Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1980

Vol. 93 No. 11

Fisheries Bill, 1979 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 75, it is deemed to have passed First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purport of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, that may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil.

For the convenience of Senators. I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of a list of the amendments made by the Dáil. As Members are aware, they may speak only once.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

This Bill had its origins in the Seanad and all the spadework has been done by my predecessor, Deputy Brian Lenihan. I am pleased to make my debut in the Seanad to complete the good work that he started.

The Fisheries Bill, 1979, was passed recently by Dáil Éireann. During its passage through the Dáil 92 amendments as shown on the list accompanying the green print of the Bill were agreed to. Most of the amendments were introduced as a result of views expressed by Deputies during the course of debate or following the receipt of submissions about the Bill from interested organisations. The purport of these amendments is as follows:

Amendments Nos. 1 and 57 are amendments to the Foyle Fisheries Acts and have the effect of enabling authorised persons to lie in wait for possible poachers on the banks of rivers. Heretofore authorised persons had power only to enter and pass along the banks of rivers and the Foyle Acts were successfully challenged in this area in recent times. It is necessary therefore to amend the Acts to rectify this omission.

The Fisheries Bill, 1979, as passed by this House contained the usual provisions covering the disqualification of Members of the Oireachtas from membership of or employment by the central or regional boards. It is necessary to apply a similar disqualification to members of the European Parliament, and that is the purport of amendments Nos. 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 61, 63, and 65.

It has been decided to define a strokehaul because lack of a definition has raised problems in court from time to time resulting in failure to secure convictions and that is the purport of amendment No. 5.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 will enable the central board to continue the important research on certain species of sea fish which is being carried on at present by the Inland Fisheries Trust.

There was not provision in all cases for the repeal or amendment of orders made under the Bill and this has now been provided for in amendments Nos. 7, 16, 22, 37 and 38.

The Bill as passed by this House stipulated that the Principal Act was repealed to the extent specified in the First Schedule to the Bill. The date of effect of the repeal as the Bill then stood was the date of enactment of the Bill, but this required to be altered to the appointed day so as to continue the present arrangements until the new boards are established. There are, however, two specific provisions in the First Schedule which require to be brought into effect on the date of enactment of the Bill and amendment No. 8 regularises the position.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 17 provide for the preparation and submission of development programmes within two years of the setting up of the new boards and of subsequent programmes at least once in every five years. Originally preparation and submission of yearly programmes were envisaged but it was decided, in deference to views expressed in the Dáil, to provide for more flexible longer term planning. Budgets will be submitted annually.

The central board are enabled pursuant to amendment No. 10 to charge fees for promotional services. It was already empowered to charge fees for services covering the management, conservation, protection, development and improvement of fisheries.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 71 are textual amendments arising out of the necessity to refer specifically to Rosnalee Weir which is an adjunct to Mallow Hatchery.

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are technical amendments making it clear that the indictable provision contained in section 46 of the Bill is in addition to and not in substitution for the provision contained in section 309(1) of the Principal Act which provides for summary hearing of any fishery offence.

Under existing legislation it is necessary, when a foreign sea-fishing boat is being charged with an infringement of fishery legislation, to obtain certificates from each of the twelve registrars of ships around our coast to the effect that the vessel in question is not registered as an Irish sea-fishing boat. The procedure involved in complying with this requirement is tedious and the resultant delay often causes problems for the State. The purport of amendment No. 25 is to eliminate the need for the production of such certificates.

Amendment No. 26 includes "any other person" in the categories of people who may prosecute fishery offences in the District Court.

Section 50 of the Bill as passed by this House provided for the revision of certain penalties under the Principal Act and the Act of 1962. There was provision for the payment of a fine of £500 plus £50 for each salmon and £5 for each other fish involved, in respect of offences against certain sections. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 increase the fine for each "other fish" from £5 to £10.

Section 51 as passed by this House contained provisions for disqualification for three years of a person from holding a commercial fishing licence on conviction of a third fishery offence of a prescribed character. Amendment No. 30 has the effect of disqualifying a person following conviction for a second offence of a prescribed character.

Amendment No. 31 provides for the payment of part of fines imposed by a court, as compensation in respect of loss or damage incurred in connection with interference with or trespass on an aquaculture installation.

The power of authorised officers to take a boat to port is now related to a boat believed to contain illegally caught fish as distinct from illegally caught salmon. Amendment No. 32 will strengthen the power of authorised officers in combating illegal fishing for all species of fish.

The reference to the use of firearms in exercising the power to take a boat to port has been removed by amendment No. 33. The section still empowers an authorised officer to use such force as is necessary.

Section 53 of the Bill as passed by this House contained several references to "an authorised person or persons". These should have read "an authorised officer or officers" as these are the descriptions used in the Principal Act. This is the purport of amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36.

Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 42 and 45 enable the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to grant a licence without fee to engage in aquaculture to persons who are at present lawfully so engaged. There is provision for appeal to the arbitrator concerning the refusal or grant of such a licence. These amendments were introduced in deference to representations made by persons holding oyster beds under old charters.

Section 54 of the Bill as passed by this House provided for a fine of £500 on summary conviction and £2,000 on conviction on indictment for trespass or interference with a fish farm. In deference to representation made by fish farmers amendments Nos. 43 and 44 were introduced in the Dáil, the effect of which is to provide for jail sentences as well as fines in both summary and indictable cases involving trespass or interference with fish farms.

The Bill as passed by this House did not empower the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to demand from persons paying the first sales levy information other than weight of fish handled and price paid. The obligation to record additional information could be important, and amendment No. 48 provides for this.

Amendment No. 49 provides for the prohibition by order of the sale of certain kinds of fish or rod caught fish. This would enable the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to implement proposals to ban the sale of rod caught salmon after the closing of the commercial fishing season or to introduce a complete ban on the sale of sea trout. Such proposals are under consideration at present.

Amendment No. 50 provides for the prohibition by order of the sale of certain types of net. This will help to stop at source dealings in monofilament nets, the use of which in salmon fishing is illegal.

Section 59 of the Bill as passed by this House entitled anyone who is registered in the Register of Trout, Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers to fish in any fisheries owned or occupied by the regional board by whom the register is maintained or in any central board fisheries.

Amendment No. 51 has the effect of empowering the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, the Commissioners of Public Works or the Land Commissioners to exclude from the provisions of section 59 any fisheries which will be transferred to the central board by either the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, the Office of Public Works or the Land Commission. Any fisheries acquired direct by the central board may also be excluded from these provisions.

Amendment No. 52 deletes subsection (4) of section 20 of the Principal Act from the repeals listed in the First Schedule to the Bill and substitutes instead a new subsection (4) which enables the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to define the boundaries of the fishery districts at sea.

The Bill as passed by this House provided that a warrant issued under section 297 of the Principal Act allowed an authorised person to enter and search a particular garden, dwelling-house or curtilage. It was considered desirable that an extension of these powers was necessary so as to allow any structure or building in such a garden or curtilage to be entered and searched also. Amendment No. 54 provides for this.

Subsection (3) of section 19 of the 1962 Act specifies that a certificate under the hand of a registrar of ships in the State that a boat specified in the certificate is not registered as an Irish sea-fishing boat shall be conclusive evidence that the boat is not so registered. The Attorney General has stated that the word "conclusive" in this context could be held to be unconstitutional and he has advised that the word "sufficient" should be substituted. Amendment No. 56 provides accordingly.

The purpose of amendment No. 58 is to ensure that where any sections of the Principal Act, which are extended to the Moville Area, are amended in this Bill, the amendments will also extend to the Moville Area. The Moville Area is the portion of this country which forms part of Foyle Area, which Area is administered by the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

In regard to amendments Nos. 62 and 64, the number of members to be appointed to the central board by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry is being increased from "four" to "not less than four or more than six". This is to enable the Minister to ensure that all interests are represented on that board.

Amendments Nos. 66 and 69 deal with representation at central board meetings. Regional boards are empowered to nominate a substitute to attend meetings of the central board in any case where the chairman of a regional board is incapable through ill-health of effectively performing his duties as a member of the central board. This will ensure that every regional board can at all times be represented at central board meetings.

Amendment No. 68 empowers the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service to pay an allowance to the chairmen of the regional boards. The attention of my predecessor was drawn to the fact that the chairmen of the regional boards would have to devote a considerable amount of time to dealing with the affairs of their own boards and that in addition they would have to attend meetings of the central board. The point was made that they should therefore be paid an allowance and this is accepted.

The expressions "coarse fish" and "consequential disqualification order" had not hitherto been used in Fisheries legislation and they are not therefore defined in the Principal Act or in the Act of 1962. As these expressions are used in this Bill they must therefore be defined and amendment No. 72 provides accordingly.

The wording in the adaptation of the licensing provisions in the Principal Act to enable regional boards to issue licences was defective in some minor respects. Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75, 84 and 85 remedy the position.

It is provided under amendment No. 76 that officers of the central board may be appointed as authorised persons under the Fisheries Acts. This will enable these officers to carry out protection duties if required.

The powers of staffs of regional boards who are authorised officers were limited to their own regions but amendment No. 78 provides for the exercise by such officers of their powers in any other fisheries region provided the regional board of that region so agrees. This will facilitate the drafting of protection staff into any additional region where the prevailing circumstances may require such action to be taken.

Amendments Nos. 79 and 86 provide that authorised persons may lie in wait for poachers on the banks of any lakes or rivers, frequented by any species of fish. This will aid protection officers in combating poaching.

Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83 include fyke nets for eels in the list of scheduled engines set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Principal Act and fixes the licence duty therefor. Until recently fyke nets were used primarily for experimental purposes but their use as a commercial fishing engine is becoming common and the number of applications in my Department for authorisations to use such nets for commercial purposes is on the increase. Consequently the time has come to designate this type of net as a commercial engine and thereby entitle the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to fix the licence duty in the same way as in the case of other scheduled engines. At present the licence duty for fyke nets is fixed by the relevant Board of Conservators with the approval of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.

Section 301 (2) of the Principal Act sets out the powers of search, inspection and examination held by authorised officers in connection with their investigations in regard to fish suspected of having been illegally caught. The section is defective in that the authorised officer is not empowered to search the various business premises listed in the section. Amendments Nos. 80 and 88 remedy the defect.

Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 provide that when the owner of a fishery proposed to be acquired by the central board cannot be found, the fishery may be acquired notwithstanding the fact that such owner has not been found or ascertained. It was considered desirable that such a provision should be included in the Bill.

A number of amendments of a purely technical nature were also introduced during the course of the passage of the Bill through the Dáil. I understand that this Bill was debated very constructively by the Members of this House and as a result was substantially improved before its introduction to the Dáil. The final form of the Bill as Senators see it today is I hope a true reflection of the wishes of the two Houses and, in fact, of all people interested in fisheries, and Senators are to be thanked for their contributions towards this end.

I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry. I am sure all the Senators on this side of the House wish him well and the best of luck. We welcome these amendments. I certainly feel they will be of great benefit to the Act. We hope that the new board will get on to the ground as quickly as possible.

I am delighted to see in amendments Nos. 62 and 64 that the Minister is prepared to ensure that the people who are interested in fishing will get representation on the board. The main thing is the preservation of fish stock, particularly of salmon. I agree that the penalties are very heavy in amendments Nos. 28 and 29. Are they heavy enough to ensure that the stocks will be preserved?

I would like to join with Senator Reynolds in welcoming the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry. I am one of the Members of this House very interested in the amendments to this Bill. It is very important. We have a new Minister. My assessment of him is that his approach to any business is a positive one. That is the only approach we can have to this Fisheries Bill with any hope of making a positive response. That is very basically essential to make any progress.

The amendments are a clear indication that the Bill has received wide consideration. It is essential after the Bill is passed that there be proper follow-up. There are special difficulties as to the enforcement of the Bill. I will not go into all of them. The region has a special problem, and that adds to the difficulty of implementing this Bill. I would hope that due consideration will be given to that aspect of the problem.

I would like to refer briefly to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 9 and 17 provide for the preparation and submission of the development programme. That is essential. If they are seen to have that kind of input and interest they will get the proper response. The Foyle Fisheries have been left hanging on a survival principle far too long. This has resulted in poor results. We hope that tomorrow will bring some solution and that we can deal more easily with the problem. I am glad to know that the Minister has the courage to provide for a development programme. That indicates a healthy, positive approach. I am very pleased to see it.

Amendment No. 29, which was referred to by Senator Reynolds, provides for the payment of fines of £500 plus £50 for each salmon caught. Is it a sufficient deterrent? While nobody can have the perfect answer I am all for having it stated absolutely that the Government will discourage poaching on the River Foyle. The consequences are disastrous if it is not stopped. Are the penalties provided under this section sufficient? We have also to take into consideration that we have two very substantial rivers leading off the Foyle, the Mourne and the Finnel. The price of allowing poachers to continue here is too high to pay. I ask that a very close watch be kept on the number of people who are caught, the number fined and back in business. When we consider the price of salmon £500 is not a serious fine. A person might get £500 in a couple of hours in one night if he was lucky enough. If he paid his fine he might not be caught the next night. We have got to be practical about this thing. Five hundred pounds is not a serious amount.

Amendment No. 33 removes the use of firearms in taking a boat to port, and I welcome that very much. I admit that I was unaware that such powers existed in the Foyle Fisheries Act. I welcome its removal, because firearms have been used. We are on a very dangerous road if in fact we have a State where the Garda have to use firearms. If any section of the people who enforce the law are empowered to carry arms to enforce the law, that would be contrary to the whole principle of maintaining law and order within the the State. It makes it easier for people to come out clearly and speak against those who are poaching.

Everybody is involved in the preservation of our fisheries. It is a major interest, not a sectional interest at all. I am glad to see that the firearms provision is removed. I would like to see this getting as much publicity as possible. Therefore, having removed that provision the State will now be able to prosecute those who are found on boats with firearms. I am very pleased with that provision.

Amendment No. 49, which prohibits the sale of certain kinds of fish whether caught by rod or caught by net, is a very good provision. I welcome that.

Amendment No. 50 prohibits the offer for sale of certain types of nets.

It might be easier to legislate than to implement the legislation, because we have to recognise that we are dealing with the water that is the border line between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six Counties. That presents a very special problem in so far as it is not too difficult to buy a net on one side of the Border and evade the provisions that are intended under section 50. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the special problem that he has under this section.

I would also like to refer to amendment No. 52 which enables the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to define the boundaries of fishery districts at sea. This presents a special problem in so far as where the Foyle enters the sea has been a source of trouble for quite a long time. I hope that the Minister is aware of the difficulties that face him in the implementation of this legislation here and faces the Foyle Fishery Commission, and that special care is taken to make sure that we implement legislation as it is intended here.

Amendments Nos. 62 and 64 enable the Minister to widen the number of people acting on the board, to not fewer than four and not more than six; so that all interests will be covered on the board. That is a very welcome development in so far as that the special interests and problems of the area call for fairly wide representation to be on any board that will get full and proper support to enable them to be effective.

Amendments Nos. 79 and 86 provide that authorised persons may lie in wait for poachers on the banks of lakes and rivers. In this case it is very difficult to implement because we have had a tradition here in this area in that people have been poaching and they have nearly felt it was patriotic to poach because they were challenging the divided authority. It is a special problem. It is one of the areas about which it will be easier to get the legislation passed than to act on it on the ground.

I can assure the House and the Minister that he will have the maximum support in the introduction and implementation of this legislation. Any of us who are seriously interested in the improvement and preservation of our fisheries can only have that attitude. I only hope that the Bill will be successful in bringing about improved control of the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

There is a special problem again in so far as the Foyle Fisheries Commission fish themselves. This is always put forward as an excuse by those who are poaching to say that the Foyle Fisheries Commission are counting fish and checking on fish, but they have a fishery business. This will be one of the problems that the Minister and his new board should look at. I certainly welcome this. The Minister's speech goes further in explaining the amendments and is very useful to me. I am very happy with the Bill. I am delighted that it is coming in, and I wish the Minister success in its implementation and guarantee him maximum support.

I would also like to refer to amendments Nos. 1 and 57 and support what Senator McGowan has said concerning the relevance of these amendments to the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the problems that arise in relation to declining salmon stocks. Senator McGowan lives in the area and he knows the situation. Every Member of the House should know the situation concerning the Foyle Fisheries Commission, the need for tightening up the regulations and legislation as is done in these amendments because the annual reports which are laid before the House have shown how the salmon stocks have declined drastically over the last 15 years.

Unless we are prepared not only to put teeth in our legislation, but when we have got that legislation on the Statute Book to enforce it, then the fate of the salmon, the Foyle Fisheries and the many other fisheries which this Bill refers to will be gloomy indeed. I welcome any amendments such as Nos. 1 and 57 to tighten up the regulations regarding the Foyle Fisheries enabling authorised persons to lie in wait and to catch poachers. The Minister has to be encouraged to put the legislation into effect when it becomes statutory.

Ba mhaith liomsa fáilte a chur roimh an Aire nua; go n'éirí leis.

On this Stage I just want to make a comment on section 54 which bears the benefit of a whole range of amendments, Nos. 39 to 45. These amendments now put the section in a very satisfactory state as far as those engaged in the business of aquaculture are concerned. I would like to thank the Minister and his predecessor for what they have done in that context. They have made it much more secure for people of enterprise to invest their money and carry on this business. Any person who now interferes with anything being done pursuant to an aquaculture licence is guilty of an offence punishable by the stronger penalties now provided for. I had been worried when the Bill was before the Seanad that, without that, the common law provision about larceny might be very defective in relation to fish, which if they were still swimming about even in sea cages might possibly have been regarded as wild animals whom nobody could steal. This section makes the position much more secure. In any case I have since got better advice about the common law, which is that if these wild animals are reclaimed and are put in confinement in a sea cage, they are then deemed to be in the possession of their owner and the normal rules as to larceny apply. I commend these amendments and the other amendments in the Bill. I have a further short comment to make which, since it centres on the administration of the Bill and the Lough Sheelin position, is appropriate to the Fifth Stage.

I would like to welcome the Minister and wish him well. I support what Senator Whitaker said about the amendments 39 to 45 in relation to aquaculture. We raised it in the House as the Bill left us, and it has been improved substantially and given protection to those who were trying to develop a new form of technology which we badly need.

I would like to thank Senator Reynolds and the other Members who gave me their good wishes here in my post, and I am very pleased to see that most of the people who spoke here are as concerned as we are about conservation and that salmon is particularly in their thoughts.

Senator Reynolds and Senator Maloney asked if the penalties were heavy enough. I hope they are, and if they are not we will increase them; we have the power to do that. We have a climate of opinion at large today with regard to conservation, that demands conservation and I get the impression that we will all work towards that end. When I ask for the co-operation of the Members of the House in relation to conservation, I wish to co-operate with them too, and will not be found wanting in introducing any measures which they suggest that would improve the situation.

Senator McGowen complimented amendments 9 and 17 which deal with development programmes with the boards. These will be good; they will set out the development programmes and we can compare notes with different regions and come up with possibly the best solutions, and one region can learn from another.

Senator McGowan was very concerned with regard to poaching on the River Foyle. My intention is to show no mercy to poachers. Decent law abiding people will find this Bill encouraging. It will be conclusive to keeping the law, and I hope that those who are tempted to break the law will find it discouraging. We will continue to discourage them. We do not propose to use firearms, as can be seen in the amendment, but we have the authority to use such force as is necessary. Senator McGowan brought to my notice the peculiar problem in the Foyle, being an area of dual jurisdiction. We have representatives from our Department in the Foyle Fisheries Commission. We are aware of the problem, and I will endeavour to meet my Northern counterparts to discuss all aspects of our joint problem. Poaching under the guise of pseudo-patriotism will find no place in our fishery programme.

Senator West re-echoed the fears about the salmon. Táim buíoch leis an Seanactóir Whitaker as ucht an fáilte a thug sé liom. His reference to aquaculture is necessary. It is a new departure and very important, with great possibilities, and there is a certain amount of insecurity among promoters. I hope the Bill will help to dispel that. The Senator mentioned that some people might look upon wild fish in cages as fair game. I remember something similar happened to domestic ducks that strayed more than 100 yards from the house at home and they were shot. I hope that will not happen to the fish in the cages. I thank Senator Mulcahy for his kind remarks.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I want to raise on the Final Stage the very serious problem in Lough Sheelin, and I want to ask the Minister if he really feels that the legislation which we are now discussing and which we hope will shortly become law is sufficient and has enough teeth to deal with it. I was particularly pleased that, within the past few days, the Minister visited the troubled areas and has seen the tragic situation for himself—and tragic is the word—which has occurred there. Very briefly the problem is a problem of growth and algae on the surface which is now practically covering one of our most famous lakes. The optimists say that instant, swift and stern action may save the lake and bring it back to its position as one of the great fishing lakes of Europe. I am not in a position to make a judgment but I do know, and I think the Minister will agree with me, that the problem has been caused by slurry disposal in the region around the lake and I want to know whether the legislation we have is sufficiently strong to deal with this problem. It is not a question of doubt in this case. A scientific study has been made covering Lough Sheelin and its surrounding areas and without any doubt it has attributed the present crisis, the eutrophication problem, the growth of algae on the surface of the lake so that it practically covers the whole surface, to the dumping of slurry which has occurred since 1971. Its occurrence is mainly due to intensive pig production in the surrounding counties and the dumping of slurry from intensive pig farming and, to a certain extent, from intensive cattle farming in the area. The problem was considered by the Agricultural Institute and they recommended that storage facilities should be provided to hold slurry produce in the period September to April and that the slurry should only be disposed of by land spreading at specific loadings during the remaining period. These recommendations have been followed by some of the producers in the area but unfortunately not by all and the situation has deteriorated. I would like to quote one paragraph from the report of the scientific study by Mr. Trevor Champ.

Tá sé tar éis a hocht a chlog anois. Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach cad is mion leis an Seanad a dhéanamh.

If the Bill could be concluded in another ten minutes perhaps Senator West would allow us to infringe on the time for his motion on the Adjournment.

I was going to propose extending the sitting by ten minutes to 8.40 p.m. I will only speak for another two or three minutes on this Bill.

It is agreed to extend the sitting for ten minutes.

I quote from the report by Mr. Trevor Champ:

Because of increased turbidity, sunlight has been cut off from the rooted vegetation in relatively deep areas of the lake. These plants which provided food and shelter for a big number of organisms important in the diet of trout, are now confined to shallower zones. Emerging insects indicative of clean water conditions, which were widespread in the lake prior to 1971, are now confined to a specific area....

The extra load imposed on the lake by the introduction of intensive pig fattening (and to a lesser extent cattle production) must be reduced. Since repeated recourse must be had to disposal (little more than dumping) of slurry during the winter months, it is evident that controlled land spreading during the growing season is not a workable proposition in the Sheelin area. This method of slurry disposal must cease and some alternative means be introduced forthwith.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. I want to ask the Minister if the Bill before us can deal with this problem and if the Minister intends, instantly, to take the strongest possible action so that one of the lakes which was justly known as one of the great brown trout fishing lakes of Europe can be restored, even at this very late stage, to its former glory.

This Bill, which sets up new structures for the preservation and development of our inland fisheries, is now happily on the point of beng enacted. But no one knows better than the new Minister that the potential of this legislation will not be realised unless there is continuous and effective coordination of effort to this end. The whole range of powers to deal with any particular situation does not lie in the hands of the boards, whether central or regional, or even in the hands of the Minister himself. Lough Sheelin is a case in point. It is a lake I have known and loved for many a year. The Minister visited it recently and saw for himself its present deplorable condition. The coordination and co-operation needed to deal with this urgent problem, which is essentially one of slurry disposal, as Senator West has just said, extends to the local farming interests, to the local authorities, to the Department of the Environment, to the Department of Agriculture and possibly other agencies. Unless they can all be brought to appreciate the vital need to preserve an invaluable national asset and to co-operate fully in the measures necessary to achieve this, then we face disaster. Success or failure in the particular case of Lough Sheelin is for me the critical test of the effectiveness of this legislation. Indeed it will determine not only whether the legislation itself is worth while, but whether, as far as inland fisheries are concerned, is it worth while having a Department of Fisheries. I very much hope that the Minister and his Department will successfully pass this test and earn our congratulations.

I would like to thank Senators West and Whitaker for their remarks about Lough Sheelin. I can say that there is constructive effort and coordination in the Cabinet. We have the desire and the will and the intent to deal with the problem of Lough Sheelin. I am well aware of the pollution problem in it. I saw it for myself. But I would not like it to be felt that others were not aware of it and were not working on it before I went there last Monday.

Since November last a technical subcommittee made up of representatives of the Department of Agriculture, the Inland Fisheries Trust and An Foras Talúntais have been actively considering a practical solution to the problem. This sub-committee have contacted the four county councils that border the lake and they are examining the possibility of transporting the slurry out of the catchment area around the lake and using it as a fertiliser on other farms. They are also deciding if it would be possible to treat the slurry to render it less harmful. There is a certain amount of scientific research going on as a long-term policy. They are also looking into whey production, because the whey being fed to pigs is aggravating the problem. On 14 January the county agricultural officers in the areas concerned were asked to complete a list of farmers prepared to take the slurry. They were asked for other technical advice. In February technical advice was asked, too, with regard to the processing of slurry and the possibility of EEC funding of this as a long-term view. The present position is that Meath, Westmeath and Longford County Councils have pledged their co-operation in alleviating the problem, but they have not as yet come up with any ideas of their own. Cavan County Council have not been very co-operative to date, but I hope that we will get a certain amount of co-operation from them now.

In regard to the two possible solutions mentioned, the transportation of slurry from the catchment area, and the treatment of slurry at a centralised depot, the following is the position: we are awaiting now a list of farmers who are willing to take the slurry and there is an assessment being done on the quality of that slurry. When that is available each farmer's eligibility for grant aid for storage facilities under the farm development service will have to be examined and the setting up of a distribution system in consultation with the producers and the recipients and the advisory staff will have to be tackled. The possibility of treatment will have to be studied more carefully when we have the scientific findings from the people we have asked for them, in January and February.

Let me say in conclusion that we are committed to seeing that Sheelin does not die. We want everybody's help at this stage. I am asked if we have the teeth to do it; I think we have, but we need co-operation too. We want co-operation and goodwill from all sections, and I feel that the Members here in the Seanad will use their undoubted influence to attain this goal, to which we all aspire. It may only concern a small corner of Ireland but it is a well known and important corner. If it is Sheelin's position to be in danger today, next year or during the year it could very well be some other area. We must all help to keep Ireland clean.

Senator Whitaker looked upon Lough Sheelin as a test case. We are prepared to accept it as a test case, and I am confident that we will not be found wanting in that test.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share