Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1944—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. It is a small Bill which contains no new principle or any point of great importance. Since the main Act, the Fisheries Act, 1939, which deals with inland fisheries, was passed by the Dáil and Seanad, we have discovered that there were two omissions which we want to have put right. In the first place, in Section 23 of the 1939 Act, there is a prohibition against the use in any lake, river or estuary of any light or fire of any kind or any otter, spear, gaff or other instrument of a similar kind for the purpose of taking salmon or trout. That clause was taken from the Fisheries Act, 1842, but in that Act the words used were "salmon or other fish". A mistake was made in the course of drafting, and we find now that if a person found with any of these instruments on the side of a lake or river pleads that he intended to fish only for pike, perch or some other fish, there is no offence, and it is very hard to get a conviction in certain cases in which a conviction would probably be justified. We want to have the words in the Principal Act changed from "salmon or trout" to "salmon or other fish".

The second point has to do with substances which may injure fish in a river. Section 26 of the 1939 Act provides a penalty for the use of lime, spurge or any narcotic, irritant or poisonous substances, or any explosive, for the purpose of injury to or destruction of fish in any river, lake or estuary, whether it be a public or private fishery. This does not quite cover the case, and, as a matter of fact, in drafting the Act of 1939, Section 80 of the 1842 Act was put into the Schedule of Repeals, through an oversight, with the result that it is very difficult to get a conviction in such cases. In substance, we want Section 80 of the 1842 Act back into operation. Clause 3 of this Bill has that effect, as it deals with the discharge of certain poisonous substances into rivers.

It will be observed, however, that the Minister concerned with fisheries, the Minister for Agriculture, has power to grant exemptions under certain conditions, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but, in granting an exemption, he can prescribe any conditions he thinks fit, because in certain cases grave hardship might be caused by not granting exemption under certain conditions. These are the two points which we want to have set right and, as I have said, both these clauses were in operation before the 1939 Act. In the transfer of certain clauses from the old Acts to the new Act, these mistakes were made.

I think I mentioned on a previous occasion that my Department is concerned with the consolidation of all the Fisheries Acts since 1842 up to the present. There have been 100 years of legislation and more than 25 Acts have been passed. We want all these Acts consolidated into one Act. The work has been proceeding, and, although it is a very big job, we hope we may be able to have the Bill before the Dáil within 12 months.

Mr. F. Lynch

So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to welcome the Bill because, from the fisheries' point of view, I think it is necessary, but I understand that some of my colleagues are rather alarmed about Section 3, with regard to the growing of flax. Section 2, of course, is a purely verbal amendment to meet a slip in the 1939 Act, but I was wondering what was the necessity for the amendment provided in Section 3. I had forgotten that the Minister had repealed the appropriate clause of the old Act in the 1939 Act. I knew that under the old fishery laws the putting of any of these deleterious substances into a river, no matter for what purpose, or allowing them to go into a river through any neglect in running a factory or something of the kind, was an offence punishable under the fishery laws. I realise now from what the Minister has said that it is necessary because of the repeal of the clause which provided for it in the old Act. So far as I am concerned, from the fishery point of view, I think it essential that it should be re-enacted and I would be prepared to support the Minister in the matter. I have not consulted my colleagues—I had not an opportunity for the last day or two —but I know that at least one Deputy has some fears in regard to it.

I was glad to hear from the Minister that the codification of the Fisheries Acts is in progress. I think it would make matters much easier for the Department and boards of conservators through the country if our fishery laws were all brought within the four walls of one Act. To find out what the law is on fishery matters now is a very laborious task, because you have to search in order to discover what has been repealed here, there and everywhere. It is a very difficult matter to find out what the law is on any particular point. It will be a very great value to the Department and to the boards of conservators to have the law consolidated.

Mr. Bartley

I should like to ask the Minister with reference to the exemptions to which he referred, could he give any idea as to what these exemptions are? Has he any particular exemptions in mind?

Mr. Anthony

I think this Bill should have the unanimous support of all Parties in the Dáil. The Minister said that he is codifying all the other Acts of Parliament passed from time to time in this one measure. That in itself is an achievement. There are so many Acts dealing with fisheries, particularly inland fisheries, of which several sections have been repealed either by the British Government or the Government here, that it has led to a good deal of confusion even for boards of conservators. Like the last Deputy who has spoken, I feel that we should have some explanation as to how these exemptions will be granted. There can be no question but that some of these effluents, particularly from sugar factories, are very harmful to fish. As a matter of fact, they have a very ruinous effect which continues for very many years after the offensive stuff gets into the rivers. I suggest to the Minister that, before this Bill becomes an Act, he might, with some advantage, consult with some of the boards of conservators, if he has not already consulted them. I know, of course, that some communications have been sent to his Department with regard to the matter. There are, too, a number of anglers' associations throughout the country who could give very useful advice to the Minister which would serve to make the passage of the Bill easier and help the Minister in what he has in mind.

I should like to stress the point with reference to the effluents. For many years dangerous effluents have been getting into the rivers and spoiling the fishing in various districts. I should like to ask under what conditions these exemptions will be granted. Does the Minister propose, for instance, to allow these effluents to be discharged into the rivers at low water or at high water? Does he propose having some method of carrying these effluents across a stream and having them emptied, say, into a cesspool of some kind or another? I think that particular section is the one which will more vitally affect fishing than anything else, as it includes the use or misuse of these dangerous instruments that he speaks of and the use of explosives and other methods of catching fish illegally. I should like to have some information on that point, although I am satisfied that this measure will serve a useful purpose, particularly in regard to the inland fisheries.

Mr. Hilliard

I should like to know what effect Section 3 will have on local authorities who contemplate carrying out housing schemes in the post-war period. Apparently, the discharge of sewage into rivers from housing schemes constructed by local authorities is more or less hampered by the fishery laws. While recognising the value of fisheries to this country, at the same time, I think the Minister should bear in mind the value of housing, especially to the working class and the middle classes in the urban areas. I think that, in certain circumstances at least, sewage in small towns should not be prevented from discharging into open rivers.

Mr. O'Donovan

I should like to get some information from the Minister with regard to Section 3 (2), which provides that any person who steeps in any river or lake any flax or hemp shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months. I should like to know if it is intended to carry that out in its entirety. The Minister is encouraging the cultivation of flax in this country and, to my mind, if this is put into force, it will prevent the development of the flax industry, because if you are to produce flax of proper quality and if its cultivation is to pay farmers the flax must be steeped and dried and scutched. Dams must be built convenient to the rivers or streams. It is not possible to build a dam a distance from the river. When the flax is steeped, the water must be let out of the dam, particularly at the present time when flax is very extensively grown. I admit that this water has a bad effect, that it is bound to suffocate the fish for a distance along the river. The distance in which it will affect the fish or stream all depends on the volume of water in the river or stream.

If this is put into effect, everybody growing flax who steeps it in a river or stream will be liable to a fine of £10 or to a term of imprisonment. I should like to know if the Minister can find any way out of that. I am keen on encouraging fishing, but I am keener still on encouraging the development of the flax industry. How we are to reconcile the two is the difficulty. It would be an impossibility for flax growers to store water in the dams. With the present cultivation of flax, it would be necessary in that case to steep four or five or six lots of flax in the same dam. You cannot steep flax in the same water a second time. The water must be allowed to drain off. It is only in one case out of a hundred that a steeping dam is situated in such a position that the water can flow off 50 or 60 or 100 yards over a meadow. In the other 99 cases the water has no outlet except into the stream. I want to know if the Minister can find any way which will prevent flax growers from being fined £10 where a lot of flax has to be put into a dam. That water will have to be let out of the dam after each steeping of flax. There is no possibility of steeping it properly otherwise. Has the Minister any scheme by which tanks could be used for steeping flax or has he any other system in mind? If we flax growers are to be compelled to drain off the water on to the land, we will have to build drains for, perhaps, a distance of 100 yards, and flax growers who are doing such a big service to the State at present should be compensated for that. If the Department is preventing us from handling the job in the manner in which it has been handled for generations, we should find some way out of it. It says, of course, in another section, that the Minister, after consultation, may grant licences for the purpose of sub-section (3). If the meaning of this is that every flax grower in the country will get a permit to steep his flax for the time—it is only a month or six weeks—that would meet the situation. I hope something will be done as, if not, you cannot develop both industries.

As far as West Cork-which I know very well—is concerned, Deputy Anthony will agree with me that, in the flax growing districts there, the fishing is not of any importance. It is the concern only of a few men of leisure, who may go out with rod and line. I cannot speak with the same authority in regard to Donegal or Cavan, although I have been in each of them, but it would not affect us very much. I am satisfied that the Bill is right but, if it is not going to meet the situation I have put up, I certainly would have a decided objection to it.

Seosamh Ó Mongáin

Is maith liom go bhfuil an tAire ag tabhairt isteach an Bhille seo, go mór mór Alt a 2. Déanfaidh an tAlt seo maith do Loch Coirb agus a leitheide de lochanna. Roimhe seo, dá mbeadh fear ag saighde agus dá ndeireadh sé gur ar eascannaí no a leitheide a bhí sé ag saighde, níor bhféidir aon cháin a chur air. Do réir an dlí mar a sheasann sé faoi láthair, is ar dhuine a bheadh ag saighde bradán no breac is féidir cáin a chur.

Mar sin, dá mbeadh sé ag saighde agus ag leigean air féin go raibh sé ag iarraidh eascannaí no bréam no paidhe, níor bhféidir é chiontú. Na daoine a théigheas ag saighde, bheadh siad i ndon a rogha rud a rá a shaoródh iad féin. Sábhálfaidh an tAlt seo an t-iascach ins na lochanna móra go mór mór, agus déanfa sé maitheas.

Tá go leor daoine, béidir, sa Teach seo nach dtuigeann an maitheas atá san iascach agus sa méid airgid a caithtear air. Is fiú na mílte mílte punt é, agus nuair a bheas an cogadh seo thart, beidh sé níos fearr. Fear amháin sa gceanntar a bhfuil mé féin ann, i ngeall go bhfuil iascach aige ann agus go dtagann sé ann sa tsamhradh ar a laetheanta saoire, d'íocfadh sé i gcáin ioncuim os cionn £8,000 leis an tír seo. Mar sin agus a leitheide, ba cheart dúinn an t-iascach a shábháil.

Dr. Ryan

The idea of putting in this clause with regard to exemptions from these poisonous fluids, and so on, is principally to deal with mines and minerals. If there is any work being done on the development of mines and minerals, it may be extremely difficult to provide any sort of treatment for the effluent from those mines, for some time, at any rate. I have not the same sympathy for factories. If a factory is being built, it is going to be in the same place all the time and there is no reason why the necessary measures should not be provided to deal with the effluent. With regard to the sugar factories, we have been in continuous negotiation with them and they have done a lot to deal with the effluent. We are not altogether satisfied that they are doing enough, but I am sure that will be made satisfactory in time. The same applies to all factories.

With regard to a few specific points which have arisen as regards local authorities' housing, and the flax in dustry, there is no change in the situation. There is, of course, if you like, a nominal change in the law in the last four years but, in reality, there has been no change since 1842 in the legislation dealing with flax and dealing with sewage from housing schemes. In the case of sewage, we sometimes have representations from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, but we generally get over it all right; and I do not think any housing scheme has been held up owing to any unreasonable attitude being taken by the Minister for Fisheries. In the case of flax, there has been no change in the law. As Deputy O'Donovan pointed out, the flax is steeped in standing pools but, of course, they have to be emptied out from time to time. In the ordinary way, the water in which the flax had been steeped would go into the streams and rivers. Our inspectors have frequent conferences with the flax inspectors and get over the difficulties as best they can.

I think the House will agree that a Minister for Agriculture, also being Minister for Fisheries, will try to see that neither the flax industry nor the fishing industry is injured, at least by any regulations made. We have to get over the problems as best we can. I do not think there is any danger that we will injure the flax industry. We may have to take certain precautions. The suggestion made by Deputy O'Donovan, for instance, that the Flax Board might pay some contribution to the treatment of the effluent is a very good idea and it might be possible to do something of that kind.

Mr. O'Donovan

It may be too unwieldy, as there are ponds all over the countryside.

Dr. Ryan

That may be so. If no way can be found out of it, we will have to find some way of making an exemption. We will try to avoid that, if possible. I do not think there is any other point which calls for a reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

Is there any objection to taking the other stages now?

Mr. O'Donovan

I would like to be very definite about this question of flax. My suggestion would probably prove impossible to carry out, except in very limited circumstances. One way out would be the exemption of flax-growing areas for the period that flax is being steeped.

Dr. Ryan

We are not going to kill the industry.

Mr. O'Donovan

I would like something definite from the Minister on that point.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister probably realises that it may be very difficult to provide treatment in such cases, as this is not suspension in water but is a solution. You would have to treat the solution chemically.

Dr. Ryan

Possibly filtering might be tried.

Mr. Hughes

I do not think the method suggested by Deputy O'Donovan would prove to be a solution.

Dr. Ryan

We will need to deal with these things in a much more comprehensive way later on.

Mr. Larkin

Could you not get a system of exemptions, as in Belgium?

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Mar 1944