Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1995

Vol. 144 No. 18

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

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

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

The purpose of this Bill is to include new provisions in the Fisheries Acts whereby the Minister for the Marine may intervene in accordance with a strict process and subject to the approval of both Houses to deal with the failure of a fisheries board to manage its affairs effectively. In such circumstances, or at the request of a board, the Minister may appoint a commission for a specified period, generally speaking not exceeding two years, to take over some or all of the functions of that board. These provisions supplement existing provisions in the Fisheries Acts which allow the Minister in certain circumstances to remove a board from office.

Thus the principle of Ministerial intervention involved in this Bill is not new to the Fisheries Acts. Moreover, the model proposed has already been adopted in other legislation relating to State boards. I would emphasise that the legislation is not prompted by any general view that the fisheries boards are not being well managed. On the contrary, fisheries boards have a most difficult job to do, and with present structures and resources are, by and large, making a major contribution. Over the past number of months I have met representatives of all the boards and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the board members, their managers and staff.

As a norm, it is only in rare and exceptional cases that one would expect that the Government would have to intervene directly with possible serious difficulties in the management of a State board. It is entirely reasonable in the public interest that the Minister should have such powers. This right of intervention must, however, be carefully tailored to prevent arbitrary ministerial intervention and to protect the legitimate rights of boards.

This new legislation strikes the right balance. While it is not based on a view that there are serious general management weaknesses in fisheries boards, the new provisions arise from a review of existing provisions which was prompted by recurring allegations concerning the Southern Regional Fishery Board.

Senators will be aware that for some time there have been allegations concerning the Southern Regional Fishery Board, some of which have appeared in the public press and some of which related to a Garda investigation into certain matters regarding the board. When these allegations were brought to my attention, I met with the chairperson and the manager of the Southern Regional Fishery Board.

Following these meetings, and following an examination of the existing legislation, it became clear that the existing provisions would be an inappropriate and cumbersome mechanism to deal with the issues arising. Accordingly, it was decided to prepare the Bill now before the House.

As regards the position of the Southern Regional Fishery Board, I must repeat what the then Minister for Defence and the Marine said on 9 May 1995, that the administration of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board is, and remains, a matter for that board and Ministers, as matters stand, have no direct function in relation to the investigation or handling of the reported allegations. We are not in a position, nor do we have a basis to form any opinion on the allegations made. We must be particularly conscious not to prejudice the ongoing legal process nor in any way injure the rights of any of the persons involved.

I would also repeat that no decision has been or could be taken by us at this time on what actions we might initiate in respect of that board if and when this legislation is enacted. That matter will be considered at that time in the light of then prevailing circumstances which we do not wish to now anticipate.

Before considering in more detail the background to the Bill and commenting on its main provisions, I should first like to set the context by looking at the constitution and role of the fisheries boards. The Fisheries Act, 1980, replaced the Inland Fisheries Trust and the 17 boards of conservators with a central and seven regional fisheries boards.

The Central Fisheries Board has primary responsibility for the overall coordination and direction, where necessary, of the activities of the regional fisheries boards in the areas of protection, conservation, management and development of the inland fisheries resource and the promotion and development of sea angling. The board also provides specialist scientific, technical, financial, personnel and engineering services to the regional boards, ensures that policy directions are carried into effect and advises the Minister on matters relating to the most effective conservation, management and development of the resource. The seven regional fisheries boards are responsible for the management, conservation, protection, development and improvement of the fisheries within their region, and offshore to the 12 mile limit in so far as the protection of wild salmon is concerned, and for the promotion and development of sea angling.

The boards are financed primarily by way of an annual Exchequer grant which now amounts to over £8.5 million. In recent years the boards have also had access to additional funding under the EU Structural Funds, INTERREG, the Surveillance Package and other EU funded programmes, which has led to a considerable increase in their development and operational activities.

Elections to the regional boards, membership of which ranges from 20 to 22, including seven ministerial appointments, take place every five years from panels representing various interests in the region. Membership of the central board, which also has a five year fixed term, comprises 13 members, seven of whom are ex officio chairpersons of the regional boards, with the remainder, including the chairperson appointed by the Minister. Some 315 permanent staff are employed by the fisheries boards.

Turning to the existing provisions whereby a board may be removed from office, under section 24 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, a board may be removed from office if it has not complied with a policy direction given under section 8 (1) (b) of the Act, or where its functions were not being duly and effectively performed, or where the performance by a board of its functions has been unsatisfactory. In the latter two cases, a formal inquiry must be conducted under section 50 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, as amended by section 55 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, into the performance by a board of its functions.

If the Minister is satisfied, following that inquiry, that a board has not duly and effectively performed its functions, or that the performance by the board of its functions has been unsatisfactory, or where a board has not complied with a policy direction, the Minister may, by order, remove the board from office and replace it with a person or persons who would carry on the functions of the board until the next elections to boards generally, or a special election were held with regard to the board in question.

Section 24 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, and related statutory provisions provide a means by which the Minister could intervene to ensure that the functions of a fisheries board are performed in the public interest. For example, if a fisheries board failed to comply with the direction given by the Minister with regard to general policy for the management, conservation, protection, development and improvement of fisheries, he or she, could, in accordance with section 24 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, remove that board from office and appoint a person or persons to perform its functions.

Equally, if concerns were raised as to whether or not a fisheries board is duly and effectively performing its functions, the Minister could, in accordance with section 24 of the 1980 Act, hold an inquiry under section 50 of the 1959 Act, as amended. If, on the basis of that inquiry, the Minister is satisfied that the functions of the board are not being duly and effectively performed, he could remove the board from office and appoint a person or persons to perform its functions. These powers have not been used to date.

While the existing statutory provisions in the Fisheries Act, 1980, relating to the removal and replacement of a board provide a means of ministerial intervention in circumstances where a fisheries board has, among other matters, failed to manage its affairs effectively, I do not consider these provisions to be sufficiently flexible or sufficient to deal with the full range of specific circumstances which can arise. In particular, the requirement to hold an inquiry, which would be subject to the detailed provisions set out in the Fisheries Acts and in High Court rules governing notice, the summoning and examination of witnesses, the service of documents etc., could be unduly protracted. It could also be open ended and prone to litigation. Such a process could be extremely costly and could shift the focus from the immediate problems giving rise to the inquiry in the first place.

The existing legislation does not provide, therefore, for circumstances in which the Minister may be obliged to move quickly, and without removing a board, to relieve that board of some or all of its functions. In addition, there may be circumstances in which a board may request to relieve it of some or all of its functions. It is of the utmost importance that the fisheries boards are in a position to perform effectively their statutory functions, both at a general level and in specific circumstances, and that the State can intervene effectively on those occasions, which admittedly will be rare, when those functions are not being duly and effectively performed.

The Bill before the House is designed to address the shortcomings in the existing legislation outlined already. The Bill provides that the Minister may, by order, appoint a commission to perform some or all of the functions of a board where a board has so requested, or after considering the report of a person appointed by the Minister to examine the management and organisation of a board and the performance by it of its functions, generally or in particular. The provisions of the Bill are similar in many respects to those in the Regional Technical Colleges (Amendment) Act, 1994, relating to the appointment of a commission to a college, which provide a mechanism whereby the Minister for Education can act quickly in a case of emergency caused by deficiencies in the governance or management structures in a college.

Regarding the main provisions of the Bill, section 1 governs the interpretation of terms used in the Bill. Section 2 provides for the appointment by the Minister of a person or persons to report to him on the management and organisation of a board and the performance by it of its functions and for the inspection by such person or persons of a board's records or documents.

Section 3 provides for the establishment by the Minister, following the request by a board or after consideration by him of a report of a person or persons appointed under section 2, of a commission to carry out one or more functions of a board as he may determine. Section 4 makes provision for the furnishing of notice to a board where the Minister proposes to appoint a commission following consideration of a report under sections 2 and 3 and for the making of representations by that board.

Section 5 lays down detailed provisions regarding the appointment, membership and removal of a commission. Section 6 provides for co-ordination between the commission and a board where one or more but not all of the functions of a board have been conferred on a commission and for the resolution of any dispute or disagreement which may arise therefrom.

Section 7 provides for the furnishing of information and documentation by a board or its officers to a commission. Section 8 provides for the removal of board members for failure to comply with sections 2 and 7 in so far as compliance with a request for documentation or records is concerned. Section 9 governs the making of orders by the Minister and provides among other matters that such orders, drafts of which shall be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, may be annulled by a resolution of either House.

Section 10 provides that the powers conferred by this Act to a board are not in substitution for any other powers conferred on the Minister or any other person in relation to the board immediately before the passing of the Act. Section 11 provides that expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 12 makes provision for the short Title of the Bill.

The central provision of the Bill is the proposed granting to the Minister of the power to appoint a commission to carry out some or all of the functions of a fisheries board. As the appointment of such a commission would be an exceptional measure, a number of safeguards have been provided for in the Bill. First, section 4 makes provision for the furnishing of notice to a board where it is proposed to appoint a commission and for the making of representations by that board. Second, unless a board has so requested, a commission can be appointed only after consideration of a report made under section 2, thus making it a statutory requirement that a decision to appoint a commission must always have some objectively determined basis.

A third safeguard is that a commission can, in accordance with section 3 (5), be appointed for a maximum period of two years, thus preventing the indefinite transfer of a board's functions and ensuring that board members cannot be left without knowledge of their future role for a lengthy period. The fourth and final safeguard is the requirement under section 9 for Oireachtas approval to any order providing for the appointment of a commission. As such an appointment is an exceptional measure and is defensible only by reference to the common good, it is appropriate that both Houses of the Oireachtas should consider orders which provide for the appointment of commissions by leaving in situ the bodies whose functions they are to exercise.

I have outlined in detail the background to the proposed legislation and the broad provisions and implications of the Bill. As the House is aware, in March this year a fundamental overhaul of marine policy was initiated with a view to tapping the full potential of the marine sector in the interests of coastal development, leisure and tourism and increased national economic and social prosperity. This review, which is being undertaken in full consultation with the sectoral interests in the marine sector, will involve a series of public seminars to focus public debate on the issues and the establishment of a marine advisory council to advise on longer term strategic options in marine policy and a major review of the organisational and management structure of the fishery service.

The review of the organisational and management structures, which is being undertaken by consultants at present, will examine the institutional framework for the development and regulation of the sea fisheries, aquaculture and inland fisheries sectors and recommend any changes necessary to improve the coherence and efficiency of the delivery of public policies and services to those sectors. The central and regional fisheries boards are encompassed by this review and particular account will be taken of the important role they play.

National policy on wild salmon is also being reviewed as part of our current review of general policy. To facilitate this review a professional study of the socio-economic role of salmon in the commercial and angling sectors is being commissioned. This study will examine the socio-economic evaluation of commercial fishing, update earlier reviews on the value of angling and include a technical assessment of product quality. I have set up a small task force involving mainly officials from my Department and the relevant agencies with an independent chairperson. This group will be able to meet with industry groups, anglers, fishermen and community interests and will also draw on the experience of other countries in the management of their wild salmon.

I wish to inform the House of recent developments in the inland fisheries sector which have had major implications in so far as the activities and operation of the fisheries boards are concerned and which, I hope, will illustrate the importance of putting in place the arrangement proposed in this Bill. Our inland fisheries resource comprises approximately 145,000 hectares of freshwater lakes, equivalent to one fiftieth of the total area of the State, and about 13,800 kilometres of main river channels. These waters comprise a much higher percentage of total area in Ireland than in many European countries, including England, Scotland and Wales.

The most important components of the resource are the salmon, sea trout, brown trout, coarse fisheries and sea angling. The overall policy objective is to ensure that this valuable natural resource is conserved, managed and developed in its own right and to exploit and support sustainable economic activity and job creation based on the resource. This will require the continued co-operation of and commitment from the fisheries boards in so far as the protection, conservation and development of our inland fisheries is concerned. The considerable developments in the inland fisheries sector which are envisaged under the operational programme for tourism, the INTERREG programme, the fisheries surveillance and other EU programmes and the particular problems to be faced, arising not least from pressures on stocks and the freshwater environment, will place an obligation on the State to ensure that resources are allocated to meet effectively these challenges and, in particular, to ensure that the fisheries boards are in the best possible position to implement strategies towards this end.

In recognition of the importance of our inland fisheries resource, a comprehensive investment programme to develop the tourism angling product, totalling almost £19 million over the six year period 1994-1999, has been included in the tourism operational programme. The purpose of the tourism angling measure, which is administered by the Central Fisheries Board, is to ensure that our coarse game and sea angling is upgraded to the best international standards with a view to increasing substantially tourist angling and revenue and the creation of valuable, sustainable new jobs, particularly in the more remote and disadvantaged areas where the majority of our prime fisheries are located.

The main areas of development under the tourism angling measure will include physical in-stream and bank development, including pre-development and surveys, and the provision of additional angling spaces, stands and stiles; the removal of physical obstructions to passage or migration of fish; stock management to include stocking out and predator competition control; the provision of improved systems for monitoring and protecting our water quality in the fisheries context; the establishment of new stocked coarse and game fisheries; the rehabilitation of depleted sea trout fisheries and other measures to ensure the rational use and management of sport fish stocks, including the curtailment or phasing out of certain identified commercial fisheries to increase potential spawning stocks and access for anglers.

Applicants under the tourism angling measure must demonstrate that the proposed works will, among other matters, be sufficient to ensure their retention as Bord Fáilte branded fisheries or be capable of qualifying them for inclusion as Bord Fáilte branded fisheries, be capable of attracting additional foreign visitors leading to increased employment and tourist revenues, and be readily available for tourist use. Projects involving a proposed investment of almost £3.2 million have been approved to date under the tourism angling measure. Two important support projects which will be managed by the Central Fisheries Board have also been approved to date. These are the establishment of a central survey support unit and a title investigation unit.

The central and regional fisheries boards have also been instrumental in securing funding under the North/South INTERREG programme for inland fisheries developments. The aims of this programme are to promote the creation and development of networks of cross-Border co-operation and, where relevant, the linking of these networks to wider community networks in the context of the completion of the internal market of 1992. In so far as fisheries are concerned, the objectives of the programme are to encourage cross-Border co-operation in the fisheries sector and to assist in the development, conservation and protection of fisheries. The success of investment made under EU and other programmes will depend to a large extent on the maintenance and increase of escapement levels to rivers under development and, therefore, on the provision of an effective level of protection by the fisheries boards.

The regional fisheries boards are responsible under the Fisheries Act, 1980 for protecting salmon and all freshwater fish against illegal fishing. The Central Fisheries Board monitors the effectiveness of the regional boards' protection function, co-ordinates naval and air patrols with the Department of Defence, liaises with the Garda authorities and draws the attention of the regional boards to the need to assist other boards where necessary. The boards' responsibility in respect of salmon extends to 12 miles from the coast. The enforcement by the boards of the salmon protection legislation involves the hauling and confiscation of illegal nets, thereby removing the means of fishing, the identification of illegal fishermen, the seizing and confiscation of illegally caught fish and the prosecution of offenders.

Ireland is the world's second largest producer of wild Atlantic salmon. However, migrating salmon are under constant threat from illegal drift netting. In recent years the introduction of two newly acquired vessels by the Naval Service and their assignment to salmon protection duties during the June to August period and the provision of aerial patrols by the Air Corps have been major factors in reducing the level of illegal drift netting and thereby increasing escapement to some rivers. Expenditure on protection, which includes enforcement of fisheries control legislation including aquatic environmental control, on average amounts to approximately 50 per cent of the boards' total expenditure. The level of protection provided by the fisheries boards must be enhanced on an on-going basis in order to maintain the improvements made in recent years and to keep abreast of the increasingly sophisticated technology available to illegal fishermen.

I take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the valuable contribution which the fisheries boards have made, often under difficult circumstances and subject to resource constraints, to ensuring that our valuable inland fisheries resource is managed, conserved and developed in its own right and to exploit its economic potential.

The considerable developments in the inland fisheries sector which have been outlined already, the challenges arising from pressure on stocks and the freshwater environment and the obligation on the State to ensure that State agencies operate efficiently and effectively require that the State be in a position to intervene in cases where a fisheries board cannot or is not duly and effectively performing its functions. The proposed new legislation provides a well balanced and measured means to allow such interventions. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I am reluctant to support the Bill, even though at the end of the day I will be doing so. The Bill is very dictatorial, the laws are too strong and the legislation that was in place was good enough to deal with any problems that might arise in the fisheries boards. Members of these boards, with the exception of those nominated by the Minister, are democratically elected to the boards. If the Minister is to dismiss a board for wrong doing by perhaps one or two members of the board or one of the managerial staff, there is a stain on all the other members of that board who have done nothing wrong.

I want to put on record my appreciation of what the board of conservators has done throughout the years. When the new boards were formed in 1980 the then Minister for Fisheries, Deputy Power from Kildare, nominated an interim board for about a year. The Minister nominated people from the industry for a short period of time to get the boards off the ground. At that time I was nominated to the Sea Fisheries Board. People can say that it was a political nomination, but I was a recipient of a draft net salmon fishing licence from as far back as 1952 under the old boards of conservators and that was probably one of the reasons why he included me on that board.

The board consisted of a group of people all of whom held different views. They were all anglers and net fishermen, but they all had different views. The trout men were concerned that rivers would not get polluted, that they could develop trout fishing and tourism and so on. The salmon anglers looked at all this in a different light. They wanted no netting of any description, so that all the salmon would come up the rivers. The drift and draft net fishermen were represented and they wanted their slice of the pie.

The salmon is a mighty fish and has caused much trouble throughout the years. When I was a young lad, my next door neighbour received six months in jail for being caught in possession of an illegal salmon. This happened nearly 45 years ago. When he came out of jail, he packed his bags, left, and never came home because of the shame. He was branded as a criminal. These poachers are not serious criminals. I know tempers get frayed at times. I can speak about this because I was stopped and chased on many occasions.

Drift net fishermen have a totally different point of view from that of other fishermen. There is an argument about the length of net that can be used; that all depends on the tide. You can stretch a length of net out in the street and say that it is 1,000 yards long. If you can set that net out at sea it might not cover 200 yards because the tide folds it like a concertina. I have always had great respect for these people, even though we disagreed about many things over the years. In 1981 the Central Fisheries Board gave me a nomination for the Seanad which put me on the road and I got elected here. I can only speak well of those people.

I do not know about the incidents which led to the introduction of this legislation and I will not comment on them. I do not know anything about it except what I read in the papers, and I do not believe all of that. Something must have gone wrong to prompt the Minister and his Department to bring in this legislation. I cannot understand why all 27 members of a board are to be blamed for something that goes wrong. It would be better to take action against those who are really to blame. If the Minister dismisses a whole board of which 99 per cent are innocent people democratically elected by the people they represent, they will all be tarred with the same brush. I cannot see why legislation to deal with the individual or individuals on that board cannot be brought in.

I will be supporting the Bill, but I want to make those views known, because while I have had disagreements with fisheries boards over the years with regard to salmon fishing and so on, I still pay my money into the fisheries board and have a vote when it comes to electing people on them. They are decent people who work on a voluntary basis. They receive expenses, but this does not cover half of what they do. They get their expenses to go to a board meeting but they go to many other meetings around the country to promote angling and so on.

I got involved with the South Western Regional Fisheries Board about five years ago. I wrote to them saying that we had very little trout fishing in the Dingle peninsula and that they might look into the matter. I got a response straight away saying they would check out lakes that might be suitable to restock with rainbow trout purely as a tourist attraction. Shortly after that again I got word that there was a lake near the Conor Pass which was quite suitable because there was no escape out of it into rivers. I asked how we could restock the lake and they told me I could do it with local voluntary help, which I thought was a great suggestion.

It was not possible to drive up to this lake. It was necessary to walk up across rocks, up a very high slope for about 300 yards, with the fish. The man in charge of the restocking said we might need a good football team in Dingle. He suggested that we ask them to do a bit of training and get them to take up the fish. That is what happened. I got about 20 young fellows to take the fish up in waste baskets. We restocked the lake and it was a marvellous success altogether. That was done solely for the tourists. That is the kind of thing that the fisheries boards do. All the people now on these boards and on the boards when I was a member all have and had different affiliations, but that never stopped the arguments or came in the way of developing the fisheries. I made great friends there.

Boards of conservators have come down to us from old English laws and landlords. Genuine people who apply legitimately for drift or draft net licences cannot get them — for one reason or another, there is not enough of them to go around — and they feel aggrieved. Their neighbour has a drift or draft net licence, can go out, fish and do well, but they cannot. This drives them to illegal fishing. Way back in 1980 I wanted to give a salmon licence to everyone who applied for one. The idea I had at that time was that if we gave everyone a licence, we would be legalising them and bringing them out in the open. Depending on the way they behaved, we could start cutting them out. Why should there be a restriction on the number of people given a drift or a draft net licence? All one has to do to get a rod licence is go into a fishing shop. There are no restrictions — one pays one's money, gets the licence and goes out and fishes. Why is there no restriction on the number of people in that case?

The fisheries industry is not as lucrative as it was prior to 1980, because the hatch farm salmon are coming in a big way. I have always been against farm salmon. I have always had the fear, which was also expressed to me privately by a fishery official in the Department, that if something happened to one of these cages and the farm salmon escaped, it would destroy the nature of the wild salmon. I read in the paper recently that between 10,000 and 40,000 salmon escaped from one of the hatcheries in west Cork. That is highly dangerous to the wild salmon going up the rivers. It will do much harm.

How many more cages are going to break? These cages can only last so long; they are in salt water and they will rust. There is nothing made yet that will not rust other than the highest quality stainless steel. Boats are supposed to be built of the best material to make sure they last out at sea. They all get rusted and weaken after a while and the same happens with the cages. These cages should be taken out of the water every year, checked and looked over to make sure there is nothing wrong with them. My information is that if the farm salmon mix with the wild salmon, the damage that will be done by the people who own the fish farms in one year alone will be worse than 50 years' illegal salmon fishing.

To return to the fisheries boards, the way they operate and their protection, fisheries inspectors are taking their lives in their hands when they go to sea in the type of craft the Minister's Department and the fisheries boards supply them with. The best time for salmon fishing is when the seas are rough, with a gale of force five or six blowing. That is the time we always caught most of the fish. That is the time the fisheries inspectors are supposed to go out to sea in their boats. I do not want to go back to it, even though I always loved the sea and fishing. The hair often stood up on my head with the size of the waves coming towards us. We were probably trying to catch fish for greed and money. The rougher it became, the more fish one would get in the nets. We would stay until the sea was rough beyond our wildest dreams.

But there, bobbing away in the distance, were a couple of fisheries officers out checking nets. I thought they were crazy, stone mad. I did not care what kind of money they were getting, there was no way that I would go into the craft they had to go out to check fishing nets. Some of the speakers on the other side will probably know and agree with me about the kind of seas and currents we have. If we want to treat this issue properly, there must be proper boats for fisheries inspectors. The Naval Service will be limited regardless of the craft it has. The fisheries boats should be there to look after our seas out to the 200 mile limit. That is where they should be patrolling and not inshore after a couple of farmers in a small boat with 200 yards of small net who may be illegally fishing.

I referred a while ago to a person in Kerry who received a jail sentence for an offence. There was a story in the paper last week about a man who got a jail sentence for strokehauling a salmon in the River Corrib. We have gone crazy altogether. I know the feeling of that man and what he wanted to do. I lived near a river all my life. Even though I could legally catch salmon, there was more fun to be got out of the one salmon I poached from the river. It is a thing that is built into a person — maybe Senator Calnan would know about it — and it is there and one cannot help it; it is like being an alcoholic or a gambler.

To this day if I cross a bridge over a river, I look to see if there is anything down there, out of curiosity. That will never go away from me. In the same way to put a man into jail for strokehauling one salmon out of a river is absolutely and totally crazy. These people are not criminals; they are not breaking any law. From the Minister down, the view on this should be changed and the fisheries boards should realise that we are not dealing with escaped criminals. We are dealing with a few people who are out to catch a few salmon. I do not know where the whole thing will end up. Our penalties are high.

As I said, all this has come down from the boards of conservators and landlords. The ordinary man in the street who is drawing the dole or has a small farm sees the landlord who has a private fishery on his land. All he has to do is put a dam across the river at a particular time — it may already be there — and take the fish out in their hundreds. The same is done on the Corrib in Galway and in other places by the ESB. He looks at all this happening and thinks he will have a share of it. He is right. He should have a share of it. It is as much his as it is anybody else's.

There was a time in Killorglin when a family owned a stretch of river, and they may still do. This was about 1960. They used three boats for draught netting at particular times when the tide came. They were paid one old shilling for every salmon they caught. Twelve people were involved and their average wage for the year was about £80 to £100 a week. This gives an idea of the amount of fish which were being legally taken out of the river. Upstream a person who tried to catch one fish with a cord or a piece of net would have been caught and sent to jail. Penalties are too high.

We should seriously consider not allowing salmon fishing around our coast for a period. I have been thinking about this over the years. My party may not agree with me on this. For argument's sake, we could allow salmon fishing around the coast from Donegal to the mouth of the Shannon and not allow such fishing from there to the end of the south coast. Such a policy was introduced in Scotland. If we did this here, fishermen who normally fish for salmon should be compensated for their loss just as farmers were compensated as part of the set aside scheme. From speaking to fishermen I have the feeling that this could be implemented. This would give a great break to rivers and may result in there being again in our rivers the same number of salmon that used to be in them.

I live near a small river called the Landers and when I was growing up there were plenty of salmon in it. Today one would not catch one salmon in it. My house is no more than 20 feet from the river. Today the brown trout in it are small. When I was young, whenever there was a flood I fished in the river with an ordinary rod and caught a bag of small trout. The difference between then and today may be due to the fact that the river is not being fished anymore. It must be due to pollution of some sort. One Christmas my neighbour and I went to the river and we could not see the bottom of it because of the number of salmon. Nobody ever fished this river; it was not even listed for fishing. I continue to monitor this river. I have taken friends there when there were floods, but there are now very few fish in it. There used to be lovely fish in it called the liathán. This fish will not grow to more than about a pound in weight. If there was a flood in the river in late July, August and September a person could catch a bag of these fish, but now they are all gone.

This Bill will give the Minister power to dismiss the board members. I appeal to him to think twice before using this power because if he does so he will hurt many innocent people. They are doing a reasonably good job and should be allowed to continue to do so. All of them are not to blame. The Minister may say that if a county council does not strike a rate the Minister for the Environment has the power, which has been used in the past, to dismiss the councillors. This is different because the councillors voted down the rate or did not strike a rate for which they have a collective responsibility.

Members of boards I know have nothing to do with the reason the Minister is introducing this Bill, but they will be dismissed from boards. The Minister says this will not be for more than two years. If people on a board have three years to go as members but are dismissed by the Minister for two years, who will the Minister appoint as members at the end of this period? Will he appoint a new board or will he reappoint the same people with the exception of those who were responsible for wrongdoing? I do not like this Bill.

The Minister said the Central Fisheries Board has overall responsibility for regional boards. What was this board doing? The chairmen of all the regional boards are members of it, good honourable men are nominated to it and officials from the Department are also on it. If wrongdoing occurred, how did it happen under their noses? Will the Minister take any action against them because it was their responsibility to make sure no wrongdoing was committed by regional boards?

I will not oppose the Bill, but I am sorry that the Minister has to go as far as this with legislation. We are going down the wrong road with much of the legislation we enact. All over the world walls are coming down and communism is coming to an end. We seem to be going in the opposite direction, away from democracy and nearly towards dictatorship. I do not blame the Minister for this; when my party was in Government Bills were passed with which I disagreed.

The vast majority of people, perhaps 98 per cent. of them, are good living, honest people. They do their day's work, draw their wages and pay their taxes. Yet we crucify them every chance we get. We are now doing the same to the fisheries boards. Good people are members of these boards and they should not be tarred with the same brush as those guilty of wrongdoing. If the Minister decides to dismiss a board, even though he will have the power to do so under this legislation, I ask him to think strongly about what he is doing because he will hurt many people. We will reluctantly support this Bill but the Minister must use his powers sparingly.

Mr. Belton

I welcome this Bill the purpose of which is to introduce new provisions in the Fisheries Act which will allow the Minister for the Marine to deal with the fisheries boards. I welcome the fact that at the request of the board the Minister may appoint a commission. This is in keeping with other State boards and it is right. The fisheries boards have a difficult task to perform and I pay tribute to their efforts over the years.

Inland fishing is an important resource. The protection of our rivers and lakes, including fish stocks, is important. In my area of the midlands, and indeed elsewhere, fishing has become a major tourist attraction. The Minister will appreciate the midlands is not traditionally a tourist area. I am glad to say that in recent years a lot of work has been carried out developing the industry. Unfortunately, not enough resources have been made available to this industry over the years. As the Minister said, funding has now come on stream which was not available in the past.

Recently in my area of Lanesborough, a well known fishing locality, the county council and the local tourism body submitted a plan to the Central Fisheries Board for the development of fishing facilities. I hope this plan, which will provide an opportunity to develop fishing and amenities for the many fishermen who come to Lanesborough from Britain and elsewhere, will be seriously looked at by the board. The local tourism committee is extremely anxious to develop this facility with the help of the county council. This is an example of the local authority, the local and regional tourism committees and the Department of the Marine working together to develop fishing facilities and the industry in an area which depends a lot on it.

Our lakes and rivers are a resource like our forests, boglands, agricultural lands and minerals. They have the capacity to improve the quality of life and to contribute to our economic wellbeing when exploited to the fullest. It is a self-renewing resource and with a reasonable amount of restocking and water quality controls, it is ongoing.

Angling can contribute to the economic growth of rural towns and communities. Last year over 4,000 anglers from Britain and Europe came to Lanesborough, which brought considerable benefits to the community. Clondra, Longford town, Abbeyshrule, Granard and Lough Gowna, which region is often referred to as the Killarney of the midlands, are areas where people with bed and breakfast businesses, small hotels and self-catering accommodation have made a major effort to promote tourism.

The value of angling to the economy in County Longford and throughout the country has been fully recognised. At present the value of inland fisheries to the economy is estimated at £60 million, a major input into the economy. The Minister said that the annual budget is £8.5 million. We can see the return on money spent. A person does not need to be an economist or a genius with figures to see that the balance is tilted towards the development of this industry.

I am aware that the fisheries boards are involved in the tourism operational programme in carrying out major fishery improvements, which is welcome and necessary. Some £19 million will be invested over the period 1994-99. I am pleased that in my area plans have been drawn up by local tourism development groups in conjunction with the fisheries board. It is important that they work hand in hand because often they are at cross purposes. For example, signs and maps can be properly developed if there is co-operation between those two organisations. This development work will have a positive effect on angling tourism throughout the midlands when completed.

It is important that facilities are provided for fishing tourists in areas involved in the development of this industry. In the past the various organisations involved were at cross purposes and I am glad to hear efforts are being made to bring all concerned bodies together. It is appropriate to mention angling clubs, which have done a considerable amount of work in my area at their own expense. They have cleaned rivers, improved river banks and access to fishing areas and have restocked rivers and lakes in conjunction with the fisheries boards. Some years ago the Camlin river in Longford town was dead, but with the help of the local angling club it has been cleaned and the rubbish dumped in it has been removed. It has been given life again and it is pleasant to walk along the river in the centre of the town and to see the clear water, the wild ducks and people fishing. Great credit is due to the local angling club in Longford which was responsible for carrying out that improvement. It is an example of how local interest in fishing can be a boost to tourism, because many tourists are interested in fishing. There is a huge number of angling clubs in Britain and they are thrilled to come to our uncrowded lakes and rivers where the fishing is good, or reasonably good, and where they can enjoy tranquil and easygoing surroundings.

There are also very active angling clubs involved with the Enny river in the midlands. In recent years we have had all-island angling competitions which attract anglers from all over Ireland and the UK. It is an example of how natural resources can be developed to meet modern requirements.

I understand the reasoning behind this legislation. If a Department feels that a board is not operating properly, it is only right that the Minister would have power to intervene and proceed in an organised and fair fashion. There is nothing sinister in this Bill, which is an open and genuine approach to dealing with matters which may arise in the future. I compliment the Minister on his efforts in this difficult area. As the previous speaker said, fishing can be an emotive issue in some parts of the country and people's hearts often rule their heads.

The important issue of environmental protection has arisen many times in recent years. I am glad to say that there has been a huge improvement in this area. There has been massive investment in it by the farming community and a greater awareness of the damage which can be done to fishing stock and water quality by pollution. The fisheries boards play a major role in policing, water testing and keeping pollution under control. It is not popular work, but the officers carry out their duties in a fair and open manner. Their work and awareness have been a major factor in the control of pollution and water quality. I welcome the Minister and wish him well.

Mr. D. Kiely

I wish to share my time with Senator Mooney.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Kiely

I welcome this legislation, which would not be coming before the House were it not for the unfortunate and tragic incident in Waterford. The entire fisheries boards should be looked into. As has been mentioned in this and the other House, fishing in this country is underfunded, underdeveloped and underorganised. Fishing has enormous tourism potential. There are 8,000 fishing clubs in Wales and we have not tapped into that market. Apart from our river fishing, we have superb fishing all around our coast. During the past season I took friends of mine from Brussels and the UK fishing in a trawler and we had incredible catches with rod and line of 400 or 500 fish in one day.

We have a problem with the use of monofilament nets and the capture of salmon in our rivers. The salmon fishery is totally underdeveloped and underutilised. In the case of the Moy river in Ballina, the drift and draft nets there have been purchased by the State, which has taken over three or four stretches of the river into the town. From the town onwards, there is open fishing for the public. Although the State has traps there, it no longer nets there and it allows a certain amount of fish to go up the river during the fishing season. That has meant a great deal for the area and tourism. The entire region around Ballina buzzes from May until the end of September.

However, nets are left on other rivers which are not developed. There is illegal fishing off the west and south coasts. Thousands of salmon are captured, bringing gain to one, two or three people, whereas thousands of people could utilise the facilities on the rivers and would spend their money on hotels, guesthouses, B&Bs, food, recreation facilities and so on. That must be looked at very seriously.

The Minister should also look at the number of licences which have been issued to drift and draft net fishermen. However, I know that they have to make a living and that over the years their fishing time has been reduced. They are taken off at 6 p.m. on Friday until 6 a.m. on Monday, which has improved the situation and allowed some fish up the rivers during June, July and August.

The fishery board must be commended for its work in Ballina, where it took off its nets and bought out the others, allowing the fish to get up that river. If one telephones the fishery board in Ballina one will be told that all its fishing dates for next year are full and it is completely sold out. However, people can still avail of the free part of the river, above the traps, by joining a club or renting a day's fishing. The entire role of the fishery boards will have to be examined.

Due to the very dry season, this was not a great year for fishing, particularly in the rivers. The Feale river, which the Minister knows well, flows through Listowel, Abbeyfeale and Brosna. This year was a disaster for the fishermen in those areas because it was so dry. A dam is needed on the tributary which flows into the Feale. We have been looking for a dam for the past number of years and the last Government and this Government promised that approximately £22 million would be made available to build a dam on this river. This is needed for industries in the region. If an industrialist wanted to build a factory in North Kerry his application would have to be refused because we would not be able to supply him with water. The river could be flooded if a dam was built on it, particularly in a dry season, so that the salmon in the estuary could swim into the pools.

The pollution of our rivers has been reduced over the years. Eight or ten years ago there were enormous fish kills as a result of pollution, but new regulations mean that the number of such kills has been greatly reduced. This year the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry suspended the applications for pollution grants and it is allowing only a certain number to be processed. People are being asked to clean up their act; yet the Government will not provide the necessary resources to help people to dispose of their waste, rather than allowing it into the streams and rivers, causing major problems.

A Belgian who visited me this year caught a fish which weighed 18 or 19 pounds. As a result, he booked in ten people to come here next year to fish. One fisherman may fish illegally in the Atlantic and catch salmon during the season; but thousands of people could come to this country for that recreation alone.

I thank the ESB for its programme to restock our rivers with salmon. This might open a door for the Minister which has not been opened before due to the problem in Waterford. The Minister must look at every aspect of fishing and what it means to this country, the facilities which could be developed and its tourism potential. The one thing which will attract people into this country quicker than scenery is a day's fishing. Perhaps he could do a survey of the foreign fishermen who cannot fish in their own countries. Our fishing industry needs to be regulated and developed and we need EU funding to do that. The River Feale which flows through Listowel is the second best salmon and trout river in Ireland, but it needs a dam, particularly during a dry year such as this one.

Mr. Mooney

The Minister and I jousted on related issues when he took this legislation through the Dáil. Although this Bill was passed in the other House without amendment, some concerns were expressed. I apologise for not being able to refer to the Minister's script because copies have not been made available. It would have helped if we had been given a copy because I can only refer to what he said in the Dáil. I was anxious to hear what he said here because Deputy Michael Smith expressed concern about some of the comments he made in the Dáil. I stand to be corrected if he did not make them here.

In the Dáil the Minister said this legislation was being taken in the wider context of his development of the marine industry, inland fisheries and sea angling. That is an all embracing phrase which contains many implications. Perhaps he could elaborate on that statement. He also said he only used that phrase in the context of this legislation. I emphasise this because I am concerned at this further example of centralisation. The Minister is giving powers to himself. I understand why this is being done and I am also aware that it is in keeping with other legislative measures in other Departments. However, I am critical of any legislation which removes power from local authorities and gives them back to central Government. I oppose this move because we should devolve powers rather than taking them back. I understand there are reasons why he felt it necessary to introduce this legislation, such as the difficulties surrounding a particular regional board.

Questions have been raised about the continuing existence of the Central Fisheries Board. As the Minister said, the central and regional boards were set up as a successor to the excellent Inland Waterways Association. I had a lot of knowledge about this association as a young child because my late father, Senator Joe Mooney, was one of its founding members. The part of the country I come from relies heavily on lakes and rivers and on their development. The Inland Waterways Association operated nationally and had its local organisations. The replacement of the seven regional boards seems to have been a rationalisation programme which was long overdue.

I am delighted the Minister has taken the initiative by setting up a task force to look at marine policy, sea angling and inland waterways and I await its deliberations with interest. Perhaps the Minister could tell us if he believes that the Central Fisheries Board has outlived its usefulness. Has it passed its sell-by date? It is a separate layer of bureaucracy between the regional boards and the Department of the Marine. I fail to see why it should continue to exist if the Minister is responsible for initiating and shaping policy and the boards implement such policy. Why should a separate layer exist between the boards and the Department made up of ministerial appointments and other vested interests in the fishing industry? Why can the Minister not get rid of that layer of bureaucracy and devolve more powers to the regional boards?

There should be more consultation between local fishery bodies and those involved in tourism development, particularly in the areas of sea angling, game fishing or inland coarse angling. The consultation procedure which is the norm in a variety of Government activities is not there at present. Europe has forced this on us through the concept of subsidiarity and Governments are now beginning to think in terms of devolving more power. If they do not devolve power they are at least becoming more aware of local concerns and are consulting at local level. However, this does not seem to be happening in the area of coarse fishing.

I concur with the Minister's comments about the excellent work being done by the regional fisheries boards. Nobody can question their commitment and dedication. However, they are understaffed and under-resourced and have been neglected to an unacceptable extent. They are being asked to do far more than they are capable of doing. Some regional boards — I am talking specifically about the board in my constituency — cover such a large geographic area with many diverse interests that it is practically impossible for them to be aware of everything that is happening at the same time.

The Shannon Fisheries Board is responsible for the narrow but extensive area that covers most of the River Shannon from Killaloe as far as the Cuilceagh Mountains in County Cavan. It is also geographically responsible for property and land on both sides. If any of our national treasures were treated in a similar fashion to that of our coarse fishing industry, there would be enormous public pressure on the Government to do something. If a national treasure was involved, many letters would be sent from irate people to the columns of The Irish Times saying it is a disgrace that it was being attacked, underprotected by legislation or being taken out of the country.

Our lakes and rivers are a unique resource. The traditional image of the crusty old fisherman spending his retirement messing about on the river has been replaced with a multi-million pound industry in which Ireland is now a competitor; we do not have a monopoly. The point Senator Kiely made can be repeated here. We have a vital and attractive national resource in our lakes and rivers which is not present in many other European countries. However, the European countries that have this resource and with whom we are competing — and it is a huge market — have developed their resources to a far greater extent.

The Minister came into office at the beginning of this year. I am not criticising him, his stewardship or the current Government's handling of the matter. I am talking in global terms. Successive Governments over the last ten years have not addressed this potentially financially attractive industry and have not given it the priority that it has in other areas. The Minister represents an urban constituency with a coastline. Not only is the Minister fully aware of the importance of the sea, our rivers and lakes, but his background is rural. He grew up in the same environment in the west.

I do not doubt the Minster's awareness and his commitment to ensuring that he will put his mark on this Department for as long as he is there. However, I would like him to keep a few specifics in mind. It is not necessarily only a question of money and resources. I know the Minister is fighting for every penny he can get. I am also aware that angling tourism was identified for the first time as providing job creation potential for our economy in the Operational Programme, 1994-99, and £90 million has been set aside for it. The Minister is doing his best to square the circle in trying to apportion as much money as possible in the most equitable way he can.

I am grateful to the Minister for being responsive to the needs and demands from my part of the country, specifically Lough Allen, the first lake on the River Shannon, which is, as many fishermen say, the jewel in the crown. The Minister is aware of the representations made and I hope money will be apportioned for important approach, access and development work that will make the area more attractive. This will result in value being added to the economy because of the development and the money being put into it.

Having said that, there is another problem which needs to be addressed by the Minister — the question of the so-called fisheries development societies. Their continuing existence must be called into question. These hybrids were born out of a Government whose resolve was weakened in the face of enormous hostility and intimidation from certain sections of the coarse fishing industry who did not wish to have the legal obligation of having a licence to fish imposed on them. Many red herrings, such as landlordism and colonialism, were drawn into the argument.

Senator Daly, when he was Minister for Defence and the Marine, put forward proposals and was pilloried by everybody at the time. He may not have received the enthusiastic support of some of his colleagues in Government at the time either. He was attempting to provide a permanent source of funding for the development of fisheries in this country, the very question with which the Minister is wrestling on a daily basis. This halfway house of fisheries development societies was, like the curate's egg, good in spots. I was prepared to give them a chance at the time, but the best day's work the Minister could do would be to get rid of them.

To support my case, my local angling club has been in constant correspondence with the regional fisheries board in the context of the powers the Minister is now giving. If that regional fisheries board was to be abolished, the Minister or the commissioner he appointed would have to look at this.

A tourist coming to this country may decide, because of publicity or promotions, that the River Shannon is the place to fish. He may decide to start fishing on the lower part of the Shannon south of Banagher where nobody would take any notice of him. He may then decide to fish upstream of Banagher Bridge and suddenly he is approached by a gentleman who says he is a fisheries officer from the Shannon Fisheries Board and he wants to see his licence. The tourist may reply that he has no licence, but he is told that he must have a licence for his rod and to fish. The tourist may say that nobody told him about this. He had been fishing downstream the last few days and nobody said that he needed a licence. The fisheries officer may say that while the fisheries board itself does not benefit from the funds raised through the share certificate operated by these societies, it is the statutory body charged with enforcing the legislation and fisheries officers from the boards carry out checks for share certificates throughout the upper Shannon region and will continue to do so. If the person does not comply with that regulation, the officer may not only confiscate his tackle but may also take his car.

I have documentary evidence of that happening to a tourist in the upper Shannon region. He was so irate that he wrote to the Shannon Fisheries Board complaining about the way in which he was treated. I have his name and address if the Minister wants it. He received a letter from Shannon Fisheries Board acknowledging this event and giving the background to the case. It said that while it did not have an input in regard to these share certificates — it was a governmental decision at the time — it had a statutory obligation to enforce them. A letter sent by Elizabeth Williams, assistant manager of the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, on 28 August this year said that:

Within the Shannon catchment the situation is complicated slightly by the fact that there are two development societies operating — one covering the lower Shannon and one covering the upper Shannon (upstream of Banagher Bridge on the Shannon). The fisheries development society in the lower Shannon has elected not to make the share certificate mandatory while the upper Shannon society has elected to make the charge. Thus the share certificate is charged for all types of fishing in the Shannon catchment upstream of Banagher Bridge on the river Shannon and is therefore required in the Lough Allen area where you spent your holiday.

We have all heard of Alice in Wonderland, but surely the Minister would not condone the anomaly that on one part of our largest river a licence is required but on the other it is not. The board for which the Minister is responsible gets no benefit from enforcing the law but is statutorily obliged to do so, causing the grief, alleged or real, experienced by this tourist.

I do not wish to criticise the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board. In fairness, it has investigated the matter and responded — whether one agrees or not one must accept the response. However, this is one of several incidents reported on Lough Allen and, following this one, the Lough Allen Angling Club wrote to the current Minister, Deputy Barrett, stating:

The club is concerned about tourism in this very deprived area and finds it regrettable that confrontational incidents occur between anglers and fisheries officers when with adequate publicity and information most could be avoided.

The club put forward certain proposals which are on file in the Minister's office but should be put on record. As far as the club was aware, no publicity about fishing societies or share certificates requirements was given in the proper areas since the then Minister, Deputy Woods, launched the scheme on July 23, 1992. Bord Fáilte has not done much in this area either. In her reply to the tourist who complained, Ms Elizabeth Williams of the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board stated:

The Shannon Board does not produce a large volume of promotional material itself but has tried where possible to make anglers aware of the charges which apply throughout its region.

Trying where possible is not good enough. As the angling club wrote:

This publicity would appear [according to our local interests] to manifest itself in very active policing of the bank side and instances where threat to confiscate cars as well as gear occurs are both provocative and damaging.

Of course, they are. How would an Irish person like it if he went to another country to fish and someone produced a document stating he was an officer of a fisheries board, but no one knew anything about it? As the Minister said, people would be prepared to pay if they were aware of the legal obligations, because most coarse anglers pay a licence in the country to which they go. The club goes on:

As far as we are aware there have been no maps (publications etc.) showing exactly which part of the country the Upper Shannon Region covers made available to angling tourists [either here or abroad]. The Shannon Board states "the share certificate is charged for all types of fishing in the Shannon catchment upstream of Banagher Bridge on the River Shannon and is therefore required in the Lough Alien region". That gives no information on which lakes [in the Shannon region or upper Shannon area] are also included and is not informative to residents, let alone tourists.

I do not want to labour the point but this is a multi-million pound industry. There are committed people at local level, as the Minister has heard from colleagues on all sides of the House. He has met them and continues to do so on a regular basis. I ask that the terms of reference of his task force should consider whether the continuing existence of fisheries development societies is worthwhile. This is a can of worms on which Ministers have stumbled in the past. I do not suggest that the Minister goes out on a limb, but the matter should be tackled.

Finally, I ask the Minister to fight for more money at European level for angling development. When the review begins in 1996 and 1997, he should seek more money specifically for angling tourism. I am sure he will agree it will be well spent.

Mr. Calnan

On the two occasions the Minister was in west Cork I was missing, so I apologise for not being able to meet him in my constituency. I welcome this Bill, which is to regularise the workings of the boards responsible for both inland and offshore water management throughout the country. My constituency stretches from Kinsale, around Mizen Head, to Kenmare Bay and has a long coast line. The board's area of responsibility extends to 12 miles out to sea. There are hundreds of mountain and valley lakes, many mountain streams and rivers in the area requiring regulation and control.

My colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, spoke passionately from the heart, as a fisherman. He will vote for the Bill although he has reservations. The Senator is a gentleman and a typical fisherman. He brought back memories of cold winter nights spent beside rivers, when every bush took the shape of a bailiff.

In 1980 the Central Fisheries Board and seven regional bodies were set up to deal with the protection, conservation and management of our rivers, lakes and seas up to 12 miles from the coast. The boards covered salmon, sea trout, brown trout, coarse angling, etc. The boards were necessary, but this Bill is now also necessary for the proper management of the boards' regulations.

In Ireland supreme authority rests with the Government elected by the people. Responsibility for dealing with any irregularities which may occur will eventually rest with the Minister. In a democratic state the people must have control. While I am all for local management, a certain amount of centralisation is necessary to manage the country properly. In introducing this Bill the Minister saw the need to regularise the functions of fisheries boards. When the Bill is passed he will not dismiss the membership of each board and put commissions in their place. That is merely a facility available to him if he sees that something which should be done is not being done. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:

Section 2 provides for the appointment by the Minister of a person or persons to report to him on the management and organisation of a board and the performance by it of its functions and for the inspection by such person or persons of a board's records or documents.

There is nothing wrong with making such provision, since the Minister has overall responsibility for fishing. This regularises the position.

The fisheries boards protect, conserve and manage our rivers, lakes and sea area and the fish within them. I acknowledge the tremendous work they do, for example, in restocking. Near my home there are three lakes surrounded by bogland from which turf was cut. The lakes were untouched for many years but an organisation was formed, thanks to the good work of local people, and with the help of the fisheries board one of the lakes was restocked. This is now a tremendous amenity. During the fine weather this summer, hundreds of people could avail of boat trips on the lake or could fish during the permitted season. It was of great benefit to adults and children to pull into the car park by the lake and avail of the facility. The local organisation did great work in setting this up. I also thank the south-western board for its work in stocking and restocking the lake. It is a tremendous amenity.

Under the tourism operational programme tremendous value for money is available with regard to angling, fishing and the development of tourism in the entire country. This is particularly true of remote, peripheral and marginal areas where other sources of income are not as easily available. Somebody visiting from abroad who has a real interest in angling can be of great benefit to a guesthouse, hotel, bed and breakfast and local bar where the big and small ones that got away can be discussed. The regional boards, in conjunction with the tourist boards and the Department of the Marine, can play a large part in developing angling to a greater extent.

In remote and peripheral parts of the country, such as west Cork from where I come, the value of this type of asset cannot be measured. A huge number of jobs could be created on small farms which have small lakes. If proper work was done in this area it could prove to be of tremendous interest to people from cities such as New York and London. They would be able to go onto ordinary open land, find a water body which is totally unpolluted and fish. This should be properly regularised.

Lack of ministerial responsibility is often given as a reply to questions in the House. For example, a question about a semi-State body will often receive the reply that the Minister cannot interfere. This should be abolished and it should be possible for the Houses of the Oireachtas to question anything happening in the country with regard to local authorities, semi-State bodies or otherwise. The Bill will give the Minister the power, which is urgently needed, to regularise affairs. Section 9 of the Bill covers the making of orders by the Minister and provides among other things that such orders and drafts laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas may be annulled by a resolution of either House. We are giving proper authority to the Houses of the Oireachtas in this matter and that is correct.

Fishing rights on lakes and rivers are often a contentious matter. Some people who own the rights to rivers are flexible in allowing visitors and others to fish. These rights should not be abused. After all, the rivers are there to entertain people and if they want to become involved in angling, they should be allowed to do so.

Senator Fitzgerald was absent from the House when I mentioned his contribution. I pointed out that he spoke from the heart when he talked about fishermen. The Senator is a true fisherman and he knows the sea from experience gained over many years. He was speaking from the heart.

I compliment the angling clubs throughout the country on the work they have done. They show tremendous interest during the year. People dressed in fishing garb head off for the lake or river equipped with all types of bait, rods and various lengths of lines. This is tremendous and should be developed, particularly with regard to young people. In my time the number of people involved in fishing in the local rivers and lakes was quite high. Young people now do not have the same interest but it should be as important as football or any other sport. Angling should be encouraged through the schools, the Department of the Marine or the fisheries boards.

I welcome the Bill under which the Minister has a responsibility to ensure that matters are properly regularised. The Minister is unlikely to abolish boards or otherwise but the legislation will make it possible for him to handle irregularities which may arise.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

I understand Senator Quinn wishes to share his time.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to share my time with Senator Dardis.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Quinn

I wish the Minister well with the Bill and I congratulate him on the manner in which he is handling it. In the other House he said the purpose of the Bill is to deal with the failure of a fisheries board to manage its affairs effectively. This is the way to tackle —"tackle" is a lovely word to use when we are discussing fishing — such a problem. It is the correct approach for the Minister to take hold of a problem, face up to it and introduce a Bill to deal with it effectively.

My query is similar to that raised by Senator Mooney earlier. Are there too many layers of bureaucracy in this area, given the existence of the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards? Is it possible to tackle this area in some other way and avoid these layers of bureaucracy? The Minister will probably have a good answer to that question, but I fear layers of hierarchy in trying to achieve anything. I look forward to the Minister's comments in this regard.

I wish the Minister well and I intend to concentrate on the importance of fish, particularly inland fish, to the economy. The supermarket company in which I am involved is a small company. We wished to form an alliance with other companies in Europe but we were by far the smallest operation; we have 16 outlets but this was with 23,000 other supermarkets. We said we were unsure whether we could bring anything to the party. However, the other members invited us to join on the grounds that we could bring something. This was to help them source a product which they were unable to source sufficiently. They were talking about fish and inland fresh fish in general.

It was in our interest to do this and to introduce them to sources of fish which they are unable to find. I was surprised by the urgency and demand involved and I did not understand until I went to Madrid and visited the second biggest fish market in the world. I was amazed that a country such as Spain and a city such as Madrid which is so far away from the sea could have such a huge fish market. I sought figures on fish consumption and it was then I realised that Spain consumes approximately 40 kilos of fish per year.

Other speakers also mentioned the figures in terms of our position and the challenge facing us. For example, France consumes 20 kilos of fish and Belgium consumes approximately 14 kilos, but we consume 8.5 kilos per annum. This is despite the fact that fish is such a marvellous product. It is close to us and available. Our fresh water fish does not contain any of the horrors and dangers associated in people's mind with other foodstuffs. We must encourage in whatever way possible far more fish consumption. We do not eat enough fish in Ireland and we should do so. We must find a way to put people's minds at rest with regard to the opportunities which exist in this country.

It has been a fabulous summer for fishing. The Irish Times yesterday referred to the fact that an unbelievable number of fish weighing over four pounds had been caught in Lough Sheelin this year.

Mr. Dardis

They are the only ones left.

Mr. Quinn

Perhaps that is so. I do not have the experience of the many Members who are anglers. I made a policy about five years ago to become metric. I refused to allow the old imperial measurements pass my lips. It has made me taller and lighter in that I am now 166 units tall and 78 units in weight. The only time I broke my rule was a couple of years ago when I caught what I regarded as a large salmon weighing seven kilogrammes. However, nobody showed any respect for it until I referred to it as a 15 pound salmon.

I urge the Minister to ensure that in taking steps to protect fish and the fresh waters of Ireland he also ensures we market our fish. I was concerned when An Bord Bia was set up that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara was kept out of it. Our marketing effort should encompass all foods, including fish. In marketing fish for export and to increase consumption at home we must ensure we protect the areas that provide the product.

In the case of rainbow trout, which is now called sea trout, and salmon there is a huge export market which works well for us. We are only touching the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we can achieve. I urge the Minister to continue his efforts and face up to any problems, such as the one he came across and introduced this Bill to deal with it. I am sure the Bill is a move in the right direction and we can hammer out the detail. I wish the Minister well in his task.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the Bill in general terms. There are some details of it, however, on which I would like some clarification. I approach the Bill from the perspective of a practising rod angler, almost to the point of addiction, and that colours my view on the issues. Legislation of this nature deserves scrutiny. The last time we had similar legislation it did not get much scrutiny and led to many problems — I refer to the legislation which led to the rod licence dispute.

I realise the need for the Bill. The background to it is quite unfortunate, indeed tragic in one sense. Something had to be done and the Minister has dealt with it in a fairly realistic way. It would not have been appropriate to have another tribunal of inquiry — we have had enough of them. Dealing with the matter by way of the legislation is a good way of doing it. I understood a file had been prepared for the DPP on matters relating to this. What has happened in that respect? Why not remove some of the individuals rather than scrap the board as a whole as the legislation provides? Would it not be reasonable to say that some people should have been dismissed or suspended to deal with the matter? Perhaps the Minister would refer to that in his reply.

Section 3 (1) (b) (ii) states that subject to the provisions of the Act the Minister may by order "...confer on the said commission such one or more of the functions of the board as the Minister determines and specifies in the order." The Minister could specify limited functions. It would worry me that it could lead to a lot of the functions at present carried out by a board reverting to the Department. I would regard that as undesirable; I want as many functions as possible left with the boards. The Department would be allowed to seriously restrict the functions and take them under the control of the Department. Section 3 (5) refers to a period not exceeding two years, but subsequent subsections allow the Minister to extend that period by order. It appears there is an indefinite period during which the suspension could operate. It should be specified in the Bill that it should not be indefinite.

Section 5 (1) of the Bill states: "A commission shall consist of one or more members as the Minister may determine." There is no size limit on the commission specified in the Bill. That is an undesirable omission. There should be a size limit on the commission. As the boards stand they are too big; there are too many people on the boards and they are too broadly based.

Mr. Daly

And with no qualifications.

Mr. Dardis

I would have problems with those aspects of the Bill. The boards are at present composed in such a way that there are fundamentally contradictory interests at play. On one hand we have the draft net, drift net and shellfish fishermen and, on the other hand, we have the game anglers and the rate payers. If the boards' remit is primarily to look after inland fisheries, as they replaced the Inland Fisheries Trust and the Boards of Conservators under the 1980 Act, the balance is wrong. In my view the balance should be towards the angling and inland fishery interests. It would be better to put the shellfish interests and others under the remit of BIM. That is a matter for another day but it may form part of the Minister's policy review.

The Minister gave a speech at the North Atlantic Salmon Fund dinner in the RDS last Friday night, at which I was present, and I commend him on it. I agree with much of what he said. In particular, he said:

The basic premise underlying Government policy for some time now is that the balance of advantage on conservation, environmental and economic grounds should lie increasingly with redirecting salmon stocks from interceptory offshore commercial exploitation towards recreational fishing. This is supported by international experience and trends which are driven by the conservation imperative.

I agree with that. The Minister will be aware of the work done by Orri Vigfussen on the protection of salmon stocks. I am sure the Minister noted the degree to which people at the function last Friday were prepared to put their money where their mouths were. They came up with a substantial sum through an auction in support of this fund. It is a desirable development which I hope is successful. Quoting our new Nobel Laureate, the Minister said that he stood in the centre casting; I hope he continues to occupy that middle ground. He said he backed the salmon and I commend that.

Poaching was mentioned this morning. It is important to note that the fishery officers have been intimidated as much and more than some of the people they have been accused of intimidating. I read in the newspaper this week that a person in Galway was given a jail sentence for having possession of a stroke-haul and not giving their name. When one examines the Western Regional Fisheries Board report and the number of nets seized in a season, it does not seem to square with a person in possession of a stroke-haul being given six months in prison while people in possession of nets that could do far more damage got away scot free. The question of resources arises in all of this. The Minister said management should be on a catchment by catchment basis and this is why the Shannon board should exist. The River Shannon is a single catchment and should be dealt with accordingly.

Senator Mooney referred to the actions of fisheries officers. One of the difficulties at one stage was that fisheries officers did not get travelling expenses so that they could have leave their bases. Many of them travelled almost on a voluntary basis. As one who fishes Lough Ennell and Lough Owel, I know that I am likely to be challenged and asked for my licence as the board covering the lakes is one of the boards which adopted the permit regulation under the legislation. I must produce it, and have produced it. Most people fishing in these areas are aware of this and it is not a difficulty. If one fishes in any other country one is aware that one will be asked to produce some documentation.

Mr. Manning

Having consulted all Members, there is general agreement that we will continue Second Stage until completion without a sos and then proceed to committee stage.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the establishment of the task force which can do good work but we have had many reviews, action plans and task forces. What we now need is action. I congratulate my colleague, Paddy Byrne, Honorary Secretary of the North Kildare Trout and Salmon Anglers Association — I am its Vice-Chairman — on his nomination to the task force. I wish him well.

We need action, and in this respect, the question of funding arises. The Minister spoke about doing things within the resources available to us and I understand one must operate within the resources, but funding for inland fisheries has been pitiful over the years. Emphasis has been placed on the tourism operational programme under which £19 million is available for angling. However this needs to be put in context. I understand that £118 million has been provided for golf. Each of these activities has equal opportunity to contribute to tourism revenue.

According to the ESRI, a rod caught salmon is worth £600 to the economy. It is worth approximately £300 if caught by a home based angler. One could argue that they are catching so few salmon that they are very expensive by the time they are caught. This reminds me of an old story, which I am sure the Minister is aware of, regarding a salmon angler in Ballinahinch fishery, a famous fishery in Connemara, who had travelled from America, fished solidly for a week and caught one salmon at the end of the week. He asked the gillie if he realised that the salmon had cost him £2,500, to which the gillie replied that it was very good he did not get two of them.

Am I correct in understanding that the Minister said that no decision is necessarily being made if the legislation is enacted? If so, what is the reason for enacting the legislation? The Minster also spoke about present structures and resources, and I have spoken about the need to resource the job properly.

With regard to game angling we have a scandal of far greater proportions than the scandal in Horgans Quay in Cork, which related to a deal for approximately £300,000. I would like to take the Minister on an angling odyssey, which begins in Lough Ennell, where through the inaction of the local authority, the lake was virtually destroyed. The odyssey then goes on to Lough Sheelin, where through pollution from pig farming, the lake was virtually destroyed. Senator Quinn rightly spoke of the large trout that came out of Lough Sheelin this year, but there are very few of them, and they are the ones that survived this incident. Then we go to Connemara. I have fished in Costelloe, Skreeb, Gowla, the Upper Ballinahinch, Kylemore and Delpi. What happened here? The sea trout, a resource worth millions of pounds, were eliminated. Then we have the prevarication, which says that on the one hand, the salmon farms are responsible, while on the other hand they are not. There is no resolution to the problem, because it cannot be proven empirically and scientifically that there is a connection, when everybody knows there was a connection. The Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of the pollution by Merck, Sharp and Dohme of the Hanrahan farm in County Tipperary, said that it could not be proven scientifically that the effect was the result of the emissions from the plant, but that the only sensible conclusion that could be drawn was that it was the result of what was coming from the plant.

It is a scandal of monumental proportions that this resource, which was there since the ice age——

Mr. Daly

Take the Minister to Lough Derg.

Mr. Dardis

I am coming to that. My odyssey is not over yet. I started my fishing on the River Shannon below Banagher, above Meelick weir. This was destroyed by the activities of Bord na Móna and the silt that came down the River Shannon. Then at Lough Conn on a calm day last August, I found in the middle of the lake filamentous algae caused by pollution.

This generation, in its greed, 20,000 years since the ice age, can decide that a resource that existed for so long is expendable and can be destroyed, and the State allows it to happen. Senator Belton made the point about how the river in his area had been restored and brought back to life. I do not regard this as a victory. It should not have been allowed die in the first instance. This is a measure of our lack of commitment.

Putting it into an economic perspective, when I started fishing on Lough Corrib, nearly 30 years ago, people came from America, when there were not very many tourists. They hired cars from Shannon Airport, stayed a month in the west, had a gillie every day and spent a great deal of money. People like them will go to the Falkland Islands, Scotland, Russia, New Zealand, or wherever the sport is, because they have the money to do so. We have not the vision to see this market and that we can exploit it because of the value of our resource.

There should be partnership with the local angling clubs. In North Kildare Trout and Salmon Anglers, who have been struggling over a 20 year period to ensure that a stretch of the River Liffey is protected and people can enjoy it. We have had to struggle with the local authority and bureaucracy to ensure that the resource is protected. We need some support in this.

Dublin Corporation takes 53 million gallons of water a day from the River Liffey and has permission to take 73 million gallons a day from the river at Golden Falls. It wants to take in excess of 100 million gallons a day. The mean flow of the river is 190 million gallons per day. Is somebody suggesting that it is appropriate to take half the water out of a river to serve a need that could be served from other sources? It is acceptable if it is the only source; people must have water. However, there are alternative sources and we could have used the EU Structural Funds to find them and to use them.

Let us talk about the resource we are trying to protect and why it needs to be protected. Do we have disease on our fish farms, and if so, what is being done about it? I am not referring to the commercial fish farms around the coast but about the ones that produce the fry to stock our rivers. We heard about the wonderful things farmers are doing to the environment; they have invested heavily in protecting the environment. However, if we go to the river Eriff — this is a success story where the State has done tremendous work — we see that the mountains are flowing into the river because of over-grazing, because of European policy. Perhaps somebody will explain that inconsistency because I cannot understand it. If you wish to support incomes in an area of huge depression that is fine but do not destroy the landscape, the land and the fisheries in doing so.

The Eriff is a huge success story and I compliment the fisheries board on what it has done there, and on the Moy and the Weir in Galway. The State manages these rivers well, probably better than they would have been managed under private ownership. It is a pleasure to visit the Eriff — although not this year because there was no water — and see what the State has achieved. It is a measure of what the State can do in terms of linking into the tourism industry by protecting and maintaining the resource.

Senator Calnan talked about young people not fishing. The club of which I am a member holds classes for young people and, fortunately, we receive assistance from the local vocational education committee to fund them. That is a good policy. Most people would regard it as desirable to keep young people on the banks of our rivers rather than be involved in other activities which they might not be doing properly.

Iceland offers an example of what can be done for salmon in terms of protecting the resource, making the community feel part of managing the resource and letting the community feel it has ownership of it. Another point worth making is that if the fish are worth money the poachers will move in. We have regulations regarding salmon under which somebody can call to a hotel and look at what is in the deep freeze. I was fortunate enough to fish for trout in New Zealand. A person cannot catch trout on rod and line in New Zealand and sell them. He can bring them back to the hotel and give them to friends for dinner but he could not sell them. That it itself is a big bonus for conservation. These are the type of measures we should look at. There should be creativity in our approach but I do not see any such creativity.

The Minister has a commitment that I had not observed in some of his predecessors and I wish him well in what he is hoping to do for the salmon resource and angling in general. I hope he will be in office long enough to be able to do the job.

Mr. Magner

I welcome the Minister to the House. I would not disagree with much of the contribution made by Senator Dardis. In an age of decentralisation and devolution it might seem contradictory that in this Bill we are taking power back to the centre. However, over the years this House has been critical of Governments of all hues for their apparent incapacity to act when required. Without going into the saga of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, this Bill is long overdue. I welcome it. I trust that the powers to be conferred on the Minister will be used to ensure that the public good takes precedence at all times and that when it has to tackle what is, essentially, gangsterism it will prevail and triumph.

One of the points made by Senator Dardis is ironic given the presence in the House of the first Minister for the Marine. I am speaking of the dangers of bringing legislation involving fisheries before either House of the Oireachtas. I hope that the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility works better in this Government than it did in the Government of which Senator Daly was a member.

Mr. Roche

Certain observations will be made on that shortly.

Mr. Magner

I remember the Senator being hung out to dry without rod and line on that issue.

Mr. Daly

I warned the Minister of State about that already.

Mr. Magner

I am sure he has taken due note.

The potential for job creation in the Minister's area of responsibility is probably better than in any other area of ministerial responsibility. Unlike Senator Dardis, I am not a fisherman although I am a river man. I spend all my holidays on the rivers and lakes of this country. Thanks to the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal one can now travel from Dublin to Beleek without stepping ashore except to open the locks.

Mr. Roche

God bless Charlie Haughey.

Mr. Magner

Indeed. The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, paid fulsome tribute to Mr. Haughey when he opened that canal. I acknowledge that he was a great visionary. He was also criticised for Government Buildings which are now a tourist attraction, apart from providing palatial surroundings for Ministers.

Mr. Daly

An Act I introduced.

Mr. Magner

I notice, however, that there is still a code to keep ordinary mortals, including Members of the Oireachtas, out of that building. Of course we acknowledge the contribution made by Mr. Haughey to the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal.

On travelling the Shannon I can vouch for Senator Dardis's comments about the potential for tourism. On every stretch of the bank one can see groups of fishermen. I was in Banagher on Sunday and the improvements in that town which is based on river activities, whether it is fishing or boating, are enormous. There are cottages for rent to fishermen and there are bars and hotels. Banagher has become a very cosmopolitan town. Located in the midlands it thrives on the tourism industry and caters for it very well. If the peace process reaches a satisfactory conclusion, as we hope it will, I and the House would expect an explosion of visitors, particularly from the United Kingdom.

To that extent, the remit of the Minister, Deputy Barrett, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, in the fishing and water based activities sector has the greatest potential of any Department to create jobs. I support the Bill and have every reason to believe that what happened over the last number of years in the southern region can never be allowed to happen again. The people who were brave enough to bring it to the attention of the authorities should never be abandoned. The Minister is aware of the circumstances of some of those people who did their duty. When people do their duty it ill behoves the State to pretend it has nothing to do with them, particularly when the people are subsequently discriminated against, hounded and threatened. I have every confidence that, when this Bill is passed, the Minister of State will urgently examine and subsequently vindicate that person's courage in bringing to the attention of the authorities the shameful activities that took place in that region.

Mr. Roche

I wish to share my time with Senator Daly.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Roche

I compliment the Minister on the manner in which he introduced this Bill. I read his Second Stage speech in the Dáil with great interest. Other more senior Ministers could take a lesson from his approach. There were and are real problems in a number of fisheries boards. However, the Minister of State did not paint everybody on fisheries boards with a black tar brush. He did not lash accusations right, left and centre. He acknowledged that some things were wrong but that there was also a great deal right. He then went about correcting it in a structured way. It is a terrible pity the Minister, Deputy Lowry, could not have adopted the same approach rather than using the vindictive, spiteful and scattergun approach he adopted to the State-sponsored bodies.

Mr. Belton

The Senator would know all about that.

Acting Chairman

The debate has become too wide ranging and has entered other areas.

Mr. Roche

It did not take the Chair long to decide that.

Acting Chairman

The Senator should not ignore the Chair.

Mr. Roche

I am not ignoring the Chair.

Acting Chairman

You are completely out of order.

Mr. Roche

It did not take you long to come to that conclusion. The point I am making is valid nonetheless. The approach adopted by this Minister is a model that should be followed by other Ministers when there are problems, be they in the State bodies or in any other State institution. We should look at the problem in a dispassionate way, analyse what needs to be done and then, in a structured way, address what needs to be corrected. I was acknowledging the very positive approach adopted by the Minister.

Mr. Gilmore

This is too good to be true.

Mr. Dardis

The Minister is rising to the bait.

Mr. Roche

It goes downhill from here. The great majority of people involved in the fisheries boards have done a great deal of good and have made a tremendous contribution, particularly the voluntary members. In regard to rising to bait, I have a comment on the general issue of how we develop our fisheries, but perhaps I should hurl that barb later on.

The Minister is to be complimented but I have a problem with the general issue and approach in this Bill. The Minister made the point in the debate in the other House that this was not intended to be a Trojan horse for creeping centralisation. I am sure that is not what he intends. The Minister quoted precedents for the approach adopted in this Bill and referred to the Regional Technical College Amendment Act, 1994. That legislation was pushed through in specific circumstances and in my view was not well structured.

This whole approach of ministerial intervention when there is a problem with efficiency or an allegation of wrongdoing is wrong. I will develop the point. All the powers given to the Minister in this Bill could be operated in a subsidiary manner by the Central Fisheries Board. An improvement would be made if the enforcement and supervisory powers of the Central Fisheries Board were expanded and elaborated. It is clear from looking at the legislation that greater powers of oversight and general responsibility should be vested in the Central Fisheries Board. Rather than appointing an external commission, I believe the Minister could, and perhaps even at this late stage should, look at the possibility of requesting that the supervisory functions outlined in this legislation be transferred to the Central Fisheries Board.

I readily acknowledge that these supervisory functions must be put in place. It is extraordinary, given all the publicity that has attended controversies in fisheries boards, that there should be a lacuna in the law in regard to the general issue of supervision, which is what the Minister is trying to correct. I have no problem with the principle of supervision nor with the idea that somebody should be available to ensure propriety, efficiency and effectiveness, which is what the Minister aims to do in this Bill. I respectfully suggest that those functions could be delegated in law to the Central Fisheries Board and it would not be necessary to bring in an open ended commission.

I will be criticising Senator Dardis later but I will praise him on this occasion. His point that the numbers involved in this commission are not enumerated, that there is no limitation in this Bill, is absolutely correct. This is a weakness in this Bill. I am not suggesting that this Minister will abuse this power by appointing a huge commission, that he will use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, but there is a weakness in the logic being adopted.

We should always leave to subsidiary bodies things they can do. The principle of subsidiarity should apply in this case and would give a logical meaning to the life of the Central Fisheries Board. For example, where the Bill in its various sections gives the Minister certain powers, it would be better if the Bill empowered the Minister to request the Central Fisheries Board to fulfil the functions which are enumerated in the Bill. That would make sense. It would also have the very considerable benefit of not providing yet another example of the over centralisation we suffer from. I accept that it is not the Minister's intention that this should be some Trojan horse for centralisation, but the reality is that subsidiary Government, and in particular local government in any form, suffers from an overhang of centralised regulation.

We do not allow local authorities or the equivalents of local authorities or State boards such as this any real liberty to operate in an innovative manner or to use their own initiative. The Central Fisheries Board has a role to play. It could, in turn, be supervised by the Minster and his Department and if by any chance it was deficient, we would have a chain of command: we would have the regional boards with their degree of autonomy, their delegated powers and their functions and responsibilities; we would have at a supervisory level above that the Central Fisheries Board, above that, the Minister setting policy with his Department and, through his Department, supervising the activities of the Central Fisheries Board.

Section 2 of the Bill which gets down to the core issue, that is, efficiency and effectiveness. The idea is that an efficiency or an effectiveness audit — which effectively is implicit in this section — can, could and should be performed in all State bodies by an efficiency audit section that would have powers of inspection and powers to go to agencies and would be attached to the Comptroller and Auditor General's Office. The Comptroller and Auditor General's Office has all of those powers and responsibilities at the moment but, because it is not staffed and geared to it, it does not fulfil that particular role.

Not only does the Bill increase the already distressing level of a creeping centralisation that we have in this country, but it is bad law because it creates unnecessary duplication. This point was touched on by one of the previous speakers. Why have a Central Fisheries Board if the Minister is to do all this? On Second Stage in the other House the Minister very helpfully outlined the role of the Central Fisheries Board, and one of its functions is to ensure that policy directives are carried into effect and to advise the Minister on matters relating to the most effective conservation, management and development of the fisheries resource. If that is the role of the Central Fisheries Board, then his additional inspection powers outlined in this Bill should belong to that listing which already exists. To give the Minister these powers when the Central Fisheries Board is already in place and capable of fulfilling these responsibilities is unnecessary duplication.

The third criticism I have of the Bill is that it is a very bad additional precedent. On Second Stage in the other House the Minister referred to the other precedent, that is, the Regional Technical Colleges (Amendment) Act, 1994, and we all know how that was introduced. That was a bad precedent too and the precedents quoted at that time were bad precedents because the kind of supervision that legislation introduced could have been fulfilled by bodies other than Ministers. We have far too much concern in this State to institutionalise and bring into law additional controls and the dead hand interference of Ministers and their Departments. We now have the most centralised State in Europe, east or west. Stalinist Russia was not as institutionally based and centralised as this State is.

Here we have yet another example of creeping centralisation. I accept fully that the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, was faced with a problem and had to resolve it, but I do not believe that this is the way he should resolve it. This is a further clawing of powers from the periphery of functional local government into central Government and that is a bad principle. The irony is that all the parties currently in Government have all espoused and argued in favour of further decentralisation. Senator Magner generously acknowledged that there was a clash between that logical and desired policy and the problems of centralisation we have in this Bill.

Before I finish, I want to make a further point; it is aimed a little at Senator Dardis and I am glad he is here.

Mr. Dardis

Should I leave so the Senator cannot insult me?

Mr. Roche

No, the Senator should stay; I will not insult him. There was a certain sanctimonious overtone in his contribution.

Mr. Dardis

The Senator should be asked to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Roche

I envy the Senator the amount of spare time he has to fish. I absolutely accept his experience in this area——

Mr. Dardis

I said I was addicted; I did not tell the House how often I went fishing.

Mr. Roche

The Senator's experience in this area is obviously far greater than mine. I draw attention to the fact that one of the central problems — this came up in the Senator's contribution and he rightly put his finger on it at the outset — in fishing is that we have a remarkable resource which is grotesquely underfunded. I agree 100 per cent with the Senator on that. A few short years ago, the former Minister for the Marine, Senator Daly, who is now a Member of this House partly because of the courage he exercised at that time, tried to do something about that. He introduced a Bill, as we all know, effectively creating a licence for trout fishing.

Mr. Dardis

Which I supported.

Mr. Roche

It was supported by the Senator and also handsomely supported by his then party leader, Deputy O'Malley, who spoke extensively in favour of it and said it was such a good idea that we should perhaps have licence fees charged to sea anglers. He probably knew more about it than I or Senator Dardis do. The reality is, unfortunately, that when the clamour went up outside these Houses, the Senator's party, like so many other people, showed a distinct lily-livered attitude and joined with the hounds who bayed around the feet and ankles of a good Minister.

Mr. Dardis

I was not a Member of this House then.

Mr. Roche

It may not have been the Senator — and I am not saying it was he — but it was the party he now belongs to. Deputy Molloy was certainly to the fore in the criticism. It illustrates to me that one of the problems we have in all of this is that inevitably politicisation creeps in.

There is a final point I want to make about this Bill, and Senator Dardis touched on this in part. This Bill is openended; the Minister can appoint any size of commission. He can appoint every member of his or her party, if he or she wishes, to be on some of these commissions. A Minister could use this commission in a vindictive way. We have seen in recent times that, when a Minister is struck by some sort of ministerial paranoia about a State enterprise, we can have vindictiveness and spitefulness displacing logic and intelligence.

One of the additional problems of this Bill is that not only, as Senator Dardis said, is the commission openended, clawing power from the periphery to the centre, centralising and excessive in providing an additional layer where we do not need one, but it also provides the capacity for vindictive interference for political motives by Ministers in boards which may be operating well. We have to say in the current climate that Ministers have shown themselves more than capable of vindictiveness and spite when it comes to scoring political points. This is bad legislation and there are problems in this Bill. I understand why the Minister wants to do this and I understand his dilemma, but I ask him to look at the idea of giving the powers, even on an interim delegated basis, to the Central Fisheries Board and then supervising their function.

Mr. Daly

I want to deal with two issues: the general state of inland fisheries at the present time and the necessity for some action there and I want to deal with some specific matters in the Bill itself, which I believe is in many respects inadequate.

I feel that if the Minister of State proposes to deal with matters relative to inland fisheries in a piecemeal manner, as this legislation attempts to do, he will not achieve anything in that area. I would hate to think he would have the same fate I had as a Minister, but that is a separate issue. There are serious matters in relation to Ireland's inland fisheries that need urgent attention at the present time. There is a need for comprehensive legislation and support, financial and otherwise. If the Minister of State in some way believes that the answer is to introduce legislation in the form of this Bill, which was designed and initiated mainly because of a particular difficulty in the fisheries boards area, it is a dangerous course of action to take and will lead to widespread confusion and an undermining of confidence in the people who have been to the forefront in the fight to conserve and protect our valuable inland fisheries over many years.

I have had the experience of working for a fisheries board, having been a member of the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, the biggest conservation board in Ireland, for 20 years, having been Minister for the Marine and having the experience of dealing with people all my lifetime. The first job my late father had when he was appointed to the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, under the legislation in existence at that time, was as a commissioner to deal with problems of the Kenmare fisheries. I am sure Senator Fitzgerald knows all about it; it was a complex issue which was dealt with at that stage. I fail to see what way the legislation proposed will improve upon the system that is there already and which was used effectively in some cases, admittedly many years ago.

The Minister, in his speech, did not say that this legislation might be used to intervene in the Southern Regional Fisheries Board difficulty, which leads to more confusion in my mind, because my initial view of this legislation was that it was a mechanism proposed to deal with that particular problem and that it did not to a large extent affect the generality of the inland fisheries of Ireland. That is why I would caution against this type of piecemeal approach, but at the same time there are some deficiencies in the legislation, to which I propose to submit amendments for the Minister's consideration and to hear his views on.

Historically, Ireland's inland fisheries have been neglected by successive Governments, the fishermen themselves and the very people who would hope to benefit from their development and proper management. My experience on the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board was that even individual members became involved in the day to day workings of the administration of the board, which was undesirable and influenced by media speculation about poaching or otherwise.

The personnel of fisheries boards were under severe attack, were beaten up, hospitalised, threatened and were in the situation where on many occasions they had to seek Garda protection and security to ensure they could carry out their duties. Nevertheless, there was a reluctance on the part of the Garda authorities to even get involved. I can recall making representations for the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board on several occasions to the Garda authorities for support to back up the statutorily appointed officers of the fisheries boards doing their jobs. They were under siege and attack. On various occasions in the course of carrying out their duties in enforcing the legislation their lives were threatened and they were beaten up and brought to hospital. Their dogs were shot.

There is a litany of disgraceful conduct related to the development and conservation of inland fisheries since the foundation of the State. To a large extent some of this conduct was indulged in by people who professed to be profound supporters and lovers of game angling. These people were a small minority. When a genuine effort was made during my term as Minister to come to grips with the lack of funding and the necessity to adequately finance the declining inland fisheries, some people who claim to this day to be staunch supporters of the development of inland fisheries were the first to enter the campaign to undermine any opportunities we had to put the finances of inland fisheries on a firm footing.

The Minister will find it extremely difficult to find resources for inland fisheries development in view of the attitudes adopted by a minority who, unfortunately, got their way. I get emotional when I speak about this. The opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to the development of inland fisheries was lost for a long time.

I thank Senator Roche and Senator Mooney for their references to my efforts to fund inland fisheries. A sum of £8.5 million has been provided for these fisheries whereas about £80 million should be provided. This investment would more than pay for itself in terms of tourism revenue and economic prosperity, especially in the regions where these resources have the potential to create employment opportunities which would counteract declining populations, particularly in western areas.

The Moy catchment could make a tremendous contribution to the development of employment opportunities in a range of activities, including reel fisheries, which have not been developed mainly because of the greed of some people and their resistance to invest and to shape policies to ensure that those kinds of developments took place. I compliment the former Minister for Fisheries, Mr. Paddy O'Toole, who took the decision to buy the Moy fishery for the State. This was a tremendous investment as were the subsequent purchases of other fisheries.

There is a contradiction in that people on the one hand express concern about declining white and wild trout stocks and fisheries generally, but on the other hand they reneged when it came to putting their hands in their pockets to make small donations to prevent this decline. I do not wish to go over ground which has been travelled so many times by both Houses during the 22 years I have been a Member of the Oireachtas. People speak loudly about commitments to inland fisheries and the need for conservation, development and management, but they fail to put the necessary finances on the table when it is necessary to do so.

This is borne out in the paltry sum coming from EU Structural Funds. Everybody else was in there to get their slice of this funding. The application for moneys from EU Cohesion Funds to deal with the problems in lakes outlined by Senator Dardis, especially pollution in Lough Derg, is still lying on a shelf in Brussels. Lough Derg trout fisheries were the prize of Irish inland fisheries and were internationally recognised. For generations thousands of people came from everywhere to fish in this lake. Today that fishery is in decline. The EU is pussyfooting around with an application from the Minister for the Environment for moneys from the Cohesion Fund to deal with the problems there. How can anybody be taken seriously when talking about fisheries development when EU funding for projects to enhance, protect, manage and conserve valuable fisheries like Lough Derg is not being sanctioned? No progress has been made in dealing with the problems there.

I appreciate the Minister had good intentions in bringing forward this Bill, but it is deficient in many respects. A commissioner for fisheries working with a board, with some functions assigned to the commissioner and others assigned to the board, is a recipe for chaos. There would be a total paralysis of the board's activities with the commissioner and the board blaming each other and no clear line of demarcation as to who is responsible for what. I think the Minister recognises this and he has made a recommendation in the Bill as to how this can be avoided.

If there is to be a commission, the functions of the commissioner must be clearly defined. There is no such clear definition in the Bill. Perhaps under section 9, which deals with the making of orders by the Minister, he will define clearly the functions of the commissioner and set out clearly what he or she will or will not do. A commissioner may go into a fisheries board and make recommendations but there is no clear indication in the Bill as to whether the Minister will act on them. It should be written into the legislation that the Minister has this responsibility.

There are no provisions relating to the qualifications of commissioners except that the Minister proposes to appoint them by way of order. Under the Bill the Minister could go on to the highways and byways and find anybody to appoint as a commissioner to investigate a board, even if that person has no interest in or knowledge and experience of fisheries. This is a major disadvantage and on Committee Stage I will table an amendment which will provide that persons who are appointed commissioners must have experience and/or knowledge of fisheries. This is the least that a board should expect of a commissioner.

We must not have the kind of stupid situation we had after the enactment of the 1980 legislation when the Civil Service Commission appointed people with no knowledge or experience of fisheries to key positions on boards. To some extent these decisions were the cause of some of the problems we have on boards today. It is imperative that in the appointment of people to key positions on boards — this also applies to the commissioner — they should have knowledge and working experience of fisheries issues and this should be written into the Bill.

I agree with Senator Dardis that under this Bill a commissioner may be appointed for a never ending period. The intention is to appoint a commissioner for two years or to the end of the term of office of a particular board, but this is not clear. It seems to me that under the Bill a Minister could keep appointing a commissioner for successive two year periods. This is unsatisfactory and I will propose the deletion of that subsection.

The functions of the commissioner should be defined in the legislation and I will table an amendment to that effect. It is necessary to set out precisely the functions of the commission because those of the board are well defined in legislation. It would be undesirable to have a commissioner whose functions are not decided on or that we would have to wait for orders to be laid before the House before we could look at this.

I pay tribute to the boards, including those with whom I dealt over many years, for their dedication and commitment in 99.9 per cent of cases to the development and conservation of inland fisheries. They have been shortchanged in that they have been given 14 days after the Minister serves notice of his intention to make an order to appoint a commissioner to lodge their observations. There is no compulsion on the Minister to come back to them after 14 days — he may not take account of their observations which, I presume, would be against the appointment of the commissioner. I believe they should have the final say and that some provision should be put in place where the board, through a majority decision, could decide whether to appoint a commissioner if they had not sought that intervention in the first place.

This legislation is deficient and I do not know how we can amend it. I put forward proposals which are worthy of consideration. The Minister is tackling a serious problem in a piecemeal way. It would be better in the long term for the overall development of inland fisheries if he had waited until the reviews were completed. Reviews have been lying around that Department since 1925-26. The salmon review body report has been lying there since Liam Kavanagh set up the commission. No action was taken as a result of that report, not even on drift or monofilament nets or how it should be developed. It is distressing to have to say these things after 25 years of interest in inland fisheries.

Mr. Cotter

This legislation is interesting in so far as it gives the Minister the opportunity to intervene whenever necessary. The Minister's speech is well tempered; I do not believe a sensible Minister would want to intervene in the affairs of the board at regular intervals or on a whim. It is a balanced power which the Minister should have. In that respect, I am happy with the legislation.

This is an opportunity to discuss fisheries policy, or the lack of it, and, as someone from a county that does not touch the sea, the development of inland fisheries. National fisheries policy has regularly come under fire from a variety of sources over the years. We are guilty of many missed opportunities. We were late developing the sea fishing fleet and, as a result, we were late developing the processing side of the industry, as was the case with agricultural products. Other countries were more developed in terms of processing before we even thought about it. We are still trying to make up for lost ground. Our sophistication does not match that of our competitors who were in the field many years before us. That presents us with difficulties in that we are trying to jump ahead at a considerable pace. Sophistication does not happen overnight; it is learned from practice.

The Minister has many difficulties to contend with, not least the way the European Union has moved on the quotas and licensing which were put in place when Ireland was in a weak position. How do we turn back the clock? It is impossible for any Minister to do this, as much as he would like to do so. I appreciate the difficulties that exist in this regard.

Only recently have we seen inland fisheries as a wonderful resource for the development of tourism. Development of the product from a tourism perspective, particularly in the area with which I am most familiar, mid-Ulster, has been slow for a variety of reasons. This is a weak tourism area; the engine for development was never very strong. We must develop our tourism industry and use our waterways to try to generate income. Opportunities to talk about this are very welcome.

County Monaghan was the lowest earner from tourism, and I imagine the position has not changed in the past 12 months. We have an incredible profile based on our pastoral resources. We have done great things with the mushroom, poultry and furniture industries. All are local enterprises which, in some cases, have managed to capture a large slice of the export market. It is incredible that we have achieved that given the lack of multinational investment. However, this is worrying because the manufacturing industry introduces new technology every day and although we have a better foothold in the market, we use fewer people to service it.

We also have a problem in that we do not have any hi-tech industries in County Monaghan and County Cavan. We do not have the ability to employ graduates and, therefore, all the best brains leave the area to work in another part of the country, or in another country. Industry is beginning to employ graduates in areas like marketing and other specialist areas, but it was slow to do so. I worry about the future of those I represent. Many labour intensive industries, like the poultry industry, may come under severe pressure over time and collapse. If that happened we would be rudderless and would have a considerable problem to deal with.

The development of tourism is extremely important to us. As I said, we have a low tourism base. However, there are terrific people working in the accommodation sector. Over the past 25 years people made considerable investments when there were few rewards; I refer in particular to some of the hotels in County Cavan and County Monaghan and the amenities which have been provided. Now that there is peace a few miles up the road I hope we will reap the benefits and rewards which should be there. It will be difficult because it is not a well known tourist destination but people are beginning to invest in this area.

The development of waterways is essential to support the accommodation sector in my area. The Erne system which flows through Fermanagh is a rich resource and is one of the finest waterways in Europe. It is linked to the Shannon by the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal. The people of west Cavan can see the benefits which have accrued from that. There has been much talk about a canal which existed in County Monaghan in the last century — the Ulster Canal and there are divided views on whether it should be developed. Substantial amounts of money are necessary and some believe the money would be better spent on draining land, for example. I do not share that view. We should try to develop the Ulster canal as it would open up tourism and would link into the Erne system. Towns such as Clones and Monaghan, through which the canal would pass, would be given a new vista in the development of tourism. I am sure the Minister is already aware of the Ulster canal project and its future importance for us. I hope before the end of the century we can complete at least a phase of the project. I know people on the other side of the Border are quite excited about that development but we do not have same sense of excitement here where views are more divided.

There is a clash between traditional agricultural thinking and the more modern thinking which I espouse. Land use policy in Monaghan tends to be very traditional whereas in other parts of Ireland, private individuals are building golf courses at a tremendous rate. Perhaps the population of 51,000 people in Monaghan and 53,000 in Cavan is too sparse, but private investors are not developing the land there in the way they are in other parts of the country. It is a chicken and egg situation where developers have to decide whether to take a chance and spend a great deal of money providing an amenity and then hope it will be successful. It is easier to repeat something which had been done before.

There is a very little private investment in waterways. People are not exercising their rights to lakes and so on from the point of view of development. Perhaps, that is because we do not have enough clients to justify such a development. We look to the State most of the time to provide access to our lakes, to improve the shorelines, to provide fishing stands and so on. I would love to see a mixed approach with private individuals developing the waterways and charging for the amenities they provide. Those who come here to fish are quite willing to pay for good services. They will rent boats and pay gillies to assist them to find the best fishing waters, which they are willing to pay to use. Such a mixed approach to development would present a great opportunity to make progress. Public money is always in shorter supply than we would want.

I also want to see a great deal of cooperation on the waterways in Fermanagh and Cavan-Monaghan. I would like to see people on both sides of the Border pooling resources in development and marketing. The funds under the Delors package and the INTERREG programme are for that specific purpose. The INTERREG programme, in particular, can assist co-operative approaches on both sides of the Border and I hope we will be able to ensure a good take up of those funds, particularly in the area of tourism. We should seek development followed by marketing or development in conjunction with marketing.

With regard to cross-Border co-operation, I will outline an experience I had in the past six months in order to help understanding of our difficulties. Since last January I have had meetings with people from all political and social backgrounds involved in tourist accommodation on both sides of the Border. We had some very interesting meetings and the objective was to set up a joint marketing operation. Bord Fáilte and the Minister's office were very supportive but I had a bit of a problem with the Northern Ireland tourist board. It was somewhat stand-offish and afraid to get involved. I assume it is waiting for attitudes and the climate to change. I hope people will show more commitment in the next few weeks and we will get moving because the initiative has the full support of the people involved and deserves the full support of those who can help them to organise.

It is interesting to note that there does not seem to be any difficulty at ministerial level and Ministers agree on joint approaches at the very top level. I hope the approach of the lower strata will improve, allowing people at that level to get fully involved although we all understand that people are somewhat slow about moving wholeheartedly because of the volatile nature of the political scene in the North. I have spoken to European investors in recent months about investing in joint ventures between the North and South, in which an investment might be made in the South and a mirror image of it created in the North. However, the European tour operators are reticent about getting involved in such ventures in the North. The situation is not yet stable enough for them to invest there.

I am concerned about the development of tourism and the maximum use of our waterways in the mid Ulster region. The regional tourism organisation and the regional fisheries boards should work very closely together and I understand there are people who sit on both of those boards in each region. The two boards are synonymous and should have a common membership. That would mean the fisheries board would have a clear understanding of what the RTO was trying to do and vice versa. At present, there is not a great deal of common membership between the two organisations. Will the Minister examine whether it would be advisable or possible to get them working closer together?

I look forward to working with the Minister and to his further visits to the House so that we can continue to discuss and broaden our views, thereby assisting the people we represent.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

I thank the Members for the positive, comprehensive and well informed contributions to the debate today. They covered not only the immediate provisions of the legislation but the inland fisheries brief. This was a useful exercise because many issues in this area require attention.

Senator Daly cautioned against approaching the inland fisheries area in a piecemeal way. I assure him that I have no intention of approaching this matter in that way. Since this Government came to office it has initiated a complete overhaul of marine policy which, I am sure Senator Daly will agree, is timely, given that the Department of the Marine has been in existence for eight years. The time has come to do a complete overhaul of marine policy and to examine where we are going, how to get there and the potential for economic development and for leisure and recreational activities.

In that context we are looking at the fisheries service. As Senator Daly is aware, a firm of consultants was appointed to look at this area, including inland fisheries. That review is taking into account many of the issues raised here today, including the points made by Senator Mooney and Senator Dardis about the relationship between the Central Fisheries Board and the regional boards and the points raised by Senator Quinn about An Bord Bia, on which the Minister for the Marine has an appointee. This means that the fisheries service will be kept to the forefront.

The structure and organisation of the fisheries service is also being considered. In addition, we are also looking at policy in the inland fisheries area. Senator Dardis and Senator Fitzgerald mentioned the management of salmon. It was interesting, for example, to listen to the contributions of Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Dan Kiely, who are in the same party and from the same county but who have different perspectives on this issue. Senator Fitzgerald discussed this issue from the perspective of the fisherman at sea and Senator Dan Kiely looked at it from the perspective of developing angling tourism and an angling resource for salmon. It will be difficult to resolve those conflicting interests, but they are being considered. The structural, organisational and policy issues which arise in the fisheries service and the inland fisheries service in particular is not being looked at in a piecemeal way, but in a total and comprehensive way.

Senator Daly asked why I did not wait until that review was completed and then include the outcome of that review and whatever concerns I had about individual fishery boards in a single piece of legislation. That answers the question why this legislation is before the House on a stand alone basis. As is well known, serious allegations have been made over a period of time against one fishery board. I stress that these allegations have only been made against one fishery board. Some of those allegations have been the subject of a Garda investigation. The first question was what the Minister could do to inquire about the validity of those allegations. I have not formed a view on this and I do not want to prejudice the outcome of any formal investigation which might take place, although I have heard serious allegations being made.

I want to establish a mechanism by which those allegations could be investigated by me. The existing procedures under the current Fisheries Acts only permit a formal public inquiry. There is a requirement for a simple mechanism which is capable of being activated more quickly and through which the Minister can establish the validity or otherwise of certain allegations being made. It is for that purpose that the legislation provides for the appointment of a person who can inquire into these matters.

The second question which arises is what will happen if certain allegations are valid and action is required. The only remedy provided in existing legislation is to stand down the entire board. However, that may not be appropriate. If, for example, a problem arises in a fishery board relating to the exercise of the personnel function by that board, it may not be appropriate to stand down the board or its members. The board may be carrying out its functions adequately as regards its normal work, but the board may require some assistance or intervention to deal with a particular difficulty or problem.

It is intended to appoint a commissioner to deal with such a situation. This can be done in two ways. The first is where the board requests it. It is possible that a board may say it needs help with a particular problem and requests the Minister to transfer certain specified functions to a commissioner in order to have those carried out. The second is where the Minister, following the conduction of an investigation, must go before the Houses of the Oireachtas and explain why he requires to have certain functions of a fishery board transferred to a commissioner. It will require approval of the Dáil and Seanad for that to occur. This can only happen in exceptional circumstances and the reasons must be laid before and accepted by the Oireachtas.

The fears expressed by Senator Roche that this is a draconian measure to centralise the operation of the fisheries service are ill-founded. This Bill is intended to deal with exceptional circumstances which, unfortunately, have not been provided for in existing legislation.

Senator Mooney and Senator Roche asked why the Central Fisheries Board could not exercise this function and why we did not introduce legislation to strengthen the powers of the Central Fisheries Board. The fisheries boards, as they are defined in the legislation, refer to both the central and regional fisheries boards. It is possible this legislation could at some stage be applied to the central board in the same way as it is to one of the regional boards. The distinction between the central and regional boards in their position under the legislation provides for that.

A large number of issues were raised. I have addressed the matters contained specifically in the legislation and I have taken note of the other issues raised. They ranged from salmon management to the various projects and ideas in different parts of the country for the development of the inland fisheries resource. Senator Mooney asked about the anomaly existing between the boards responsible for the river Shannon, Senator Cotter raised some points on the Ulster Canal, Senator Calnan asked about the restocking of lakes in his area and Senator Belton did likewise.

I agree entirely with the observations that the inland fisheries area has been taken for granted to the extent that the pressures on the resource, especially from pollution and conflicting economic activities, whether of an agricultural, forestry or other marine related nature, may not have been given the amount of weight they deserved in the past. There is no point in recriminating over it or apportioning blame. We have an inland fisheries resource that is still, notwithstanding the pressures it has been under, especially over the past ten to 20 years, one of the finest in the world. However, it requires careful management, high priority to be given to conservation and attention to be given towards redressing the pressures that have been put on that resource through pollution, overfishing and poor management of the fishery resource. Some people believed that it was only a matter of letting the water flow and everything would be fine. We now increasingly have to recognise that the resource has to be managed. The work that has been done by the Central Fisheries Board, for example, in the management of the fisheries acquired by the State, which were referred to by a number of Senators, is testimony to that.

I appreciate the many offers of advice and help offered here today and I look forward to working with Members in advancing an agenda to help develop our inland fisheries resource.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Cotter

At 3 p.m.

Committee Stage ordered for 3 p.m. today.

Sitting suspended at 2.25 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.