We are resuming the debate on amendment No. 13 and the Minister for Fisheries was in possession. Amendment No. 64 is being discussed with this amendment.
Fisheries Bill, 1979 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 8.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 13:
In page 8, subsection (1) (c), line 30, to insert "and Rosnalee Weir" after "Mallow Hatchery".
—(Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.)
This section sets out details of certain properties held in trust by boards of conservators which are being transferred to the central board. Particulars of title are set down in the Third Schedule of the Bill. An integral part of the hatchery at Mallow, County Cork, which is being transferred, is a weir at Rosnalee which is owned by the Lismore Board of Conservators. It is considered advisable to refer to Rosnalee weir specifically.
I have no objection to the amendment. On section 2 I mentioned that it was a pity that the Minister did not consider taking over the fisheries section of the ESB to be run by the new central board. Fishery interests agree that anything to do with fisheries should be put under the umbrella of the Department. I cannot understand why we still have a separate fisheries section in the ESB, a concern which deals with electricity. When the ESB took over the Lee, the Shannon, the Liffey, the Crolly and the Erne they gave a guarantee to the fishermen that the stocks of salmon would not be endangered. Even though the board have done a certain amount of good work, the time has come when the fisheries section should be taken under the umbrella of the Department.
There can be no doubt that the stocks in the rivers concerned have deteriorated drastically. Figures for the Clady, the Erne and the Liffey indicate that the situation is disastrous. One of the reasons is that we are not operating a proper hatchery policy. There is a hatchery at Parteen on the Shannon and one on the Lee and the figures show that where a hatchery is situated salmon stocks did not deteriorate as much as they did on the Clady, the Erne and the Liffey where there is not a hatchery. It cost the ESB roughly £250,000 to run the fisheries section and that amount could be subscribed to the Department if it was decided that the central body should take over the fisheries section of the board. We must consider whether it would be feasible to take over that section of the board and other fishery interests. It would be easier if all fishery interests were under the Minister. I am not anxious to convey that the ESB have not done their best but they are not the concern who should be looking after hatchery interests.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The section is only concerned with existing properties held by boards of conservators and ensuring that they are transferred to the central board. The specific hatcheries and weirs involved are set out in the section. I suggest to the Deputy that the Parteen hatchery on the Shannon is not a good example because the ESB have a highly progressive fisheries division, one of the outstanding organisations, connected with fisheries in the world. The skilled personnel in that division are regarded as experts and they have done a tremendous job on their own fisheries. They spent in the region of £500,000 in restocking and they are committed to continuing that programme. There is no reason why the central board should interfere with an organisation that is doing so well. The section deals with existing hatcheries under boards that are being amalgamated under this legislation. It is obvious that we must have some control over those hatcheries but the ESB operation is being run so well, the investment commitment is so strong and the personnel involved so skilled that I am certain that the fruits of the investment in financial terms and terms of personnel can be readily seen. I do not feel warranted to interfere with an organisation that is devoted towards this development and which has shown its commitment in recent years in that direction.
I concur with the Minister in what he said about the intrinsic work of the ESB and the role the board have played in regard to fisheries. We are not saying anything against the ESB or the role they are playing. Nevertheless, there is a widespread concern that in the formulation of the Bill it was not found possible to bring under the umbrella of the central body the ESB fisheries section and other independent agencies such as the Salmon Research Trust and the fresh water research section of the Department.
There is concern about the fragmentation involved. It is felt that it would also be extremely costly. The feeling abroad is that everybody's business in the end is nobody's business. There are practical examples of horrific situations where a variety of agencies are responsible for fishery matters. This was brought home to us very clearly in the situation appertaining to Lough Ennell, where we had the ESB, the Inland Fisheries Trust, the board of conservators, Foras Forbartha, the Department of the Environment and certain local authorities all having responsibility for safeguarding this lake. The result of such diversification of staff was that the lake died. That is why I support my colleague in the view that it is a pity that all these agencies were not brought in under this Bill so as to avoid this duplication—to have one central authority in control. I do not know the basic reasons for not doing so.
The Minister has paid a big tribute to the ESB; no one would discount it. There is no reason why the ESB personnel involved in fisheries could not continue to do the work they are doing but under the aegis of this Bill. This is a pity, especially in the matter of pollution, where the Department of the Environment are so much involved. I have adverted to Lough Ennell, but the same regrettable situation maintains in respect of my own river, the Suir, which is a very polluted river. Here again too many agencies are involved and the board of conservators are unable to do their job. Would the Minister, on Report Stage, see if these bodies could not be brought in under the control of the Bill? It would tidy up the Bill and make for better organisation and effort, eliminate costs, duplication and fragmentation of the kind we are talking about now.
There is no argument with what the Minister has said. Deputy Treacy and I agree that the ESB have certainly done very good work as far as conservation, in particular, is concerned and as far as the hatcheries on the Lee and the Shannon were concerned. Now is the chance to have all these bodies enjoined under the Department of Fisheries. I can see no reason why the specialists working for the ESB the Minister refers to cannot be transferred to the Department of Fisheries and perhaps help that staff with their expertise and specialised knowledge.
The figures speak for themselves. Admittedly, conservation of the estuaries and of our shores is the most important matter we are dealing with. There is no doubt about that. We probably all agree that the main reason for our declining stocks is illegal fishing, which we will be dealing with in a later section of the Bill. If you look at the figures, for instance, for the Erne, provided 14 or 15 years ago, we had 16,000 or 17,000 salmon coming up through the fish pass and this year we had something in the region of 400. Something must be done to restock the Erne. That the ESB have no hatchery programme on the Erne river is ridiculous.
Let us look at the position as far as the Clady is concerned. In 1978 133 salmon went up the Clady river. Again, there is no hatchery policy there. We can praise the ESB as much as we like, but they are not putting the hatchery fish into these rivers, and until restocking is done there is no point in our talking about salmon which will just not be there. The Minister may feel that now is a bit late but serious consideration should be given to this. If there is blame and if the Department of Fisheries are not doing their job, let it be laid on their shoulders instead of talking about three or four semi-State bodies.
I take the point made in regard to the ESB. I am, unfortunately, bound by the whole complex ESB legislation, which has been there for over 50 years. These waters are vested in the ESB. They are primarily there for generation purposes and, as an ancillary to that they are the property of the ESB for fishery purposes. The ESB have been taking a very enlightened attitude towards fishery production and have established a fishery division within their organisation. Frankly, their problem is what we are seeking to do in this Bill—we are back to the chicken and egg situation. The ESB are not going to develop more hatcheries unless there is better protection. In regard to their hatchery investment at Parteen the ESB have money losses exceeding £½ million on the Shannon estuary. The return has been very poor and has not justified the investment because of piracy of salmon in the Shannon estuary by illegal fishing. They are not going to repeat that development on the Erne, the Clady or elsewhere unless we, through this Bill, come to grips with illegal fishing. This applies to hatchery development throughout the country. I welcome the notion of hatchery development. Excellent papers have been produced and we have had all the scientific data on how they should be developed. But, side by side with this, it will be a waste of money and of energy to think of a hatchery policy until you have a protection system. There would be no point in developing more hatcheries if, at the end of the day, the fish are going to be illegally caught.
We are doing that now in this Bill.
That is precisely what I hope—that under this Bill we can so oragnise the protection and the enforcement situation that we will see some sort of management of our fisheries and, in particular, of our salmon fisheries and that that situation will then justify investment in hatcheries.
On Deputy Treacy's point of pollution on the Suir, the Central Pollution Council are looking into that as a main priority and I hope that the situation will be rectified; similarly in regard to Lough Ennell. Mistakes have been made but I understand that Lough Ennell is being rehabilitated. There were mistakes made there in the past in regard to a local authority discharging uncontrolled sewage into the lake. In that case it was not a plethora of bodies but one single body which made the mistake. That situation is now being rectified. We are not merging all the bodies, I agree, but we are taking a very large step forward.
We are looking to the ESB to invest a lot more money in 1979 when this Bill goes through and we will not be so quiet in a year's time if the figures are bad.
I share the Deputy's view and I have been in touch with the ESB and have been persuading them to that effect.
If the Minister is not prepared to do as we ask now, there is scope within the Bill to take over the responsibilities of these agencies we have referred to, especially the ESB, at a later stage if it should become necessary.
I agree with the Deputy in that respect. If that should become necessary——
It can be taken over?
No, there would have to be separate legislation, an amendment of the ESB legislation. The ESB have got specific statutory rights in the rivers for generation purposes and, arising out of their statutory rights, they are engaging in fisheries production and development. It is not possible under this Bill or any fisheries legislation. There would have to be an amendment of the ESB legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, subsection (4) (a) (ii), line 52, to delete "subsection (5)" and substitute "subsections (5) and (6)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 10, subsection (5) (a), to insert "subject to subsection (6) of this section," before "the Minister" in line 23.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 10, to insert the following new subsection between lines 37 and 38:
"(6) A person who is entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein, or who is for the time being a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities, shall not be eligible for appointment under this section by the Minister to membership of a regional board.".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the central board and the regional boards. The salary of the chief executive officer who will be in charge of the central board has not been made clear. Will the other people on the central board also get salaries? We had seven regional boards on the map in front of us.
Have the Deputies got the map?
Yes. I have no objection to the divisions on the map. I understand that the chairman of each of the regional boards will now be a member of the central board automatically. Will those people get salaries? What will their salaries be? What will the salaries of the other members of the central board be? If people are moved from Dublin to the new headquarters in Galway what disturbance money will those people get? When we are talking about regional boards and staff it is only fair that those people know exactly what wages and salaries they will get.
Staff would come under a much later section, section 24. It would be more relevant to raise those points then.
The chairman of each of the regional boards will now be elected automatically to the new central board. Will those people get salaries?
We can give them an allowance.
A travelling allowance or a separate allowance?
A remuneration.
I suggest that the Deputy raise this on section 24.
I will, but I wanted to give the Minister a little notice.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I formally give notice that I will be bringing in an amendment on Report Stage to empower the Minister to amend orders under the section and other sections where such power is necessary. It is a drafting matter. I do not have the power to make orders not written into the section and other sections where it is necessary. I am giving notice that I will be doing this on Report Stage.
I am also considering bringing in another amendment on Report Stage, the effect of which will be to include fyke nets in the list of scheduled engines set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Principal Act, which relates to this section and relates to fyke nets. We can discuss the matter on Report Stage. I am just giving notice that I will be moving those two amendments then.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the election of members of the regional boards. I understand as far as the election is concerned that every licensed fisherman, whether he is inland or inshore will have a vote for the election.
The criteria will be that they will all have to pay a licence fee. The salmon fishermen will pay a licence fee. The people who are dealing with aquaculture should pay a licence, although I do not see anything about it in the Bill.
They will pay it.
What about sea anglers? Will it be the people who own the marine craft who fish off Clare Head, or wherever the place may be? What about the coarse anglers? How will they be licensed? It is simple enough as far as the trout fishermen are concerned.
The same procedure will apply to sea anglers, coarse anglers and all the rest of them.
Will they have to register with the secretary of the regional board?
Yes. They will be registered on the coarse anglers register, the sea anglers register, the trout anglers register and so on. They will be on the panel for voting purposes.
I am only trying to get the matter out into the open so that everybody understands what is involved. Will every fisherman who wants to register register with the secretary of each regional board?
They will register with the regional board.
As far as sea anglers are concerned if a charter goes out from Liscannor, County Clare, and he has ten anglers on board and each of those people comes back every week or every month to fish in Liscannor, is it only the owner of the charter who can register or is it each of the anglers?
The anglers must register. They have the right within their angling panel to vote so that each rod owner will have to register and pay his contribution per year in order to qualify for voting rights.
Has everybody who fishes the right to register with the secretary of the regional board?
Yes.
It then comes to the election. The people who can fish in the rivers and lakes can easily outnumber the estuary fisherman who fish for salmon and in turn they could easily outnumber the aquaculture people.
The electorate would come up on section 12.
We are dealing with the election of members of regional boards and this is what I am talking about.
The matter of the electorate is one for the next section.
Perhaps we can take both sections together?
If we agree to section 11 we might move on to section 12.
It does not really matter how we take them since both sections are dovetailed.
The Chair must deal with them separately.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
The electorate are to be divided into different panels but how does the Minister propose dealing with this panel situation? I know he has said that it should be on the lines of the Seanad panel but I should like him to spell out how the votes for the various interests are to be divided in terms of the panel. While we must endeavour not to elect too many people to each regional board, it is important that each interest is represented.
I agree with the Deputy on the importance of this section. What I envisage is not set out here but will be done mainly by way of order subsequently. On the passage of this Bill I must consult with each angling organisation and fishery interest in the different regions, decide the relevant strength of each interest in each region and then decide the weighting for the votes of each panel accordingly. Therefore, there will be a panel in respect of salmon net fishermen, of fishery owners, of trout fishermen, of sea anglers, of coarse anglers and so on. Depending on the relevant strength of each interest in each region, the weight of the votes will be decided.
In Deputy Treacy's area, for instance, the drift net salmon fishermen on the south-east coast have a very strong voice in the Lismore area where there is a very strong tradition of drift net fishing. Consequently, the panel there would be much stronger than panels on the eastern coast where there are not the same numbers engaged in that type of fishing. Similarly in the north Shannon area in particular there would be a strong panel representing the coarse fishing interests. In the Mayo-Galway region the salmon and trout anglers interests would be very strong. Salmon angling is important also in the Lismore area. In Deputy White's area angling interests would be very strong. I do not think there is a strong coarse fishing interest there but there is good trout fishing, so that the trout fishermen would have a strong interest there.
Roughly, that is the basis on which this matter will be worked out. It is something that will be occupying our time during the next few months and that is why I want this interim period during which I can nominate the board and set up the various panels so that by the end of next year we may have the first election for the ensuing five years. The details regarding the respective panels will be set out by way of order and laid before the House in compliance with this and other sections.
How many people will there be on each of the boards?
That matter is being left flexible in order to accommodate more interests in some regions than in other regions.
I am not disagreeing with the Minister on this but at this point he should specify the number of people who are to sit on each of the regional boards. It would be unfortunate if the boards should be too big. Of course each of the fishing interests must have a voice on these regional boards but I would not like to see a situation in which we would have boards comprising 20 or 25 people when a more efficient board would be one comprising eight or ten people.
There is a conflict there.
There are too many big boards that are only talking shops. We are dealing here with the fishing industry so we must ensure that we do not end up with boards that are inefficient because of their being too big. I suggest boards of eight or ten members. If the situation is left flexible the Ballyshannon area could have eight members while the Ballina area could have 15 members and the Lismore-Waterford area could have 20 members. Naturally, the drift net men in the Waterford area are entitled to more seats on the board than would be the case for their counterpart in some other areas, but I am concerned that the weaker sections might not have proper representation. It is imperative that each of the many interests involved in fishing have a voice on the boards. Having said that, I would consider big boards to be inefficient. However, can the Minister say how many people he envisages being on the boards?
I have not decided yet on the numbers but in order to have all interests represented we would be thinking in terms of boards approaching 20 in membership.
As a counterpoint to what Deputy White has said, these new boards will operate rather like county councils operate vis-à-vis the managers. The key people will be the chief executives of each of the regional boards. We hope that these will be well paid, professional people who are secure in their jobs and free from influences and who would have a properly structured staff comprising people who also are independent, professional and properly trained. This would be similar to a county council staff vis-à-vis the council. County councils have their advisory and consultative functions vis-à-vis county managers. I would envisage a similar situation between the representatives of the new board and the professional staff.
In that sort of situation it does not matter very much whether the board is a little bigger than it might be. What is important is that each board is representative of all the interests involved. Perhaps I could go along with Deputy White if the board itself were in an executive position and getting the work done but I do not envisage them as such. I see them more as being in the nature of consultative and advisory bodies.
Would the Minister be kind enough to elaborate a little more on the panels he envisages as representing the various categories of fishermen? How many seats does he envisage on each panel? Are we unable to say at this stage how many people will be on the boards or how many shall be elected to each panel?
We are anxious to get this legislation through, but the composition of the panels and of the boards is a matter that requires difficult and sensitive consultation with the various interests concerned. The criteria will be the strength of an interest in any area, taking into account the number of fishermen and their input into the industry. Where the input is very strong there would be stronger representation on the panel for that interest. We might have, for instance, a fairly strong grouping with four on their panel and a weaker group having two on their panel.
That is the sort of thinking we want. Where one interest is twice as important as another interest in a region it would have twice as many seats for it's panel as the other group. This will obviously take some working out and that is why I want this interim board. It would take some months to work this out going around all the regions trying to get the interests into shape and allocating the number of seats on each panel depending on the strength of interests in the various regions.
I was hoping we would have had that on Committee Stage because it is important, and once it leaves this House we will have no say in it.
The Minister, whoever he may be, will obviously want to accommodate all the interests in as reasonable a way as possible because it would be futile to seek to distort the situation. One would be only stirring up trouble for oneself. This is not a contentious Bill, as shown by the approach adopted on both sides of the House. We must accommodate all interests in as sensible a way as possible. The reason why I did not do that before bringing in the Bill was because I wanted to do that first and then settle down to this job.
But we will have no say in the matter at that stage.
This will be incorporated in a specific order under this Act and the order setting out the various panels and the various allocations within the panels in number terms will come here, for debate, if necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 17, to insert the following new paragraph between lines 13 and 14:
"(b) he is a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities,".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have no objection to this section. In paragraph (e) I take it that any member of either the central or the regional board who is found guilty of an offence will not be allowed to act for seven years from the date he is convicted.
That is correct.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I would like a commitment from the Minister. The Minister stated earlier on that he would like to think that elections will take place before December 1980. Is the Minister definitely saying to the House that we will have general elections before December 1980?
That is correct.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Minister given any thought to the number of meetings that should take place during the year as far as the boards are concerned? Is it envisaged that a meeting will take place every month? If that is so, surely six months is too long. A person could miss six meetings. If, for example, they are only going to meet twice a year a person who missed one meeting could automatically disqualify himself.
I understand that all these boards meet once a month and settle their own standing orders. I presume the regional boards will do the same.
Could it go into the Report Stage that each of these boards must meet monthly?
I would not like to tie them down that much.
If the Minister is not going to tie them down in that fashion he certainly cannot put in this section because that would mean that if they only meet every six months a person who misses one meeting would automatically disqualify himself.
The Deputy has a point. I will have a look at that section before Report Stage.
It should be suggested that they meet every month because we will be talking about payment later on and there will probably be travelling expenses. If they are going to get travelling expenses they will have to do their job.
This is a type of direction which would be dangerous to give to any board because there might be valid reasons why they would not meet every month.
Perhaps it would be merely suggested that the boards meet every month.
I will look at the section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
In relation to pollution the local authorities have power to prosecute. Will the regional boards also have power to prosecute?
They will have.
If we have a new factory, for example, a saw mill in a region, putting sawdust into the river—and it is proven beyond doubt that sawdust is also a dangerous substance so far as fish are concerned—would it be the function of the local authority or of the central board to prosecute?
Either could do it.
So the central body will have the power to prosecute if such a matter is reported to them.
They or the local authority could prosecute.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
We spoke to the Minister previously about the annual report. It was suggested that there would be a one year plan drawn up and that each of the regional boards would have to adopt the one year plan.
We dealt with that in an earlier section.
It comes in under this section too and it is now agreed that we will have annual reports from the regional and the central bodies. When we were talking about it before, it was not specifically stated that it would be the central body as well as the regional body.
Yes. It includes the central board as well as the regional board.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I take it that what is happening here is that the Department will allocate a certain amount of money to the central board and the regional boards.
That is correct.
That allocation will cover all expenses, including technical expenses, expenses for research, conservation and so on. Will it cover the cost of new hatcheries?
Yes.
It will cover the cheif executive officers in the regional boards. They will also have secretaries, and can we have any idea of how many staff will be placed in each of the regions?
I have no idea of that at this stage but they will be fully staffed.
I presume there will be offices set up in the various regions. I agree with what the Minister said earlier. The offices must be professionally staffed and the people concerned must be paid top salaries to do a top-class job.
Matters relating to staff may be discussed on a later section.
Movements have already been made to purchase premises in some areas. I can tell the Deputy that there will be an excellent premises in Ballyshannon.
Will the Minister state if the headquarters of the Eastern Regional Board will be in Dublin? Will it be at Abbotstown?
That has not been decided yet.
Will the staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust be kept in Dublin or will they be transferred to Galway?
Some will be kept and some will be transferred.
I take it that will be in consultation with their union?
Yes.
It is generally accepted that up to now the boards of conservators were hindered in carrying out their responsibilities, especially in the area of the treatment of pollution, because of lack of funds. Perhaps the Minister would tell the House what additional amounts will be provided for the new central and regional boards in addition to the money awarded in recent years to the boards of conservators. What additional moneys can we expect resulting from this Bill to do all the grandiose things contained in it?
I want to get as much as I can and I am not going to tie myself to any figure. I can tell the Deputy that it will be a substantial figure over and above what they are getting at the moment. We will have an additional source of revenue from the sale levy. I will fight for a substantial sum and I will have that battle internally during the next month or so.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
Will there be annual accounts?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill".
Will the Minister state how he foresees that the regional boards will have to borrow money by means of a bank overdraft? Surely the position there is that the money will be made available by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry? That was my point earlier when I spoke about borrowings.
It strengthens their hand to give them borrowing powers as well as grant powers. That is like any local authority who have both grant and borrowing powers. We want to strengthen their hand by giving them the necessary powers to borrow money to spend, for instance, on hatchery development work and so on.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendment No. 19 in the name of the Minister was taken in conjunction with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 24, lines 36 to 53, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) Where a person who is an officer (including the chief officer) or servant of the Central Board, or of a regional board, is nominated as a member of Seanad Eireann or for election to either House of the Oireachtas or to the Assembly of the European Communities, or is appointed under section 15 of the Act of 1977 to fill a vacancy in the said Assembly, he shall stand seconded from his employment and shall not be paid, or be entitled to receive, any remuneration or allowances in respect of that employment—
(a) in case he is nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann, in respect of the period commencing on the acceptance of the nomination and ending when he ceases to be a member of that House,
(b) in case he is nominated for election to either such House or to the said Assembly, in respect of the period commencing on his nomination and ending when he ceases to be a member of that House, or a representative in the said Assembly or fails to be elected or withdraws his condidature, as may be appropriate,
(c) in case he is so appointed to fill such a vacancy, in respect of the period commencing on the date of his appointment and ending when he ceases to be such a representative,
and in addition to the foregoing he shall not be entitled to reckon the whole or any part of that period for any benefits payable under any scheme under section 32 of this Act.".
This section deals with Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and of the European Communities. What is the situation with regard to a member of the European Parliament and who is not a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas? Has he any function in the matter?
No, he is in the same category. We are trying to add members of the European Communities to the stock provision in respect of Members of the Oireachtas so that they would be debarred also from membership of the boards.
Should a Member of the Oireachtas or of the European Communities be debarred if he is a suitable person?
We had that argument on many occasions.
All of this was discussed in conjunction with amendment No. 1.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 24, subsection (5), to insert ", or who is for the time being a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities," before "shall" in line 55.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Earlier I raised a point with regard to salaries and was told to wait until we came to this section. It is only fair that the Minister should give all the relevant details to the Dáil. Will he state what it is proposed to pay to the chief executives, how he proposes to pay the people on the central board and the amount? How much will the chief executive of each of the regional boards be paid? How much will the secretariat be paid and what will be the salary of those who will look after conservation? These are the people who will do all the hard work ensuring that there is no illegal fishing and so on. In addition, in respect of the people transferred to Galway, will they be paid extra salary or will they be given an allowance in respect of the move to Galway? All this should be told to the House so that the people concerned will know what salary they will get.
I do not think I should mention the salary scales in regard to the chief executives. They will be advertised when this Bill becomes law. We are trying to get as good a situation as we can in this matter. I shall be moving an amendment at a later stage to provide for remuneration for the chairmen of the regional boards and the central board as well as the chief executives. It is not clear in the Bill that the chairmen will be paid a remuneration. I should prefer not to discuss the question of the exact remuneration at this point.
What kind of money is involved? Is it £10,000, £12,000 or £15,000?
I do not wish to throw around figures like that.
It is important that we know what we are talking about. I am worried that we might be talking about a figure of £7,500 which we get as Members of this House. That would be ridiculous.
Will it be linked to any grade in the public service?
Yes.
What grade?
I should prefer not to state that now. It is not a matter that comes within the scope of the Bill. It is not finally decided. It is important that we get the best salary that is possible in the circumstances. It is important that, in the Bill generally we are establishing a proper grading system.
A question was asked in regard to the staff who would be transferred from Dublin. Of course their trade unions and staff association will negotiate on their behalf the type of compensation to which they would be entitled for disturbance. That is now an accepted part of staff negotiations. Therefore, that will be worked out by negotiation between the staff representatives and the actual new boards.
I cannot say any more except that we shall try to fix the best terms of office we can in an endeavour to attract the best possible people and the House can be assured that that will be the case. I do not want to mention a figure here in case I can get a better figure for them. That is why I am leaving it at that; in fact it is not yet finalised.
We will let the Minister off the hook if he can give us the figure on Report Stage. That would give the Minister ample time to think it over.
I will think about it; I am not saying I will.
As they say in the fishing world, we will tackle the Minister on that one as well. Could the Minister give us a figure also in regard to the salary of the chairman of the central board and also of the regional board? Has the Minister any idea of the figures involved there? Does the Minister intend paying these people travelling expenses?
Yes, there is provision for that as well, the very same category as local authority employees.
What about the chairman of, say, the regional board?
He will be entitled to travelling expenses also.
I am talking about salary.
And an allowance, or remuneration. The chairman will be part time. The chief executive will be full time. Naturally he will have a strong salary as a chief executive.
But in £.s.d. how much?
I cannot say how much at this stage. The Deputy will see it under subsection (2).
It is very important.
Yes, but one does not write it into a Bill.
I am just asking the Minister how much. We will ask the Minister again and hope he will be able to tell us.
I have to do this with the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service—fix the terms, conditions and so on. That has to be done between the Ministers concerned. That has yet to be done and will be part of the advertisements when they appear in due course.
Having regard to what the Minister has said pertaining to staff, I avail of this opportunity on this section to appeal earnestly again to the Minister to be as generous as possible with the staff he is obliged to transfer from Dublin to Galway. The Minister will be aware of the early anxiety and distress experienced by the staff of the Inland Fisheries Trust on hearing of this radical change. He will be aware also of the discomfort involved and of the financial implications for the families of the personnel concerned. I am sure the Minister will be aware also that Galway has become recognised as the most expensive place in Ireland to build or purchase a new home or to find an old home. All of these factors will need to be taken into account. Therefore, the disturbance money should be of a very generous kind.
I feel the Minister would do much to allay a feeling amongst the staffs concerned that there was, despite what the Minister said to me, no proper consultation and that there certainly was no agreement in respect of the transfer of those staffs from Dublin to Galway. I would ask him to take a very personal interest in the welfare of these staffs and their families and to see to it that this transition, which is a very traumatic experience for the families concerned, is made as easy and comfortable and with the best accord possible, thereby relieving the anxiety we all know exists at present amongst the staffs concerned.
It might be somewhat unwise and perhaps unfair to press the Minister unduly hard in regard to salary scales for the executive officers at this stage. My primary concern is that the uneasiness of a serious kind which has set in arising from this transition from Dublin to Galway should be eased. The Minister can remedy the situation and the early feeling of lack of consultation by coming to the rescue of these people in as generous a fashion as possible.
When I spoke earlier in this debate I said something along the lines of what Deputy Treacy has just mentioned. I reckoned it would cost a person moving from Dublin to Galway, between selling his existing house and purchasing another, something in the region of £8,000 to £10,000. He would also have to uproot his family and move away from the general environment to which he had become used for some years. Most of these people have young children attending schools. I should like to support Deputy Treacy in appealing to the Minister to be as generous as possible financially with them. On Second Stage the Minister told me he was prepared to meet the Inland Fisheries Trust. Could the Minister tell me whether or not he has since met them?
I was to meet them on Friday and I understand that they have cancelled it. It is often not the Minister's fault in these matters; they have cancelled it for some reason or another. Anyway, I am available to meet them and will be meeting them. In all decentralisation endeavours of this kind one meets these sorts of problems but people should be and will be treated fairly. I agree with what Deputy Treacy has said, that of course compensation has to be given for this sort of disturbance. Of course, in this case the field people in the trust are quite happy with the move to Galway and one can understand that. Naturally, it is largely the headquarters staff in Dublin who are raising the point. But there is no question whatever of any compulsion being involved. I want to assure the House on that. We will try to deal with this by way of negotiation. Essentially it makes sense, in principle, to have a largely field organisation concerned with our rivers, fisheries, estuaries and coastland located outside Dublin. I appreciate the personal and personnel problems involved but we will deal with those as sympathetically as we can.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 25, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"25.—Every instrument of appointment by the Central Board or a regional board of an officer or other person to be an authorised person for the purposes of Part XVIII of the Principal Act shall be—".
This is largely a technical amendment in regard to authorised persons. As drafted, the appointment of an officer authorised by the central or regional board should be in writing and sealed with the board's seal. The proposed amendment will have the effect of relating the procedure specifically to authorised persons for the purposes of Part XVIII of the Principal Act and by virtue of the proposed amendment of section 292 of the Principal Act means that specific officers can only be appointed as authorised officers. The reason for this is that the authorised officer does have certain quasi-police powers of enforcement and so on. As the section stands all officers of the central and regional boards, including clerks and typists, in fact, everybody employed in any capacity could become an authorised officer. That was a weakness in the Act and I want to give that power to field officers who are trained and equipped to carry out enforcement law provisions.
Will the field officer now have power to prosecute?
Yes, whereas at present everybody in the organisation has that right.
I am satisfied with that provision.
I welcome the amendment. The Minister should also bear in mind that a lot of these officers have not been given the proper equipment to carry out what can be a dangerous and onerous job. When seizing nets they may come across five or six very angry fishermen. I hope the regional boards will see to it that those officers are properly equipped, are given fast engines for their boats and the best type of detecting equipment. We must remember that they are amateurs competing against good professionals.
We have given specific grants in the last two years towards updating their equipment. I agree with the Deputy's views on this matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
If one looks at subsection (3) (a) one can see why Deputies Treacy and Cosgrave were concerned about the transfer of staff. That matter has not been given enough thought. Would the Minister consider adding something to protect the rights of the transferred workers.
In this day and age staff associations and trade unions will be able to look after that situation.
Will the Minister have a look at this matter before Report Stage to see if it is necessary to include such a provision?
Yes.
I raised the matter of the transfer of central staff from Dublin to Galway and I asked the Minister to treat them as generously as possible. I mentioned the alleged lack of consultations and agreement to this transfer and the Minister made the point that there was no compulsion involved. However, if one reads through this section carefully one will come to a different conclusion. I refer specifically to subsection (3) (a) (ii) which states:
(ii) require any such member or person to transfer, in such manner as is specified by the Central Board, to the service of a regional board so specified, and every such member or person shall be bound to transfer in accordance with the requirement.
There is nothing very loose about that.
It is governed by subsection (3) (a) which states that the central board may, subject to subsection (2) and section 30 (1), and following consultation with any recognised staff association or trade unions concerned carry out the transfers. There is a protection in that introduction.
The allegation is still contended. It can be seen in press reports from the unions concerned that in the instance of this transfer there was no proper consultation or agreement.
We cannot do anything more than bring in the introduction I mentioned where we specify that there will be consultations with the recognised staff association and trade unions.
Let us hope that that will be adhered to in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
We have not been given any idea of the number of full-time office staff who will be employed by the regional boards.
I would not like to hazard a guess because the first job will be to establish the central board with its chief executive and the regional boards with their chief executives. Those posts will be advertised shortly after the passage of the Bill through the House. I would not like to pre-empt what those people might regard as their essential requirement in those areas. The whole purpose of the Bill is that they would be men of such calibre as to set up proper organisational structures under them.
When will the regional boards come into operation?
Early in the new year, I hope.
If the legislation is passed within one month what will the position be?
They will be set up by March.
Can the Minister indicate the number of people involved in the transfer from Dublin to Galway and the status of those people?
I am thinking in terms of 20 for a start and gradually increasing that number. There is no question of all the staff in Dublin going to Galway. We have procured the premises in Galway for the headquarters which will be near the weir at the Corrib. Work will start there shortly. It will be a gradual process of transfer.
How many does the Minister envisage transferring over a period of time after the first 20?
The headquarters staff will number 20 but there will also be field staff involved. We cannot generalise in regard to those people because they will be deployed throughout all regions. With the new regions established one could have them moving from one centre to another depending on the strength of board staffs in certain areas. That has all to be worked out. It will be a difficult job to merge the two organisations within one organisation.
Take the Shannon region, at the moment the number of trust staff there are very strong. The board staff would be very strong in the south. How you bring them together is another day's work. Initially, the existing board staff would be primarily on protection and the trust staff primarily on development, but there may be cross-overs depending on whether there are weaknesses in particular areas. This is the management area we are into now and I would not hazard how it would work out.
There is a figure of 20 to be transferred. Is there a date line for this?
No, that is over a period of time. There is no date line fixed at all. That is all a matter for negotiation.
Are we talking in terms of three months, six months or years?
It depends on how the negotiations go. The Deputy knows well what negotiations are like. We are starting construction of the headquarters in Galway. The land has been acquired and we are starting construction.
When will it be completed?
That will be completed in a matter of months—March, April.
And fitted out ready for occupation?
May, June. Certainly before the middle of next year.
I was not going to ask a question, but the Minister has said he has purchased a site in Galway.
Yes.
For this central board. Is this big enough to accommodate a research laboratory, the technical side of it?
There will be plenty of space. We can add to it. We are doing a conversion job on the existing building, the Weir Lodge.
How many acres are in this, roughly?
I do not think the question of the site is relevant.
Coming on to the staff, are we talking roughly about 20?
We are talking about a couple of acres of land, along with the existing Weir Lodge, which can be converted and extended and extra storeys put on.
I want to make sure that the area is large enough to accommodate staff to do all the central board's functions. It is not just an office we are talking about; it is research laboratories and the technical and development areas.
I am only talking about administration, for a start. The people would be slow to come. I am talking initially about administration.
I am disappointed to hear that, initially, only 20 people will be involved.
I am talking about travelling around.
How many people are employed with the trust at present and how many with the board? I understand there are a couple of hundred employed with the trust.
They are spread all over the country. They are not in Dublin at all. I am only talking about the administration, which is what Deputy Treacy was talking about. You have about 200 altogether, spread over the country, and they all have to be redeployed. Many will be left where they are on their present duties and it will depend, area by area, how they will be deployed. This is a management matter. They are not all going to be transferred. Many will remain where they are at their present duties.
Surely we are talking about the board and the trust and probably 300 to 400 people. What I had envisaged was that there would be 200 people running this office, not 20.
I was addressing myself to Deputy Treacy's question about administration in the Inland Fisheries Trust and their Dublin office, not the total staff.
Deputy Treacy asked how many people is it envisaged will be moved from Dublin to Galway and you answer him by talking about administration generally.
They are two separate matters.
Are we talking about 200 people in the central board area to look after development and administration and so on? I hope so, because if only 20 people are going to look after the central board, that will be ridiculous.
Deputy Treacy was talking only about disturbances of Dublin office personnel. We are talking about 400 people, if we are talking about the whole country.
Right. Is it envisaged that half will be based in Galway?
I do not envisage many based in any particular centre. I do not want to make too much of this transfer question. Basically, the primary work of this type of organisation is field work and 90 or 80 per cent of the staff will be engaged in field activities, deployed all over the country. Therefore at any time the staff at Galway headquarters will not be very large. That is the basic office administration aspect of it and the staff will be small in number. The primary work will be field work and most of the staff will be field staff.
I look forward to the day when we can talk far more about laboratories and research units in this central body in Galway. That is what we have been lacking in this country.
Yes, I agree. I can see that being done, in conjunction with a university. Galway University are very interested.
As I see it, from County Louth right down to Wexford there is a lot of research being carried out in that area on the sea. Will some of the people employed with the Inland Fisheries Trust be kept in Dublin?
They will. Some of the research people will be kept in Dublin.
Would the Minister care to mention a number?
I could not say, but certainly some of the research people will be kept in Dublin, Dublin will be the headquarters of the eastern region and probably the centre of the eastern region may be centred in the present trust headquarters.
The issue as regards the number of staff to be transferred has become confused. May I ask the Minister specifically how many persons on the Inland Fisheries Trust Board at the headquarters in Dublin have been requested to prepare for transfers to Galway at this time?
Discussions on the negotiations have not started.
Has the Minister in mind a specific number?
No, not really. As I say, they are coming in to talk to me. They were to have come in on Friday, but I will be meeting them next week. I will be meeting their staff associations and we will work out a scheme whereby there will be a percentage retained in Dublin, by reason of Dublin continuing to be the headquarters of the Leinster region. The likely headquarters will be the present trust headquarters. That will enable some to be retained there so that there might not be as drastic a transfer of people as the Deputy fears.
But there will be, according to the Minister,a minimum of 20?
No, it might not even be that.
And additional members over a period of time?
It might not even be 20. That is to be discussed. If we can fit them into the Leinster region headquarters in Dublin, some of the clerical staff——
I think the Minister will agree that we are all allowing such a hullaballoo to be created about people being transferred when it all boils down to the numbers being minimal and the Minister does not even know how many—certainly not more than 20.
That is about it. This is the point I was making all along. I put it the last time we were discussing the matter that there was a great hullaballoo. The main transfer that would take place would be the personnel and field staff from area to area and between the trust and the various regional boards. That would be the main issue. The actual transfer of administrative staff from Dublin to Galway is a matter of comparative unimportance.
However small their numbers, they will be treated generously having regard to all the circumstances?
They will be treated generously.
Before the Minister moves off the point, he is not sure how many staff are needed in Galway or how many staff are moving from Dublin. Could the Minister tell me how he will negotiate with these people when he meets them?
I am not negotiating, I am only meeting them to set up negotiations. The negotiations will take place with their own staff associations and trade unions.
If the information for them is as vague as it is here, I do not think the Minister will get very far with them.
I am not negotiating; I am only meeting people.
The House is discussing numbers and the numbers are not laid down in the Bill.
We are talking about a different matter. We should not be talking about this at all.
It is not actually relevant.
There will not be enough people in Galway, that is what I am worried about.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 30 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."
In section 33 we are talking about the dissolution of the old board of conservators and I would like to clarify one point. If we dissolve the old board of conservators and appoint the new regional board, will the voting be by postal vote and, if so, what is to stop somebody collecting 200 votes in a village and voting for a certain person? We must ensure that voting is done fairly and squarely.
I agree with the Deputy. It will be by postal vote and we will have to bring in regulations to cover it.
The postal vote is always open to abuse. If we are using the postal vote we should require that the postal vote must be signed by a Garda sergeant or somebody of that calibre but, certainly not by people such as some of those who signed postal votes in the local elections. I hope that this will be covered in the next Stage of the Bill. What happened in relation to postal voting for the old boards of conservators was that one guy took a week off work and collected all the votes, voted for everybody and got his man elected. If we are genuine about this Bill we must ensure that the vote is fair and square.
I agree that the postal vote system is open to abuse. We can tighten that up by way of regulation or in any other way that may occur to us.
It could be done by having three centres, for instance, where people could vote in a certain region. Will the Minister consider this on the next Stage of the Bill?
I will. That would be done by way of order; it will not be written into the Bill.
It will come before the House before anything is decided so far as the voting is concerned?
That is right. I will bear the Deputy's comments in mind as I too am anxious to ensure that voting under any system will be less open to abuse.
There should be no abuse. Every man who has a licence should exercise his vote but should not be able to vote for his neighbour. That is the only way in which the interests of this Bill can be safeguarded.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
Section 34 deals with the property that the board will have. Will the board have the power to raise money through the banks?
We gave them borrowing powers in an earlier section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
I thank the Minister for including the point I raised earlier about the life voting rights of the trust people, which is covered here. Will the people who pay their subscriptions for 1979 have voting rights at the end of 1979?
That is right.
As far as the life payment is concerned, that stands for their life?
That is a different category, the purpose of this section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."
I do not disagree with section 36. Anybody genuinely interested in fisheries will be interested to see that as many fisheries as possible are taken over from the old landlords. A number of people I met around the countryside intimated to me that they are quite willing to sell their present rights to this new central board. I hope that when this board is set up anybody who wishes to sell his rights will be facilitated and will be given a fair amount of compensation. We should ensure that the fishing rights to all fisheries and rivers will eventually belong to the people. Certain people who visited me in the last few months said that they were interested in selling their rights but that the Department of Fisheries were not interested in buying them.
On Second Reading I expressed the view that the Bill did not go far enough towards national acquisition. There is a general feeling that the Bill is neither adequate nor effective in certain respects. The intention not to take into care the hundreds of miles of potentially good rivers and streams throughout the country which are at present derelict and unproductive is a very serious defect. I would like the Minister's comment on that. There are large tracts of water which are derelict and whose ownership is in doubt. Is the Minister not empowered under this Bill to acquire those waters and, if not, is this not the time to take such power?
A point brought home to us by the Trout Anglers' Association is that the rights under the Bill to continue the care and maintenance of certain untitled waters is not made clear. These untitled waters should become the property of the State and I am concerned that provision should be made in the Bill to ensure that these waters are vested in the Minister and that they will not be used by alleged owners in the future to charge for angling. Time is running out and I wish to give the Minister time to reply on the important question of unclaimed waters which are becoming derelict and are largely unproductive and what power he has under this section to deal with that matter. The feeling in certain important bodies is that the Minister has not taken power under this section to deal adequately with that important matter.
Will the Minister also state how he feels with regard to the acquisition of a zone for aquaculture? If one has an oyster or a mussel bed at present one can apply to the Department of Fisheries and an acre, say, of a certain area can be sold or leased by the Department of Fisheries.
That is in a later section dealing with acquaculture, the designation of rights for oyster and other forms of shell fishing generally around our coast, which is undoubtedly a very coming development.
There is a lot of money in it, too.
For the first time we will have a management regime for aquaculture written into a later part of the Bill.
On Deputy Treacy's point, undoubtedly we can consider this section as historic. For the first time we have written into Irish legislation the right of acquisition of fisheries by way of either voluntary purchase or compulsion. In addition to that we have a very important division under this section where we can acquire either voluntarily or compulsorily the rights of way to such fisheries, and that is even more important. There is not much point in acquiring a fishery unless one has the right of way and access to it. Deputy Treacy's point is not real in this respect. I appreciate that we have these waters without any title to them throughout the country, but we will have enough work and activity if we implement this section fully to purchase, either voluntarily or by way of compulsion, all the waters with title in the country. We will have enough work within our own resources, financial, in personnel terms and otherwise to acquire such fisheries over the years ahead before we get down to what Deputy Treacy is seeking.
We are taking a very big step forward in this section, and I do not want to get muddled into the legal areas of untitled waters.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.