At first sight this would seem to be a relatively simple matter of procedure giving the Minister approval to defer the elections of conservators once again for a further period. The Minister I am sure is looking forward to a speedy passage of this motion. One would hesitate to oppose a motion of this kind. One understands fully the limitations under which the boards of conservators operate and the degree to which they are handicapped for want of financial resources, equipment and advice. One appreciates that they are dealing here with an archaic system which has been in operation for almost a century and that there are glaring defects in the system. Allowing for those defects and the lack of change over 100 years, I wish to join with the Minister in paying tribute to the members of the boards of conservators for the invaluable service they have provided in the realm of fishing. It is all the more creditable because they have done this work purely on a voluntary basis without recompense. Anything I say on this motion must not be construed as denigrating in any way this great voluntary effort on the part of individual members of the boards of conservators.
I am bound to advert to the fundamental principle giving rise to the establishment of boards of conservators and their continuation. Their primary function is to protect fish life in our rivers. In that regard it must be said that the boards of conservators, perhaps through no fault of their own, have been guilty of dereliction of duty in respect of the protection of fish life. When they were first established over 100 years ago it was probably with the intention of curtailing poaching, which was the main problem at that time. They did not have to contend with the advent of pollution. When the scourge of pollution appeared in so many rivers and tributaries it was to be greatly deplored that successive Governments did not give those boards the support, finance and expertise necessary to enable them to deal with this very serious matter.
Last Tuesday I asked the Minister by way of parliamentary question if he was aware of the recurring pollution of the river Suir and many of its tributaries which resulted in the massive destruction of fish life in these rivers and if he will indicate in detail the sources of that pollution and the steps he is taking to prevent such pollution in future. His reply is on the record. He laid the responsibility squarely on the Waterford Board of Conservators. He said that that board were responsible for the protection of fish life in the Suir, that their pollution officer was actively engaged in keeping the position under review and that the negotiations with various bodies concerned were achieving a solution of the problem.
No words of mine could adequately describe the feelings of anger, dismay and bewilderment with which the people of the counties of Tipperary and Waterford view the situation in the river Suir, which has won for itself the dubious distinction of being the most polluted river in Ireland. It is fast becoming a cesspool because of the inability of the Waterford Board of Conservators to grapple effectively with the problem. The Minister told me in his reply that within recent times, even within the last two years, there have been two major fish kills in that river and we have witnessed many kills in the tributaries of the Suir as well. In that kind of situation one could not blame me for hesitating to give to boards of conservators, and to the Waterford board in particular, an extension for another period having regard to their inability to cope with this serious problem.
The anger of the members of fishing clubs, the damage this is doing to tourism, the heart-rending sight of fish, their bellies turned up, being heaped on the banks virtually in tons—all this is a shame and a national disgrace. It is happening repeatedly in the Suir. The Minister's predecessors have been unable or unwilling to grapple effectively with this problem. I am demanding action. I say it is high time to sack and dispose of an archaic body of this kind which cannot resolve that problem.
I am entitled to ask the Minister —I had hoped he would have given me a more extensive reply—what action the Waterford Board of Conservators took in this matter and to what extent they pursued those who were responsible for the pollution of the rivers in that area. If it is industrial sewerage or untreated sewerage why were the local authorities not taken to task? As members of local authorities we have been aware that they were unable to deal with this problem because of a lack of funds. It was the State's responsibility to assist them to deal with untreated sewerage and eliminate pollution from that source.
I contend also that the pollution caused by effluent from industries and from farms, especially from pig farms, is a serious contributory factor. This motion will give boards of conservators a new lease of life for the next few months. The Minister may hope to have this more comprehensive measure ready early next year, but it may transpire that he will not be ready then and he will be seeking a further postponement and we shall have to live with this problem in the interim. I am appealing to the Minister to come to the rescue of the boards of conservators, the Waterford board in particular, and give them the resources they require to grapple effectively with this scandalous problem which has continued for too long in that area.
Normally we would give the Minister this motion without very much debate, argument or opposition. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Deasy, that poaching is a problem but it pales into insignificance when one considers the damage done by pollution. Something must be done to resolve this problem. It may seem parochial of me to mention the Suir in particular when there are other rivers and lakes with the same problems, but I do so because unfortunately the river beside which I was born and which flows through most of my constituency, has won for itself the name of being the most polluted river in Ireland.
Accordingly that river is entitled to special treatment to remedy the situation. I appeal to the Minister to vest in the conservators or to take powers himself to pursue the people responsible for pollution and punish them with the full rigours of the law. In other countries for mortal damage of this kind to a very precious amenity jail sentences are the order of the day. I do not ask for that, but too many people have got away with this shocking crime too often and it is time to cry halt.
I look forward to the more comprehensive legislation coming before us so that we shall get down to this business in a more detailed manner and try to do many other things which very much need to be done in the whole sphere of fishing. I wish the Minister well in all his endeavours for the protection of fish life and for the advancement of those engaged in the fishing industry. The Minister should pay attention to the matter I raised. While one understands my reluctance to condone his continuation of that system for a further indefinite period, I do not wish to reflect on individuals. They have been doing their best, I presume, in very difficult circumstances but it is not good to leave the clearing of this sorry mess to the responsibility of the board without the active assistance of the Minister and the Government.