2026-06-11

I appreciate that the Minister of State is here to take this Topical Issue. I have a simple question to put to him. When are people, individuals or corporate bodies, whose actions destroy our rivers and habitats going to see a law change that would see those responsible for the destruction of those habitats possibly face jail? The Minister of State was on the banks of the River Glyde in County Louth last week where he saw some of the remains of the 20,000 dead fish. He spoke to members of the Ardee and Glyde Fishing Development Association and some local representatives, who were pictured with him. He admitted that the fines and sanctions available to the State to prosecute those responsible for polluting our rivers and habitats are inadequate. He said they are "not fit for purpose". I suggest that this is a classic understatement. This is not news either. From my research over the last few days, I have been looking at some of the issues that have arisen around the country. In recent years a farmer who was found to be responsible for leaking animal shit, because that is what it is and I am sorry to use the colloquialism, into the River Tracton in Cork, received a conviction and fine of €2,000 in the local District Court in 2022. There were 5,000 fish killed. In the same year, in a case in Monaghan close to where the Minister of State was last week, there was a €400 fine and €5,000 in costs. His infraction was that silage effluent from his farm was found in a watercourse - more shit. I am sorry to use the colloquialism. I would not usually do that but I do not want to beat around the bush. When we describe this as "waste", "effluent" or "discharge", it minimises the impact and the issue. There were 20,000 fish killed in the River Glyde last week, including Atlantic salmon, eels, brown trout, pikes, minnows and course fish, and 25 km of the finest river in mid-Louth was destroyed. Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, responded rapidly. I spoke to their representatives last week about this and I commend their actions. The Dee and Glyde fishing association does tremendous work. It is a custodian of the river. I have known those people for many years and have worked with them in the past. They have worked hard to protect and maintain the river's ecosystem. I do not for a minute want to prejudice the outcome of any investigation or any possible prosecution that might arise but we know that in all likelihood in cases like this, it is the provisions of the 1959 Act that are used so those responsible can probably sleep soundly at night. The cases are heard in the District Court. This is, of course, where you will hear shoplifting cases, public order offences and traffic offences but nothing of this scale. History tells us that those who are responsible for major fish kills attract very small fines. They are a pittance. This is ecocide. That is what it is. It is the mass destruction of habitats and is dangerous to public health. These are matters that ought to be dealt with through our legal code in the Circuit Court, at the very least, or, indeed, the High Court. When will we see changes in the law where the punishment will fit the crime? It has been said to me that in some cases, it is easier for operators to take the fine rather than spend the money they need to spend in order to up their game.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and for allowing me to update the House on what has happened. I acknowledge the significance of a very severe fish kill that occurred on the River Glyde and the devastating impact it has had on the local communities, anglers and users of this important river catchment. I want to pay tribute to the angling community and those who use the river for leisure and other activities for the way in which they care for that river. As in many cases around the country, they act as citizen scientists, notifying IFI of various events that happen on the river. In fact, it was an angler who first identified the discharge and the death of fish. IFI reacted very quickly and was on site within about ten minutes. Within about four hours, using kayaks and drones it was able to identify the source of the effluent entering the river and end the discharge. Were it not for the fast action of all concerned the situation could have been far worse. That is not at all to undermine the damage that was done to the ecosystem of the river but I want to identify and thank people for that. We estimate that around 20,000 fish have been lost, including Atlantic salmon, eels, brown trout, pike, minnow and coarse fish species. That, of course, will have a devastating impact on the people who use the river but also on the ecology of the area. The Deputy rightly asked what the next step is. The investigation is ongoing and IFI is putting together the details of what has happened and will prepare a file that will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and then a decision will be taken on whether or not to prosecute based on the evidence that has been procured. The Deputy raised an important issue in reference to the comments I made. I do not believe, quite frankly, the punishment, fines or the way the process is structured is in any way commensurate with the damage that is done. Therefore, I do not think it acts as a sufficient deterrent. Often in a case like this it could be a licensed operator. I am speaking in general terms because I do not want to get into the specifics as I am conscious there may be a prosecution at some point. There can be a licensed entity, usually a commercial entity that has a licence to discharge into a particular body of water. The licence is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I think that at times the reissuance of licences should not be done - the continued issuance of a licence where there have been breaches. I have said this to the EPA and asked it to give me its views on what the fines structure should be. I have my own views but I must follow the professional advice and I await that determination. Last year, soon after taking on this role with responsibility for inland fisheries, an event happened on the River Blackwater which again had devastating consequences. At the time, I asked both the EPA and IFI to look at the body of law that is there, to look at the fines and to come forward with suggestions. I await that information and will certainly move as quickly as I can as soon as I get it because the Deputy is right, in that I do not think it acts as a deterrent. The Deputy is right in saying that sometimes it is wilful neglect because the fine is not serious enough to prevent accidents. Sometimes it is wilful destruction where somebody chooses to do this where, as the Deputy said, rather than investing, it is easier to breach and be fined and not be impacted. We have to elevate the fines and the punishment to a level in order that people take heed of the necessity to protect our rivers and waterways.

I thank the Minister of State for his response and I eagerly await the evolution of the process he has outlined. This is not a new issue. My colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, did a lot of work to raise awareness of the mass fish kill in the Blackwater last year and of the lacuna in the law at the moment in terms of the requirement for the sorts of sanctions that would be commensurate with a violation of the nature of what happened in the Blackwater. Similarly, the same perspective can be applied to this particular matter on the River Glyde in County Louth. I am not aware of any case where an EPA licence was in place and was removed from somebody who was successfully prosecuted in the District Court or anywhere else for actions that led to a mass fish kill and ecological destruction in an area. We need to reflect on that. That is simply not good enough in this day and age. It was never good enough and it is certainly not good enough now. I would have particular words for any vested interest that stands in the way of us improving and enhancing this legislation and the sanctions available to the State to address these issues. It is interesting that there is an EU directive in place, 2024/1203 and that there is a criminal law element to but that we have decided not to transpose it. It deals with the question of ecocide and provides for, for example, eight years imprisonment for what is described as natural persons who may be involved in or found guilty of major habitat destruction. We have decided not to transpose that directive for a variety of reasons. We need to reflect on that if we are serious about ensuring the punishment fits the crime, if we can use the word "crime", in broad cases of this nature.

I thank the Deputy for his contribution. I know Deputy Eoghan Kenny and other Members of this House were centrally involved in the Blackwater issue. As referenced, I cannot recount if a licence was ever removed. I know licences have been suspended in cases and it may be that there is a difficulty from the EPA's perspective on how it might do that. Maybe that does require to be codified better in the law. The lessons learned from the Blackwater fish kill continue to inform Government policy and are certainly guiding me. We did a review among the agencies involved but then we got an independent review undertaken by the European Commission's joint research centre and it identified some practical recommendations to strengthen prevention, detection and inter-agency co-ordination in responding to fish kill incidents. Those recommendations are now being implemented alongside the modernisation of inland fisheries legislation to strengthen enforcement powers and ensure penalties provide an effective deterrent against environmental pollution. We are on a pathway to update the legislation and I look forward to the engagement of Deputy Nash and others in the House when we bring it to Committee Stage or on pre-legislative scrutiny, when there will be an opportunity for all to get involved. I acknowledge the work of IFI, the local authorities and the many volunteers and community members, including the Dee and Glyde Fishing Development Association, who have responded to the incident. The Government remains committed to supporting the recovery of the River Glyde and to promoting Ireland's rivers for future generations. The overarching point here is that this cannot be done in isolation. We have to make the penalty and fines structure suitable for and commensurate with the damage that is ultimately being done. We mitigate the risks. Accidents do happen, for sure, but we have to ensure a lot more mitigation is taken because there is a lack of understanding of how important our rivers and oceans are from a biodiversity and climate change perspective.