Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997

Vol. 149 No. 20

Fisheries (Commissions) Bill, 1997: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The purpose of the Fisheries (Commissions) Bill, 1997, is to validate the establishment of the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission and the appointment of Mr. Séamus Keating as member of the commission to validate the actions of the commission and to provide an indemnity to the members of such commissions against all and any actions or claims.

The House will recall that the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission was established, and had certain functions conferred on it, by an order signed by me on 21 February 1996 following debate and resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. In summary the Attorney General has advised that the order in question is invalid because the necessary authority to sign it had not been conferred on me as Minister of State at the time. New legislation is needed to validate actions taken by that commission in exercise of functions purportedly conferred on it under that order.

I would like to recall for the House the circumstances which gave rise to the establishment of the commission. The Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, provides that the Minister for the Marine may, by order, following a request from a fisheries board or after consideration by him of a report on the management, organisation and performance of a board, appoint a commission to carry out particular functions of that board. The legislation was enacted on foot of a review of the existing legislation governing intervention by the Minister in the affairs of a fisheries board where exceptional circumstances warranted. It was prompted by recurring allegations concerning the Southern Regional Fisheries Board.

As soon as the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, was enacted, I appointed Mr. Dermot Rochford, personnel consultant, to report to me under section 2 of that Act on the management and organisation of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board and the exercise by it of its functions in relation to its finances and staff. His report concluded that the affairs of the SRFB were not, nor in the foreseeable future likely to be, managed in an effective manner. He recommended that the Minister consider exercising his powers to establish a commission under section 3 of the 1995 Act while ensuring a working structure which would continue to harness the undoubted capabilities within the board itself.

I wrote to the Southern Regional Fisheries Board on 13 January 1996 giving notice under section 4 of the Act of my intention to make an order appointing a commission and conferring on it the management, conservation and protection functions of the board. The board would continue to be responsible for the development and improvement of fisheries; the encouragement, promotion and development of angling; the issuing of licences; fisheries rates and the preparation of development plans. The Southern Regional Fisheries Board responded positively to my proposal on 24 January 1996. In accordance with the Act, a draft order establishing the commission was laid before each House of the Oireachtas on 9 February 1996. On 21 February 1996 each House passed a resolution approving the draft order. I accordingly made the order on 21 February 1996, under section 3 of the 1995 Act, providing for the appointment of a commission for a period of one year from 23 February 1996 to take over the protection, conservation and management functions of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Mr. Séamus Keating was appointed as the sole commissioner with effect from 26 February 1996.

In causing a report to be prepared on the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, signing the order providing for the appointment of the commission and appointing Mr. Keating to the commission, I proceeded on the understanding that I was exercising powers conferred on me by the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, and the Marine (Delegation of Ministerial Functions) (No. 2) Order, 1995 (S.I. No. 199 of 1995). The latter order delegated certain specified functions of the Minister for the Marine to the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine. These functions included functions under the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1994, in so far as they relate to inland fisheries.

It was in the course of routine preparation of a draft order last December to extend the term of the commission that the Attorney General's Office discovered that the original order establishing the commission was invalid. It transpired that, because the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, under which the order was made, post-dated by several months the Marine (Delegation of Ministerial Functions) (No. 2) Order, 1995, the specific new powers conferred on the Minister under that Act had not been delegated to me. The Attorney General's Office advised the Department of a potential problem on 18 December last and at a meeting the following day.

Pending clarification of the legal situation, it was decided to proceed in any event with the laying of a draft order extending the term of the commission in the name of the Minister for the Marine. This was laid before the Oireachtas on 20 December 1996. Following definitive clarification of the problem after the Christmas break, in consultation with the Attorney General's Office, the Minister and I agreed on the need for immediate action to address the legal difficulty. The Attorney General advised that primary legislation was required to validate the appointment and the work of the commission since its establishment.

I regret that this situation has arisen, resulting in the need to introduce this legislation. I assure the House that I signed in good faith, and with the agreement of the Minister and the approval of both Houses, the order establishing the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission. I had at the time no reason to doubt that I had the necessary authority under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, and under the Marine (Delegation of Ministerial Functions) (No. 2) Order made earlier in 1995 to make that statutory instrument. Indeed, we were all proceeding in good faith in the course of the debate of the order in this House last February.

Equally, the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission has subsequently acted in good faith in exercising the functions conferred on it, as has the Southern Regional Fisheries Board in co-operating and working with the commission. I will refer later to the constructive work carried out by the commission since its establishment in February 1996. It would clearly not be in the public interest, nor in the interest of the Southern Fisheries Region, nor in keeping with the intentions of the Oireachtas, if we were not to address the legal deficiencies which have now come to light.

The commissioner was informed of the legal deficiencies on 14 January last and the chairman of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board has been briefed on the situation. I understand he has briefed board members and staff. The legal situation, pending the enactment of this Bill, is that the Southern Regional Fisheries Board has all the functions of a regional board under the Fisheries Acts. The Bill is designed to enable the constructive and valuable work of the commission to date to be validated and preserved and will allow that work to be completed in the best interests of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board and Southern Fisheries Region.

In that context I advise the House that, since taking office, the commission has undertaken a review of fisheries protection and surveillance in the southern region and has, where necessary, formulated revised working procedures in this operational area. The commission has worked closely and constructively with the board which, under the purported order, retained responsibility for fisheries promotion, development and licensing and for fisheries rates. The commission is also reviewing management systems within the board and, in conjunction with the Central Fisheries Board, has undertaken a review of the board's finances and financial systems. I am satisfied, on the basis of regular reports to date from the commission, that it is in the interests of the efficient and effective management of the board for the commission to be allowed to complete the work it has begun.

The detailed provisions of the Bill are as follows. Section 1 governs the interpretation of terms used in the Bill. Section 2 provides for the validation of the order signed on 21 February 1996 which established, and conferred certain functions on, the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission and of actions taken in fulfilment of conditions precedent to the making of that order. Section 3 provides for the validation of all actions taken by the commission in the period since its establishment to the date, 14 January 1997, on which the commission was informed of the legal difficulties and the validation of the appointment of the sole member of the commission.

Section 4 subjects validations under sections 2 and 3 to the necessary constitutional provisions. Section 5 provides for the extension of the order which purported to establish the commission, and which is to be validated under section 2, to 20 February 1998 or to such earlier date as the Minister may specify. This will make the draft order laid on 20 December 1996 redundant.

Section 6 provides for the continuation in office of the existing member of the commission. Section 7 provides for the indemnification of members of the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission, and members of commissions which may be established in the future, against actions brought against them by virtue of their actions or omissions as members of commissions. Section 8 provides for the non-abatement of prosecutions brought prior to the enactment of this Bill by either the Southern Regional Fisheries Commission or the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Section 9 gives the short title of the Bill, collective citation and construction.

I commend this Bill to the House. It will enable the commission to be put back on track and will allow for the substantive work already under way to continue and be completed as everyone intended.

This Bill validates legislation passed in the House approximately 12 months ago. At that time I was worried about the purpose for which it was intended. It appears that constructive work has been undertaken by the commission since the appointment was made and it would be a pity to waste that. I have no objection to the Bill passing through the House as quickly as possible.

As a former salmon fisherman and licence holder, I want to comment on the measures the Minister has introduced to conserve wild salmon. The Minister is limiting the number of licences issued for the drift net system which means people who had licences last year will not get them this year. He is also reducing the distance from 12 miles to six miles and shortening the season. The same applies to the draft net system. While I am not totally against these measures because we need to conserve wild salmon, the Minister should provide compensation for these fishermen. If a person loses their job, they will get compensation by way of redundancy payments. Yet fishermen lose their jobs each year but they do not receive compensation. Although I support the idea of conserving wild salmon, many fishermen will not get licences this year as a result of the measures introduced. I ask the Minister to consider giving compensation to fishermen who will not get licences and to those whose season will be shortened.

I support the good work being done by the Southern Regional Fisheries Board and I hope it continues.

As Senator Fitzgerald stated, the Bill calls for brevity but it also calls for the imprimatur of the various parties to vindicate the original action taken by the Minister of State. At the time the original order was introduced, there was a serious problem within the Southern Fisheries Board and the Minister of State took decisive action. With hindsight, it has not worked very well but the fact that the mechanism is defective is a matter for the bureaucrats, to which Senator Manning referred during the debate on constitutional reform. Nonetheless, these things happen and the Minister of State received advice and took action in good faith.

The Attorney General acted correctly in drawing this important matter to the attention of the Department and insisting that primary legislation should be introduced to resolve the problem. That is the correct way to do business. I have no doubt about the effectiveness of the original order in terms of its implementation. In the spirit of generosity, this House will correct the mechanical difficulties involved with it. I commend the Minister of State for his original action. This matter will be resolved through the introduction of this Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State. It is important to state that he should be absolved of any blame in this matter. It is not his fault that this Bill is before the House and he has acted with commendable speed to regularise the situation. I would not echo the kind words used by Senator Magner in respect of the Attorney General's Office. These difficulties might not have arisen had the staff of that office been more vigilant. The Minister of State will be relieved that I will not reiterate remarks made by Deputy Haughey when this matter was discussed in the Dáil. The Deputy argued trenchantly that there were deficiencies of a serious nature in the Attorney General's Office which was part of the reason the legislation had come before the Lower House.

I believe that the original legislation was correct. It was essential to resolve, in the manner intended, the serious problems which existed in the Southern Fisheries Board when that legislation was introduced. I note that the commissioner has been in office for approximately 12 months but the fact that we are regularising this matter will not change the situation on the ground in terms of actions that were taken.

Inland fisheries and freshwater fishing are immense natural resources and are important on a world scale. It appears not enough people recognise that fact. It is important that the Government, other State agencies and the tourism industry realise the magnitude of the resource. Even were it not of such a magnitude, we do not have the right to destroy something which has been in existence since the ice age. That is what is happening.

Recent news reports highlighted the problem of phosphates in Lough Corrib. I began my lake fishing career on Lough Ennel which was destroyed. Lough Sheelin was also destroyed and there is still prevarication about the disappearance of sea trout from the west. Lough Conn is also being destroyed by phosphates. Such lakes are extremely important resources and I am disappointed at the lack of determination to protect them. It is important to stress that there have been success stories such as the River Moy and the River Erriff, which is managed by Jim Stafford. Ken Whelan's research at Burrishoole is another example of a success story. However, we must be determined to protect these resources.

With regard to Senator Fitzgerald's comments on salmon, I commend the Minister of State for the action he has taken in that regard. However, I accept that, where livelihoods are affected, there must be a mechanism to allow people to disengage from the industry and receive compensation. There is a capital value to a fishery or an individual's right to fish which must be taken into account.

I accept the need for the legislation. I hope that the resource with which the Fisheries Board is charged with protecting and developing will be enhanced and improved. I look to the present Government and its successors to exercise the determination required to ensure that the resource remains in place and that the revenue to be gained from it in terms of domestic and international tourism can be sustained.

When I began fishing on Lough Conn approximately 30 years ago, people travelled from America via Shannon Airport, hired cars, stayed in Connemara for a month, hired a gilly each day and eventually returned home. Those people were quite affluent and did not mind where they spent their money. They would travel to the Falk-land Islands, Alaska, Russia or wherever the sport existed. If we provide the sport, they will come to Ireland.

My knowledge of fishing does not match that of Senator Dardis. By virtue of the fact that the dogs in the street outside the headquarters of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board were aware of the problems in that area and realising the great potential of our fisheries, one wondered how soon that matter would be rectified. As it happened, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, was enacted and a statutory order was introduced. What was the nature of the difficulties associated with this matter? I realise that it transpired because the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, under which the order was made, post-dated the delegation of the functions but that should not be deemed to be a serious matter because it is easily rectified by amending the legislation.

The Minister of State is making a great impact in the area of fisheries and he must continue to do so because of the enormous potential that exists. Everything possible must be done, in accordance with the law, to develop and protect our fishery interests.

I welcome the Minister of State and I support the legislation. As he stated, Members are unanimous about the need for its introduction. Senator Magner stated that there have been many problems in respect of the Southern Fisheries Board. Does the Minister of State have access to adequate machinery to deal with this problem and does he have the respect of those involved in the fishing industry? Are an adequate number of those involved in that industry participating in the commission he established?

I live in an area where people have experienced endless trouble with the Foyle Fisheries Commission. I hope the introduction of the legislation will provide a solution. However, I have a gut feeling that it will not because the Department of the Marine does not have the manpower, machinery or intention to pursue this matter. I oppose the idea of bringing in civil servants from outside to become members of a commission. Perhaps this is necessary to keep the Department involved and informed. However, people involved in other industries are also involved in the managing and monitoring of those industries.

I speak from experience but I will not inform the Minister of State about how bad things are in the Foyle Fisheries Commission. However, I will read him a newspaper headline which states "River Watcher Nets £40,000 in Religious Bias Claim". The article to which it refers states that two Tyrone men were awarded damages totalling £40,000 on grounds of religious discrimination against the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

The Senator is straying from matters proper to Second Stage.

The Senator is straying towards Lough Foyle. If that is the amount of sincerity with which my contribution was taken, it would be better had I not made any. I hope the Minister knows he has a sizeable problem in the management of the inland fishing industry and the area under his responsibility. It has to be seen to be working to get the respect of fishermen because there is temptation to drive a horse and cart through any regulations introduced under the Bill. I would like to be assured that the Minister has the capacity and the resources necessary. As someone with a dedicated interest I think he is going nowhere if he does not recognise there should be an input from those involved in the industry to the management of the board. I appeal to the Minister to appoint someone from the fishing industry to the new Southern Fisheries Commission. He will only be successful if he intends to do that.

I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him well with this legislation. It is unfortunate that it had to come back to the House but these things happen. Now is the appropriate time to get the matter in order. It was vital legislation originally, and it still is.

I welcome the Minister and wish him well with this legislation, which he spelt out simply and in great detail. He has contacted the Southern Fisheries Board who are agreeable to what he is doing. The Minister is to be complimented on introducing the legislation dealing with the Southern Fisheries Board last year. This legislation follows on from that.

Senator Fitzgerald spoke about drift and draft fishing and raised an important question about the reduction in licences. I agree with what he said about licences being taken away and that people should be compensated. Perhaps some form of compensation could be paid to those who lose licences. It would be a way around it and everyone agrees there should be a reduction of this type of fishing.

Senator Dardis mentioned Lough Conn and Lough Cullen. I compliment the Government for providing £250,000 for a new tertiary treatment unit for Castlebar sewerage scheme, which will eliminate phosphates going into the Castlebar river and ultimately Lough Conn and Lough Cullen. This will be a great help in bringing the lakes back to life. We are hopeful that we will get a new sewerage treatment unit for Crossmolina, which would greatly benefit those lakes. I hope the Minister takes this up with his Cabinet colleagues. Everyone in the region is making strides to bring the lakes back to life. The farmers are to be complimented as they are taking care with the spreading of slurry. I compliment the Minister on this legislation.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and all the Senators who have contributed for their co-operation and understanding about the need to correct an unforeseen legal deficiency which arose in the implementation of the Bill. It is fortunate that the deficiency was identified and that we are in a position to correct it. I confess I would have preferred if it had been identified at an earlier stage. Sometimes flaws in legislation are not found until it reaches court and then it is at considerable expense to everyone involved, including the taxpayer. On this occasion, the problem was discovered at an early stage and we are moving to correct it.

I presume when Senator Dardis referred to Deputy Haughey, he meant Deputy O'Malley, who did make a trenchant contribution on this Bill in the other House. It baffles me why Senator Dardis of all people should confuse the two.

It must be the old family home.

They were once political first cousins.

He made a number of points about inland fisheries generally with which I agree. Senator Sherlock, Senator Belton and Senator Burke also identified the same issue. Our inland fisheries are a valuable resource. The extent to which the Government values those resources is reflected in the fact that the allocation for inland fisheries in the 1997 Estimates is the highest ever at over £16 million. There is a big financial commitment, particularly through the tourism angling measure of the operational programme which is investing considerable sums of money, including restoring and saving the western lakes as the premier wild brown trout fisheries in Europe.

I also thank Members for their kind remarks about the action we have taken to conserve our wild salmon stocks. I am not sure Senator Fitzgerald's analogy of compensation and someone losing their job is accurate. Nobody is losing their job as such. I have restricted the number of available licences but I have restricted it to the number of licences which were issued in 1996. There will be no reduction in the number of licences this year over those issued in 1996. I have capped it at the 1996 level to limit the size of the fishery.

Fishermen will be beneficiaries of the conservation measures taken. There is a restriction on the fishery this year. I intend to proceed to a second phase of conservation measures which will include the introduction of a quota system for the salmon fishery, the primary purpose of which is to allow more fish back into the rivers. This will ultimately result in a higher salmon population and the beneficiaries will include the fishermen who are co-operating with the measures and who are being asked to restrict the fishery in the short term to allow stocks to recover.

I thank Members of the House for their constructive contributions.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 tomorrow morning.

Top
Share