Part II, under the heading "Table", says:
It shall not be lawful for any person to fish for trout with rod and line in any scheduled trout waters situate in a fishery district unless—
(a) such person is the holder of a trout rod (general) licence for the time being in force, or
in certain exceptions, one of the exceptions being that of a juvenile licence.
These powers enable me to bring in such a licence if I want to, but, as of now, they are in suspension. An earlier section enables me to bring in a licensing provision by way of order. I make an order declaring the section to operate and then the licence situation can obtain. What I have done in the Bill is to provide on the basis of a voluntary contribution—what is written in the Bill is a voluntary register system. Section 80 of the Principal Act is an enabling section. Section 81 states that trout and trout rod licence shall be of three kinds and they are set out, as is the area of validity and so on. These licences are suspended, as it were, at present and I am not bringing in any such licensing scheme under this Bill. I am bringing in instead a voluntary registration system. By way of order I can invoke the sections of the Principal Act that provide for a trout licence system and in fact probably will do so if the time comes when it is appropriate to do so. It can only be brought in by me by way of order, instead of relying on the good sense of people to contribute voluntarily, to get on to the register of trout owners or coarse anglers or trout, coarse or sea fishermen. I am doing it on a voluntary basis rather than a compulsory basis, but I am empowered to do it on a compulsory basis on a licence system and I will bring it in by way of order which I must place before each House of the Oireachtas.
What would persuade the Minister to bring it in? Would it be failure by trout fishermen to register in their districts or would it be only when there was a demand coming through the boards from trout fishermen for a licensing system?
This is actually one of these situations where people became very emotive. People spoke about their traditional God-given rights to fish freely and so on. We never had a licensing system implemented for trout and coarse fish, as we did for salmon. The associations themselves were in favour of the licences. They saw the merit in collecting the revenue for the development of the trout fisheries and in particular the development of coarse fisheries. The relevant associations were strongly in favour and still are but when you got down to the nitty gritty of the public, there was a large public deputation. This is an area about which I feel very strongly. Goodwill is terribly important because we are not going to protect or develop our fisheries unless there is goodwill among our people. That is a fact. No amount of regulations or enforcement or penalties will ensure the protection or rehabilitation of fisheries unless there is goodwill on the ground.
As a gesture of goodwill I brought in this voluntary registration system. I can, if necessary, bring in the other system, of statutory authority to do so, and if—as I hope, will happen—there is a realisation of the importance of our inland fisheries. People will see the need to finance their rehabilitation, to finance spawning bed development, to finance clearance, to finance factories, to do all the multifarious things that are required to develop our fisheries. The system of statutory authority will be appreciated when it is seen that any such funds will go solely towards fisheries administration. I want to emphasise that. The levy that is introduced here, the salmon rod licence fee, the salmon dealers' licence fee, all the various ways of collecting revenue, will go direct towards the financing of the administration envisaged by this Bill. I hope that all anglers will see the wisdom of making a contribution towards this. I should like to do it in stages, first on a voluntary basis and I hope, when people see where their money is going, the climate will be created in which I can, by way of order, bring in the licence system across the board. That is my present thinking on the matter.
I accept entirely what the Minister has said. I would urge him to wait until anglers come around to that frame of mind; should they fail to do so, or should the Minister be disappointed by the number that might do so, I would still urge him not to bring in a licensing system.
I agree with Senator Cooney that such a system can only be brought in when there is substantial goodwill towards the introduction of the Bill. If that is the Senator's point, I agree with it.
That is it.
Question put and agreed to.
FIFTH SCHEDULE.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 are related and may be debated together.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 81, Article 1 (b), lines 24 to 28, to delete all the words from "representations and objections as regards" to the end of the paragraph inclusive and substitute the following:
"notice of representations or objections as regards the proposed authorisation or acquisition order, as the case may be, may be given in writing to the Minister during the said period (which notices are hereby authorised to be so given),".
This amendment is designed to deal with the rights of objectors to be present at the hearing concerning the acquisition of fisheries, or of access rights-of-way to fisheries, or portions of rivers or lakes contiguous to fresh water weir fisheries. This right is proposed to be given to anyone who has given notice of objection to the Minister. The objector is given the right to be heard in any such inquiry concerning the acquisition of fisheries or the acquisition of access to fisheries. This was omitted from the Bill but is a basic right that should be included.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 82, Article 5, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following new paragraph after paragraph (c):
"(d) any person by whom a notice has been duly given in relation to the application pursuant to Article 1 (b) of this Schedule,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 85, Article 11 (1), lines 7 and 8, to delete "any representation or objection was made" and substitute "a notice in relation to the authorisation has been duly given".
Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4 April 1979.