Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the passing of this important legislation. Notwithstanding its brevity, the Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2017 carries with it significant importance. Its main aim is to deal with lacunae in the Inland Fisheries Act 2010, which, due to what was clearly an error or oversight in transposition, did not confer explicit powers on Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, to prosecute offences committed under the fisheries Act.

The Inland Fisheries Acts 1959 to 2010 are the basis for the management and protection of Ireland's inland fisheries resource and sea angling sector. The Inland Fisheries Act 2010 established IFI by effectively replacing the Central Fisheries Board, along with the seven regional fisheries boards. It subsumed existing functions of those bodies and dedicated IFI to the protection, management and conservation of the inland fisheries resource. The Act also restated several provisions arising from the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, the Fisheries Act 1980, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1999 and the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2000 which dealt with administrative and legal matters pertaining to inland fisheries. It also updated the penalties applicable for offences under the then existing inland fisheries legislation so that the monetary values were brought up to date and modernised. More generally, it updated and amended the Inland Fisheries Acts 1959 to 2007 to take account of changes to the management of the angling sector. The IFI, henceforth, operated under the aegis of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

Inland Fisheries Ireland has several general functions such as supporting, promoting, facilitating and advising the Minister on the conservation, protection, management, marketing, development and improvement of inland fisheries, including sea angling. It also seeks to develop and advise the Minister on policy and national strategies relating to inland fisheries, including sea angling, and to ensure the implementation of the delivery of policy strategies developed and agreed by the Minister.

Species of fish protected by IFI comprise all freshwater species, including migratory species such as salmon, sea trout, eels, as well as lamprey. IFI is also charged with the protection of certain molluscs, including oysters, and enforcing bass fisheries legislation. It has a wide remit and is responsible for the day-to-day management of inland fisheries resources, including setting conservation limits and issuing licences, as well as acting on reports of pollution and poaching. It also covers certain activities at sea, including commercial fishing for salmon, sea trout and sea angling.

It has the power to enforce environmental legislation, including the water pollution Acts. Some requirements under the Water Framework Directive, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations, 2003 (SI 722 of 2003) also fall under IFI’s remit.

8 o’clock

Similarly with the habitats directive, Inland Fisheries Ireland controls the management and surveillance of stocks of fish species listed in Council Directive 92/43/EEC as transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2001. It has a very wide legislative remit, with prosecution and enforcement in terms of breaches forming a significant part of its supervisory role.

I concur with some of the points made by my colleagues. In the midlands and especially Westmeath, which is unambiguously known throughout the country and Europe as the lake county capital of Ireland, we clearly understand the socio-economic importance of recreational angling and the tourism and recreational activity that can be generated. We understand its importance to the local economy. We are certainly disappointed with the way we have been treated by the various fishery boards, including what was the Central Fisheries Board and Inland Fisheries Ireland, as well as the Government as a whole. That has never been recognised. We are aware that to ensure the National Strategy for Angling Development 2015 to 2020 is delivered, approximately €25 million in additional investment is required. The payback would be significant and more resources are definitely required for the midlands. We see ourselves as the poor relation and we will not be able to achieve our undoubted potential in the absence of dedicated resources and making positive discrimination in favour of the midlands. As my colleagues have said, what is the good in having all those lakes with tremendous potential if the same old claptrap emanates from the same old people.

There have been too many appointments to boards of the same old people. I remember one person, the late Ms Pat Doolin, who was a reservoir of knowledge and information. She would have been a fine representative of industry on the relevant boards, but she passed away at a very young age. She would never have had the chance to be appointed to a board. She had more in the back of her brain than all the fisheries crowd together. In fairness to her, she lodged a fairly strong campaign against licensing when it was introduced. She said she would not mind a licence if she knew it was to be used for the purposes of promotion. She exemplifies the types of people I speak of.

There is a requirement to assess the impact of the current recruitment moratorium. A number of people are employed by Inland Fisheries Ireland, especially people doing important outdoor work. There has been a significant decline in the numbers employed and this must be addressed through a relaxation in the moratorium. We find this to be the case right across the midlands. One notes that Inland Fisheries Ireland spent over 188,000 person-hours and carried out 31,180 patrols in 2016 in protecting inland fisheries resources. It needs additional manpower to enable it to continue its work across a wide number of areas.

Prosecution is considered one of the main deterrents to illegal fishing activities in the long term. Under Irish law, on-the-spot fines may be issued for a range of fisheries offences, such as fishing during the closed season or taking smaller fish than allowed under by-laws. It appears in approximately July 2015, the first scent of trouble in the Inland Fisheries Ireland's prosecutorial capacity arose when an unsuccessful challenge to the jurisdiction of the Inland Fisheries Ireland in prosecuting summary offences of the Inland Fisheries Act was raised as a preliminary issue in a District Court case. As I understand it, the judge held that all functions of the old central and regional fisheries boards, including the power to prosecute, were transferred to Inland Fisheries Ireland under the 2010 Act. This clearly served as a warning, and clarification and advice was sought from the Attorney General's office. The advice received indicated that Inland Fisheries Ireland did not have explicit powers to prosecute under the Fisheries Act 2010. The reliance on that Act to prosecute a significant number of cases, including high-profile and large-scale pollution and sea fish kill events in rivers or lakes, has been clearly questioned. As a barrister, one might have the view that the current legislation unamended would certainly fall foul of a High Court challenge. It has been very lucky to escape thus far.

It was also clear that the Attorney General took the view that an explicit power to prosecute must be included in Part 4 of the 2010 Act, and that is why we are here this evening. This Bill will remove any uncertainty or ambiguity pertaining to powers of prosecution by providing in section 4 an explicit statutory power for the Inland Fisheries Ireland to prosecute offences under the Inland Fisheries Act. This is the import of what was conveyed to us in the March 2017 press release from Inland Fisheries Ireland that the Minister of State is now following up. It appears a number of summary cases before the courts for specific fisheries offences cannot be proceeded with because of this lacuna. It appears cases also disposed of by the courts are not affected. Like my colleagues, I feel that where there is a lacuna in the law as passed, those prosecuted should not be the victims of same and they should benefit. If there is a lacuna in the law, it is up to us as legislators to ensure the law is correct. If there is a lacuna, the benefit should fall to people in court. If people did not appeal or pursue the matter, they should not be left in a worse position than those who did pursue the matter.

See this speech in context