Before Question Time we were talking about tagging, and the Minister said he would consider it before Report Stage.
Fisheries Bill, 1979 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 52, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 51, Part V, before section 53, to insert the following new section:
"53.—(1) The Minister may by order prohibit the sale and offering for sale at any time during a prescribed period in any year (which period is in this section subsequently referred to as an 'annual period') of any fish which—
(a) is of a species specified in the order, or
(b) is—
(i) caught by rod and line, and
(ii) of a species so specified.
(2) An order under this section may—
(a) apply throughout the State or in a particular area or in particular areas thereof and so specified,
(b) specify a particular annual period in relation to the whole of the State or specify different such periods in relation to different such areas.
(3) An order under this section shall apply to any fish—
(a) in case the order is made pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, of the species specified in the order, and
(b) in case the order is made pursuant to paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1), caught by rod and line and of a species specified in the order.
(4) In case an order under this section is for the time being in force, a person shall not sell or offer for sale any fish to which the order applies—
(a) in case the order applies throughout the State or to a particular area or to particular areas thereof and specifies only one annual period, at any place in either the State, such area or any such area, as may be appropriate, at any time during that period,
(b) in case the order specifies different annual periods in relation to different areas of the State, at any place in such area at any time during the annual period so specified in relation to the area.
(5) A person who contravenes subsection (4) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall on summary conviction thereof be liable to a fine (not exceeding in all £600) of an amount not exceeding £500 together with an amount not exceeding £50 for each salmon and £10 for each other fish in respect of which the offence is committed.".
The section enables the prohibition by order of the sale of specified kinds of fish or rod caught fish, either completely or during specified periods. We are giving consideration to a ban on the sale of rod caught fish after the closing of the commercial fishing season, as it represents an outlet for evasion. A proposal to ban completely the sale of sea trout is also being looked at in the interests of conservation. The section will give the necessary power to the Minister to adopt such measures if it is decided they are necessary for conservation. It is a strictly enabling section and no more than that to enable me to be more flexible.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 51, Part V, before section 53, to insert the following new section:
54.—(1) The Minister may be order prohibit the sale of nets or netting of a prescribed class or description.
(2) A person who sells a net or netting in contravention of an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(3) Where in any proceeding for an offence under this section—
(a) the defendant proves—
(i) that prior to the sale to which the alleged offence relates he had given to the Minister notice in writing of his intention to sell nets or netting of the relevant prescribed class or description, and
(ii) that prior to such sale he had made of the purchaser inquiries as to the purposes for which the relevant net or netting was to be used, and
(iii) that he had kept a record in the manner directed under subsection (4) of this section by the Minister of the result of his inquiries, and
(b) the defendant produces to the court such record, and, in case the defendant was requested by or on behalf of the Minister so to do, he proves that within a reasonable time he produced to an officer of the Minister such record and allowed such officer to inspect it, and
(c) the court is satisfied—
(i) that the inquiries were made in good faith, and
(ii) that in the circumstances of the case it would have been reasonable for the defendant, having regard to the results of the inquiries, to have believed that such net or netting was not to be used for or in relation to fishing he shall he acquitted of the offence.
(4) In case the Minister receives a notification in writing by a person of his intention to sell net or netting of a class or description specified in an order under this section, the Minister shall as soon as may be give to the person directions as to the manner in which a record of the results of inquiries made by him for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section is to be kept.".
I understand the Minister proposes to move an oral amendment.
Yes, an oral amendment. Amendment No. 44 enables the prohibition of the sale of certain types of net by order. I referred to this already in connection with the need to deal with the monofilament menace. It cannot be described as anything less than that. I am proposing that we order the prohibition of the sale of certain types of net and I have in mind the monofilament net. A prohibition on the sale of nets whose use in fishing is illegal would ensure that such nets would not be generally available. This would help to stop at source dealing in monofilament nets by fishermen.
At the moment monofilament net is illegal, but it is very difficult to enforce the regulation because of the fact that we allow the sale of monofilament net. Up to now the advice has been that because of its use for other purposes of which the House may be aware, such as the protection of vegetables and tomatoes, and for other industrial purposes, it was difficult to organise or control the sale of the net even though fishing with the net is illegal. I was not satisfied with the reasons advanced heretofore, and I persuaded my people to put in this amendment, even though it is a bit drastic, to prohibit the actual sale of monofilament net as such.
As well as being illegal to fish with it, its sale or distribution or trading in it will now be prohibited. This will be a big help in enabling us to get at monofilament fishing which is one of the big types of illegal fishing which give the fish very little chance and is a very anti-conservation method.
I have a small oral amendment which I want to put to the House. I move that the word "proceeding" in the first line of subsection (3) be changed to "proceedings". It is a grammatical type of amendment.
I welcome amendment No. 44. I welcome the ban on the sale of monofilament net. I take it the Minister will also ban the import of that net.
There is a difficulty about doing that. As long as we ban the sale of it within our jurisdiction, that is as far as we can deal with it.
Could we ban imports of it?
We are in trouble with GATT if we ban the importation of it. The Department of Industry and Commerce advised us that we would be in trouble with an importation ban. The best we can do is ban the internal distribution of it and that is what we are proposing in the amendment.
To be realistic, if we do not ban it from coming into the country——
It would be preferable if we could do that.
——it will get into the hands of the fishermen. I agree, and I am sure Deputy Treacy agrees, that the best way to conserve our salmon stock is to ban this net. If there is any way around it we should ban the importation of that net.
I was advised that it would be impossible and I pushed the draftsman and he came up with this amendment. I cannot go the whole way, much as I should like to do what the Deputy suggests, because of tariff regulations under GATT.
Will the Minister look into it?
I will.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 51, subsection (1), line 14, to delete "Each regional board" and insert "The Central Board".
This has to do with the registration of anglers with the regional boards. Under this section the members of the various clubs are obliged to register and indicate their choice of fishing—for trout, coarse fish or sea angling. My amendment seeks to make it possible for a member of an angling club to register with the central board instead of the regional board. As the Bill is framed, it would be necessary for an angler to register in each region he wishes to fish. Somebody living in, say, Cavan would need to register in three regions in that area. A tourist on a mobile holiday would need to register in all areas. If the register were attached to the central board, only one permit would be required for the whole country. I suggest that the administration of such a register would be less costly and less cumbersome than if it were a regional function.
I think the Minister and the House will agree that anglers are more mobile today than they were in the past. There is greater interchange between angling clubs. It seems only right that anglers should be free to travel around the fishing areas of their choice. It would facilitate matters greatly if they could register with the central board rather than registering with their own regional board and being confined to that area. It would also eliminate the problem of an individual having a vote in numerous regions as he would be obliged to indicate in the central register which region he will be attached to for voting purposes.
Members of angling clubs in the Dublin area would need to register in a number of regional areas if they desired to fish in, say, the midlands instead of in the Dublin area, likewise people in the South in the Lismore and Waterford areas. It would be very beneficial for a tourist to register with the central board, especially if he were on a touring holiday. As a keen angler he could then see the country and fish in the rivers and lakes of his choice.
I think the Minister will appreciate the desirability of having a central register rather than the restricting area of a region. With the advent of the car and the helicopter and air traffic generally, people move about more freely and anglers are no exception. I believe that fishermen would welcome the suggestion that they be given a wider area to fish and a wider choice of rivers and lakes to fish from by registering in the first instance with the central board. I recommend that the Minister adopt that policy.
For the first time I disagree with Deputy Treacy on this matter. The Minister should consider Deputy Treacy's point in relation to a tourist having the right to fish in any one of the eight regional areas. This raises the question whether a tourist has the right to vote on paying a registration fee. A tourist should not have the right to vote. If a tourist applies to the Ballyshannon board and states that he wants to fish in the Waterford area, he should be given permission to fish in the eight regional areas. The power should lie with the regional board rather than with the central board. I think that licensing should be the function of the regional boards.
There is confusion between fishing and voting. On payment of a fee—it also applies to the existing Inland Fisheries Trust members who are being subsumed under the legislation—the angler will be entitled to fish in any waters but will only be entitled to vote where he is registered. I think that this meets Deputy Treacy's point. As voting is a regional matter, the register should be kept in the voting region. For the first time the angler will be entitled to vote to the regional board. However, his right to fish in any waters under the control of the central board or his rights as a life member of the Inland Fisheries Trust are not prejudiced.
If a tourist pays his fee he will have the right to fish but not the right to vote. Voting is reserved for Irish nationals.
Will tourists have to pay a fee?
Yes.
How much will they have to pay?
I think the fee will be £5.
Will the registration fee be £5?
Yes.
We must dispose of the amendment before debating the section.
I am somewhat heartened by the comments of the Minister when he says that, despite the fact that a member of an angling club will be confined for voting purposes to a particular region, this does not prohibit him from fishing throughout the country. The provision is acceptable to me and I am sure that it will be welcomed by large groups of anglers who felt that there was a restriction in the Bill. There was a feeling that if central registration was accepted they would have free access to the waters around them throughout the country. If the Minister says that there will be no restriction on them I am quite happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 53, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Is the phrase "Register of Trout, Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers" good English? It should probably read "Register of Trout and Coarse Fish Anglers and Sea Anglers".
I will look at that on Report Stage.
The position is that a person can only have one vote. If somebody is living on the border of two areas would he still have only one vote in one area?
No.
Could he pay £5 in four different areas and have four votes?
He could.
Surely that is not right. The position should be that, if an angler paid his £5 registration fee, he would be entitled to fish in all the waters. There should also be a section to make sure that a person cannot vote more than once.
As long as he is not voting in the same region.
That would allow him to vote in two different regions.
Yes, if he is registered in two different regions. I will look at it.
If somebody pays his £5 fee he is entitled to vote in that region, but he should not be allowed to register in two areas thus being entitled to two votes. A person should have only one vote.
The Deputy has a point. I will look at it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 54.
I move amendment No. 45a:
In page 53, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following new subsections:
"(3) (a) An order under section 36, 39, 40 or 41 of this Act may provide that the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to the fishery acquired or transferred by the order, or, in case two or more fisheries are so transferred, shall apply in relation to no such fishery, or, as may be so provided, shall apply only to such of those fisheries as the order specifies.
(b) The Minister may by order provide that the foregoing provisions of this section, other than paragraph (a) of this subsection, shall not apply in relation to a fishery acquired by the Central Board by agreement under section 36 of this Act and specified in the order.
(4) In case a fishery is by an order, either made under this section or described in subsection (3) (a) of this section, excluded from the application of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, this section shall be construed and have effect subject to the terms of the order.".
Section 54 entitles anyone who is registered in the Register of Trout, Coarse Fish and Sea Anglers to fish in any fisheries owned or occupied by the regional boards by whom the register is maintained or any central board fisheries. This amendment will have the effect of empowering the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, the Commissioners of Public Works or the Land Commissioners to exclude from the provision of section 54 any fisheries which would be transferred to the central board by either the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, the Office of Public Works or the Land Commission. Any fisheries acquired directly by the central board either by agreement or compulsorily may also be excluded from these provisions. That is consequential on what we already decided.
This means that anybody with a life membership of the trust would be entitled to vote once in every year that he lives.
That is right.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
Section 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.
Question proposed: "That section 56 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Minister would explain "liability of Minister or Central Board for damage by flooding".
This section indemnifies the Minister or the central board against any claim for flooding or consequential damage caused by the continued existence of any fishing pier, fishing mill or dam acquired by the Minister or the central board unless the Minister or the central board increased its height or further closed than should be closed any openings. This is a restatement of the provisions of section 215 of the Principle Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58.
Question proposed: "That section 58 stand part of the Bill."
Does this mainly refer to aquaculture or licences held by any person, be he an angler or a net fisherman?
It is a specific fish culture section. It refers to each and is distinct from the licensing under the aquaculture section. It is a restating of the existing position. It is separate from the licensing provision that we discussed at length this morning.
On Report Stage we will have to have some kind of licence for aquaculture and some distinction for that if at all possible.
We discussed that this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 54, before section 59, to insert the following new section:
"59.—Section 20 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (4):
`(4) The Minister may by regulations alter the boundaries of a fishery district by the inclusion therein of any specified waters which are in an area or portion of the sea described in subparagraph (i) and (ii) of section 9 (8) (a) of the Fisheries Act, 1979, and regulations under this subsection shall, by reference to a map specified in the regulations, indicate the boundaries of the relevant fishery district or districts as altered by the regulations:' ".
The proposals here are to take section 20 (4) of the Principal Act out of the repeals listed in the First Schedule to the Bill and instead substitute a new subsection for subsection (4) enabling the Minister to define the boundaries of the fishery districts at sea. It deals with the boundaries of the new fishery regions. It is necessary for the purpose of by-laws and licences to maintain the legal existence of fisheries districts that we are now describing as fishery regions. Under the Principal Act the outer limits of these districts have not been defined. We have legal advice that their areas extend only to 12 miles. We are extending that definitively in the legislation to 12 miles as far as the new regions are concerned. It is necessary to provide that the areas of the districts as well as the regions are extended to 12 miles. This is really a technical amendment.
It can cause some trouble because where a headland is the boundary between two fishery districts and the fishery district extends 12 miles out to sea, the Minister will have to lay down in what direction the line goes from that headland, whether it is due south, east or west.
It is being drafted at the moment. That is a drafting problem. That will be part of an order that will be placed before the House.
I agree with the Minister that it is a drafting problem, but there is a simple way of dealing with it. We should take the two headlands furthest out, draw a line and take the 12 miles farthest out from that. We must do it that way to strengthen the Minister's hand when he goes to Brussels to talk about exclusive limits at another stage. The further we go out now, the stronger will be the Minister's hand in future.
The base lines were established in 1964 in the London Convention and it would be very confusing to stray away from that. We have a defined base line regime.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 59 and 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61.
Question proposed: "That section 61 stand part of the Bill."
Does this refer to the issuing of licences for anglers or salmon net fishermen?
It refers to salmon licences.
On Second Stage the Minister gave an assurance that he would review the matter. I regret that Deputy Begley is not here to air his point of view. There has been blatant discrimination in the issuing of salmon licences in recent years since drift netting became popular and extremely profitable. I would like another assurance from the Minister that matters will be put in order so that the most deserving cases will be granted licences. Will the Minister spell out clearly the type of selection committees or boards he intends to set up to ensure a fair and proper distribution of licences so that some areas will not have 200 licences when areas with just as strong a tradition and where there are many qualified fishermen may get only eight or nine licences? This is the case in Kerry fishery district. I know fishery districts are being amalgamated and enlarged. With the enlargement I would like to see a proper system for the allocation of licences. Will the inspector from the Department sit on the board issuing the licences to see that everything is done properly? Up to now, far too often it was a case of the old pals act. If you were a relative or close friend of one of the people issuing the licences, you stood a far better chance of getting one. There have been blatant abuses of the system. Any person familiar with salmon fisheries could name dozens of such abuses. How does the Minister intend getting rid of that type of abuse and ensuring it will not occur again?
This comes back to the hard core of the Bill, which is concerned with establishing a more professional structure of protection, development and enforcement in regard to inland fisheries. I agree with the point raised by Deputy Deasy. I look to the chief executive officers, who carry this responsibility. This would be their job. They would be appointed on an independent basis and would be free from any entanglements. They will be like the county manager in charge of a local authority area—employed to do an independent job and when carrying out their job in an independent and conscientious way their employment will be fully protected. That has not been the situation up to now. The difficulty has been that the staffs of the board were not appointed on a professional basis and they did not have any job guarantee. That led to abuses. I think that is what Deputy Deasy was referring to. I hope the new administrative structure will serve to eliminate much of what happened in the past.
That was one point. I asked if the Minister would guarantee a more equitable distribution of licences.
I would expect that to happen because, to put it mildly, there are obvious regional discrepancies, say, between Kerry and west Cork. They will now be in one region and in that event I take it there will be a more balanced and equitable distribution of the licences.
Will the Minister go to great pains to see that is done?
I will. I agree with the Deputy's view that there is a very serious imbalance at the present time.
Would the Minister agree that an inspector from the Department should sit in on regional board meetings where licences are allocated to ensure there will not be any abuses, as happened in the past? This is done where jobs are involved, such as jobs by vocational education committees.
I will look at that although, as I said, I envisage the chief executive officers would be of a certain calibre, would carry their responsibilities and act in a proper manner.
Unfortunately, the local chief executive officer can be under great local pressure.
The sort of person envisaged under this scheme should be independent and would carry out his or her duties in the same way as county managers. I agree there is merit in the Deputy's point.
Did we not cover that point this morning when we were discussing the right of appeal? I agree with what the Minister said. If we appoint a chief executive officer and pay him a high salary, that person should be above all kinds of influence. We also mentioned the right of appeal. If a person is not happy, he should have the right to appeal to a central board and his case should be decided on merit. The right of appeal will cover both sides.
I will look at that.
The House agreed to look at that on the Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 62 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 65.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 58, to delete lines 23 and 24 and substitute the following:
"65. —Section 297 is hereby amended by—
(a) the substitution of `authorised persons' for `water keeper or any officer appointed by the Minister' in subsection (1); and
(b) the substitution of the following for subsection (2):"
This is a technical amendment. Section 65 amends subsection (2) of section 257 of the Principal Act, which empowers a district justice to grant a warrant to enter a dwellinghouse or the curtilage thereof. The reference in section 297 of the Principal Act to "water keeper" should read "authorised person" and this amendment so provides.
The Chair's attention has been drawn to the fact that the word "person" should be substituted for the word "persons" in paragraph (a).
I was about to mention that. That is another slight technicality. I move that the word "person" be inserted in paragraph (a) instead of "persons".
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 58, line 31, to insert "or any structure or building in such garden or curtilage" after "warrant".
This is another technicality linked to the same area. As drafted at present a warrant issued under section 297 of the Principal Act allows an authorised person to enter and search a particular garden, dwellinghouse or curtilage. It is considered that an extension of these powers is necessary to allow any structure or building in such a garden or curtilage to be entered and searched. The amendment provides for this. We are up against a number of smart lawyers in fisheries prosecutions and these points were raised in District Courts. Apparently this was one loophole.
Has the Minister been able to anticipate any new ones?
No.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 58, to delete line 54 and substitute the following:
"by a member of the Garda Síochána.";
and the said subsection (1), as so amended, is set out in the Table to this section.
TABLE
(1) Where upon an information on oath it appears to any District Justice or Peace Commissioner that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the provisions of this Act or any instrument made thereunder has been committed within any enclosed garden or any dwellinghouse or the curtilage thereof, he may by warrant under his hand authorise any authorised person to enter the said garden or dwellinghouse or the curtilage thereof, at such times in the day or night as may be mentioned in the warrant.".
This is only putting in a semi-colon instead of a full stop.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 65, as amended, agreed to.
Section 66 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 59, before section 67, to insert the following new section:
"67.—Subsection (3) of section 19 of the Act of 1962 is hereby amended by the substitution of `sufficient' for `conclusive' in both places where it occurs, and the said subsection (3), as so amended, is set out in the Table to this section.
TABLE
(3) A certificate under the hand of the registrar of ships for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and the Mercantile Marine Act, 1955, at any port of registry in the State that a boat specified in the certificate is not registered in accordance with paragraph (a) of the definition of `Irish sea-fishing boat' (inserted by this section) in section 219 of the Principal Act at that port of registry shall be sufficient evidence that the boat is not so registered and certificates as aforesaid in relation to every port of registry in the State shall be sufficient evidence that the boat is not so registered in the State and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature of a registrar or that he was in fact a registrar.".
This is another legal point that has frustrated prosecutions in the past. Subsection (3) of section 19 of the 1962 Act specifies that "a certificate under the hand of the registrar of ships...in the State that a boat specified in the certificate is not registered" as an Irish sea fishing boat "shall be conclusive evidence that the boat is not so registered..." The Attorney General advises me that the word "conclusive" in this context could be held to be unconstitutional and has advised that it be substituted by the word "sufficient". This arises from, of all things, the breathalyser decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the words "conclusive evidence" in the breathalyser law were unconstitutional.
Drunken driving at sea?
Does it have to be a motorised boat?
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 80 is consequential on amendment No. 51 and the two may be discussed together.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 59, before section 67, to insert the following new section:
"68.— Paragraph (a) of section 59 (1) of the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952, is hereby amended by the insertion of `or remain on' before `the banks' in paragraph (a), and the said paragraph (a), as so amended, is set out in the Table to this section.
TABLE
(a) enter into and pass through or along or remain on the banks or borders of any rivers frequented by salmon or trout or of the tributaries thereof,"
This is an amendment to strengthen the Foyle Fisheries Act vis-à-vis prosecutions. It is an amendment to section 59 (1) of that Act. It deals with the powers of authorised persons and is made necessary by the weakness in the Act following the loss of a case in court on the basis that the authorised person, while having powers to enter into, pass through or along the banks or borders of lakes and rivers, does not have power to be in wait for potential poachers in such areas. It is strengthening the prosecutions where they are needed. There is a lot of illegal activity in parts of the Foyle. We need all the protecting and strengthening we can give to the prosecuting arm.
We have only the same rights on water as on land?
That is correct.
We cannot go across the Northern Ireland water section. We must keep within our own territorial waters.
That is correct.
There is such a thing as Northern Ireland territorial waters? This is new to me.
Yes, there is.
I thought it would have been territorial Irish waters.
That goes back to the Treaty and the interpretation of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
We have only the right to look after our own waters, lakes and rivers as far as this Bill is concerned. We look after the southern side of the Foyle fisheries and not the northern side.
Yes.
There is a line between the two, so many miles out to sea.
That is all defined in the schedule to the Foyle Fisheries Act.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 59, after line 40 and before the First Schedule, to insert the following new section:
68.— Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the operation of—
(a) section 278 of the Principal Act in so far as it applies to the Moville Area within the meaning of the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952,
(b) section 10 (1) of the Foyle Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1961,
and the said section 278, together with the provisions of the Principal Act which are extended to the said Moville Area by the said section 10 (1), as amended by this Act, shall apply to that area, but subject to the same modifications as those with which, they applied thereto immediately before the commencement of this section.".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where sections of the Principal Act are extended to the Moville Area amendments to the Bill will also be extended to the Moville Area.
It also deals with rivers and lakes such as Lough Melvin. Part of that is in Northern Ireland.
That was covered by the previous one.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 67, as amended, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 59, column (2), to delete "subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) of section 20" and substitute "subsections (1), (2) and (5) of section 20."
We have already dealt with a proposal to substitute a new provision, section 59, subsection (4) of section 20. Accordingly it is necessary to remove subsection (4) of section 20 from the repeal section. Subsection (5) of section 278 of the Principal Act was omitted in error from the list of repeals. It is proposed to rectify that position. This refers to electoral divisions which are no longer necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 59, column (2), to delete "and 280" and substitute ", 278 (5) (b) (iii) and 280;".
Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 60, Part I, Article 2, to insert ", or who is for the time being a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities," before "shall" in line 9.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 55 (a) and 57 (a) are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 55 (a):
In page 60, Part I, Article 3 (1), to delete "four" and substitute "not less than four or more than six" in line 12.
I had a change of heart about the original number fixed for the central board. I am making provision for a minimum of four and a maximum of six ministerial nominees to the central board. As representations came in from the various anglers' organisations I found it difficult to live within a restraint of four as originally proposed. There will be seven regional chairmen and the Minister can appoint up to six in addition to that. Under the Bill I was limited to four.
Now that the Minister has increased the number, will he be appointing a member from his own Department?
The trade unions kept coming to me about getting someone from the staff association of the trade union movement on it. The various angling bodies had also come to me and I found I was putting myself in a corner by limiting it to four. I can guarantee the House that the people appointed will be appointed in a representative capacity.
How many staff will the Minister include?
I have said I will appoint one.
Perhaps in the extra two the Minister may appoint another. It would be good for staff relations.
There are a lot of interests involved in this area. To accommodate them all within six is a task, never mind four.
For good relations with the staff would it not be advantageous to appoint two?
I appreciate the point and I will look at it. I am committed to appointing one.
I am looking for two.
I have no objection to the Minister appointing six instead of four if he can give us a promise that they will not be Fianna Fáil lackeys. Even at present people have been appointed to boards because they represent the Government side regardless of what Government is in power. Fianna Fáil are in now and I am afraid that Fianna Fáil nominees would be appointed who would know damn all about fishing. I do not want to waste my time or the Minister's time by the Minister appointing the wrong people. I would like to see a trade union representative and a member of the staff on the board. The others should be technical people and experts in the field. They should know something about aquaculture, which we know very little about in this country. I do not want Fianna Fáil nominees on the board but experts. Otherwise there will be questions in the Dáil until I am sick asking them and the people will get so embarrassed that they will leave the board.
Or when we come to power we will have to change it.
If we were over there I would like still to see experts in the field because it is an important one. I am tired of people being appointed because of political allegiance.
The whole approach to the Bill has been very constructive, both here and in the Seanad. It will be done strictly on merit.
The Minister will be getting promotion. I am afraid of what his successor might do.
Does the Minister know who the six nominees will be and from what sectors they will be drawn?
No, they will all be in the running, the various angling associations, commercial interests, aquacultural interests, the different types of fishing interests, sea, trout, coarse and salmon, and you will have the trade union interests, the staff associations and so on.
As I represent in my constituency primarily drift net fishermen I believe they should be represented because they feel they are most often omitted on occasions like this. They are the people with the greatest vested interest in the inland fishing industry.
Another aspect of the matter is that one would like to wait and see who the regions come up with. From the area with which the Deputy is familiar, the south eastern region, the Lismore area generally, they could come up with a net fisherman as chairman of that board and that would mean that interest slotted in.
Unlikely.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 60, Article 3, paragraph (2), after line 17, to add:
"(b) The Minister shall appoint such members of the Central Board as shall be elected by virtue of the application of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977".
This amendment seeks to provide worker representation on the central board. It will be accepted that especially in recent times it is recognised that worker participation in the management of both State and semi-State enterprises leads to improvement in management-worker relations. The basis of the new fishery authority is seven regional boards and one central board. Workers in these areas will experience different problems regarding fishery development, and it is essential that they can bring these problems to light not only at regional board level but also at central board level where final policy decisions will be formulated. Very strong representations were made to the Minister by the workers in the industry especially through their trade union organisations that they should have representation on the central board. The unions and the membership generally in the industry formed a very strong opinion that the Minister would provide representation for them on the central board. It is regrettable that this is not contained in the Act and my amendment seeks to remedy that situation.
The legislation to which I refer was passed in recent times, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, and already many of our best known State companies operating under this Act are designated bodies under it. Most of them by now have provided for representation on their respective boards. It applies to CIE, Bord na Móna, the ESB, Aer Lingus, the B & I Company, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and Nítrigin Éireann Teo. It is valuable legislation and if the Minister does not avail of this opportunity to provide such representation in accordance with the Act he will be throwing away a large amount of goodwill, co-operation and expertise which could be invaluable in the operation of inland fisheries.
The Minister commented earlier rather generally on how he proposes to appoint people to the board but in this case I am asking for a specific assurance that he will do it in the right manner in accordance with the legislation passed by this House and in accordance with what we believe is right in these times when there is so much industrial strife, and so win for himself the greatest possible amount of goodwill, co-operation, trust and responsibility from all the workers in the industry by ensuring democratically that they are allowed to elect one of their spokesmen or spokespersons to the board. I should like to hear the Minister's views especially having regard to the strong feeling among the unions representing the men that this should be done.
I do not want to introduce disharmony into the debate, but there are already grumblings among the employees of the Minister's Department because there was anxiety in respect of the proposal to transfer the staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust from Dublin to Galway. That problem is still unresolved. In order to avoid unnecessary haggling, conflict or disruption of the good work of the central board and its agencies I strongly recommend to the Minister that he should do the right thing in this instance and invoke the Worker Participation Act passed two years ago and provide for worker participation as sought in my amendment.
I support Deputy Treacy. There should be one member representing the workers or, as I said before, one member representing the trade unions. That is important and perhaps the Minister would consider this when he appoints the six nominees. Another point—is the chairman of the central board elected or selected? Does the Minister appoint the chairman or will the 13 people who will then represent the central board elect a chairman?
No, I will appoint the chairman. He will be paid a salary.
He will be one of the six nominees?
Yes.
And the Minister will guarantee that he will be no Fianna Fáil lackey?
No, he will be an important person——
I think the word "nominee" used by the Deputy earlier would be preferable.
I wanted to get my point across more forcibly than usual.
As regards the amendment, we are dealing here with two separate schemes of legislation. The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977 is a specific piece of legislation in which worker participation was introduced here for the first time. It is an excellent piece of legislation but it specifies in the Schedule seven State-sponsored bodies. These are designated in that Act, Bord na Móna, CIE, ESB, B & I, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Aer Lingus and Nitrigin Éireann. Specific regulations are made under that Act governing the holding of elections. It is a very detailed and complex system of election. An amendment of that Act would be required before any other regulations could be introduced to extend the operation of that to other State bodies. This is all worked out between the Minister for Labour and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and so on. As Deputies know from the names I have read out, they represent the biggest State corporations in the country. There are nearly 100,000 workers involved in all these companies.
We are talking about a different situation now. If at some future date the Minister for Labour does decide to extend the scope of the worker participation legislation, it will be done on criteria and for reasons that can be worked out between the Minister for Labour and the trade unions. What we are talking about here is something different. I have given an assurance that I will definitely, without bringing in the Worker Participation Act aspect at all, appoint a representative of the staff. I have told them that. I think they recognise the situation. They put the point of view that Deputy Treacy put here in the House and I put the point of view that I have just put here. At the end of the day they were inclined to go along with it and they left me with the impression that they would go along with two out of my six.
The Minister would appoint one worker?
One member of his own staff would be appointed. The main unions involved are the staff association and the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. I prefer to deal with it on that basis rather than on the basis suggested by Deputy Treacy, because it is not really relevant to this Bill and cannot be included. What his amendment involves is an amendment of the Worker Participation Act. That is separate legislation in which the Department of Labour and ICTU criteria would have to be applied. I would imagine that any extensions there would be on the basis of strength of numbers employed in particular State enterprises. To come back to the point, these are very big corporations.
Allowing for the difficulties which the Minister mentions in respect of the application of the Worker Participation Act to this measure, I am accepting that he intends to appoint to the board a member of the staff. Let me ask the Minister to go a little further with me in this matter and indicate that, before appointing a member of the staff, there will be consultation with the organisations concerned.
That will be the case.
And with the unions?
There is no question about that. I will be depending on them to come forward with names. I suggest that they come forward with a panel of names.
I am heartened and encouraged by that approach and by the fact that there will be consultation so that the person elected to the board with the Minister's approval will be the choice of the representatives of the men and women who are operating in the Inland Fisheries Trust and the boards of conservators at present. I see that it is not strictly a matter for the Minister to apply in this Act but rather for the Minister for Labour now or in the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 61, Part I, Article 9 (1), to insert "or to the Assembly of the European Communities, or is appointed under section 15 of the Act of 1977 to fill a vacancy in the said Assembly," before "he" in line 7.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57a:
In page 61, Part I, Article 11, lines 28 and 29, to delete "shall take such steps as are necessary to fill the vacancy" and substitute "may, if he thinks fit, take such steps as are necessary to fill the vacancy; provided that where as a result of the vacancy there are for the time being less than four such members of the Central Board, the vacancy shall be filled under this Article and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 62, Part II, Article 2, to insert "or to the Assembly of the European Communities, or is appointed under section 15 of the Act of 1977 to fill a vacancy in the said Assembly," after "Oireachtas" in line 31.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 62 is consequential on amendment No. 59. They will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 63, Part II, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following new article:
"6. (1) Where the Board is satisfied that the person who for the time being is chairman of the Board is incapable through ill-health of effectively performing his duties as a member of the Central Board, the Board may, subject to the provisions of this Article, by resolution nominate a member of the Board to act in such chairman's stead as a member of the Central Board.
(2) (a) A resolution under this Article shall only be passed if not less than such number of members present at the meeting as shall be fixed for the time being for the purposes of this Article by the Minister, at which meeting there shall be present not less than a number of members so fixed for the time being, vote in favour of the resolution.
(b) The Minister may for the purpose of this Article fix the number of members in relation to—
(i) regional boards generally,
(ii) regional boards of a particular class or description,
(iii) a particular regional board.
(3) (a) A resolution under this Article shall specify—
(i) both the person by reason of whose illness the resolution is passed and the person nominated by the resolution, and
(ii) the period (being a period not exceeding six months beginning on the date on which the resolution is passed) during which the resolution is to remain in force.
(4) For so long as a resolution under this Article remains in force the following provisions shall have effect:
(i) the person by reason of whose ill-health the resolution was passed shall not be a member of the Central Board,
(ii) the person nominated by the resolution shall be a member of the Central Board,
(iii) Article 3 (2) of Part I of this Schedule shall in relation to the Board be construed and have effect as if in lieu of the reference therein to a person holding the office of chairman of a regional board there were substituted a reference to the person nominated by the resolution".
This part sets out provisions relating to the constitution and procedure of regional boards and the conditions and terms of office of their members. Chairmen of regional boards are ex-officio members of the central board. The new article provides that in the case of illness of the chairman a regional board may nominate a substitute to attend the regional board meetings and the person nominated will be a full member of the central board for the period, not to exceed six months, during which the resolution is to remain in force. That is to cover that type of situation where the chairman is ill and the regional board needs a replacement.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 63, Part II, Article 6 (c), line 37, after "Acts", to add "or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 64, Part II, Article 13, to insert the following new paragraph between lines 32 and 33:
"(2) The chairman of the Board shall be paid such remuneration (if any) as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Services, determines."
Has the Minister any idea what type of salary he is talking about?
I have no idea yet.
Are we talking about the chairman of the central board?
Yes. He will be paid.
How can the Minister say he has no idea what he will be paid?
He is not going to be full time.
Has the Minister any amount in mind? Is he going to get £1,000?
He will get more than that.
How much has the Minister in mind?
£3,000 or £4,000.
I would want the top man in the country in regard to knowledge of fisheries at that kind of money.
Only a top class man will be appointed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 64, Part II, Article 14, to insert "and Article 6 (2) (a) of this Part" after "Act" in line 33.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 64, Part II, Article 16, lines 40 to 45, to delete all the words from and including ", and without prejudice" in line 40 to and including "Board" in line 45.
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 65, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following new paragraph:
"3. All that and those that part of the lands of Bearsforest Lower and Carhookeal situate in the Parish of Mallow, Barony of Fermoy and county of Cork which part is delineated on a map dated the 30th day of May, 1979, sealed with the official seal of the Minister and deposited in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.".
Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 66, Part I, paragraph 1, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following new subparagraph:
"(a) by the insertion before the definition of `dam' contained in section 3 (1) of the following new definitions:
`the expression "coarse fish" means any freshwater fish or the spawn or fry thereof other than salmon, trout, rainbow trout, char or eels or their spawn or fry;'.
`the expression "consequential disqualification order" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2) (b) of section 90, as amended by section 49 of the Fisheries Act, 1979;'."
This is an additional amendment of the Principal Act which I want to include here in the Fourth Schedule. The Schedule deals with amendments to the Principal Act. I did not include these originally and I feel they should now be included. The term "coarse fish" has not hitherto been used in fisheries legislation and requires to be defined. The definition of the expression "consequential disqualification order", which deals with the forfeiture of licences following a number of convictions is also included here. They are two definition amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 68, 75 and 76 are related and amendment No. 68 is consequential on amendment No. 76. These amendments, therefore, may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 67, Part I, paragraph 1 (h), to insert "and `the fishery district to which it relates"' before "for" where it firstly occurs in line 2.
Again, this is tied up with the question of the definition of the district and the region. Under these amendments we are making certain that everything that applies in existing by-laws, legislation and regulations to districts will apply to regions. Nothing more than that is involved here.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 67, Part I, paragraph I (h) to insert "and `that fishery district', respectively," before ", and" in line 3.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 69, Part I, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following new subparagraph:
"(ii) the substitution of `the fishery district to which it relates' for `that fishery district' in subparagraph (ii) of section 278 (5) (b), and the said subparagraph (ii), as so amended, is set out in paragraph 32 of the said Table;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are related and amendment No. 70 may be discussed with amendment No. 69.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 69, Part I, paragraph 1 (ii), to delete lines 41 to 48 and substitute the following:
"(a) an officer of the Minister or other person appointed in writing by the Minister to be an authorised person for the purposes of this Part,
(b) an officer of the Central Board appointed in writing by that board to be an authorised person for the said purposes,
(c) an officer of a regional board or other person appointed in writing by that board to be an authorised person for the said purposes, or".
Referring to the authorised person phrase in section 292 of the Principal Act, authorised persons have powers to enforce the fishery laws. That section of the Principal Act is now being substituted by this amendment on page 69 of the Bill. We have decided to include officers of the central board as authorised persons and the amendment gives effect to that. That is important. The central board will be taking over most of the present trust staff and they will have to be authorised persons as well as the existing boards of conservators' authorised persons. They will all be authorised persons.
Amendment No. 70 relates specifically to the whole matter of pollution. The Minister will appreciate that for the enforcement of the local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, the primary control is vested in the local authority, the sanitary authority, the Minister, the Minister for Fisheries or a board of conservators. When the new Fisheries Bill comes into force the regional boards only will be empowered to proceed under this Act. My amendment seeks to ensure that the central board will also be involved because in the central board there will be a repository of expert scientific advice which is of vital importance in dealing with this whole question of pollution.
It must be admitted that there is an inherent weakness in this section of the Bill from a biological point of view. The definition of pollution matter is in the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. It includes any poisonous or noxious matter, any substance including any explosives, liquid or gas, the entry or discharge of which into any waters is liable to render those and any other waters poisonous or injurious to fish, spawning grounds or the food of any fish or to injure fish in their value as human food or to impair the usefulness of the bed and soil of any waters as spawning grounds or their capacity to produce food or fish or to render such waters harmful to public health or to domestic, industrial, agricultural or recreational uses.
It is contended strongly that there will be a back-up service under the aegis of the central board that would not normally be available to the regional boards and that there is no justifiable reason why the central board ought not to be able to take action against those who pollute our rivers and our lakes. In the past the boards of conservators have been unable to get possession of the biological evidence of pollution because of their clear lack of personnel, technical know-how and expertise, and the new regional boards would not have the necessary expert staff to obtain this kind of evidence. In view of this the central board staff must be available and must be empowered not merely to advise in these things but also to carry out the work if necessary. In relation to pollution investigation the regional board officers should be advised and supervised by and have the full back-up of the central board specialists. It should be possible for the central board staff to examine samples from the regional board and analyse them. This is such an obvious area of co-operation between the centralised board at national level and the regional boards that the Minister will agree that there should be the closest liaison between them.
Following on what Deputy Treacy has said, in regard to the central and regional boards we do not want any duplication. We all agree that we are giving the central board special functions to perform on the technical, research and administration side. If the regional boards need any expert advice they will send for someone from the central board to advise them in their own regions.
That is right.
The regions, in turn, will look after the local staff. They will do the manual work as far as the restoration of lakes, rivers and estuaries is concerned. I am in total agreement with the two-tier system as long as we have no duplication. Too many State and semi-State bodies have too much duplication, which is using up a lot of money unnecessarily. I hope that when these boards are set up there will be no duplication. The central board will have their duties to perform and the regional boards will have their own duties.
I was under the impression that the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, was to be administered not by the fishery boards but by the local authorities. I did not think that this would arise. On that point, I was interested to read the statement by an official of the Dublin Fisheries Board within the past two weeks who expressed his displeasure at the deletion of certain aspects of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which empowered the boards of conservators to prosecute people for pollution. The deletion of these sections meant that they could no longer do so. Has the Minister any comment on that?
I can still proceed, and the regional boards here can proceed, under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act against the local authorities.
Did the Minister see the press statement?
I did not see it.
It would seem to contradict that.
I must examine that.
We did debate this fairly fully earlier today.
It is interesting.
It is of interest and I will check it out, but the position is still that the prosecution powers of the boards are being transferred under this Bill to the regional boards and, as far as I am concerned, they will continue. At the moment they have prosecutions pending against Dublin County Council in particular.
The point was that the power to prosecute local authorities had gone.
That is not so. I should like to see that statement.
The commitment given by the Minister to the House this morning was that the new regional boards would have power to prosecute local authorities. That must be the position.
That is the situation. Regarding the other point about the central board and the regional boards, amendment No. 70 in the name of Deputy Treacy is met by my amendment No. 69 in that what we are allowing is that the central staff will be designated to be authorised persons under the Act, that they will have the same rights as authorised persons who are on the staffs of the regional boards and can investigate pollution in particular or undertake any other type of investigation considered necessary in the interest of fishery conservation. Deputy Treacy is right in so far as there was a gap in the Bill but that gap is being closed by my amendment.
Is the Minister assuring us that the central board staff will have the same type of involvement in all matters relating to pollution as had officers of the regional boards?
Yes.
In other words, there will be complete liaison in these matters.
Yes.
We must avoid duplication, though.
The point made by Deputy White is valid. We must avoid duplication.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 70 not moved.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 69, Part I, paragraph 1 (ii), lines 51 to 55, to delete all words from and including "294;" in line 51 to "water keeper." in line 55 and insert "294.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 69, Part I, lines 56 to 59, and in page 70, lines 1 to 3, to delete subparagraph (jj) and substitute the following:
"(jj) the substitution of the following for subsection (2) of section 293:
`(2) (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, the powers conferred by this Part on a member of a regional board or an officer of such a board or other person appointed under this Part by such a board to be an authorised person for the purposes of this Part shall be exercised only for the protection of the fisheries in the fisheries region of the board by whom the appointment is made or of which the person is a member, and for the enforcement in such region of the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1979, and any instrument made thereunder.
(b) Two or more regional boards may enter into an agreement for the exercise in each of the fisheries regions of those boards by an officer or other person appointed under this Part by any board which is a party to the agreement to be an authorised person for the purposes of this Part of the powers conferred by this Part on such officer or person and for the enforcement by such officer or person in each such region of the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1979, and any instrument thereunder, and in case an agreement under this paragraph is for the time being in force, paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be construed and have effect subject to the agreement.
(c) A document purporting to be an appointment under this section and to be signed by the chief officer of a regional board shall be receivable as prima facie evidence in any legal proceedings without proof either of any signature thereon or that a person whose signature is thereon was the chief officer of the regional board concerned, and in case such a document states that an agreement under this subsection has been made between two or more regional boards specified in the document, then, until the contrary is shown, such an agreement shall be regarded as having been made and being in force.'.”.
This amendment sets out provisions in relation to the limitation to the exercise of powers by authorised persons. Again, it is a legal limitation. At present, the section in the Principal Act confines the authority of a warrant holder to the region of issue. However, provision is not being made for the application of this limitation to officers appointed by the regional boards and who are not officers of that board. In other words, they are officers of adjoining boards. The purpose of the amendment is to make exercisable the powers of authorised persons as authorised by the new regional boards.
I am not disagreeing with this. I assume that what the Minister has in mind is the overlapping of boards.
Yes. We are merging a number of boards.
An example of what the Minister has in mind, presumably, will be a lake on which three local regional boards converge.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 77 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 70, Part I, lines 9 to 13, to delete subparagraph (11) and substitute the following:
"(11) (i) the insertion of `member of the Garda Síochána or' and `or remain on' before `authorised person' and `the banks', respectively, in subsection (1) of section 296, and
(ii) the substitution of `trout, char or their spawn or fry, eels or coarse fish' for `or trout' in the said subsection (1),
and the said subsection (1), as so amended, is set out in paragraph 33 of the said Table;".
These amendments to subparagraph (11) concern section 296 of the Principal Act, which sets out the powers of authorised persons. The first part is a restatement of what is in the Bill as passed by the Seanad, but the second part is a further amendment to section 296 of the Principal Act and will allow gardaí and authorised persons to remain on the banks of rivers and lakes in addition to the existing power of entering into and passing along such banks. The amendment is to strengthen the hands of the Garda and of authorised persons and it arose out of a legal point made by a prosecution.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 74 and 78 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 70, Part I, paragraph 1, between lines 56 and 57, to insert the following new subparagraph:
"(uu) the substitution in paragraph (b) of section 301 (2) of `search' for `the interior of', and the said paragraph (b) as so amended, is set out in paragraph 40 of the said Table;"
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 73, paragraph 7 of the Table, line 26, to delete "that fishery district" and substitute "the fishery district to which it relates".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 78, in the Table, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following new paragraph:
"32. (ii) the number or name of the fishery district to which it relates,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 79, in the Table, paragraph 33, to delete lines 1 to 3, and substitute the following:
"(a) enter into and pass through or along or remain on the banks or borders of any lakes or rivers frequented by salmon, trout, char or their spawn or fry, eels or coarse fish or of the tributaries thereof."
This is a simple drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 77a:
In page 79, paragraph 35 of the Table, lines 19 and 20, to delete", officer appointed by the Minister or" and substitute "or officer appointed by the Minister or by a".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 80, Part II, in the Table, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following new paragraph:
"40. (b) at all reasonable times to enter upon and have free access to search—
(i) any premises in which fish is or is believed to be sold, or kept, exposed or stored for sale, or
(ii) any premises in which poison or explosives intended for the destruction of fish is or is believed to be kept, or
(iii) the premises of any person engaged in the business of carrying goods for reward, or
(iv) any aerodrome, pier, quay, wharf, jetty, dock or dock premises, or
(v) any ship, boat, aircraft, railway wagon, motor lorry, cart, or other vessel or vehicle used for the conveyance of goods;"
Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
FIFTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 86, lines 40 and 41, to delete Article 14 and substitute the following:
"14. In this Schedule—
`the Commission' means the Irish Land Commission;
`acquisition order' means an order made by the Minister under section 36, 37 or 38 of this Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 5, to insert "TO AMEND SECTION 59 OF THE FOYLE FISHERIES ACT, 1952," before "TO PROVIDE" in line 13.
Amendment agreed to.
Pursuant to Standing Order 95 (3), I have to report specially to the Dáil that the Committee has amended the Title to read as follows:
An Act to establish a body to be known as the Central Fisheries Board and to define its functions, to enable regional fisheries boards to be established and to define their functions, to dissolve Iontaobhas Iascaigh Intíre Ioncorportha (The Inland Fisheries Trust Incorporated) and certain boards of conservators established by the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, to amend section 59 of the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952 to provide for other matters connected with the foregoing and otherwise to amend and extend the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1978.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
We could take it tomorrow.
That might leave us with a drafting problem.
If we leave it until next Tuesday, we should like to think that the Minister will still be Minister for Fisheries.
It may be ordered for tomorrow and then, by agreement, taken at another stage.
We would require a reasonable time for Report Stage.
The whole discussion has been constructive and helpful and much of the credit for this is due to the Minister and his officials. We have agreed on some very important aspects. We would like to be assured that this Minister will be dealing with the Report Stage and that is why I am suggesting that we take the next Stage tomorrow.
Deputy Treacy does not wish it to be taken tomorrow.
The Minister will require time to consider the very important points that have been made.
I have made some serious commitments.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will be the one to take the Bill on Tuesday next?
Yes, but I hope that does not preclude other things.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 11 December 1979.