Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 2000

Vol. 164 No. 10

Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2000: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

Who are "authorised officers" under this section? Are they bailiffs on a river or members of the Garda? Gardaí have powers when they are accompanied by bailiffs. There is no provision to punish an authorised officer for committing an offence. I do not wish to go over old ground but Members will recall during the last Seanad there was complete co-operation in the House to pass legislation which dealt with authorised officers who had abused their position on a certain regional fisheries board.

Without going into detail on that issue, it created a problem for the Department of the Marine for a long time. An officer had to be appointed to the board in question and it was then disbanded. I hope this issue is relevant under this section. Who are authorised officers? Must they be accompanied by gardaí? If gardaí witness the commission of a fishery offence they may have powers.

There is no provision for the punishment of an authorised officer. Fishery offences, including the catching and confiscation of salmon, are possibly open to abuse by a lone authorised officer. I know many such officers and they are top of the list in my book. Section 2 provides for punishments for offences but in the case of an authorised officer such punishments do not apply. I would like the Minister to clarify this issue.

We all co-operated with the former Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore, when he introduced legislation dealing with authorised officers. The problem has been sorted out and the Minister knows what I am talking about.

Mr. Burke

Senator Fitzgerald has made a good point. We had a lengthy debate during the passage of previous legislation through the House in regard to the members of a regional fisheries board who had abused their powers and privileges. The Minister should spell out that the law applies evenly to everyone, be they an officer, a member of the public, a fisherman or whoever. Who or what is an authorised officer?

Will the Minister explain how the procedure for collecting on the spot fines will work in practice? Will a person have a docket book with which to issue £50 fines or whatever fine is provided for and will he stick the fine in the offender's top pocket, or what will be done? There may be slight confusion about this. Senator Fitzgerald made a very good point about authorised officers. Who is an authorised officer and how do they work? The last thing needed is ambiguity.

Mr. Bonner

Senators Fitzgerald and Burke referred to authorised officers in the context of inshore fishermen and primary anglers. I take it the legislation also applies to drift net fishermen as they are in receipt of salmon licences. Will officers of the Naval Service be regarded as authorised officers? Like others, these men go out to sea in boats. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

Senator Burke asked what mechanism will be in place to collect fines. If one is speeding, the Garda has use of speed guns and tracking cars to identify that. Gardaí spend two years training in Templemore. Many authorised officers, however, may not have formal training when appointed. Grudges against bailiffs may be held in local communities because of what might have happened before and an overly enthusiastic authorised officer could then be appointed. Perhaps the Minister could clarify matters in that regard.

Mr. Caffrey

I am also concerned about on the spot fines. Detection and punishment of a crime or offence usually involves a fine and media exposure. The exposure is often a greater deterrent than the monetary fine. We are dealing with big business. Illegally caught salmon may be worth thousands of pounds. If media exposure does not exist with on the spot fines, it may be worth people's while just to pay the fines. If they are 20, 30 or 40 miles out on the high seas, they pay their money and that is the end of it. Will the Minister clarify that?

Mr. Costello

Senator Fitzgerald raised the issue of who guards the guards when they implement the law but do not believe it applies to them. I do not know how the Minister will solve that problem, but the law should extend to every citizen, including those charged with its execution. An amendment dealing with this should be included, if possible, because circumstances have arisen where those charged with implementing the law have abused it.

The on the spot fine is not really such because it can be paid within a period of 21 days. However, the principle that a fine is imposed is good.

I would like to know the difference between an authorising officer and an authorising agent, which is referred to in the next section. We already have a system of on the spot fines for traffic offences, but many such penalties have been discredited. This is either because they are not being followed up or because insufficient resources have been made available to ensure that where offences of a relatively minor nature are committed they will be prosecuted. For example, literally tens of thousands of offences concerning dog licences are not being prosecuted. In addition, many traffic offences are not being followed up or are being prosecuted in a very lethargic fashion from one end of the country to the other. Who will be responsible for ensuring that the offences will be chased up and the money collected?

There is no doubt about the point made by Senator Caffrey, that there is a relatively small number of major culprits upon whom the authorities should focus their efforts. They should be brought into the glare of publicity. An annual report could publish a list of such offenders who have been abusing the law by poaching salmon and other fish. Where people commit more than one offence their names should be made public. That is the best way to avoid a recurrence. What extra resources will the Minister make available to ensure the legislation is properly implemented?

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey)

Authorised officers for the tagging scheme and on the spot fines will be the staff of regional fisheries boards or the Central Fisheries Board, as well as the Minister's departmental officers, BIM staff, or inspectors. The Garda Síochána are not authorised officers for those two purposes and they cannot become involved in such on the spot fines. However, the gardaí are authorised officers for other purposes within the Act. As for the type of documentation that will be used in on the spot fines, I am not sure what kind of documentation we might go for in County Mayo but, generally speaking, it will be similar to on the spot fines for traffic offences, where officers have a booklet to indicate the level of parking or speeding fines that are applicable. A person who is caught and given an on the spot fine has the choice of paying that fine or risking prosecution. If he wishes to stop the prosecution process, he can pay the fine. We are starting with an on the spot fine of £50 to see what impact that will have. If we find it does not have the necessary impact, we have the power to increase the fine by regulation.

Authorised officers can include a person or persons who are not officers of the fisheries boards but who are appointed in writing by the regional board to be an authorised officer for the purposes of the said section. We have left ourselves room to ensure that we have an adequate number of officers in place. It is my intention, certainly during the spring salmon season and at other times, to appoint additional fisheries officers to tighten controls and stop illegal fishing and poaching.

We have 29 types of criminal offences within the Act and they deal with the tagging section. They also deal with other areas such as the by-laws which prohibit various activities. I am satisfied that we have covered this area in great detail in legislation and I hope it will work effectively.

Mr. Bonner

I meant to ask this question earlier but Senator Caffrey touched on this matter.

In relation to the £50 on the spot fine, there could be major breaches of the regulations. If you are caught doing 70 mph in a 60 mph area you would be fined £50. I am sure if you are caught doing 110 mph it would be a more serious offence.

If an authorised officer comes across someone with a boatful of illegally caught salmon a £50 fine would not be very reasonable. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether an officer can increase the first fine or whether it must remain at £50.

Is it envisaged in this legislation that a person can pay the fine on the spot to the authorised officer? I was caught speeding – I will not mention the county but it was not County Donegal. I was given a ticket and I paid the £50 on the spot fine. About a month later I got a letter from the superintendent in the area seeking £50. Luckily I had the receipt written on the back of an envelope. I forwarded my receipt and received another letter stating that the fine had been paid. I am not insinuating that the garda in question held on to the money or that there was maladministration. Will this legislation provide for the £50 fine being paid on the spot? If it does there would need to be strict regulations in place for the authorised officers.

I asked the Minister about the authorised officers' relationship with drift net fishermen. The Naval Service can board pelagic and white fish boats. Are Naval Service officers regarded as authorised officers? If he cannot answer my question now perhaps he can do so at a later date.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

On Second Stage I mentioned how frivolous it seemed to me – and I am only giving this as an example – to bring large fishing boats 200 miles to port to face minor offences. Sometimes these offences do not reach the courts. They then go back out to sea again. This is all done at a huge cost to themselves.

It seems fairly heavy handed that if a person cannot produce a licence when they are asked for it they will be fined on the spot. I thought that it would be the same as when the gardaí stop a person on the road and you cannot produce a driving licence. In the past you had ten days to report to your local Garda station. If someone went fishing but forgot to bring their licence with them and was not able to produce it could they be asked, rather than giving them an on the spot fine, to produce it at an office within so many days?

I am looking at this matter in two ways. I want to be easy on small offences but lean heavily on greater offences. The Minister is not leaning very heavily on offenders, an issue which has been touched upon. A regular offender over a period, and definitely after a second offence, should be barred or not given a licence again for rod, net or whatever.

We bring in laws. I do not want to raise this matter because it happened recently. At present there is a great scheme around the coast for lobsters. The Department and BIM are helping it in a big way. Recently someone was caught with 36 small undersized lobsters. He went to court and his solicitor said he was poor. The judge imposed the minimum fine of £100 and let him off even though he had destroyed thousands of pounds worth of young lobsters. Will the person who genuinely forgets to carry their licence be fined? Will serial offenders or people who commit a few offences over a short period be dealt with in a more severe manner?

Mr. Burke

Senator Caffrey made a very good point earlier about the guy who catches a boatload of salmon but may only be fined £50. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale of offences. A points system could be introduced like the one for driving offences.

Senator Fitzgerald also made an excellent point. There are a lot of genuine people. A person could lose his licence. His jacket could fall into a river or out of his boat for some unknown reason. It would be unfair to this type of person to impose an on the spot fine. As Senator Fitzgerald has said, it should possible to produce your licence somewhere. As I have said, the vast majority of fishermen and people involved in the fishing business are genuine people. They do not want to commit offences. They are law abiding people. We cannot tar everyone with the one brush. I support some of the comments that have been made by Senators earlier.

With regard to a sliding scale for offences, a person who would get a big reward from their crime does not mind paying a £50 fine. He will go out and commit the same offence every week.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

Salmon is worth £50 to him.

Mr. Burke

Yes. I agree with the comments made by Senators Fitzgerald, Caffrey and Bonner on this matter. The Minister probably has the power to introduce a system apart from doing so through legislation, perhaps through a ministerial order. The problem could be solved if an amendment was brought forward which dealt with the production of a licence and introduced a sliding scale of penalties for offences.

Mr. Costello

I do not think the Minister responded to any of the issues raised in my initial contribution.

Angling from a river bank where you might catch a trout or a salmon and taking a boatful of fish from the sea are different types of offences. This legislation does not seem to address this at all. In this context, there is probably a small number of culprits who are involved big time to make a killing. If this is considered to be a minor offence in respect of which an on the spot fine will be payable, obviously it will not be a deterrent. If there is a racket, the concept of multiple offences by the same person or persons should be contemplated by the Minister. He should also contemplate the compilation of an end of year report on the types of offences committed, be it at sea or on lakes and rivers, indicating the areas in which the greatest numbers of on the spot fines have been imposed.

It is stated in the final section of the legislation that it is not expected that any costs will be incurred. Given the huge backlogs in so many other areas from litter and dog licences to traffic offences, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient personnel to ensure efficiency in initiating prosecutions to ensure extra costs will not be incurred in urgently executing the legislation which provides for on the spot fines?

Mr. Fahey

Under the legislation an alleged offender will have 21 days to pay the £50 on the spot fine at a specified office of a regional fisheries board. It will not be a question of a person having money in his or her pocket when caught by a fisheries officer. This system will apply to inland fisheries—

Mr. Costello

Will the person concerned be able to barter and hand over the salmon worth £50?

Mr. Fahey

The line of questioning is becoming so complex that—

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No interrogation, please.

Mr. Fahey

—to quote Senator Burke, I am in danger of falling out of the boat.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

If the Minister does not go easy.

Mr. Fahey

Fines will be payable at offices of regional fisheries boards. Payment may be made within a period of 21 days. To answer Senator Burke's question, section 3 provides for a sliding scale of penalties for tagging offences. The maximum fine for a first offence will be £500, for a second offence, £750, and for a third offence, £1,000. In the case of serious offences, the maximum fine will be £1,500 and-or three months imprisonment. If a more serious offence is committed of the type to which Senator Caffrey referred, a fisheries officer will have the option of seeking a conviction rather than imposing an on the spot fine. It will be, therefore, an extra weapon in his or her hand. Because of the bureaucracy involved in pursuing prosecutions, to which Senator Costello referred, we regard the on the spot fine as a significant way of dealing immediately with offences of a minor nature. The person concerned will be given a notice of fine and will have 21 days in which to pay. I am happy, therefore, that we will not have a bureaucratic structure which will cause further work and delays. In the case of repeat and more serious offences, the fisheries officer will have discretion to initiate a prosecution as opposed to imposing an on the spot fine.

It is an offence under the Fisheries Act, 1959, not to have in one's possession when fishing a salmon fishing licence. In genuine cases a caution rather than an on the spot fine will be issued by the fisheries officer. Fisheries officers are both sensible and reasonable and the intention is—

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

Some of my mates are not.

Mr. Fahey

—not to deal unfairly with genuine fishermen, but to deal with the culture in a particular county in the south-west where salmon poaching is endemic.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I am getting too old.

Mr. Fahey

Those are the boys we are after. In the case of certain specific offences in the case of salmon and eel fishing, under the Fisheries Acts a court may disqualify a person with two convictions within a period of 12 months. All in all, we are providing for a good, common sense system. While I have taken on board the comments of Senator Burke about a scale of offences, the variety of actions that will be available to fisheries officers is such that they will be in a strong position to deal with illegality in the fishing sector. If not, what the Senator has proposed can be reconsidered.

Mr. Bonner

Section 2(1)(ii) reads, "the person may, during the period of 21 days beginning on the date of the notice, make to the regional board concerned at the address specified in the notice a payment of £50 accompanied by the notice". It is clear from this that payment may not be made to the authorised officer, rather it will have to be made at the specified office of the regional board. Under the legislation dealing with motoring offences, payment may be made to the garda who imposes the on the spot fine. Will the Minister clarify that those who are caught should not pay the £50 on the spot fine to the authorised officer? Knowing how the fishing industry operates, those involved could quite easily pay the £50 without documentation into the wrong hands. I take it that we should advise them not to pay on the spot.

Mr. Fahey

That is correct.

Mr. Costello

Is the Minister prepared to provide for the compilation of an end of year report on the number of fines imposed and so on?

Mr. Fahey

Such information will be included in the reports of the fisheries boards. We will ensure it is.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

This section deals with the tagging of salmon and sea trout for the purpose of establishing real time data on actual catches. The relevant regulations have a commencement date of 1 January 2001. Will the scheme of tagging of salmon be operated directly by the Central Fisheries Board and regional fisheries boards which are doing good work? Where will the tagging be done? Will it be done at specified hatcheries in the same way that in years gone by the ESB had hatcheries on the Shannon and in Mayo?

A Member of the House regularly receives his nomination to the Seanad from the Central Fisheries Board. He beat me to it. Senator Burke represents the Central Fisheries Board in the Seanad and he watches like a hawk everything to do with fisheries and the regional boards for the board. When will the tagging start and who will control it?

Mr. Fahey

The tagging will start on 1 January, as a result of regulations we made in August. The tag is put on the salmon when it is dead. In other words, it is a tag to show the salmon is wild. It is tagged only when it is caught.

Mr. Bonner

I am confused by the fact that section 2 refers to a £50 on the spot fine but section 3 refers to higher fines. Can I take it that section 3 is concerned solely with salmon tagging and relates to the point raised by Senators Caffrey and Burke and me about the £50 on the spot fine, and that in more serious cases the person concerned might have to go to court and be prosecuted?

Many people felt initially that the purpose of the tagging was to prevent illegal fishing and so on. However, I know the Department is stressing that it is being done for statistical purposes.

There was a suggestion that every licensee would be issued with a certain number of tags, based on their historical fishing record. Many people were disillusioned by the difficulties with salmon fishing in recent years due to the lack of salmon in the sea and did not work to the extent they did in earlier years. They will be penalised if the number of tags issued is based on the previous year's records. Is an unlimited number of tags available to anyone who catches an unlimited number of salmon or will a certain number be available for each fisherman?

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I was mistakenly under the impression that the purpose of this legislation was to tag young salmon as they went out. This will involve a huge amount of work because every time a fishing boat comes in from fishing or draft netting in rivers, a fishery inspector or authorised officer will have to be there to—

Mr. Fahey

No.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I will let the Minister explain it.

Mr. Fahey

The fisherman himself will simply tag the salmon. A log book will be kept so that there will be an account of the number of wild salmon caught. We want to establish the number of wild salmon caught for the purpose of research and conservation. There will be constant monitoring and checking of that. It will then form part of a whole research and information gathering exercise.

In regard to the number of tags, people will be given tags but not for the purpose of limiting fishing, as such. A certain number of tags will be given which will limit the number of fish that can be caught. We do not intend to have any quotas in respect of river or recreational angling. I have given assurances on that to FISTA and some of the other angling organisations.

Mr. Burke

That is welcome.

Mr. Fahey

However, that may be necessary in a particular river catchment where there is a very serious decline in the salmon stock and where fishermen agree there is obviously a need to curtail the amount of angling. Generally speaking, I have given a guarantee that this is not about quotas for river or recreational angling.

We do not have a proper database on wild salmon and one of the first requirements is to put such a database in place. We also want to stop the illegal selling of wild salmon and this database will allow us some control over that. For example, wild salmon should be tagged and traceable. That will enable us to stop some of the illegal activity that is taking place. Our salmon stocks and the value of our angling resources have reduced considerably as a result of illegal activity.

The whole point of this exercise is to conserve our salmon stocks and to become knowledgeable about them. If it is then necessary, which I emphasise, we will put some controls on commercial fishing, whether by a quota system, a lay aside system or a buy-out system. The idea is to bring more salmon up the rivers to improve the whole breeding process and the amount of salmon in our rivers for recreational angling. The most economically significant way to catch salmon is on the rod, which is what we want to encourage.

It puzzles me that some of the angling fraternity are the people who are most opposed to this. I cannot understand why they are because they will benefit most from it.

Mr. Bonner

The Minister might have already answered my question in the latter part of his contribution. However, he referred mainly to recreational and river salmon fishing. Can I take it that there will also be no quota on tags available to commercial drift net fishermen?

Mr. Fahey

Not for the moment, but there is a possibility that a quota may be imposed as time goes by. There is no doubt that that may be necessary as we proceed. Drift net and draft net fishermen have seen the resource decrease considerably over the past few years. If we do not take proper action now to conserve and increase the wild salmon stock, the people the Senator is talking about will lose out most of all.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I now welcome this Bill more than ever. The earlier legislation was very watery in regard to the purchase of salmon by individuals, restaurants and so on. Is the Minister saying that a log book will have to be kept by the purchaser as well?

Mr. Fahey

No.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I urge the Minister to require restaurants, for example, to keep a record of their salmon purchases. I am talking here about people who purchase far more salmon than Members here would, who would just purchase part of a salmon. There should be a log kept of the licence numbers which could be inspected. Otherwise, fishery inspectors will have to visit restaurants and hotels at all times of the day and night to check for salmon tags.

The Bill appeals to me much more now than it did when I first read it. I have no problem with quotas being set on rivers where stocks are declining. I was a member of the regional board when the Central Fisheries Board bought eight miles of the River Moy in Senator Caffrey's constituency. To the best of my knowledge the amount of money paid for each salmon caught in that river is far above that paid for a salmon caught by a commercial fisherman.

Having heard the Minister's explanation, I welcome the legislation more than ever. There will probably be teething troubles with the follow up and the number of inspectors that will be required. The Minister might have to take another look at that. There are approximately 80 restaurants in Dingle and there is salmon to be found in each of them. There is no way a fisheries inspector could inspect all of them in one night.

Mr. Bonner

What about the bed and breakfast accommodation in Dingle?

Mr. Burke

The inspector will not have to inspect them. The salmon are legally caught.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

We do not serve salmon in the bed and breakfast.

Mr. Fahey

I am delighted with the Senator's wholehearted welcome for the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Burke

He will have salmon for the Minister the next time he goes to Kerry.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I am getting old now. The poaching is gone.

Mr. Fahey

The person who purchases the salmon and who removes the tag in accordance with the regulation will have to retain the tag together with a record of the date of the purchase of the fish, a record of the date of the removal of the tag and, if applicable, the statement of the fisherman obtained under section 163(a). They should be surrendered to the authorised officer when requested by the authorised officer. All restaurants in Dingle will be required—

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I was just testing the Minister to see if there were any loopholes through which I might follow my old profession.

Mr. Caffrey

Senator Fitzgerald referred to the purchase of the Moy and the value of the angling salmon. The ratio is approximately 10:1 or 11:1 against what is caught commercially. That gives one an idea of the value of that stretch of river. Incidentally, that was the last ministerial act of the then Minister, Paddy O'Toole, before he lost his seat in the Dáil. So much for meddling with the fisheries.

Mr. Burke

The Minister should be careful.

Mr. Bonner

The Minister referred to the responsibility of the restaurateur. Apart from the visit of an authorised officer to a restaurant, hotel, fish processing factory or an agent who sells salmon, do people have any other responsibility with regard to the tags if they are not requested by the officer to produce them? Do they have to return them to the fisheries board or to anybody in particular?

Mr. Fahey

No.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bonner

Sections 5 and 6 provide for the election of members of the fisheries boards and the appointment of the nominees. I take it this extension relates only to the present year – it is proposed to have the boards appointed in December every other year – because they were appointed in March or May this year. In other words, this will not happen again. It will take place every five years in future. There was dissatisfaction this year that the boards had continued for a year or two because of the delay in the legislation.

Mr. Fahey

That is correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

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

Mr. Burke

I compliment the staff and members of the Central Fisheries Board who were actively involved in framing this Bill. Mr. Paddy Byrne, a member of the board and of the fisheries protection staff, was here last week when the Bill was being discussed on Second Stage. They are happy with this legislation.

I welcome the Bill and I compliment the Minister on bringing it before the House. Great strides have been made in the fisheries sector in recent years and to good effect. The fisheries are a great national asset and the people involved, both board members and the staff of the various boards, are to be complimented. When credit is due it should be given. They do tremendous work throughout the country, as one can see when one visits our rivers and lakes. They welcome this legislation as it will help them to protect those assets.

The Minister said that the revenue from the fines would be ring fenced, but there is nothing in the legislation which specifies how the revenue will reach the coffers of either the central board or the regional boards. Will the revenue collected through fines go to the regional board or the central board and what procedure will be followed? Where is it stated in the Bill that the revenue is ring fenced? It is not stated in any of the sections. The great fear is that the revenue, some of which will be collected through the courts, will go to the Exchequer.

Mr. Bonner

I thank the Minister for bringing this important legislation before the House. Senator Burke pointed out that the fisheries boards welcome it. In the long term, the fishermen, particularly commercial fishermen, will also welcome it.

It may take time for the effect of the legislation to increase our salmon stocks and bring us back to the situation that obtained years ago. Conservation is most important, particularly for the fishermen who rely on the short period in which they can fish the wild Atlantic salmon. In the long term they will welcome this legislation. From the consumer's point of view, it would be a disgrace if our wild salmon stocks were depleted. Despite the improvement in farmed salmon over the last two or three years, anybody who knows anything about salmon will always be able to identify a wild salmon from a farmed salmon. As a delicacy, wild Atlantic salmon is streets ahead of farmed salmon. I hope this legislation will improve matters in that regard.

The Minister mentioned a number of items on which he has asked the salmon commission to report in relation to predation, water quality and so forth. I hope that with the commission's advice there will be a huge improvement in that area.

The Minister referred previously to the statutory review group to be set up in relation to eel fisheries. I raised it when I spoke here on the 1999 legislation, particularly with reference to the development of the eel fishery on the Erne. Many fishermen on the lower Erne, around the Ballyshannon and Belleek area, had gone into black eels and suffered huge financial losses. I hope that when the Minister is appointing the review board, he will consider appointing somebody from the upper Shannon area as a member.

Mr. Caffrey

I thank the Minister for bringing in this legislation. It is a welcome addition to the legislation already in place. It will help the industry. If the tagging system is effective it will be a great step forward in providing a record of our salmon stocks and the future of the industry will be in safer hands as a result of this amendment.

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey)

I thank the Senators for their constructive approach to this Bill. Senator Caffrey's comment is probably the most significant in this debate. We all agree that the tagging system will be successful if anglers and fishermen behave responsibly so that it will not be necessary to levy fines and penalties to make those who will benefit most from this scheme realise that the responsibility for the future of our wild salmon stocks is theirs and that they can either destroy or protect and conserve them. This legislation is a mechanism whereby it can be protected and conserved.

At the end of this debate in the Seanad, I appeal to the commercial fishing community and to the recreational angling community to respect these new regulations and ensure they are obeyed. I have no doubt that we will see a significant increase in our salmon stocks if that happens. The thrust of the legislation will assist us in pursuing that policy.

There is no question but that there are some very greedy people along our coastline whose only interest is in cleaning out as much wild salmon as they can. They are in the minority, but they are there. I appeal to them to stop. The level of our salmon stocks is precarious at the moment and will become worse. I have no doubt, however, that this new scheme and the whole thrust of the commission in bringing everybody together is the way forward in order to ensure a growing stock of wild salmon which will benefit commercial fishermen in the long run, be of much more significance to the recreational angler and make a much greater contribution to tourism angling than we have had here in the past.

I thank all the Senators who have contributed, the officials in the Department, and particularly Pat McHale who has been instrumental in all of this. I thank the Chair and his staff for their co-operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 4.15 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.