Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 18 Dec 1987

Vol. 118 No. 3

Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mooney

On the issue of riparian rights, I would like to refer the Minister to what Deputy Haughey, as Minister for Agriculture, said in the Dáil on 28 April 1966 at column 1010:

Riparian owners and their families are also exempt. That was the attitude of mind in which we put forward this proposal. It was not to deprive the people of rights they have had for hundreds of years ... The fishing of the waters will still be free.

Can the Minister indicate to me why it is that the question of riparian rights has now been eliminated or seems to be eliminated from the Bill? It is a word I was not even aware of until today but, for the benefit of the House, what that means is that if the Bill passes the people who own the banks of the rivers or the banks of the lakes on which inland coarse fishing takes place will now have to apply for and will need to have in their possession a specific licence in order to fish what is, essentially, their own property.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. P. Gallagher)

We are not deviating at all from the regulations that are there as far as families are concerned. If we deviate from that now we are discriminating between one who has riparian rights and one who has not, providing that one who has riparian rights could be exempt from having a licence for trout and coarse fish but must pay for salmon. That is the case. There is a licence for salmon. There will be a licence for the use of waters and after that those who own their own land can fish there and can issue a permit to others to do that if they wish. It is up to each angling association. It is a question of permits from the angling associations as well but this is a general national licence which we are introducing and that is all we can do. We cannot, and have no intention of introducing any statutory regulations which would impose a burden on the angling associations. If they run their fisheries and assist in restocking they, then have the right to consider permits. There may be a little ambiguity in regard to permits and riparian rights but that is the general intent.

Mr. Mooney

I must have misunderstood the Minister. Section 2 (h) refers to "the deletion of the definitions of ... trout rod (riparian owner) ...". It is the only reference in the Bill to riparian owners. I am not talking about salmon fishing. I am talking about inland coarse fishing, about trout and pike and perch and all the other coarse fish that would be of particular interest in the area from which I come. Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister but that is what I wanted clarification on. It is the only reference in the Bill and it suggests to me, as a layman, that the owner of the banks along which there are lakes will now have to apply for a licence to fish what is essentially his own land.

Mr. P. Gallagher

These are sections which would refer to postponed sections of the original Act, and they are being repealed.

Mr. Mooney

So what the Minister is in effect saying is that the people who own the banks of lakes or on whose property there are fishing lakes will now have to apply for a licence, that is, in the context of the Bill, everybody who is over 18 or under 66.

Mr. P. Gallagher

That is precisely it.

Mr. McCormack

On section 2 I ask the Minister to refer back to my earlier request in regard to the £21 licence for 21 days versus £25 for 365 days. My interpretation of it is that for administrative purposes and for every other purpose it would appear logical that the £21 annual fee would be universal for both types.

Mr. P. Gallagher

The position at the moment is that countrywide the average fee is £17. It can go as low as £8 but the average is £17. The £21 was introduced specifically with a view to tourists, and the £25 was taken in with a view to many people in this country who want to fish more than 21 days. There has to be a differential and we decided that if it would be £21 for the full year there would be a case to be made for reducing that to £17 or £16 for the 21 days. Let me allay the Senator's fears by saying that this will not create any administrative difficulties. Rather, I would say that £4 is cheap for the additional 344 days. That would be my interpretation. This was raised in the Dáil as well and was accepted.

Mr. G. Reynolds

Having listened to my colleague, Senator Mooney, in regard to landowners having to pay for a licence, they must pay for a licence if they want to fish off their own lands under section 2 (h) of the Bill. I have not put in an amendment, but I wonder if the Minister would use his good offices to delete that part of the section. Possibly there are not many landowners who will want to fish but I think it should be deleted.

Mr. P. Gallagher

While the impression might have been given that these meant something, in fact they never meant anything. Even those in relation to salmon are in that position. A later section, section 22, refers to that if the Senator wants me to elaborate on it. It may make it more clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McCormack

Section 4 provides for fines on summary conviction not exceeding £500 and fines not exceeding £2,000, at the discretion of the court. In addition to the fees taken in from fishing licences, will the money taken in from fines also be ploughed back through the central and regional fisheries boards to the inland fisheries? The Minister indicated in his reply to the debate that the Estimate for the Department was cut back by £1 million. It appears from that as if the budget would be reduced. It is estimated that the amount taken in will be £500,000. I anticipate that it will be more. The Minister said that if it is more it will also be used for the same purposes. If the amount taken in, through fines and licences, exceeds £1 million — the amount that was cut back from the Estimates — would it still be used for the development of fisheries through the fisheries boards and the inland fisheries? Over the last six years the central and regional board budget allocation was, respectively, approximately £5 million, £5 million, £5.2 million, £4.8 million, £5.4 million, £5.7 million and £5.7 million. If we lose £1 million of that straight away, how can we provide the extra services referred to by the Minister when we get back £500,000 of the £1 million we are using? The services provided this year were bad but would they not be worse next year in such circumstances?

Mr. P. Gallagher

The answer to the first question in relation to the fines is that it is not the Department of the Marine who will take the case. It will be the regional board and the fines will go back to the regional board. It will obviously supplement the fees. There is nothing in the Act to suggest that anything in excess of £500, or £1 million, as the case may be, would not go to the board. Any such suggestion would have to be included specifically. All of the licensing fees together with the fines go to the boards. I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the Exchequer grants to fisheries and boards from 1983 to 1987, respectively, were as follows: £4.515 million, £4.100 million, £4.7775 million, £5.017 million and £4.813 million. The total for those years was £23.230 million which is a substantial contribution and investment by the State.

I would like to be more conservative than Senator McCormack. The figure we have budgeted for is realistic. If it is more than £1 million, the excess, too, will go to fisheries. I should be very pleased if the Senator is not disappointed in his optimism.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister indicated that there has been an average budget of approximately £5 million, or slightly more, for the five or six years to which he referred. We can all talk about putting fish back into the rivers and improving the situation for the home or tourist angler or any other type of foreign angler but we cannot do that with a budget reduced by £1 million, which we are hoping will be made up by way of £500,000 in the coming year. We will be talking about a real budget of £500,000 less next year. We cannot put the fish back into the river for any type of angler, on that type of a budget. The Minister has made a great case here this evening, and he has impressed me, as regards the justification for the licence fees but that in itself is not good enough. I would be very impressed if he made the case that this amount of money would be spent on regional boards and on inland fisheries if the budget was even the same as last year, or if this was extra expenditure over and above the budget of last year. It is like the case of the local authority charges. When we introduced charges at local authority level we found that, instead of being thanked for doing so, our budget was cut further the following year, and further again the following year, this year and every other year since local charges came in. Are we in danger of the same thing happening if the target in this respect be exceeded next year? Will whatever Minister for Finance is there say "now we can safely take £2 million off the fisheries budget next year?" That is the real danger I see in this.

Mr. P. Gallagher

I will answer that question. I have given a categoric assurance. I can only speak while I am in office and I can speak for the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry, who will be there next year. I would be delighted if we could exceed £1 million and go to £2 million. It would certainly alleviate many of the problems. Senator McCormack initially had been very helpful to me in making the point but the fact of my being delighted with his optimism should be no reason to try to reverse the situation now by saying what might happen. We have got to be realistic. I do not want it to go out from this House that the Senators are suggesting that we are not doing what we should be doing. I am trying to impress on the general public, those who desire to spend their leisure hours fishing, that they should contribute in a small way towards this activity. We can agree do differ but time will tell. I think it will be a figure in excess of £500,000.

The Senator also referred to the restructuring of the boards. It does not necessarily follow that restructuring of the boards will reduce or affect the service in any way. The prime objective is to consider the restructuring of the boards with a view to making better use of the finances which are already available, £3.8 million plus approximately £1.5 million. I would like to make the point at this stage, because I may not get the opportunity later, as all Senators will be aware, a restructuring of the boards is currently being considered. I can also assure the House that no firm decisions have been made as to what the future structures will be. There are many references to the fisheries boards in the text of the Bill. It is necessary that the responsibility for inland fisheries is with the fisheries board. I have, at this stage, firm proposals for Government as to what form of restructuring should take place but Senators will appreciate that in such a complex and important matter, Government agreement to my proposals would be a prerequisite to my formally announcing these proposals.

Mr. McCormack

I thank the Minister for his assurance that no decisions have been made regarding the restructuring of the boards even though the matter is under consideration. I presume that Senators and others will have an opportunity to have an input in that regard. In other words, is legislation necessary if the Minister is to come up with a restructured board? I would drop the matter now if that is the case because I would have an opportunity of having an input again.

Mr. P. Gallagher

Legislation is necessary and I am looking forward to a debate when my proposals are cleared by Government. When the Bill is circulated we will have every opportunity.

Mr. McCormack

I, too, look forward to the Bill.

Mr. Mooney

In section 4 we have the first reference to age. Despite the Minister's very impressive presentation, I agree with Senator McCormack. I must confess — and I have probably been a little parochial — that I am not totally convinced that it will not have an adverse effect in my own area. Despite the contributions of some of my colleagues from other parts of the country, Leitrim and Cavan is a very highly developed area. The angling and voluntary associations, over a period of 25 years have attracted cross-channel anglers. They are at present very vulnerable, perhaps it is because of the nature of the environment in which they have to live and work. I do not want to cry here about County Leitrim but I know all Members of the House understand what I am saying. Consequently any concession I can obtain I hope the Minister will understand that it would be in that spirit that I would ask this particular question. Why or how was this decision arrived at that it should be at 66 years of age upwards that no licence would be required? I understand, for example, that one is eligible for retirement pensions at 65 years of age. How did the Minister arrive at 66 years, and would he not consider bringing it back to 65 years which seems to be the norm for retirement pensions?

Mr. P. Gallagher

The decision was taken that those in receipt of the old age pension at 66 years of age, and not the retirement pension at 65 years, would be exempt as the income of a person is slightly higher on a retirement pension than on an old age pension.

Mr. McEllistrim

I ask the Minister one question about the exemption of persons over 66 years of age. The Office of Public Works have fishing rights of the Muckross lake, a salmon fishing lake — I know we are not dealing with salmon fishing here but perhaps it might be relevant to this Bill — and prior to this anybody over 66 years had the right to fish there without paying a fee or a licence. The Office of Public Works have changed their mind about that recently. In view of the fact that the Minister of State will allow old age pensioners to fish free on the other rivers, would he convey a request to the Office of Public Works that they might extend free fishing in their Muckross fisheries to those people who are over 66 years of age?

Mr. P. Gallagher

There is a difficulty here. We have to differentiate between licences, which are national and permits which are issued at a local level. The point raised by the Senator concerns a permit and I appreciate his concern but, of course, we would have no jurisdiction over that as it is a permit rather than a licence.

Mr. McCormack

Section 4 (2) states:

"The provision of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in respect of the fishing for or taking or killing by a person who has not reached his eighteenth birthday or has reached his sixty-sixth birthday".

The Minister was very forthcoming in his assurance to Senator J. O'Toole that his children could be assisted. The Minister was really saying, that commonsense would prevail in all situations. I ask the Minister in his reply on Committee Stage to define that situation again. For example, no more than Senator O'Toole could I assist my children, in their fishing activities when they go out to see their grandmother in Ballyconneely? We go up to the lake and I may hold a rod for them, even though they are very capable themselves. Perhaps the Minister could assure us of the mechanics of that situation?

Mr. P. Gallagher

We are referring to sea angling. There is no discrimination. Not alone Senator O'Toole's children or Senator McCormack's children, but all children in this country are treated equally. Anyone under 18 years can fish on shore, and everybody irrespective of age, whether they are 8 months, 8 years or 80 years can go sea angling without charge.

Eamon de Buitleár

I would like to make a small point in relation to those under 18 years not having to have a licence, especially as it would apply to my own district. It gives those under 18 years a great opportunity to have salmon in their possession illegally. What is the situation if they go to sell a salmon? Up to this, you had to have a licence before you could actually sell a salmon and your ordinary salmon fishing licence was sufficient if you wanted to sell a salmon in the ordinary way or have a salmon on your possession. It really opens up the poaching scene very much to 18 year olds. There are many 18 year olds poaching in the County Wicklow and County Dublin districts and I am sure in many other districts around the country.

Mr. P. Gallagher

Forgive me if I did not make it abundantly clear, and I obviously did not, in my contribution there is no exemption for salmon fishing. It is very appropriate that you should raise this point, as I and my officials gave very serious thought to the situation that could arise when drafting the Bill. I hope that will alleviate your fears; there is no exemption there.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McCormack

Section 8 states:

"(4) The provision of this section shall not apply to long lines used solely for the capture of eels or to engines used for the capture of fish other than freshwater fish."

May we have more clarification on that?

Mr. P. Gallagher

Freshwater fish is a new definition covering salmon, trout, coarse fish and eels. This section amends section 99 of the Consolidation Act, which relates to restriction on erection of fishing weirs, fishing mill dams or fixed engines in the freshwater portion of any river. The new subsection states that the provisions of section 99 of the Principal Act do not apply to long lines used solely for the capture of eels or to engines used for capturing fish other than freshwater fish. This new subsection is identical to the existing subsection except that it refers to "other than freshwater fish", which is salmon, trout, coarse fish or eels rather than "other than salmon, trout or eels".

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McCormack

Section 12 states:

The Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 170:

"(1) Every person who by any means removes or causes to be removed from any river or lake—

(a) any salmon, trout or coarse fish which shall not have been killed by lawful means, or ..."

I would like the Minister to deal more fully with this. He did not deal with it in the course of his reply to all of the points raised by Senators, and I raised this point in my initial contribution. What type of action is being taken against the illegal monofilament netting method which according to the people I talk to in Connemara and in various places in the west, is really stopping the fish from coming up the lakes and rivers.

Mr. Gallagher

I presume the Senator is referring to section 12, which refers to penalties for taking fish unlawfully killed or found dead. This section is very technical and our advice was that rather than amending section 170 of the Principal Act we should re-enact all of the section and include coarse fish as part of it. Penalties relate to all the fish mentioned in section 170 of the original Act together with coarse fishing, and that was the advice we received. There are no penalties in relation to various types of rods, lines and nets that could be used, but in relation to types of fish.

Mr. McCormack

Penalties are in relation to fish taken unlawfully from any river or lake. I am really pressing the Minister to say whether the Government are serious about following up the people who take fish unlawfully from rivers or lakes?

Mr. Gallagher

I do not fully understand the question, to be honest. As I said earlier, if my replies are not clear enough I will be delighted to give more information.

Mr. McCormack

We had no opportunity——

Mr. P. Gallagher

The question that you basically ask is, is it the Government or the Department who are responsible. The regional board are at arms length from the Department. It is a matter for regional boards to take action in relation to illegal fishing. If any Member of the House would be aware of instances of illegal fishing which the regional boards, for whom I have the greatest respect and who are doing a tremendous job under difficult financial circumstances, would not know about I would be only too delighted to pass on this information. But illegal fishing is being dealt with. I instanced four cases in County Leitrim, one further south in the country. The Leitrim cases came before the courts last week and I do believe that the fines were substantial.

Mr. McCormack

I appreciate what the Minister has said here. He has recognised the wonderful work that the regional boards are doing under difficult financial circumstances. Everybody's belief is that because of the budget of the regional boards they are not able to carry out their duties as satisfactorily as they themselves would wish to do. Is the Minister saying that if the boards report this difficulty to the Minister appropriate action can be taken where they know if illegal activities but have not the manpower or the finances to follow them up themselves.

Mr. P. Gallagher

If I might draw a comparison, all health boards and regional fisheries boards and tourism boards have financial limitations. They are using those finances to the best of their ability. I understand that they at all times bring before the courts cases where fishing is taking place illegally. If they were not taken before the court Senator McCormack should be asking further questions. If any board who found that there are illegal activities taking place within the regional board I would be very angry if those cases were not taken before the courts. Senator McCormack asked about fines and I gave him the categoric assurance that fines would go back into the fisheries boards and not to the Exchequer. It is very much in our interest to do that. We win some and we lose some, but I would prefer to take a case before the courts and to lose it rather than take a decision that we should not take them before the courts because there is a calculated risk.

Mr. Mooney

In my Second Stage contribution, I expressed my concern about the question of poaching and I thank the Minister for his graciousness in relation to my verbal faux pas. I hope the Minister understands that as the matter I referred to received considerable national media attention, it was in that context that I was referring to his awareness and not suggesting any impropriety on his part. I would also like to take issue with what he has said in relation to the restructuring of the fishery board. I will not go beyond that because the Minister obviously will be bringing forward proposals in the New Year. In the context of the experience I and people in my home town had in relation to very sophisticated poachers who, as Senator McCormack said, used monofilament nets, obviously were not amateurs and who came back time and time again, I have to say this continued not because of a lack of inclination on behalf of the Central Fisheries Board or the supervisory authorities but because simply of lack of resources and manpower and also the need on behalf of the local people to have definite and specific evidence.

In other words it was suggested to them they would have to catch these people physically in the act in the middle of the night most of the time which was an impracticability. I would like to impress upon the Minister that I would hope that when he is bringing forward his proposals in the context of this section that the resources that will be provided for the detection and subsequent prosecution of these people will be given a top priority by his Department. I would like to refer to portion of the letter that I mentioned earlier from Mr. Maher in The Irish Times of Thursday, 17 December, in relation to the question of the Central Fisheries Board where he said: We need more than office-bound waterkeepers.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am rather loath to interrupt the Senator but it is not a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Mooney

I agree but it is in the context of this section. I was voicing a concern that was expressed to me. I accept the Chair's ruling of course. Could I ask specifically of the Minister, in the context of his own awareness and of what Senator McCormack and I have said about this professional illegal poaching that is going on in our inner lakes, would he not consider increasing the penalty from £500? It seems to me a little unfair that if one as an amateur fisherman breaks the law that he will be fined up to £500 and if you are a professional group of people that you will equally before the law be only subjected to the same penalty. Could he perhaps on Report Stage or at some future stage by order increase the maximum fine and also confiscate the equipment that would be found by the perpetrators of illegal poaching?

Mr. P. Gallagher

Certainly, from time to time legislation must be reviewed. In the Lower House it was suggested that the fine was too high. In view of the fact that there is not unanimity between the views expressed in the Upper House and in the Lower House, then I would certainly have to stand back from this and look at it. One House says that the fines should be reduced and this House says that they are not high enough. On indictment which of course is a matter for the DPP, the fine is £2,000. I feel the fines are adequate at the moment and they are at all times open to review.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 13 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McEllistrim

I would like to ask the Minister where will the applicants have to make application. Is it to the Department itself or will it be to a local office?

Mr. P. Gallagher

The licences will be available from various outlets countrywide. There will be no question of those licences being available only through the regional board. They will be available through the field staff officers, through the offices of the regional boards, in shops, hotels and offices of regional tourism organisations. I feel that that is adequate. If it is not adequate we can certainly review it. It is in our own interest. We are anxious to obtain the finance and I assure the House that I am anxious to ensure that these licences will be available seven days a week. We have no difficulty at present issuing salmon licences and I cannot foresee any difficulties. I hope that will always be the case.

Mr. McEllistrim

Let me make a suggestion to the Minister of State. Would he consider issuing licences through the local authorities?

Mr. P. Gallagher

One could not but consider a suggestion made by Senator McEllistrim given his long experience in national politics. I will certainly look at his suggestion to consider issuing licences through other outlets, including local authorities.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister of State has dealt with the availability of the licence but what about those who are now resisting the introduction of boat licences and who will try to obstruct the implementation of the Bill if it becomes law? Angling clubs have called for protest marches in Dublin and at various other centres. Did the Minister of State indicate that he would be willing to meet these people to try to reach a solution and to get them to abide by the law?

Mr. P. Gallagher

I was appointed as Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and not at the Department of Justice. It is our duty to legislate and I hope that as a result of the debate both in the Dáil and in this House, that all those concerned will fully understand the implications of what we are doing. I have no intention of meeting anyone who in any way threatens——

Mr. McCormack

I did not mean it like that.

Mr. P. Gallagher

That is how I interpreted it. Speaking for the Minister and myself, we are always prepared to hold discussions with any group. There seems to be a difficulty in the Senator's constituency but I am sure the Senator, ably assisted by the Minister of State, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, by Ministers of State, Deputies Fahey and Treacy and former Minister of State, Deputy Donnellan, as well as Senator O'Connor will be in a position to convince them that what they are doing is not necessary and that the issuing of the licence is in their own best interests.

Mr. McCormack

They are very helpful people and I am sure I will receive their co-operation.

Mr. P. Gallagher

I have no doubt that you will also receive the support of Deputy Michael D. Higgins who fully supported this in the Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mooney

A number of suggestions have been made throughout this debate from all sides of the House, keeping in mind the implications for the tourism industry, to the Minister of State and he seemed amenable to at least conceding that they were valid even if he could not put them into operation. Subsection (3) of this section says that this Act shall come into operation on such day or date as may be fixed thereof by any order or orders of the Minister. Would the Minister of State, even at this late stage, consider granting a moratorium for a period of 12 months for coarse fishing on the basis of the argument which has already been put forward in that Bord Fáilte and all other tourist interests have their brochures and publications for 1988 printed and circulated throughout the United Kingdom and other areas from which we hope to attract people?

Mr. McCormack

The point made by Senator Mooney was raised originally by my colleague, Senator Doyle and it is a very valid one. Senator Doyle has met these people and already they have their brochures for 1988 printed. They must be printed by Christmas of this year. A very valid case can be made for them.

Mr. McEllistrim

Can I take it that it will be the fisheries inspectors who will request anglers to produce a licence? Will the Garda have authority to request anglers to produce a licence or will the fisheries inspectors be the only people who will have the authority to do this?

Mr. P. Gallagher

The fisheries officers of the boards and the Garda Síochána will have the authority to do so. A lot of consideration was given to the question over the last few days. In fact, Senator Mooney has had discussions with me and I appreciate the fears and anxieties which people have. I also appreciate the fact that the brochures for 1988 are prepared. This is not a new Bill, it is an amending Bill. I have had discussions with the Attorney General's Office and the advice which they have given to me and which I have accepted is that this Bill must come into operation on 1 January and that neither the Minister nor I have the power to defer its implementation. Serious consideration was given to this question but the overriding factor in all of this is that we are anxious to raise these fees. I am extremely confident that those involved in inland fisheries will be delighted to have the opportunity of contributing towards the development of our inland fisheries and the resolving of the problems in relation to pollution and all of the other problems which have knock-on effects.

Mr. Mooney

In conceding defeat as graciously as I can on this issue, would the Minister of State — he mentioned earlier about an exemption for Leitrim — when he comes to dispensing the largesse give particular attention to the development of the angling facilities in that part of the country?

Mr. P. Gallagher

I have every confidence in the Northern Regional Fisheries Board who are responsible for the development of inland fisheries in Counties Cavan, Monaghan, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal. I am sure that all counties will be dealt with in a very equitable fashion.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister of State has said that the Bill will become law on 1 January 1988. I presume that is why we are still here at 7.40 p.m. on 18 December discussing the matter. Many people have asked me why this Bill must become law? Why are we under such pressure? The Minister of State said two hours ago that normally by this time many people would be on their way home. Why must this Bill be enacted on 1 January?

Mr. Lanigan

I ordered that it be dealt with today.

Mr. P. Gallagher

That is a matter for the House to decide and I have no reason to meddle in the affairs of the Upper House.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.