Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 1982

Vol. 337 No. 1

Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1981: Committee and Final Stages.

I am to explain to the House that the amendment in the name of Deputy Fitzpatrick has been ruled out of order. The House will now deal with section 1.

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan-Monaghan): The objective of this section and of the Bill in general is to enable the Minister for Finance, with the consent of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, to make advances to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara not exceeding in all £40 million. At the moment the permitted ceiling for advances is £15 million and this section proposes to increase that ceiling to £40 million. This is to enable An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to perform their functions.

Having regard to the large amount of money involved, it is right that we should have a look at the board and the constitution of the board without in any way going into personalities. Deputies will know that the statute establishing most semi-State bodies, or the articles of association of such boards where that is appropriate, have a provision that Members of the Oireachtas shall not be qualified to be members of State boards. When I looked at An Bord Iascaigh Mhara it struck me as somewhat unusual to find that one of the members of the board was also a Member of Seanad Éireann. That was the situation when I became Minister for Fisheries and Forestry but I assumed it was only a temporary matter that could be put right later on. I think that subsequent to being appointed a member of the board the person of whom I am speaking was elected in a by-election as a Member of Seanad Éireann.

I assumed that was an unusual occurrence and that an opportunity would be availed of to bring An Bord Iascaigh Mhara into line with the other State bodies. However, I noticed after the last general election that, when the Taoiseach was naming his 11 nominees for the Seanad under the Constitution, he nominated another member of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to be a Member of Seanad Eireann. The position, therefore, is that two members of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are also Members of Seanad Éireann. I propose to make the House aware of the fact that nearly all State bodies have provision in their constitutions disqualifying Members of the Oireachtas from being members of their boards. I should point out that there is no such provision in the statute setting up An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It is legally in order to have two members of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara as Senators but it is not in keeping with the convention of many years standing.

Professor Basil Chubb, in his book on The Government and Politics of Ireland said, when dealing with State-sponsored bodies, that Members of the Oireachtas, who were of course the leading and most active politicians, were in many cases barred by statute from holding such posts and, where no such legal barrier existed, the convention had been established.

It has been established because, going back as far as the Transport Act, 1950, we find that Members of the Oireachtas are disqualified from sitting on boards set up by that Act. I took the opportunity of going quickly over the various State-sponsored bodies. There are about 50 and, with the exception of Bord na gCon, Bord na Móna and a few others, there is provision in the statutes setting them up or in the articles of association of their companies, disqualifying Members of the Oireachtas from being members of the board. There is an argument in favour of Members of the Oireachtas being members of these boards and there is an argument against that practice. A convention has grown up over the years, going back as far as 1950, precluding Members of the Oireachtas from being members of these boards. In some cases the provision is made in the original statute setting up the board and in other cases the original statute has been amended, when the occasion presented itself, to provide that Members of the Oireachtas shall not be members of the board. For that reason, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should be brought into line with the other boards. I do not intend to introduce personalities into this matter——

The Deputy will appreciate that, in circumstances where his amendment has been ruled out of order and where on Committee Stage we are dealing with items specific to the section, the Chair would hope that the Deputy would not stray too far from the section.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am making the case that we are entrusting this board with an additional £25 million. Because of this I feel I should look at the board and its composition and compare it with other boards to see if it differs from other boards, and, if so, ask ourselves is that difference accidental or deliberate. Should it be corrected, if not in this Bill, in some future Bill?

Does the Deputy accept that in respect of the section itself there is no specific reference to the constitution of the membership of the board?

(Cavan-Monaghan): Yes, but I think I would be very negligent if I did not look at the constitution of the board since it is mentioned in the section and since we are voting £25 million to it under this section. There is an argument for and against Members of the Oireachtas being members of these boards. Convention and the wisdom of the House over the last 30 years seemed to prove that the policy has been established and accepted that Members of the Oireachtas should not be members of these boards. This board is a particularly sensitive board because it is empowered to give loans and grants and to advance large sums of money to fishermen who want to purchase or repair boats. For example, it is in a somewhat similar position to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. The constitution of the Agricultural Credit Corporation disqualifies Members of the Oireachtas from sitting on the board. This board should also disqualify Members of the Oireachtas from sitting on it.

I know the Central Fisheries Board do preclude Senators and Deputies from their membership. I know my amendment had been ruled out of order and there is nothing more I can do about it now. But I should like to hear the views of the Minister of State on this point and, in particular, whether he has any proposals to change the law in regard to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

The Deputy has been speaking on his amendment which has not been accepted. I should tell the Deputy that amending legislation will be introduced later this year which will prohibit Members of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament from becoming members of an Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I am sure that will keep the Deputy happy.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am glad to have an assurance from the Minister of State that it is proposed to change the law in regard to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara bringing it into line with all the other State bodies. I should like to know from the Minister when it is proposed to do so. I should like to know also whether there will be any resignations from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara between now and the alteration of the law. I did feel that the fact that two members of the board are Senators was not deliberate or designed. I believe it happened with regard to the first member because he decided that he would contest the Seanad election and was successful and because the second man involved was nominated by the Taoiseach to the present Seanad. One does not like to be personal about things like these but one might have thought that the members concerned could have quite easily resigned from the board in line with the long-standing convention of over 30 years, be replaced, and that the law could have been changed then when an opportunity arose. I am not my party's spokesman on Fisheries — I am the person in charge of this Bill — and while it is a delicate subject I feel it my duty to raise it. I should like to know what the Minister of State has to say about that.

We hope to introduce the relevant legislation some time after the summer recess and when that legislation is enacted presumably then the two members of the board will have to resign and be replaced.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Apparently we have now established that the long-standing convention and policy regarding State-sponsored bodies is that Members of the Oireachtas should not be members of them. I am glad to hear the Minister of State say that that is recognised and that it is proposed to introduce amending legislation later this year. When the law has been amended presumably — in accordance with my amendment which could not be accepted because it is outside the terms of this Bill as read a second time — that means that in effect my amendment is being accepted. That having been established, I feel it my duty to say that the two members on the board should now resign and I make no apology for so saying because the principle is accepted that Members of the Oireachtas should not be members of State-sponsored bodies; generally speaking that is accepted. That being accepted, it is wrong that the two members should continue to serve on the board until the end of this year or perhaps into next year, continuing to adjudicate on matters such as the granting of loans and so on.

Indeed, there is another reason why Members of the Oireachtas should not be members of State-sponsored bodies — a reason that did not exist when Professor Chubb wrote his book, or when many of the amending Bills passed through this House disqualifying Members of the Oireachtas. I refer to the joint committee set up to investigate the activities of State-sponsored bodies, to vet them, to examine their reports and accounts and report to the House on them. It is somewhat ludicrous to have Members of the Oireachtas investigating themselves and I do not use the word "investigate" in any offensive or ugly manner. It is somewhat incongruous to have Members of the Dáil and Seanad auditing the accounts of companies of which they are directors. Now that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister and the Government the right and proper thing for those two Senators to do is resign from the board and not be a source of embarrassment, in one case, to the Taoiseach and, in both cases, to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.

I fear Deputy Fitzpatrick is at present basking in his own irrelevance. On his admission he has accepted that his amendment was not pertinent, relevant to or acceptable on Committee Stage of the Bill. Notwith-standing that he is arguing and presenting his case as if it were.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am talking now about the board without any reference to my amendment. I am talking about the present composition of the board.

Yes, but the Deputy is confining the totality of his comments to the spirit of his amendment which was ruled out of order.

(Cavan-Monaghan): If somebody skilled in research were to look back over the various amending Acts he would find ones in which the amending section I endeavoured to insert here sticks out like a sore thumb in a Bill with which it had nothing to do. Admittedly it was in the Bill, as originally drafted.

In the Bill we are discussing Deputy Fitzpatrick knows well that we should appropriately be discussing on Committee Stage the financial advances which are being made. Those advances do not make any reference to the membership of the board. Could I encourage the Deputy to speak on the extent of the advances and to direct his thoughts to what is in the section rather than isolate the word "board" and take the right to stray at length into matters which are not in section 1 or section 2 of the Bill?

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am dealing with one point now, the composition of the board. I will be coming to a few general remarks about the section shortly.

That is very magnanimous of the Deputy. I am sure he realises that on Second Stage the order for which has been discharged, it would have been in order for him to talk about what might be in the Bill. So far as that opportunity escaped him, on Committee Stage——

(Cavan-Monaghan): I thought that was on Fifth Stage.

As far as I am concerned it was on Second Stage that the Deputy lost the opportunity to refer to this. We are now on Committee Stage and I know it is within the Deputy's competence to speak relevantly on a section of any Bill. I ask the Deputy not to re-introduce the question of the membership of the board, which he has covered fairly extensively.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not want to get into a situation where it might at a later stage be said that I was making a certain approach which I should not have made.

The Deputy can take a distinct impression from the Chair that that is the position at the moment.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not talking about my amendment. I submit to you that I cannot think of anything more relevant to section 1 of the Bill, which is the section authorising the Minister for Finance to make additional advances to the tune of £25 million to Bord Iascaigh Mhara, than the composition of BIM. BIM are one of the large number of State boards which have been set up. I could read them out.

The Chair is not taking issue with the Deputy about the propriety of the case he is making. The Chair is taking issue with the Deputy that he cannot do so on section 1 of this Bill.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I respectfully disagree with the Chair. It is a Committee Stage point, not a Second Reading point.

The Deputy knows well that he is confined on section 1 to reference on the financial advances which are being made. While the Chair would accept a passing reference to the board, the membership of the board, the bona fide membership or the alleged bona fide membership of the board, we should not dwell at any great length on that particular point nor would it be in order for the Deputy, as the Chair is indicating to him, to do so on section 1 of the Bill. The Deputy knows that.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am bewildered.

Is the Deputy accepting what the Chair says?

(Cavan-Monaghan): I would like to hear the Minister on this. I made the case that two members of the board, who providentially found themselves on this board, should resign immediately and should not wait until some Bill is introduced later this year or early next year.

The Deputy has already made that point.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I would like to hear the Minister on it.

The Deputy is now encouraging the Chair to invite the Minister of State to be out of order. This is something I am reluctant to do. In the circumstances, however, I will allow a comment.

Under the European Assembly (Irish Representatives) Act, 1979, members of the European Parliament are debarred from being members of the boards of 40 State bodies. Of that 40 State bodies there are three State bodies exempt — Bord na Móna, Bord na gCon and BIM. Members of the Oireachtas are not debarred from being members of those three boards. As I told the Deputy, we will be introducing a Bill at a later stage to rectify that position. We have not had an opportunity to do so recently. That Bill will be introduced some time after the summer recess.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister of State did not deal with the question I put to him. I am saying, in deference to the long-standing policy applicable to those State-sponsored bodies, that the two members concerned should be invited to resign and, if necessary, the Minister should exercise the powers he has and remove them. When the first man was appointed a member of the Board he was not a Member of the Seanad. He was appointed a Member of the Seanad and he is holding on to his position as a member of the board. The second man was nominated by the Taoiseach to the Seanad. The Taoiseach should have made it a condition of his nomination that he resign from the State-sponsored body. The Minister is inviting trouble. If there is some difference of opinion about matters and the membership of this board comes into question, the Minister will not have the defence that he was not warned about this or he did not know about it. It is a bit ungracious of the two members. The Minister has conceded that the policy is as I thought it was and that it is desirable that the law should be amended to exclude those two members. He said he hopes the law will be amended before the end of the year. Surely it would be a gracious act on the part of these two members to resign from the board. If they intend to brazen it out until the very last hour and the Taoiseach and the Minister are prepared to stand over it, there is nothing further I can do.

Under present legislation they are entitled to be members of this board.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The purpose of section 1 is to increase the lending limit of BIM from £15 million to £40 million so that they can make advances to skippers of trawlers and fishermen in general to enable them to purchase or repair boats. While we owe this to the fishing industry and agree that the Oireachtas should provide such funds for BIM, we have a greater obligation to the fishing industry, that is, to organise it in such a way that fishermen will be in a position to repay the very heavy loans they have undertaken to equip themselves for their work. I understand that orders have been obtained against dozens of fishermen for the repossession of boats.

It is a coincidence that this Bill is being taken today while the Minister is in Brussels negotiating the common fisheries policy. I do not know how long these negotiations will continue but nothing less than a good deal for our fishermen will be acceptable.

During the period in office of the Coalition Government between 1973 and 1977 I was under pressure from some bright members of Fianna Fáil who seemed to think I should get an exclusive 200-mile limit. I thought they were joking but they were quite serious about it. Then there was a campaign for a 50-mile limit and perhaps a lot could be said for such a limit. I am glad to see Deputy Lenihan, a former Minister for Fisheries, in the House. He went to Brussels and abandoned the fight for an exclusive 30-mile limit. He did so on his first trip to Brussels and thereby disarmed his successors, who would otherwise have been in a strong position to fight for an exclusive 30-mile limit. This was all the more extraordinary because only a short time before that the same Deputy Lenihan was a member of the front bench of Fianna Fáil who introduced a Bill here taking an exclusive 50-mile limit. In spite of this, he abandoned the fishermen and said that talk of a 30-mile limit was quite unrealistic. I was shocked to hear the suggestion that an indented 12-mile limit was being accepted, that is, a 12-mile limit with rights in favour of foreign trawlers to fish to within six miles. That is not good enough.

When we entered the EEC we did so in the firm hope that there would be big gains in the agricultural and fisheries sectors. We were agriculturally undeveloped and we are certainly recognised now as having an undeveloped fishing industry. The greatest protection which could be given to Irish fishermen is a meaningful exclusive area around our coast. Our fleet is not capable of fishing in foreign oceans and the only meaningful concession is a zone to which only they would have access. We talk about total allowable catches and quotas but neither is worth a damn if we are to be exposed to trawlers from other member states. If these trawlers are to have rights to fish virtually into our shores, there is no hope for the future of Irish fishermen.

When I was Minister I had the goodwill and, I think, the backing of the UK delegation and their Minister, who seemed to have a lot in common with us on that issue. I fear for some reason this has changed. Unless we fight for a meaningful exclusive fishing area around our own shores, we are not doing our job in regard to the fishing industry.

I do not want to labour the point, but it is a positive disgrace that fish are being imported wholesale into the EEC countries. Far too much fish is being imported from outside the Community waters when there is an abundance of fish within those waters. It is also a disgrace that the Faroese are attacking our salmon to such an extent. The salmon catch in our waters has dropped dramatically in the past five years — I have not the fishing figures with me but the catch has been about halved. I agree that there was some improvement in the quota this year, but it was not enough and whether the Faroese are obeying the quota limits is another question. A real effort should be made to protect the salmon that naturally return to our waters.

Unless we organise our fishing industry and make the best possible case to get favourable conditions for our fishermen in regard to access and other matters, grants or loans will not be enough to build up the industry and enable our fishermen to earn a decent living. Expenses and fuel costs have gone up for skippers, interest rates on loans have increased and it will be a tough battle for these men to repay the loans which we are now authorising the Minister for Finance to make available to them through An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

As we know, this Bill is to increase the £15 million, which is exhausted, to £40 million. The extended facilities being sought are required to enable BIM to provide for further developments of the sea fishing industry, and, particularly, the expansion of the fishing fleet, the establishment of additional fish processing and marketing facilities and the development of commercial marine fish farms. In addition to financing boat purchase with Exchequer advances, BIM also arrange for financing of boat loans by means of loans from commercial banks which are made direct to fishermen with BIM guarantees. This arrangement normally applies to the largest type of boat.

As Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, our Minister is in Brussels at the moment trying to negotiate the best possible deal for our fishermen. This is a little irrelevant to this Bill, but I have every confidence that our Minister will contract a very good deal for our fishermen and come back with a satisfactory arrangement which will be accepted by those fishermen.

I recommend this Bill to the House. It will enable BIM to make loans available to our fishermen to purchase more boats and, indeed, better boats.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I would like to say a few brief words on section 1, arising out of what the Minister of State has just said. He seems to think that my plea for a good deal for Irish fishermen in Brussels was irrelevant to this Bill.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I wish to be put on record as saying that I can see nothing more relevant than the deal which comes back from Brussels. The present Bill enables the Minister for Finance, with the consent of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, to make large advances, up to £25 million, to Irish fishermen to enable them to make their living out of fishing. Unless the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry is able to make a good bargain and can get a meaningful exclusive area around our waters, money alone will not save our fishing industry. It could very well be wasted money. If the Minister and the Government do not bring home the bait, there is no use in providing boats and gear for fishermen who will be operating at a great disadvantage against their competitors in the other states of the Community. I wanted that to go on record.

Question put and agred to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.

Limerick West): This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.

Top
Share