We now come to the Central Fisheries Board, Annual Financial Statements 1995-98.
Annual Financial Statements 1995-1998.
Mr. Purcell
There are four years of accounts of the Central Fisheries Board before the committee today. There have been two recurring themes in my audit reports on the board - the absence of a complete register of fixed assets and a tendency to operate on overdraft from time to time without the required ministerial approval. Regarding the first point, the central board and all the regional boards are in the process of finalising the introduction of a new computerised accounts package which includes a fixed asset register module. If that package is properly implemented it should obviate the need for the negative reference in future audit reports.
While I do not want to overstate the problem of unapproved overdrafts, the Act is clear that ministerial sanction is required for borrowing by all fisheries boards. It is my duty to report when that condition is not being met. Taking all the boards together, the aggregated maximum unapproved overdrafts during 1998 would have touched approximately £1 million, I think. The need to resort to overdraft can arise from delays in drawing down State grants, a lack of awareness of cash flow status on the part of the boards and the obligation to incur and discharge expenditure on the tourism angling measure in advance of funding. Therefore, there is clearly scope for further improvement in both these areas.
Witnesses should be made aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege and should be appraised thereof.
There is an obvious question in relation to overdrafts. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor could tell us about these.
Mr. O’Connor
I acknowledge the points made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the period under review there was a difficulty in relation to short-term overdrafts which arose mainly, as stated by the C & AG, from short-term difficulties in bridging expenditure. Before that period we did not have a difficulty with overdrafts, but during that period overdrafts developed mainly because we had a major development programme under Structural Funds amounting to £19 million or £20 million. This was the first of its kind in Ireland and the biggest in the European Community and we could not draw down the money until we had incurred the expenditure. Being a non-commercial State body there was a difficulty in that we did not have the finances to carry it. However, there was a process for getting overdraft approval from our parent Department and the Department of Finance and generally both the central and regional boards had approval. However, from time to time that was exceeded. Over the period, because of the major developments being undertaken, it was difficult in administrative terms to keep up to date with the requirement. For example, regional boards had to apply to us, we had to apply to the Department and the Department had to get approval from the Department of Finance. In general we did this on a quarterly basis which would normally have been sufficient, but because of the major expenditure we were not able to keep up to date. However, currently we have a new procedure in place for 2000 under which we have approval from our parent Department and the Department of Finance for overdraft facilities, not only for the central board but for all the regional boards. Hopefully this will take care of the difficulty.
I wish to ask about draw downs by regional boards from the central board. Do regional boards encounter difficulties in drawing down funding? I notice that on 31 December 1998 regional boards in some instances had not received substantial outstanding sums.
Mr. O’Connor
Again, it is a matter of timing. The idea is that funding is applied for in advance of each period - perhaps a monthly period. The regional boards apply to us and we apply to the Department which gets approval from the Department of Finance. Sometimes there can be a time lapse, but we try to co-ordinate it as best we can to make sure this does not happen. We are always trying to improve things. As the Comptroller said, the central board has introduced a new computerised accounting system, not only for ourselves but for each of the regional boards. Therefore, all eight organisations have a new computerised accounting package which should help trigger demands for funding and ensure the process is more streamlined.
In more general terms I wish to ask about the National and Inland Fisheries Development Plan, 2000-2005. The Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999, introduced many changes. There are now eight chief executive officers on the regional boards. Is it correct to say that each regional board must draw up its own fisheries development plan for its own area and that from those eight plans a national plan will also evolve? Is this what is envisaged?
Mr. O’Connor
Generally yes. Each regional board is an independent statutory body and will develop its own plan. There is an obligation on the central board, under section 5 of the Act, to submit a national plan to the Minister, and we are obliged to incorporate the plans of the regions in this. I expect we will do this on a partnership basis.
Will each of the regional boards be provided with a list of the scientific services provided to each region as a consequence of the 1999 Act?
Mr. O’Connor
One of the obligations of the central board under the 1999 Act is to provide support services for regional boards. While our resources are not unlimited, we will provide the best service we can, as we are currently doing. We discuss these things regularly with the regional boards.
Further to that, will a work programme be drawn up to show where the services will be provided within each region? What services will be provided? Will the chief executive officer in each region be directly responsible as the service provider in their own region?
Mr. O’Connor
Under the legislation each regional board and chief executive is responsible for the management and operation of all the fisheries services within their region. Our functions involve co-ordination and providing support services and we generally fulfil these functions on a partnership basis.
Would you expect that the regional plans and the national plan will be ready by July or autumn?
Mr. O’Connor
First of all, we have a five year strategic plan which my board has developed in association with the regional boards. This is the current plan on which we are working. It has two parts: section one which deals with the development of the industry and a second section which deals with organisation and how we interact and how we provide services to each other. In addition, we have developed, in co-operation, a programme of investment to draw down funding under the national development plan. Over the next 12 months we will probably review the current five year operational programme. Much depends on the demands of the Minister who might look for that review. Currently that is what we intend doing.
Each of the regions is at various stages in developing plans. The eastern region has completed its plan and a number of other regions are part way through developing their plans. Some regions in particular are going through a very public process of negotiations and discussions with all the various interests in the regions.
Under the 1999 Act will future Exchequer funding be made available directly to each of the eight regional boards, after agreement has been reached and following consultation with the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources?
Mr. O’Connor
There is a provision in the new Act whereby regular grants can be made directly to regional boards by the Department.
In the case of the six regional boards which will operate within what is loosely referred to as the BMW area - the areas where Objective One status has been retained - will a structured agreement be reached whereby they will be granted the full funding for which they are eligible from both the EU and the Exchequer? In my opinion it is very important that those six regional boards get the full benefit to which they are entitled as they are operating in areas where Objective One status has been retained. I would not like EU funding to be replaced by Exchequer funding; they should benefit from both funding.
Mr. O’Connor
I take the Deputy's point. There are three types of funding. First, there is the regular Exchequer funding for all the boards. Everyone must fight their corner to get that. Second, under the national development plan, there is funding of approximately £24 million for inland fisheries issues. Third, there are the BMW and south and east areas. We have a plan for the national funding and we are working closely with the chief executives of the two other regional areas in the context of a major submission for the development of inland fisheries within these areas.
When you say you have a plan, does the plan include the payment of the full EU funding to which the six boards are entitled? Will they receive the normal funding from the Exchequer?
Mr. O’Connor
Yes, Exchequer funding is a separate issue.
It will be in addition to——
Mr. O’Connor
Yes.
Do you have overall responsibility in relation to the various regional boards?
Mr. O’Connor
No. I am not responsible totally for the operation of the regional fisheries boards. They are responsible for themselves.
Independently?
Mr. O’Connor
Yes.
That was not always the case, particularly in relation to the Moy fisheries area.
Mr. O’Connor
Since being set up in 1980, they were seven independent statutory bodies.
Yes. To what extent do they have autonomy in terms of their development and their right to proceed in the manner they wish? To what extent is their policy determined by the Central Fisheries Board?
Mr. O’Connor
We do not determine the policy for the regions.
Not at all?
Mr. O’Connor
Policy is generally determined by the Minister. We can make recommendations to the Minister in relation to policy. In consultation with the regional boards, we have put together a five year strategy for the development of inland fisheries. This has been agreed with the regional boards.
Was there a problem in respect of the Moy fisheries, where the board in situ had responsibilities, but the Central Fisheries Board had similar responsibilities in relation to some operations of the board? Is that still the case?
Mr. O’Connor
No. Is the Deputy referring to approximately 300 or 400 yards of the River Moy in Ballina called the "Ridge pool"?
Yes, I am familiar with the "Ridge pool".
Mr. O’Connor
That was purchased by the Department in the late 1980s. The Department managed it for a number of years and it then transferred management to the Central Fisheries Board in 1994. The Minister asked that it be transferred to the North-Western Board in 1997, and that has now taken place.
Is that completed?
Mr. O’Connor
Yes.
Excellent.
Mr. O’Connor
The next two most important fisheries have been transferred to the Western Regional Fisheries Board by the central board in the last two weeks.
That is excellent. It has become very difficult to ask parliamentary questions about these issues. There seems to be a reluctance to answer questions in the House relating to autonomous bodies outside the House.
Is this relevant?
This is relevant because it is the only place I can ask this particular question.
I will allow the Deputy to ask the question.
To what extent do you encourage the development of the various fisheries that come within the control of the regional board? To what extent are you influencing this in a way which will enhance and develop the industry from the point of view of tourism and angling generally?
Mr. O’Connor
In partnership with the regional chief executives - we meet on a monthly basis - there is a broad plan for the development of fisheries in Ireland. We are implementing a programme of development to try to improve the product. There have been major advances in this regard in the last five or six years.
At whom is the product being targeted?
Mr. O’Connor
The Structural Funds programme is aimed at developing angling for tourist anglers. However, we try to give everyone a lift. In other words, if Lough Corrib is improved for tourist anglers, it will be improved also for local anglers. We attach great importance to having happy local anglers and good angling for local anglers. In a sense they are as good as protection staff on the rivers and lakes. Under the Structural Funds programme we are obliged to develop tourist angling. Under the next round of Structural Funds and the national development plan, we hope to broaden this more. We will be concentrating on developing angling for tourist anglers but there are broader issues. These include environmental issues and water quality which might not necessarily be targeted at tourist angling areas, they might be targeted at general angling areas. There are broad environmental issues.
What about the effect of pollution on the development of the fisheries industry? How is that progressing? Are you putting in place measures to improve the quality of the water, fish and so on in order to make the product more attractive?
Mr. O’Connor
The short answer is yes. Obviously the Department of the Environment and Local Government is charged with water quality management but we have a responsibility in relation to fish life and the fish habitat. There are a number of investment programmes at present in various rivers and lakes such as Lough Corrib, Lough Sheelin and so on. A catchment management programme is under way for the River Mulkear where there was a major fish kill a couple of years ago. The Central Fisheries Board has upgraded its laboratory facilities. We have a machine for assessing water quality and so on which is the only one of its kind in Ireland. While we do not have major funding as a semi-State organisation, we work very closely with the EPA, local authorities and the Department of the Environment and Local Government in trying to improve water quality. We are involved with the Department in the major investment programme for Lough Conn to improve the water quality.
Improvement of water quality means improvement for fish quality and fish life generally?
Mr. O’Connor
Yes.
What about the eastern region and the River Liffey in terms of water quality?
Mr. O’Connor
There are four pollution officers in the eastern region, the highest number in any region in the country. There are difficulties with water quality and water abstraction levels in the Liffey. The Eastern Fisheries Board is working with the local authority to try to get the best deal for fisheries within the region.
Mr. O'Connor said that the boards plan the development of fisheries in Ireland to benefit tourism and local anglers. I was a member of this committee when the board last attended and I asked some questions but there has been no improvement in the development of fisheries in my region. What agency is responsible for the monitoring of the sea lice problem which has wiped out a number of sea trout fisheries in Connemara?
Mr. O’Connor
The sea lice monitoring programme is the responsibility of the Marine Institute.
Would it not make more sense if the Central Fisheries Board or the regional fisheries boards were the bodies responsible?
Mr. O’Connor
Sea lice on salmon farms is an aquaculture issue and we do not have responsibility for that brief.
I want to find someone who had responsibility because it is an inland fisheries problem and a number of important trout fisheries in my area have been wiped out since the major sea lice infection in 1989. I asked this question the last time the board was here. What has been done since? What action is being taken to solve this problem? The smolts will be going out to sea in the next two months and if this crop returns infested with sea lice, another season will be lost, as has happened in the last eight years.
Mr. O’Connor
There is no disputing that there is a problem in those areas. The lice levels are monitored in the bays on a monthly basis. My board is involved in that, as is the Western Regional Fisheries Board. The Minister has introduced a number of by-laws to protect the existing sea trout, such as catch and release and changes to seasons.
Nothing is happening. The Ballynahinch and Gowla fisheries have been almost entirely wiped out. The bays and fresh water habitats in those areas are excellent but the sea lice problem has continued for eight years. The aquaculture legislation of 1998 promised control of sea lice. Has anyone been prosecuted for the high levels of sea lice?
Mr. O’Connor
There have been improvements.
Only in Killary where the management is better. In Ballynahinch and Gowla there has been no improvement.
Mr. O’Connor
Ballinakill has improved in recent years. Without being evasive, sea lice management is a matter for the Department. I have no responsibility for the area.
I want to find someone who will accept responsibility. There have been various reports, such as those by the Sea Trout Action Group and the Sea Trout Management Group, which made recommendations but nothing has been done. I want to find someone responsible for ensuring that the situation is improved. This comes down to the board because it plays an important part in the development of fisheries in Ireland for the benefit of tourism and anglers. If the sea lice problem continues, having already wiped out two very important sea trout fisheries in Connemara, there will be no benefit for tourists or local anglers.
Mr. O’Connor
It would be more appropriate to ask the Secretary General of the Department. I do not have responsibility for this area. I have responsibility for the management of sea trout and we have established a number of initiatives in association with the Department.
The sea trout are not being managed. That is the problem.
Mr. Carroll
I understand the problem but Mr. O'Connor is correct. The fisheries boards have a role in the sea lice and sea trout monitoring programmes but do not have overall responsibility for them. Overall responsibility rests with the Department. We operate a range of programmes through various agencies, particularly the Marine Institute. There is an ongoing intensive and costly management programme for sea lice.
Has anyone been prosecuted for breaching the sea lice regulations?
Mr. Carroll
As things stand, the system is not penalty based; it is a management system.
It does not work in Kilkieran Bay and Bertraghboy Bay. There are virtually no uninfected trout in those places.
Mr. Carroll
There are many programmes under way, restocking and rehabilitation programmes, and bi-monthly inspections during the critical periods in co-operation with fishery board staff. The lice inspections are available for public scrutiny. Corrective measures for sea lice control are incorporated into the inspection regimes, we are developing single bay management strategies and fallowing regimes, and the Act provides for a penalty structure. The existing protocols for lice management did not lay down enforceable standards but that will be rectified in the next round of licences.
When will that happen?
Mr. Carroll
The Aquaculture Licence Appeal Board has already adopted licences setting down standards. There will be a further round of renewed established farm licences in the next two months which will include new protocols.
If action is not taken, another season will be lost. The smolts will leave in April and May and will swim into an infected bay. There has been an improvement in Killary, the stocks have come back because of better fish farm management. There are two fisheries, however, where there must not be best management practice because the sea lice problem is as serious as it was in 1989. Who is doing anything about that? I asked that question the last time the fisheries boards were here and I am still waiting for an answer. There are two major trout fisheries, Ballynahinch and Gowla, which have been wiped out. The smolt from those areas go out through Kilkieran Bay or Bertraghboy Bay.
Mr. Carroll
I am told there has been an improvement in Ballynakill. We are trying to improve the management of those bays but it is a slow process.
Expensive reports have been published containing recommendations which have never been implemented.
Mr. Carroll
They have been implemented.
They have not been implemented on the ground.
Mr. Carroll
They certainly have. There is an intensive and costly programme in place.
The witness did not expect the question so perhaps he will report back to the committee the steps which have been taken in the two bays I mentioned to implement the recommendations of either of those reports.
Mr. Carroll
I will send the committee an early report.
You have dealt with the question I was about to ask, Sir.
Thank you for your interest in Connemara, Deputy.
I thank Mr. O'Connor and his officials and Mr. Carroll and his officials.
The witnesses withdrew.
The agenda for the meeting of 2 March is as follows: Vote 41 - Comhairle na n-Oileán, Appropriations Account 1998 and Annual Financial Statement, 1997-1998 and the Údarás na Gaeltachta Annual Financial Statement, 1998; Vote 42 - Roinn Ealaíon, Oidhreachta, Gaeltachta agus Oileán, Appropriations Account 1998. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Committee adjourned at 12.01 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 2 March 2001.