Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 May 2017

Vol. 952 No. 3

Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2017: Report and Final Stages

Two amendments were submitted on Report Stage, both of which are out of order. Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Pringle and amendment No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Mattie McGrath. We cannot debate those amendments.

My amendment has been ruled out of order under Standing Order 154. I contest that because the amendment is in line with the provisions of the Bill. The reason given for ruling it out of order was that reporting on why legislation is required and ensuring the situation does not arise again is relevant to the subject matter and to the requirement for the legislation but is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill are to ensure that Inland Fisheries Ireland has the power to bring summary proceedings, to provide for certain penalties and to provide for related matters. I contend that this amendment is in line with related matters because it relates directly to how the situation has arisen that this Bill is required.

Standing Order 154 states that amendments should be relevant to the provisions of the Bill and not in conflict with the principles of the Bill. I do not believe that amendment is in conflict with the principles.

Deputy Pringle's concerns are noted.

Mine are similar.

As Teachtaí Dálaí, we are here representing our constituents. I spoke on this Bill when the Minister was here. We are making an effort here to make bad law good. We had no law. We prosecuted individuals in my county and elsewhere in the country. Some of them who admitted liability were fined and incurred significant expense after a third or four time in court. We are now passing legislation to make right the laws which were not good enough, not effective and not enforced at the time.

Under Standing Order 154, how are we supposed to table amendments? How are we supposed to deal with legislation and assess it?

To be clear, Deputy Mattie McGrath's amendment involves imposing a charge on the Exchequer. As a private Member, the Deputy cannot bring forward amendments that will impose a charge on the Exchequer. There is no choice but to rule the Deputy's amendment out of order.

I am representing people who have been wrongly prosecuted and charged fines by Inland Fisheries Ireland and by the courts. Who will represent them? One can do what one likes with them, the small people. It is like NAMA. Such people do not matter anymore. We can bring them to court, find them guilty, shame them in the newspaper and make them pay for representation, legal and otherwise, but we did not have the law to do it. That is a funny set up. We are now making the law to make that stand up.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.
Bill received for final consideration.

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I will not oppose the passing of the Bill. It is required to correct a mistake that was made in 2010 when the original legislation was passed but it is important we discuss what happened to ensure this legislation is required. I thank the Minister for providing me with a report from the Department on some of the events that took place that led to this legislation being required. I have a concern in regard to the fact the problem with the 2010 legislation was identified by the Department's counsel in March 2015 and reiterated to the Department in April 2015 and that in May 2015 the Department sought advice from the Attorney General as to what it needed to do, but it took until February 2017 for the Attorney General to advise that emergency legislation was required and that Inland Fisheries Ireland did not have the power to take summary cases before the courts. There was almost a two-year period in regard to when the Attorney General was consulted about the problem with this legislation and to my mind, that is far too long for something like this to have gone unnoticed.

While I accept there may be case law which provides that if the State was acting in good faith in carrying out prosecutions and was not aware there may be a problem with the legislation, the courts would uphold convictions that took place during that period, but there certainly is a serious doubt as to whether the State was acting in good faith in regard to any prosecutions taking place from March 2015. That is a serious situation. While case law might give some comfort to the Government, it is not acceptable that legislation should be let go on this long in that period. These are serious breaches of law in terms of pollution incidents and illegal fishing. I accept that totally. However, we must be sure that we have the legal power to prosecute people. When the issues are identified, they need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Two years is too long.

I am of the same opinion. I have no issue with people being prosecuted for pollution or fish kills. I do not refer to that but to where those I represent were tending to the waterways, as they have always done. Indeed, we did not have as much flooding when they were tending to them.

Two and a half years ago they were cleaning out the watercourse. They were taking out timber that was blocking the river with the potential to cause flooding on the roads and even to wash away a bridge across the N24. They were brought in and prosecuted, with no legislation. They were servants of the State, doing work for the State. They were cleaning out the rivers to make sure that the water could flow and not flood property and roads and cause damage. When people come along in their suits, with their briefcases and badges we must ensure there is proper legislation. People should not have been hauled through the courts and made examples of, even if it was two years ago. Justice delayed is justice denied but this represents no justice at all for ordinary people. We are here to make that situation right and I am opposing this Bill and will vote against it for that reason.

I thank Deputies for raising various issues. I note their concerns, which we discussed at length on Committee Stage. Deputy Mattie McGrath raised the question as to why concluded convictions are not affected. His amendment provides that "any person convicted or prosecuted prior to the commencement of this Act shall have their conviction erased and prosecution withdrawn". The finality of criminal convictions was addressed in the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. This advice is that there are no implications as regards cases already concluded and for which no appeal against conviction has been initiated within the statutory appeal period. In those cases, a conviction and penalty would stand. Following receipt of the Attorney General's advice in February 2017, IFI prosecutions that were pending at that time are not being proceeded with and are being withdrawn on a case-by-case basis.

In effect, this Bill aims to ensure that the intention of the law that was passed by the Dáil in 2010 is brought through now. Everything we do is done with the advice and guidance of the Attorney General's office. Legislation dealing with the removal of material from rivers includes the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 and the Local Authorities (Works) Act 1949, neither of which are affected by this Bill.

In response to Deputy Pringle, while I appreciate the comments he has made, my Department provided a very thorough briefing to him following the Committee Stage debate, which I am happy to summarise now. The requirement to amend the principal Act arose from two court cases for pollution heard over 2015 and 2016 and the offences in question occurred in mid-2014. Due to various adjustments, it was July 2016 before the court found that the prosecution's case was appropriate and that IFI had proven its case against the accused. Originally the advice received from the Attorney General's office was to the effect that the Department may wish to consider whether an amendment to the Inland Fisheries Act 2010 was appropriate in order to confirm the powers of IFI under that Act. It was important that both cases were concluded before any assessment of the implications of the legal challenges to IFI's powers and what legislative action, if any, was required, could be made. In any event, the issue of the challenge to the powers of IFI was not finally determined by the court. Following the conclusion of both cases, the Department set out to consider what legislative amendments would be necessary to confirm the powers of IFI under the 2010 Act, on the understanding that the powers of IFI were susceptible to challenge on a case-by-case basis and the legislative amendment required would confirm the relevant powers. This matter was not an urgent one at that stage and was pursued in line with a normal legislative timeframe. However, having prepared a draft general scheme of the Bill to confirm the powers of IFI, officials were notified on 9 February 2017, during consultation on that draft scheme by the Office of the Attorney General, that there was a more fundamental issue at play, namely, that the IFI did not have the power to prosecute and that a new draft Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Bill should be prepared to explicitly confer such rights and powers on the IFI. The Department was only made aware on 9 February 2017 that it is was not sufficient simply to confirm the powers of IFI but that there was a need for new legislation - this Bill - which has been progressed at speed since then.

Sinn Féin will be supporting this Bill. The question of the delays has been raised and the Minister of State has answered that reasonably well. In passing this legislation, we must bear in mind that enforcement is the key. It is very important that the work of local voluntary angling clubs, who restock rivers and carry out local improvement works in conjunction with IFI, is protected. We have seen some terrible instances of pollution in recent times. The Clodiagh River in County Laois suffered serious pollution just over a year ago, which wiped out an enormous amount of fish. Enforcement is so important because pollution is a serious issue.

There is an ongoing debate about drainage and the cleaning of rivers. Reference has been made to the problem of getting permission to remove obstructions from rivers. Those who argue against such removal do so on the basis of the need to protect fish stocks. Years ago bodies like the board of works and the drainage boards carried out substantial clearance works. I remember huge machinery in rivers such as the Nore and the Barrow but the fish stocks did not decline sharply. However, fish stocks and the variety of fish in our rivers have reduced drastically in more recent years and the main cause of this is pollution. This is the issue on which we must focus. I ask the Minister of State and his officials to take note of that point.

Sinn Féin supports this legislation. We must get on with it now. We need to get this Bill through the Houses and enacted with no further delay.

I thank Deputy Stanley for his comments and for his support for the Bill. I agree that in the context of the conservation of fish stocks and the work that is done across the country by angling clubs to preserve and promote the angling potential of their local rivers, this legislation is important and necessary. In terms of removing obstacles from rivers there are other authorities that must be contacted including the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, and the Office of Public Works, OPW. In general, IFI has not stopped any removal of materials as long as that removal takes place at the correct time of the year. Under the national strategy for angling, funding will be available to angling clubs and community groups to support the works suggested by Deputy Stanley. Local authorities deal with permits for the cleaning of rivers or the removal of obstacles. The Department turns such applications around quickly. Again, I thank the Deputy for his support for the Bill and agree that it is important to proceed with it forthwith.

Fianna Fáil is happy to support this Bill. We recognise its importance in dealing with a technical matter in order to ensure that those individuals who are not treating the waterways as we would like will be sanctioned and fined. We must recognise the importance of our inland fisheries resource, not just for people who live here and use our waterways for leisure pursuits but also for tourists. They are a very important aspect of our overall tourism offering and it is vital that we retain and maintain the image of our waterways and fisheries as premium products. While there are issues about which we might quibble from time to time, it is important that this legislation is passed quickly. In that context, Fianna Fáil has engaged with the Minister of State and his Department in trying to move this Bill through the House quickly. We welcome the open approach of both the Minister of State and his Department and would like to see this Bill become law as soon as possible.

Tuigim go dteastaíonn ón Aire Stáit cúpla focal a rá roimh an deireadh.

I acknowledge the support of Members and thank them for their co-operation in expediting the passage of this Bill through the House.

Mar is amhlaidh le gach acmhainn nádúrtha, caithfear iascach intíre a bhainistiú go cúramach agus go freagrach. Ar dtús, caithfear cinneadh a dhéanamh an stoc éisc agus na huiscebhealaí a bhainistiú ag baint úsáide as an fhianaise eolaíochta is fearr chomh maith le heolas áitiúil. Ní i gcónaí a bhíonn gach duine sásta leis na cinntí a bhaineann le hiascaigh agus aibhneacha, ach tá siad déanta ar mhaithe leis na páirtithe leasmhara éagsúla agus ar mhaithe leis an gcomhshaol. Ní mór dúinn a chinntiú go bhfuil eagraíocht againn a bhfuil in ann bainistíu cúramach agus freagrach a dhéanamh ar ár bpolasaí bainistíochta do iascach intíre. Tá baill Iascach Intíre Éireann ag obair go dian lenár n-iascaigh intíre a bhainistiú ar leasa gach duine againn. Tá sé mar aidhm againn a chinntiú go bhfuil sé de chumhacht ag lascach Intíre Éireann an tasc tábhachtach seo a chomhlíonadh. Is é sin an fáth go bhfuil an reachtaíocht seo faoi bhráid na Dála.

Gach uair a dhéanann duine póitseáil ar iasc, tá sé nó sí ag goid ó mhuintir na hÉireann. Is bagairt í an phóitseáil ní hamháin ar bhainistíocht iascaigh intíre, ach freisin ar an earnáil tábhachtach slatiascaireachta. Is gníomhaíocht í an slatiascaireacht atá thar a bheith tábhachtach faoin tuath. Tá buntáistí ag baint leis an slatiascaireacht do dhaoine áitiúla agus don eacnamaíocht áitiúil ó thaobh na turasóireachta suntasach a ghineann sé. Tabharfaidh an reachtaíocht seo cumhachtaí soiléire díreacha do lascach Intíre Éireann chun dul i ngleic le coir na póitseála. Beidh sé in ann cabhrú linn i leith bainistíocht cúramach agus freagrach as ár acmhainní nádúrtha iascach intíre. Beidh an Bille seo in ann cuidiú leis an acmhainn nádúrtha a chosaint ar mhaithe leis na slatiascairí, na gnólachtaí áitiúla agus na pobail ar fud na tíre.

I thank all the Members for their support in getting this important legislation through the House to ensure the provision of powers of prosecution for Inland Fisheries Ireland. I look forward to debating this Bill in the Seanad in the coming weeks.

Go raibh maith agat, a Aire Stáit. Cuirfear an Bille ar aghaidh go dtí an Seanad.

Question put.

Deputies

Vótáil.

Will the Deputies dissenting who are claiming a division please rise in their places?

Deputies Mattie McGrath, Michael Harty and Danny Healy-Rae rose.

As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 70, the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.
Barr
Roinn