Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been ruled out of order as they are in conflict with the principles of the Bill. That, of course, does not preclude Members from opposing the section or indeed the Title of the Bill. A special question will be put on that as the debate advances.
Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
As I am a little surprised the amendments have been ruled out of order, will the chair elaborate on the reasons? I did not know they had been ruled out of order.
Deputy O'Sullivan will appreciate that there is a specific Standing Order 99, which wisely indicates that all amendments must be in accordance with what is provided in the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to substitute co-operatives for rod licences. The amendments to which I have referred would delete from the legislation what is proposed in it, the kernel of the legislation and, accordingly, the amendments are not in order.
It is not my wish to challenge your ruling in this matter but I seek your guidance as this is going to present us with some difficulty as to how we are going to proceed. There are three dimensions to the Bill — the abolition of the rod licence, the establishment of co-operatives and further sections dealing with salmon licences. It is the clear intention of the Opposition parties that the Bill should provide for the abolition of rod licences but not necessarily substitute them with co-operatives or with the charges which the co-operatives, in turn, would make on persons engaging in fishing. It is very difficult——
I ask Deputy Gilmore to bear with me. We have already discussed and disposed of the Second Stage of this legislation which means that what is now before the House is the raison d'être of the legislation which is to substitute co-operatives for fishing licences. How could we now at this stage presume to alter what the House has already agreed? Apart from presentation of the amendments, I understand that the Deputy and those Deputies in whose names the amendments appear have already been advised of Standing Order 99 (1) which provides for precisely what I am now saying to the House.
Members on the Opposition benches, and I have read the Second Stage debate very carefully, addressed the principle which they would like to see accepted in the Bill and hoped that it would be taken on board on Committee Stage. It was their hope that they could take a further look in a constructive way at the decision to establish co-operatives while, at the same time, being seen to be dealing with the principle of the Bill.
Deputy Barnes, as a very special chairperson of this House, appreciates that, unfortunately, delightful anticipations are not provided for in Standing Orders. All the while the House is governed by Standing Orders. I do not want to be guilty of what I would not allow somebody else, repetition, but the Standing Order provides for what I have already indicated to the House. I suggest to the House that we should proceed now and discuss the section, vote against it if we are so disposed and indicate our displeasure with it.
We all agree that this is very tricky legislation and that we better get it right now. Second Stage was discussed before the Christmas recess. The intention at that time was to take Committee Stage also before Christmas but the Minister, on the recommendation of the House, agreed to leave it until after Christmas. I assumed this recommendation was made to give the Minister, who was not happy with the Bill, an opportunity to enter into negotiations. The House was not happy with the new Bill, as presented, and did not want amending legislation introduced as we could end up far worse off. Given that we have waited patiently until the first week of March to take Committee Stage of the Bill, would the Minister give us an assurance that he has had discussions in the meantime with interested parties——
I must ask Deputy McCormack to resume his seat and ask the House to proceed with the business before it. I am calling on Deputy Barnes to move amendment No. 5.
May I——
We are not going to have a discussion now. This is Committee Stage where we must deal with what is in the section or any amendment which is appropriate to the section. I have already confirmed the information given to Deputies in respect of the amendments they tendered which have been ruled out of order. There is no point in bheith ag snámh in aghaidh an easa níos mó.
Will you indicate to us the full list of amendments which have been ruled out of order?
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 57.
When I was in contact yesterday with the Bills Office they did not inform me that the amendments I had put down had been ruled out of order. I am more than surprised, therefore, to find on coming into the House this evening that they have been ruled out of order. The purpose of the Bill to provide for the establishment of fisheries co-operative societies to raise and disburse for the public benefit funds for the development of trout or coarse fishing in fisheries. Many of us in this House have very clearly indicated that we are not in favour of the type of co-operative outlined in the Bill. I find it difficult to accept a ruling given at the very last minute, just as the Bill is to be debated. I protest very strongly on that issue.
I can appreciate your frustration or annoyance. I understood that you had already been advised.
I had not.
The Deputy will appreciate that the official or the diligent civil servant would not be in a position to adjudicate on the acceptability or otherwise of the amendment. The Ceann Comhairle is the supreme authority in interpreting what is in order and what is not.
The appropriate time to tell a person who has tabled an amendment that it is out of order is not just as that amendment is about to be debated.
Ordinarily Deputies, as a matter of courtesy, are advised. I reget that you have not been so advised on this occasion. I hope it will not happen again. You were informed by letter, I understand.
I have not got any notification as yet.
I am somewhat amazed by your ruling in this matter. My colleague Deputy Barnes and I, have received a letter which states that the amendment seeks inter alia to delete from the Bill the provision which gives effect to the principle assented to on the Second Reading, namely, the establishment of a system of fishery co-operative societies. I find it rather strange that this matter is ruled out of order. There is no ruling regarding the amendments to section 4, the fundamental section of the Bill which provides for the establishment of co-operatives. Perhaps you would explain why this amendment has been ruled out of order.
If the Deputy cannot appreciate what I have said already, there is no point in my repeating it.
It does not make sense.
I have already indicated to the House why the amendments in question are not in order and I have asked the House to proceed to amendment No. 5, which is in order.
With due respect, the explanation you have given to this House does not make any sense in relation to the overall Bill and the amendments to the remaining sections. I cannot understand the exact ruling in relation to this section and I am sure other Deputies, like me, cannot understand it.
Deputy Taylor-Quinn has heard an explanation which she interprets as not making sense to her. The Deputy has been advised that what is proposed in the amendment would presume to take away from what is proposed in the legislation. I cannot help her weak interpretation.
It might be a good idea——
It would be a good idea to proceed with amendment No. 5, which is what I am doing.
We are getting off to a very bad start.
We are proceeding with amendment No. 5. Deputy McCormack will take that or else he has an alternative. I do not mind how we are getting off. We have wasted a quarter of an hour.
We have waited three years for this Bill and it is a pity we cannot get it right.
God has spoken.
I call Deputy Barnes to move amendment No. 5. Perhaps the House would bear with the Chair. Amendments Nos. 7, 13, 23 and 26 form a composite proposal. These amendments may be taken together for discussion purposes and a separate question may be put on each amendment. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 2, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following definition:
"‘angling club' is an organised association of persons engaged in the pastime of angling for salmon, trout and coarse fish with rod and line.".
I would remind the House that the whole debate on Second Stage was an effort to enable us to produce a more constructive, simple and comprehensive way of dealing with this issue which will satisfy us as legislators and the fishermen who will be subject to its provisions. I hope the Minister will accept the commitment which lies behind these amendments. Of all the legislation which has gone through this House during the years I have been here, I do not think there has been a Bill which has called out to a greater extend for co-operation, understanding and support from all sides of the House.
We must ensure that this Bill when enacted will not fall at any hurdle and will not raise fears or suspicions which might lead to its rejection. The legislators and the fishermen and the regional boards have the same objective, which is to enrich and enhance our fisheries and to make them as productive as possible, not just for Irish people but for our tourists as well.
Bearing in mind the contentious and very divisive history of the Act which this legislation is designed to replace, we must satisfy ourselves that this Bill will be acceptable to the people who objected so strenuously for such a long time in a way which was so divisive and damaging for the country. We must hope that there will be agreement on the part of people who will be abiding by this legislation.
Again and again during the course of the Second Stage debate, Members on this side of the House pointed that out not by way of sterile opposition or a wish to delay a Bill which is long overdue but in an attempt to ensure that the Bill we would produce would be acceptable. This consensus has to be taken seriously because speakers on this side of the House were not reflecting what they believed anglers, fishermen and fisherwomen wanted but what they had been told by them in countless discussions and consultations. We were trying to put forward a structure which would be simple and agreeable to all and which would be implementable when the legislation was enacted. I believe that is the basis of all amendments from this side of the House.
Amendment No. 5, which I moved on behalf of the Fine Gael party defines "angling club", which is the foundation of the structure for registration by fishermen for inland fishing. The arguments we on this side of the House are putting forward is that if the structures are defined in as simple and as traditional a way as possible, the chances of this Bill being implemented are far greater. Our amendments are directed towards that aim. We believe that the structure put forward in this amendment should replace the concept of a co-operative which the Minister suggested on Second Stage. Not alone was the concept of the co-operative as defined by the Minister not the answer but it became clear that it would create tremendous bureaucracy and needlessly crossed lines. We decided there was a simpler way of bringing forward legislation which would have the support of those who are involved outside this House. Our amendment recognises that angling clubs are organised all over Ireland and that we should build on this but that we should deal with the definition of such angling clubs in one of the early sections of the Bill. With this in mind, our amendment suggests a form of words to define an angling club be inserted:
"angling club" is an organised association of persons engaged in the pastime of angling for salmon, trout and coarse fish with rod and line.
I know that the Minister, a classic scholar will recognise — I regret I did not have a classical education but from my sparse memory of Latin I know — that the basic foundation of the classics is simplicity and clarity which leads to the least misunderstanding and misinterpretation. We bore this in mind in formulating our amendments.
I wish to seek your guidance a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Having spoken on amendment No. 5 may I also comment on the other amendments that relate to it.
Absolutely, the only limitation on the Deputy is that her contribution would refer to what is in all the amendments.
From the point made in amendment No. 5, if that were accepted, amendments Nos. 7, 13, 23 and 26 evolve. The huge bureaucracy and the input, in fact almost interference, that the Minister would be required to make as the Bill now stands would be eliminated to a great degree by our amendment No. 7. The angling clubs, as we have defined them in amendment No. 5, would be the foundation on which we would build the national structure. The angling club would register with the regional board in whose area the club is active. To effect its registration the club would provide the regional board with "the names of its elected officers and its annual and expenditure accounts for the previous two years." The regional board would maintain a register of all such angling clubs registered within its functional area. This would be an evolution of what is in place already and would not involve extra bureaucracy. It would also mean that angling clubs would continue to operate within their functional area and within their traditional regional boards. Once again this amendment is directed at making the legislation as efficient and effective as possible.
Amendment No. 13 to section 5 relates to the regional boards. The regional board has carried out a tremendous amount of this work down through the years and would be in a position to do this work. Subsection (3) is of particular interest. It states:
Any dispute arising as to the amount apportioned to an angling club under subsection (2) shall be referred jointly by the angling club and the regional board concerned to the Minister whose decision shall be final.
This is an attempt to carry out the business of the Inland Fisheries in an independent and autonomous way in the region where the parties are known to one another and where the debate and discussions can be carried out with this knowledge and without attempting to entangle the Minister at too early a stage. I cannot believe that the present Minister or any Minister of such a demanding and complex Department as the Department of the Marine would want to spend so much of his time and energy, valuable as both of them are, in taking over the type of power envisaged in the Bill.
First it would seem to be far too rigorous an interference and, second, anything that can be worked out between the parties themselves always leads to far greater consensus. The rod anglers here have shown that they have an incredible sense of pride and independence and a very large say in what the development of their inland fisheries should be. I and all my colleagues on this side of the House worry about bringing in a bureaucratic, top heavy ministerially dominated Bill to a group of people who, by their very tradition and, according to very recent history, have shown themselves not alone to be insulted but outraged that certain conditions and restraints are imposed on them.
In bringing in a Bill we want to end a history of divisiveness which nobody welcomed and which did a lot of damage to the country, even to people outside the inland fisheries. The last thing we want to do is introduce a second Bill that would raise all the same objections, the same sense of outrage, the same sense of their being overridden by central decisions that were not taking their rights and their concerns into consideration. Of all the points I will be making, this is the most fundamental. We must try to retain as much autonomy and independence as possible and encourage the members of the angling clubs and the clubs themselves. I hope the amendments will be accepted so that the development and expansion of this pastime of so many people here and of tourists and visitors to this country can be carried out by the very people involved in it, not just in a passive but in a personal and active way. Inland fisheries is of importance not just to us here as legislators but to the members of the angling clubs. They are the first people who would worry about the lack of expansion in inland fisheries because they are the people deriving the greatest pleasure and the greatest productivity from it.
What I am saying is that we should have confidence and trust in the people at the receiving end of legislation — and this should apply to all legislation going through this House. We must acknowledge their intelligence and their goodwill. We must realise that Ministers and Departments do not need to be in at every level and at every section and subsection of the Bills we are bringing through this House. It is time we all grew up. It is time we allowed groups to make their own decisions. Certainly we can give them guidelines and structures through the legislation to enable them to carry out what we all want. We must not, however, constrain people to the point of their being outraged when they perceive the implications of the legislation, when they realise they are not being trusted.
I do not want to go through this with a finecomb but one of the things this Committee Stage would attempt to change is the question of there being ministerial decisions with regard to trustees, with regard to some of the members who would be part of these structures, ministerial decisions operating at every layer of activity.
Would Deputy Barnes not stay in the troubled waters we have rather than where she is going?
If I could stick with the Chair's metaphor, surely we are all striving for clean waters in which people, and fish, can swim clearly and independently without having to worry about piranha fish or whales overtaking them and be able to come up for air, to make their own decisions. We would all acknowledged that for the future there is a real responsibility on everybody involved in inland fisheries to ensure that not alone does the fishing activity continue but that it continues at a much cleaner, healthier and more resourced level. All the people involved will be called on to invest financially in it. What we are saying is that the pastime is there, the pleasure is there, but we are encouraging anglers to pay for their pleasure. We must give these people every encouragement and every sense of space for themselves.
Sections 23 and 26 continue the type of autonomy and simplicity of structure that all our sections are directed towards. Only at the last moment when regional boards and angling clubs have ceased to be able to arrive at an agreement and cooperate between themselves would ministerial decisions be called in. Registrations would be recorded by the angling clubs and where any surplus arose within an angling club that would be offset against the club's liability for development contributions in the following and successive years. We are aware of the problems that can arise when one group perceive themselves to be contributing more than others. There must be a system of fair play to deal with situations where there is a surplus of contributions. In such circumstances excess contributions should be acknowledged and rewarded. That is the type of amendment we need to display so that regional boards and clubs would be aware of where they stood and the kind of action that needed to be taken without having to have recourse to the Minister. We do say in section 4 that where a dispute arose that could not be agreeably worked out between the clubs and the regional boards it would be referred jointly by both to the Minister for his decision. The Bill represents an interference with such structures and developments in a way that will offend and may once again lead us into a divisive and quarrelsome situation.
The objective of the Bill is to repeal legislation that is widely ignored at present. As legislators we must be concerned that that obtains at present. Above all, this Bill must ensure that the people who live within its confines are encouraged to operate it. Its simplicity, directness, and acknowledgment of the structures will ensure that all clubs will contribute equally on a national level not only for the good of the country but for the good of the many tourists and local people who derive real pleasure from what is still considered one of our great advantages, clear water. That is something we can offer at a time when other countries, regretfully, have allowed their waterways to die in every sense of the word.
The future pleasure of fishermen and fisherwomen depend on the Bill. The image of this country as a clean, laid back, enjoyable, pleasurable country in which activities such as fishing can take place and generate revenue in many regions where incomes must be expanded in a productive way depends also on the Bill.
This group of amendments cover a number of sections and, therefore, are wideranging. We have to look at what we are doing here. The Bill arises out of previous legislation which simply was not acceptable to the public and, in particular, was not acceptable to inland fishermen and fisherwomen. The rod licence was not accepted. The Bill does not abolish the rod licence; it renames it: it is now called a share certificate to be issued by a co-operative. The formula devised by the Minister to get over the embarrassment of having to nakedly abolish the rod licence is the establishment of co-operatives.
The objective of the amendment proposed by Deputy Barnes, as I understand it, is to short circuit the relationship which would exist between the regional fishery boards and the co-operatives. It would give rise to a situation where the regional fishery boards would have a direct relationship with the angling clubs rather than through this cumbersome arrangement of the co-operatives. In principle, that is something I would favour. The angling clubs have contributed enormously to fishing. There is no doubt they have contributed to the development of fishing and that they give much of their time and resources to it.
There is a lot of merit in the idea that instead of having a very cumbersome arrangement whereby we would be expecting what are essentially voluntary organisations to combine in a way as if they were business in these co-operatives, that they would have a direct relationship with the regional fishery boards. In principle that is a very good idea. However, I do have one major reservation and, perhaps, Deputy Barnes, in the course of the discussion, would be able to address it. Where does that arrangement leave the individual who is fishing and is not a member of an angling club? The issue that the rod licence row gave rise to was that people saw the rod licence as a challenge to a freedom they had had down through generations to go out and fish. This freedom was going to be interfered with by somebody coming along and challenging them on the river bank to produce a rod licence. Presumably, under the new arrangement they will be challenged for a share certificate and they might even be challenged for a birth certificate since some of the exemptions relate to the ages of the people concerned. It was the challenge to the freedom that was at issue.
I would be very concerned if, in addressing that problem it were to be replaced by a formula which would give angling clubs, perhaps, over a period, or, perhaps by default, an influence and a control which is out of proportion and which would act to the detriment of the individual going out to fish. That is my principle reservation with the amendment put down by Deputy Barnes. If angling clubs are contributing to the development of fishing the relationship should be directly with the angling clubs rather than necessarily through a more cumbersome and more bureaucratic arrangement through the co-operatives.
As Deputy Gilmore said, we are going through the motions of amending the second fisheries Bill within three years. Since the first fisheries Bill was introduced on 16 December 1987 I have spent much of my time trying to find a solution to that unworkable and unworked legislation. Since the present Minister for the Marine came to office he has spent much of his time trying to find a solution to the unworkable 1987 legislation which was introduced in a hurry before the Christmas recess in that year. We are going through the motions again to save the face of the Government in not accepting that that Bill was unworkable, scrapping it altogether and starting at the beginning again if necessary. As amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 57 have been ruled out of order we have to deal with the position in which we now find ourselves.
The purpose of our amendments Nos. 5, 7, 13, 23 and 26 is to give recognition to the angling clubs. They must be recognised because, according to this Bill — which is an attempt to amend the unworkable legislation of 1987 — there would be no place for the angling club in the co-operative set up. Angling clubs must be recognised as being essential if we are to get the goodwill of the local people. Angling clubs and associations have carried out much good work in cleaning rivers and inland waters, restocking them, building jetties and roads and developing and promoting angling both from the point of tourism and the clubs. That is the purpose of our amendments. As we said on Second Stage, we believe it would be completely unnecessary for the Minister to have to look into every detail of what is done by the co-operatives. I do not know the purpose of this provision in this amending legislation but it is certainly causing concern.
While I have great respect for the Minister for the Marine who has endeavoured to solve the problems caused by the previous legislation. I am surprised that we now find ourselves debating a Bill which will not abolish that unworkable legislation which was introduced so hurriedly into this House. I had anticipated that the Minister would, in view of the discussions he has had, even since this Bill was introduced, with angling clubs and people who genuinely want to see the present problems resolved that he would have brought forward a better Bill or put forward amendments to this Bill. I do not know what the Minister's attitude is but I anticipate that he will agree to many of the amendments we have put down.
I never realised that the simple pastime of fishing could be so complicated that it would involve us in a morass of bureaucratic red tape.
The amendments put forward by Deputy Barnes would greatly improve the Bill. However, the concept of this Bill was wrong from the start. I firmly believe that it would be far more appropriate, much easier and much more effective if the legislation was repealed and a new Bill introduced which would be agreeable to everyone. This Bill has met with opposition from a number of people. Not alone have the angling clubs and the federation asked questions about the Bill but the fishery boards do not appear to know where they are going at all. I am sure that like me the Minister has received reams of submissions from various groups asking what is going to happen. Yet these simple questions are still unanswered, and this Bill certainly does not answer them.
On Second Stage the concept of co-ops met with stern opposition from Deputies on this side of the House. I thought the Minister would have brought forward amendments in this respect. However, it would appear at this stage that the legislation is as complicated as ever. There is a lot of goodwill among angling groups. Much damage was done but thankfully the Minister helped in no small way in redressing the problems. We should tap into that goodwill and try to bring the people directly involved, the anglers, clubs, federation, and regional boards, with us. As Deputy Gilmore said, the Bill does not address the problems of individuals who wish to fish on Sunday afternoons without restriction. This is the kernel of the problem and this is where the Fisheries Act collapsed in 1987—
I do not like interrupting a reasonable Deputy such as you, but while regrets can be expressed we must deal with what is before the House.
Unfortunately.
It may be unfortunate in so far as the Deputy is concerned. What we must now do in a positive way is to treat of what is before the House section by section and the Deputy can contribute to improving on what is there. That is the obligation on the Deputy, especially on Committee Stage. I would not want to interrupt other Deputies but on Committee Stage——
This is like a Second Stage speech.
——we are confined to what is in the amendment. Deputy Gilmore, it would not prevent you later on from discussing what is in the section——
Why do I come into this?
It is only a point of clarification. You said earlier on during your contribution — I did not interrupt you — that because there was so much in it and we were taking it all together we must discuss it now. We do not; we only discuss what is in the amendments. Presently a question will be put that amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 or 6 be agreed to. Deputies can then discuss what is in the section and reject it if they so desire.
I am endeavouring to get to the issue of the co-operatives, which I do not approve of. This is not referred to in Deputy Barnes's amendment and I am trying to get around that point.
Deputy Barnes's amendments refer to angling clubs, regional boards, registration and the structuring of that.
And our amendments in regard to the proposed co-ops.
There is no reference in her amendment to the concept of co-operatives, which are referred to in the Bill. I presume what Deputy Barnes is saying is that the angling clubs should replace co-ops.
Yes.
Absolutely.
That is the point Deputy Barnes was making in her amendment. Even though I have reservations about Deputy Barnes's amendments, they are a definite improvement on the Minister's proposal. That is what I was trying to say, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if you had allowed me to do so.
As I was saying before you stopped me in mid stride there must be proper consultation with the people in the angling sector. I do not believe there is consultation at present. The angling clubs and the federation should be consulted. I gather that the Minister met with some groups during the week-end. Even though this Bill was introduced into the House before Christmas we still do not know where we are going at this stage. I want to say before you shoot me down that this is why I put down my amendments. The Minister should have thrown out the concept and started again. If necessary, he should have repealed the legislation, and I have not changed my mind on that point.
On Second Stage I made it clear that the Green Party, An Comhaontas Glas, are totally opposed to this Bill. Hence I have great sympathy with Deputy O'Sullivan who has put down amendments opposing virtually every section. Indeed I felt very much that way inclined myself but I suppose one has to be realistic and look at the Bill to see if it can be improved, however difficult and distasteful a task this may be. Without any doubt the Bill can be improved somewhat but it will still be a very flawed Bill.
As regards the definition section, first there is no definition of angling in the Bill, nor is there any amendment down to that effect. Angling should be defined in the Bill. I would define it as fishing for any species of fish using a pole or rod to which is attached a fishing line and terminal tackle. As there are disputes from time to time as to what is an illicit form of angling it is important to define it. It is also necessary to define an angling club. Deputy Barnes has attempted to make such a definition, which is certainly better than nothing, but it could be improved. She makes no mention of numbers. For example, could an angling club consist of two or three people? Such an angling club would not be a bona fide club. Therefore it is necessary to talk in terms of numbers. I would suggest to the House that 20 is a good number. If an angling club has fewer than 20 people it should not be deemed to be an angling club within the meaning of the Bill. The entitlement of the angler to fish in the particular waters in which he or she wishes should be clearly stated. Therefore as part of the definition we should add the words: "and having title to or use of a fresh water fishery." These are important changes which should be made.
Amendment No. 7 sets out basically that angling clubs should replace co-operatives, and I go along with that with a heavy heart, not having great confidence in the Bill. However it appears to be an improvement to operate through angling clubs rather than through co-operatives. Amendment No. 13 in the name of Deputy Barnes deals with financing of angling clubs and so on. Amendment No. 23 is a very good amendment, particularly subsection (2), and I support it. However I have grave doubts about amendment No. 26. I wonder whether it is feasible to cancel the registration of a club. This seems to be a draconian measure and I wonder how enforceable it is. Before deciding on that amendment I am sure Deputy Barnes will speak further on it.
In the last number of years rarely has legislation been enacted which has had such devastating results as the original Fisheries (Amendment) Bill. It was pushed through the House without a great deal of understanding of the implications and the raw passion it engendered in a great number of people. I assume there will be more contributors to this legislation than there were to the previous Bill. I have no doubt but that the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Wilson, an articulate and intelligent Minister, would have wished that a very simple solution could be found to what seemed to be a simple problem. If one were to take all the various solutions that have been put forward since 1988 it would be extremely difficult to find that much sought after simple solution.
The Department and the Minister should ensure first that there is a method by which people can pursue the leisure activity commonly known as angling, through the organisations which heretofore have been known as angling clubs. That practice should be conducted in such a way as to give people full satisfaction in the pursuit of their past time and at the same time ensure that it will be enabled to be carried on by future generations. I assume that is what is at stake here in terms of the overall development of our fisheries by the Department and the Minister for the Marine.
It seems as if this measure is a short term solution to a problem which will be with us for quite a long time. The law was enacted; the law was set aside. There are not many Deputies in this House who had to face the wrath of the people affected by the road licence. One person in the west said that to solve the problem the Minister, Deputy Wilson, would have to have a neck like a swan, a hide like a water dog and the conscience of a free-thinking theologian. I wish the Minister well and look forward to his clarification of the various complexities involved.
I would have assumed that the setting up of co-operatives together with the constitutions, regulations and rule books that govern them would not be simple solution to this problem. Deputy Barnes' amendment No. 7 refers to the names of the elected officers and the annual income and expenditure accounts for the previous two years. It is a nonsense for people who are sent in here as legislators to attempt to implement such a section. When all parties submit their regulations and the names of the elected officers, 95 per cent of them will make no mention of the actual balance at the end of the year in terms of expenditure. You can rest assured that that will apply in relation to angling clubs, co-operatives or whatever conglomerate is set up in this regard. I look forward to the Minister's clarification of the various amendments as we proceed with the legislation.
The amendments before us are extremely important, particularly in view of the amendments introduced by the Minister, I had hoped the Minister would introduce amendments which would change fundamentally the context of the original Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1990, but unfortunately what we see are very minor technical changes and the Bill per se stands. For that reason the amendments tabled in the name of Deputy Monica Barnes in relation to the establishment of angling clubs and the recognition of existing clubs are more important than one would have originally assumed.
It is important that the House seriously considers the detail of the amendments before us because they were not tabled by chance; they were as a result of long discussion and negotiation by the Fine Gael Party with the various interested parties involved in angling. This has gone on for quite a number of years and the result is that we concluded certain agreements with the rod licence group at the time — the 12 apostles as they were known — the executive which represented the angling interests from the various angling associations and federations across the country.
The amendment tabled by Deputy Barnes reflects the agreement, wishes and aspirations of those interests. The Minister's amendments to subsequent sections of the Bill do not in any way reflect the wishes of the angling interests. I know there were meetings over the weekend between the Minister and the various representative groups but they were conducted in an extremely restricted environment. While it may be said that some of the amendments tabled by the Minister were practically written by the angling interests, they do not represent the angling interests across the board, not do they reflect the interests of the executive or the representatives who were negotiating with the Minister, because of the limits imposed on them by the Minister and his Department in the course of the negotiations. As a result, the amendments tabled by Deputy Barnes are extremely important and I appeal to all Members to seriously consider them. The Minister should take some of them on board because they are fundamental to the issue.
Amendment No. 7 specifically refers to the definition of an angling club. There may be weakness in the definition — and a number of Deputies made suggestions in relation to a broader definition with which Deputy Barnes and I would agree — but the Minister's Bill is weak because an angling club is not defined in any section. The Minister elaborates on co-operatives without defining what they are supposed to involve. If the Minister does not define an angling club he cannot proceed any further. However, it is not in the interests of angling for the Minister to proceed in this vein because, on Second Stage, we outlined the serious dangers which would arise in relation to the formation of co-operatives. To date we have not had a clear view or direction in regard to the number of co-operatives which would be set up or who would control setting them up. Of course, according to the Bill, the Minister has control over everything but there is a fear that there might be only one co-operative in every fishery board area, two at the most. The Minister will decide, with the result that the ordinary rank and file anglers will have very little input.
The very pleasant pastime of angling is now loaded with bureaucracy; the essence of the sport is being withdrawn from the fundamental activity and layers of bureaucracy are being imposed on what has been, traditionally, a very pleasant pastime. The Minister's amendments do nothing to fundamentally change that fact. In contrast, the amendments tabled by Deputy Barnes, while attempting to bring some order to angling, do not impose the same restrictions or bureaucratic diktat on the activity.
We propose that angling clubs will be registered with the regional board in the area where the club operate. The board would provide the names of the elected officers and the income and expenditure accounts for the previous year. I appreciate Deputy Kenny's reservations in relation to that section but there is a need to bring coherence and order to the whole matter. Indeed, back in 1988, various angling interests agreed that something along these lines should be presented to, and agreed with, the board. I know there might be difficulties in relation to enacting it but when you go through a process a system evolves and everything will fall into place, although we appreciate it will not happen overnight. The anglers from the salmon and trout federation and the angling associations agreed with that proposition.
It is very important to note the contribution made by anglers to angling. Coming from County Cavan the Minister is very familiar with the level of contributions anglers make. I am talking in particular about the preparatory work which must be done in relation to the preparation of spawning beds, the purpose of fry, access to the lakes and the provision of fishing stands on lakes and rivers. All this work costs quite a lot of money and anglers make this voluntary contribution; they have never asked for a refund from the fishery boards and indeed have never got it. In addition, there are further contributions and restocking by the fishery boards. As a result, the two bodies have worked reasonably well over the years — this is more obvious in some areas than others — but there is room for improvement.
With regard to the proposal in relation to the development contribution, we are talking about the angling clubs making such a contribution to the fishery boards in the areas in which they operate. That contribution could take the form of cash or a contribution in kind. In most instances the angling clubs are making a contribution in kind far in excess of what a cash contribution could be. That will have to be taken into account.
The pollution which occured during the dispute was very obvious. Indeed, there was extensive pollution of lakes and rivers when the fishing stopped. It should be remembered that genuine anglers have an interest in having clear waters in our lakes and rivers. They closely monitor lakes and rivers and, if something is amiss, they are in a position to report on it quickly and to minimise the problems which arise. During the dispute the problems maximised rather than minimised; that is why we must take into account the contribution which anglers make in relation to the control of pollution on our rivers and lakes. It is a policing of sorts which must be recognised by the fishery boards and the Minister. We are making a specific proposal in relation to the development contribution by anglers, that it shall not, at any time, exceed one-eighth of the overall expenditure in the lake, river or angling club area.
It is important for the Minister to recognise this and to appreciate the work done by the anglers. Work has not been appreciated and cash is not everything. Work of the nature the anglers are doing in relation to what I have said must be accepted and value placed on it. I ask the Minister to look seriously at this amendment and if he cannot accept it at this stage of the debate perhaps he will consider bringing in on Report Stage something along that line.
As Deputy Barnes said, unless you have the full co-operation of the people on the ground and unless you repose some trust and confidence in them you are not going to get the best out of the people concerned. People who have an interest in fishing have a very high sense of responsibility towards society and the areas they live in and they recognise the value of the rivers and lakes for their community. Therefore, the Minister should not treat them almost as school children with everything being done at the order or dictation of the Minister. Things should be done in co-operation with the Department and the fishery board rather than by dictation from any layer of bureaucracy because people will not respond to that and it will not be in the best interests of developing the full potential of fishing. This Bill is doing everything in the long term to damage angling right across the country.
Co-operatives are grand if based on the principles expounded by Sir Horace Plunkett when he instituted them at the turn of the century. If these principles were still in place that would be very good for the country but recent developments have highlighted only too clearly how open co-operatives are to abuse, to purchase by interested parties and to take over. We have seen that in relation to the milk and beef industries. Do we now want to set up co-operatives in the fishing industry so that 20 years from now we can have a repetition of what has occurred in the beef and the dairy industries, with the private sector making a take over bid for a fishing co-operative? That is our fear on this side of the House. We believe that working through the angling clubs that are in existence at the moment is the best way possible for the securing of the existing fishing rights. We do not believe co-operatives will secure and protect the long term interests of fishing rights across the length and breadth of the country. While I appreciate the Minister's good intentions in the matter and the time and commitment he has given in attempting to resolve it since he took over as Minister for the Marine, we are concerned about the basic proposal of co-operatives because of the inherent danger of take-over in the long term and the resulting extinction of all fishing rights. No longer would we have the freedom to fish. The situation would be similar to that in Scotland and parts of England at the moment and fishing would become the pastime of the multi-millionaire class paying £3,000 a week to do so. We do not want fishing on the lakes and rivers here to involve colossal sums of money for people coming on holidays to fish or for the ordinary citizens of this country. There is an inherent danger in the Minister's proposal that this will happen.
I ask the Minister to look seriously at the amendments tabled by Deputy Barnes. They are sensible and community-oriented. They aspire to the co-operation and goodwill the Minister seeks through co-operatives without the dangers that co-operatives will pose in the long term. If he cannot accept the amendments now I hope he will bring in an amendment along these lines on Report Stage and accept the basic ethos behind what we are proposing.
I agree with what Deputy Taylor-Quinn and Deputy Barnes have said. We have established angling clubs and this should be given due consideration. If I may be parochial, I have no doubt the Minister remembers an opening ceremony at Garadice lake and the excellent work done there by the local angling club.
And the county development officer.
Yes, but also by the angling club. They made access to the lake very easy, helped in the erection of fishing stands and greatly improved fishing facilities there. The setting up of co-operatives will be unnecessary bureaucracy and we all as public representatives realise that the establishment of another layer of bureaucracy will have a detrimental effect.
It is a very happy coincidence that our spokesperson is Deputy Barnes who comes originally from the shores of Lough Arrow, which the Minister will know is by far the finest trout lake in the whole west——
The good woman comes from Kingscourt.
——irrespective of other claims about lakes in Galway and Mayo, so it is a happy coincidence that Deputy Barnes is leading for Fine Gael on this occasion.
A Deputy:
What about the Corrib?
This is accepted by fishermen who know, so Deputies who never fished do not know that. Fishermen are simple people who simply want to fish in peace and here the Minister has produced most complex legislation in order that they may do that. We all know the purpose of this legislation. It is in order that the Minister can retreat from an entrapped situation with some of his armoury. Fair enough, I know he generated this idea of co-operatives himself and he is very keen on it, but I know also that in this respect he has an open mind and if something better comes along he is willing to look at it and I am sure he will tell us so.
The various amendments put down by Deputy Barnes point the way and are very worthy of consideration. The angling clubs have done an enormous amount of work on Lough Arrow and all the lakes in the west and the lakes of Cavan and they deserve recognition for what has happened there. Any threat to their continued existence is a very serious matter for the whole fishing industry. The Minister should be very cautious about proceeding along the line he is following now. It is possible to meet at least some of the amendments put down here with advantage to the fishermen, which is a primary consideration of everyone here, and thus get us a better Bill. I think the Minister is trying to sort out the problem. In years to come the result may be that he has created a monster in the course of doing that.
As legislators here in Dáil Éireann we would do well to remember the old adage that no law is better than bad law. I think it is accepted that the 1987 Fisheries Act was bad law, but I fear that what we propose to replace it with is equally bad and unworkable. I appeal to the Minister to have another look at it. If we are to assume that the raison d'être for the original legislation was to safeguard the quality and quantity of angling opportunity, then if we were to go back to pre-1987 and concentrate our minds on introducing legislation for that purpose, would we embark on this bureaucracy of the co-operative movement being imposed on very strong and independent angling clubs who I think are being ignored, wrongly, by the Minister in his legislation? There is obviously an effort to save political face and back out with some degree of dignity from the farce of the 1987 legislation. We are seriously in danger of replacing that legislation with layers of bureaucracy which will entrap the spirit and the will of the anglers throughout Ireland and will eventually turn out to be as unworkable as the 1987 legislation. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the whole question of the co-operative concept.
The opinion of some of the contributors was ill-founded. I will proceed to explain why I think that is so. Section 1 defines terms which are of general application throughout the Bill. Particular attention in this regard should be paid to the definition of "share certificate" because a number of comments made by Members of the House so far would not have arisen if that definition had been attended to and absorbed. The definition was inserted on the advice of the Attorney General with a view to clarifying that possession of a share certicate did not confer any rights of ownership. Deputy Taylor-Quinn talked about the danger of people taking over the co-operatives. What are they taking over? They are taking over a co-operative which was set up to get funds to develop and protect our fisheries, so there is no question of big bad wolves of capitalists descending on us to purchase them. They will not purchase anything from which there is nothing to be got. Therefore, that particular canard can be shot down.
I will do a little tour through the contributions that were made on amendments Nos. 5, 7, 13, 23 and 26. The Attorney General's Office, which advises me with regard to legislation indicated that it was not necessary for the purpose of the Bill to have this definition. As well as that, in the context of the co-ops as laid down in the Bill my proposals refer to coarse and trout fisheries, not to salmon fisheries. Admittedly at the end of the Bill there are some liberal extensions of the salmon licensing system. Deputy Barnes in her amendment refers to salmon. It is inappropriate at the place and in that context. I cannot understand the references to bureaucracy in the case of co-operatives. The spirit of the co-operatives system — and my friends on the left should absorb this, if they know their left economic history — is such that in this country rural co-operatives have been far more important than town and city ones whereas in Britain the co-operatives in the towns and cities were more important. There is nothing as simple as the co-operatives' structure. I am afraid the word "bureaucracy" was imported by speakers here from other people who commented on the co-operative idea and who were opposed to the whole idea of it. In rural areas simply structured co-ops have been very effective and very successful in my part of the country for up to 100 years.
What about Lakelands?
Lakeland is not in my area but they are at the moment doing exceptionally well and are paying very good prices. The people are delighted with what is happening there as with what is happening with Killeshandra and Lough Egish. What I am saying is that co-ops are the essence of simplicity. Anybody who looks fairly and squarely at the co-operative system will have to agree with that. Various speakers referred to discussions. I had discussions with fishermen fisher women right across the line. I did not write the agenda. They wrote it and I followed it. I reject the suggestion that I made any attempt to inhibit discussion or to set an agenda or to confine discussion in my meetings with fishermen right up to and including last Friday. In fact, I used the agenda of the various fishery representatives and when the agenda had been dealt with I allowed any other points to be raised.
Great play was made about the interference by the Minister on the Second Stage debate. The same kind of tune was being played here. I thought I took on board a great deal of what was said on Second Stage. I was wondering whether I was living in the same world at all. I will just give the House an idea of some of the amendments I brought in rejecting powers that I was taking to myself on Second Stage. Amendments Nos. 11, 24, 34, 40 and 46 were introduced by me. Incidentally, somebody also said that angling should be defined. It is defined in the principal Act as amended by the Act of 1987. I also introduced amendments Nos. 29, 38 and 53 and various others. That is not an exhaustive list. I thought that somebody in the House might be fair minded enough to say that I had listened carefully to what was said and to accept that I had brought in amendments substantially changing the ministerial role in order to meet the wishes of the House. That did not happen, but one never despairs.
I reject the idea that Deputy Gilmore had that this was a substitute for the licence. It surprises me, coming from that source, that Deputy Gilmore did not have a deeper grasp of the whole idea of the co-operative system.
These are not co-operatives.
This amazes me. I met fishermen who said that they were anxious to contribute to the development and the protection of our fishery resource. Our fishery resource is, as Deputy Barnes said, a very significant one in our economy. This was an opportunity for people who said that they would not pay a licence fee but who did not object to making contributions. This was a vehicle which would provide them with an opportunity to make contributions for the purpose of preservation and development of fisheries and to have complete control themselves in these co-operatives.
The question of the role of the regional boards was raised. Their role is defined in the Bill. I think a very superficial reading of the Bill was evident from some of the contributions made.
The next point made was that it was a challenge to the freedom of people who want to fish. In fact, it provides them with an opportunity to develop the fisheries themselves and to make very important decisions about how the money would be spent and what developments would be made in consultation with the regional boards as defined in the Bill. Deputy McCormack in particular failed to grasp the essence of co-operation, and I am sorry to say that. He also got it wrong when he said angling clubs were not recognised, and some other Members said the same thing. Of course, the clubs are recognised; a reading of section 8 is a clear indication that they are recognised and that, through the arrangements in section 8, their contributions will be recognised.
I express the same surprise with regard to Deputy O'Sullivan's lack of understanding of what we are up to. It is not a bureaucracy; it is a vehicle to help people who are anxious to contribute. That is what they told me, and I believe them. They have been contributing in may ways to developments in their own areas and there is a framework there to enable them do that. I ask Deputies to please read carefully the amendments I put down because it is as plain as a pikestaff that I have taken on board the suggestions made on Second Stage and embodied them in those amendments.
I have consulted and listened to views, which sometimes were at variance and have had to make decisions between them but nobody can come into this House and say that the fishermen's various organisations were ignored because they were not. Careful note was taken of their contributions in putting this legislation together.
Deputy O'Sullivan made the point that the individual was not catered for. Let us take Seán de Brun from Cork who wants to fish, as an example. If the local co-operative decide by a 60 per cent majority that the share certificate is necessary before one can fish in that area, then Sean dé Brun will have to get a certificate, his teastas. However, if the local co-operative have decided it is not necessary then Sean dé Brun can fish. It is very simple. Therefore it is not true to say that the individual is not catered for.
Sean dé Brun cannot do it himself; he cannot go out and fish.
Of course he can.
He cannot.
He will have to pay for the certificate.
Only if the local co-operative say that and have asked the regional board.
They will dictate to him and decide whether he can or cannot fish.
The whole group decide that.
The individual is not catered for.
He is catered for; there is no question or doubt about it.
He cannot be prevented from fishing?
Two things have to happen——
Deputy, I will not allow you to interrupt the Minister.
I am glad because I did not interrupt once. The framework is there for that man, who, I expect if he is a fisherman, could be anxious to see the fishery developed and protected. In reply to Deputy Garland, there is a definition of "angling" in the Principal Act as amended by the 1987 Act.
I am delighted with the qualifications Deputy Kenny laid down for me, swan's neck — mine is a little to thick for that I think——
Graceful.
Water dog.
——something about a water dog — whether a spaniel or what I do not know — and a free thinking theologian. I hope to bring most of those to bear, except that I cannot aim at the gracefulness of the swan's neck. Deputy Kenny is anxious to ensure that funding will be available. I am convinced, having listened to fishermen since late 1989, of their bona fides that they are anxious to contribute. They have agreed with me the basic things in the Bill. I have consulted right across the board and taken hints and suggestions from people who, in many cases, were opposed to each other.
In reply to Deputy Taylor-Quinn, I have already mentioned that the amendments I have put down are very substantial. Almost every one of them — and I did not list them all — are in the realm of reducing ministerial powers. I am asking for an open-minded assessment of the amendments by Members to reduce ministerial powers and interference. The Deputy referred to the 12 Apostles — I will come back to this matter again — but, if I took her up right, she indicated, that they had agreed to the Fine Gael amendment. I am amazed by that. I think the 12 Apostles is a suitable enough name as a good few of them were good fishermen; but I am amazed at Deputy Taylor-Quinn's suggestion that one of the amendments with which I will deal in a moment was agreed with the people she called the 12 Apostles.
I have already dealt with her suggestion that I put any limit on discussions. That is not so. We followed the agenda provided by the various fishermen's groups and there was an open "any other business section" at the end of each discussion. I want to put that on the record of the House. She also mentioned the number of co-operatives. This question was also discussed with the fishermen's representatives. She said that the contributions of the clubs were being ignored, that is not so. Even a superficial reading of section 8 would indicate that. There is no way they are being told what to do.
Deputy Reynolds outlined what is being done by the clubs, which I accept. As he said, I had the privilege of opening one of their prime achievements in the Garadice area of County Leitrim, shortly to be linked by the canal with Ballyconnell and Enniskillen.
Deputy Nealon averred that fishermen were simple people and that, somehow or other, we were frustrating their simplicity. I know Deputy Nealon is a communicator. There is nothing complex about a co-operative society. It is a vehicle through which the fishermen can do what they told me they wanted to do — make contributions to the development of fisheries. I do not think Deputy Nealon read the Bill. If he had done so he would not have made the statement that the clubs were being ignored. The word "bureaucracy" was trotted out, a word which I cannot associate with the scheme I have outlined to the House and incorporated in the Bill.
We are discussing together amendments Nos. 7, 13, 23 and 26. Amendment No. 7, taken with amendments Nos. 13, 25 and 26, seeks to require all angling clubs to register on an annual basis with the regional fisheries board and to pay a development contribution to the board. This principle is the direct opposite of the one on which I have been working. It is entirely foreign to the ideas underlying my proposals and consequently I cannot accept it. I gathered from Deputy Taylor-Quinn that she was indicating that fishermen's representatives had accepted the idea that the clubs should be registered on an annual basis with the regional fisheries board and that they should pay a development contribution to the board. They never told me that, hinted at it or implied it. This comes as a complete surprise to me.
A development contribution comes as a surprise?
It is a surprise to me to hear from Deputy Taylor-Quinn that this principle was accepted by the 12 apostles representing some of the fishermen. They never once hinted to me that they would accept that principle. The principle which I was advancing was totally different and based on co-operation, people working together for a common cause. All involved in fisheries have a common cause, namely the development and protection of fisheries.
I thank the Minister for the strength of his response. I have noted that in certain parts of the Bill the Minister has gone some way towards removing some of the intervention or has provided that intervention may take place with the agreement of the societies. I still hold with the traditional co-operation and interdependence of fishermen and women vis-á-vis the regional boards. I take the point that the regional boards and the angling clubs are already defined in the Bill. The core of my argument is that they are set up already and have been working. The impetus given by this legislation will enable them to continue to work together.
I want to highlight some of the thinking underlying the amendments which we have tabled. We already have an existing co-operative structure which could be worked upon rather than creating a whole new structure. It could integrate all the members and carry on development work on the expansion and protection of fisheries. Another structure is not needed. I note that the Minister has tempered some of the sections which provide that the societies shall make their decisions in co-operation with him. There are still unnecessary requirements imposed by the Minister with regard to the running of the co-operatives. For instance, the Minister may appoint persons to fill vacancies among the trustees and may remove any trustee from office.
There is a problem with regard to the casual fisherman or woman who is not a year-round angler but likes to spend the odd afternoon fishing. We believe that year-round anglers who are truly committed will be members of an existing angling club. A society when it is set up within a region could decide by 40 per cent of the vote whether Séan de Brún can or cannot go fishing. A more acceptable arrangement would be to accept that the categories already specified in the Bill would be free to fish anyway. I refer to those under the age of 18, the disabled and the unemployed. It is hoped that tourists will pay part of the development fee through Bord Fáilte.
I hope angling clubs will be well enough acquainted with their area to know who is or is not a casual fisher and whether he or she can afford to become a member of the club. I am worried that the shareholders in the society may have a certain level of income and may seek to make impositions on a person who would not share the same income level. A type of discrimination could develop if societies imposed strict entry requirements. Many clubs have the right to decide who can or cannot become a member and they can actually exclude more than they include. I know the Minister, being a democratic Cavan man, would not like to believe that these voting powers could be used against the casual fisher, man or woman. We will have to look at this much more closely. My argument is that angling clubs as they are presently organised operate on a local level and know their own area and they would know on whom the demand that they become members of the angling club should be made and on the other hand they could always use their discretion where they felt that it should not be imposed. What we are trying to do — and I know the Minister is trying to do the same too — is to leave the rivers and lakes as open as possible for the leisure and pleasure of people while at the same time making a rightful demand on the people who use them widely or those who can afford to contribute to their development, and I include visitors and tourists in that.
I wish to pay tribute to the Minister for taking some of our points on board. He has now diluted some of his powers, or in fact shared them with the co-operative societies.
I have got rid of them.
The Minister said that traditionally a co-operative society was able to operate on its own and within its own shareholdings. Everybody in this House knows that when a co-operative is working to the ideal on which it was based, it is a tremendous concept but we are all well aware that when something of value has been developed by the shared co-operation of members of a co-operative over the years bids can be made for it. The Minister may suggest, and I can understand why, that we are not dealing with ownership, as for instance in the case of co-operatives we are most familiar with such as dairy co-operatives. However, I still believe that the structure we proposed of angling clubs under the direction of regional boards and under national boards do not provide the same opportunities for people to make bids or to use block voting to manipulate the situation. Membership may or may not be voted upon, indeed the running of clubs may be voted on. Having a vote confers power as well as tremendous responsibility. We know that when people enter into voting blocks, they can manipulate the situation and they could discriminate or exclude persons, in a way that the Minister would not wish, nor indeed would any of us in this House. That is the reason I still ask why we cannot operate and build on the structures that are already in place?
There were a couple of remarks made by the Minister during the course of his reply which I would like to take issue with——
More power to you.
——particularly his assertion that in this corner of the House at any rate there seemed to be some lack of understanding of the nature of co-operatives. I do not think it is sufficient for the Minister to call down the spirit of the co-operative movement and to appeal to the memory of its founders to justify what is in the Bill. A co-operative is not a co-operative simply because you call it a co-operative. The institutions that are being established under this Bill are far from co-operatives. As I understand the nature of a co-operative, first it has to be voluntary and these are not voluntary bodies.
They are agreed.
These are bodies that are established under section 4 by ministerial order.
By agreement.
Most co-operatives, as I understand them, and the whole idea of the co-operative movement was that co-operatives would establish their own rules for the governing of their own business. Section 5 of this Bill has the Minister writing the rules for the co-operatives.
Agreeing the rules.
Section 5 (1) states:
the Minister may make rules for the regulations of societies and such rules shall constitute the rules of each society from its establishment.
and on it goes to detail chapter and verse, the kind of rules the Minister can make for the alleged co-operatives.
They are agreed.
I do not see agreed. Co-operatives, as I understand them, appoint their own boards of management or their own committees but in this particular case the Minister lands into the middle of the board of the co-operative his own appointees. Whatever these bodies are, they certainly are not co-operatives. They are in my opinion extensions of the arm of the Minister in order to collect funds at local level and in order to make charges at local level which the direct rod licence approach was not successful in doing.
Simplistic.
This is what it comes down to. I can understand only too well the difficulties the Minister found himself in when he inherited legislation which had become unworkable and where he had to negotiate his way out of it and establish a formula in order to save face while at the same time putting in place a mechanism for collecting moneys, because that is what the rod licence was in the first place. It was a mechanism for collecting money because the Government were, at the same time, cutting back on the level of contribution that they were making to the regional fisheries boards. The Minister in his introductory speech on Second Stage made it very clear that the dual purpose of this legislation was to replace the rod licence while at the same time providing a mechanism for the collection of money and the mechanism for doing this is these bodies which the Minister now calls co-operatives. The amendments he referred to make some marginal changes in the degree of influence that he has over these bodies but in many respects the changes are for the worse.
The Minister mentioned earlier the right of a co-operative to decide by a 60 per cent vote to prevent anybody who does not hold a share certificate from fishing or to require people, if they want to fish to hold a share certificate. One of the amendments he is proposing and to which he referred is an amendment which would take out of the Bill the right of the society to rescind that 60 per cent vote so that once the 60 per cent vote is taken, up comes the ladder and it cannot be rescinded. I do not regard that as improving the situation at all. Deputy Barnes's amendment, as I understand it, is an attempt to put the angling clubs in the driving seat that would otherwise be occupied by the co-operatives. I can see that that is an improvement on what the Minister is seeking. I can understand that an arrangement whereby the angling clubs have a direct relationship with the regional boards and work out arrangements for development contributions and so on is preferable to an arrangement whereby that would be done through the co-operatives.
However, I am still concerned about where that leaves the individual, the notorious Seán de Brun, who might want to spend his Sunday afternoon on the riverbank. Seán de Brun has a long history. Seán de Brun very strongly resisted, down through the years. He could not fish in certain rivers and lakes because the fishing rights were owned by absentee landlords and he resisted the rod licence when it was imposed. I believe that Seán de Brun will resist a demand that he have a share certificate in his hand or pocket in order to go for his Sunday afternoon's fishing. Equally I believe — and this is my principal reservation with regard to Deputy Barnes' amendment — he would resist a situation where, over the course of time, an angling club which would establish rights to the fishing in a particular river or lake or wherever would make rules or require that Seán de Brun, in order to fish, would have to be a member of an angling club. I do not believe we can allow ourselves to get into that situation. This row about the rod licence arose primarily because it was seen as an assault on a traditional freedom. We have to be very sensitive and very careful about the traditional freedom of the individual in this area. It would be wrong to restrict that unnecessarily.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I would take issue with his definition of co-operative. I spent all my working life in co-operatives and I know a fair bit about the co-operative movement. The Minister is saying that a co-operative would be set up solely to get funds to develop the fisheries. The same thing could be achieved through the fishing clubs. They are in place and can get funds to develop a resource. The Minister says a co-operative is a structure set up to get money to develop a resource. Of course that is what a co-operative is, but a co-operative, according to the Minister's Bill, is a different thing altogether. In this Bill the question of the Minister's controlling interest is mentioned 16 times. I appreciate the Minister's concessionary amendments but I would like to know in how many of these amendments it is proposed to reduce the control of the Minister. I will leave that to the Minister to answer.
Co-operatives are usually registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies, Hume Street, under the Department of Industry and Commerce. Where will this new co-operative be registered? Will there be a new centre set up for registering co-operatives? How is a fisheries matter to be brought into the Department of Industry and Commerce? Will we set up two different societies for the registering of co-operatives if we proceed with the idea of establishing a co-operative in the fisheries area? This would have repercussions outside this Bill for the future of co-operatives. We would have two separate Departments dealing with co-operatives. How would we avoid the complication of co-operatives with similar names being registered with different societies? I would like the Minister to address those points.
Would the Minister agree that there has been an extraordinary amount of effort on the part of all concerned to get us back to the pre-1987 situation where we had free fishing on the lakes with clubs contributing to the development of the lakes which they were quite willing to do? Is this not an extraordinary way to try to amend the legislation that was so hurriedly introduced in 1987? The more this goes on the more merit there must be in the idea of scrapping the whole thing.
I said a few words in response to the Minister's challenge on Second Stage when he asked for a reply to his poem. I remember at the time saying to the Minister something that is more true now than it was then. I said:
There was a Minister for the Marine
Who got caught in a net unforeseen.
The net spread so wide,
He could not avoid
Amending the rod licence scheme.
Did that win the book token?
No, that did not win the book token. My colleague, Deputy Browne, who has just come in, won the book token.
Deputy, you would put me very much at ease if you would relate your poetic utterance or doggerel to some particular amendment before the House.
Of course I can, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because the net has now spread so wide that the Minister cannot avoid amending the rod licence scheme. However, I submit that he is not going the right way about it. That is how I can relate my limerick to the debate and the amendment that we are now pursuing. I would suggest that the repercussions of setting up a co-operative as a solution to their licence problem would go far beyond what the Minister says. In regard to getting people back out to fish on the lakes with as little restriction as possible, while at the same time taking up the offer of the angling clubs to contribute to the development and running of the lakes, this is an extraordinary way to go about that. An extraordinary amount of effort is being put in by the Minister, and I acknowledge that. He is not getting very much help from his colleagues. The Progressive Democrats have not appeared in the Chamber since the debate on Committee Stage began. I find that a little disturbing. One of their Members in my constituency took a great interest in going out on the lake when we thought we had a settlement to the dispute. I would like him to come in and give the Minister a hand now in what he is trying to do.
I should like to say at the outset that I reject completely what the Minister said about the co-operative movement and that our people here do not know how it operates. I should like to point out very clearly to the Minister that we know quite an amount about the co-operative movement, credit unions and many other things of that nature. Some of us have been involved with them all our lives. I am not the person who is talking about the bureaucracy, the confusion, the doubts or the fears which people have expressed. The Minister himself has received the submissions.
On section 4, the submission states with regard to the appointment of trustees, the societies must have an input into this area. this requires clarification. On section 5 the submissions states that it is essential that there should be an input and further consultation with anglers before formalising these rules. Also in relation to section 5, it is stated that this section has to be further clarified and enlarged upon. This shows that the co-operative rules are a fundamental part of the scheme and must be drawn up. These people have made umpteen submissions to the Minister, which they have given to me and to every other person in the House who would listen to them. For my part I am not confused about it. I can see the enormous dangers. At this stage I hope the Minister recognises the genuine fears and in the Sean de Brún case he has clearly put my point into perspective. A man who goes out on a Sunday afternoon on the River Lee or the Blackwater with his young son for an afternoon's pastime could be prevented from fishing under the provisions of the legislation before us today.
Having listened to the debate and having studied the Bill and the amendments I am still not convinced that the Minister has got it right. The Fine Gael amendment is a major improvement on what the Minister has said but I am still not satisfied with it. The thrust of my argument was to take this Bill out of circulation, repeal the law, cut our losses and let us go back to prior 1987 when the Labour Party at that time saw the dangers and voted against the Bill. At this stage it is essential that that message should go out from this House because under the provisions of the amendments problems will arise. If the Minister pushes his Bill through the House there will be further confusion and there will be a backlash from the people who will be denied the right to fish in the manner in which they have fished for many generations. I must put it on the record of the House that we are going down a very dangerous road because I foresee dangers from both sides — the club preventing the individual and the Minister's co-operatives which are not the issue.
I appeal to the Minister to go back and look at the submissions given to him, to me, to Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Barnes regarding the confusion as regards the co-operatives. The rules and regulations governing the co-operatives are stringent, and the Minister's heavy hand is in each one of them. I have never seen a co-operative movement where a Minister came along and made certain rules and regulations governing the whole lot. That is not how a co-operative operates and I am sure the Minister knows that. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment in the name of Deputy Barnes.
I agree totally with Deputy O'Sullivan's remarks. Even at this late stage I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this Bill. It is an absolute disaster from start to finish. It will not work and it will not receive the co-operation of the angling interests or the ordinary people in the west. It is a non starter and, as Deputy O'Sullivan said, let us cut our losses and start again.
I must contribute at this stage in view of the Minister's response to part of my original contribution in relation to the amendments. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in case you take a fit of panic, I am dealing with the amendments before us.
If the Deputy's conscience is troubling her she should wait and then I will tell her. Do not anticipate.
I anticipate because the furrow on your forehead is usually indicative of what is to follow.
I would advise the Deputy not to resurrect John Brown.
John Brown's body lies a moulding in the grave.
I want to deal first and foremost with the fact that the Minister had never heard of a development contribution in the course of discussions and negotiations. I admit to being amazed that he did not have a discussion in relation to a development contribution by the angling clubs to the fishery boards. If the Minister looked at the file on the entire rod licence dispute he would find that matter was dealt with extensively by his predecessor.
That is water under the bridge as far as I am concerned.
It is relevant. In effect, perhaps he could say he has attempted to copy the proposals put forward by Fine Gael in 1988-89 in relation to resolving the problem.
That would not solve them.
Had he copied them totally he might come up with an effective solution. He has proposed the setting up of co-operatives which is not an effective solution. In the course of his response he referred to the fact that he had not heard of a development contribution and that in fact, the idea of angling clubs paying a development contribution to the boards was the opposite to what he endeavoured to achieve. He suggested he endeavoured to achieve goodwill, co-operation, comhar na gcomharsan. As other speakers have said there is nothing in the Bill to suggest co-operation. To suggest that there is co-operation at this point, or indeed at any point, is misleading because the Bill specifically dictates and orders saying that the Minister by direction shall do this, that and the other. I have studied the amendments to see where the powers of the Minister are diminished or deleted but in no section in relation to the co-operatives have I seen deletion of the powers of the Minister. The only move that has been made is in relation to section 4 — which we are not dealing with at present — where the Minister proposes the deletion of subsection (2). In relation to subsection (3), the Minister's proposed amendment is only a minor detail where he suggests that the words "after such investigation or inquiry as he thinks fit," be inserted after "may". Everything is to be done by order and there is no such thing as co-operation as suggested, it is all ministerial diktat.
I am surprised the Minister should say he had not heard of the development contribution or anything down that line and that the development contribution was a complete antithesis to what has been proposed in the Bill. That is misleading. Not only is the Minister not proposing an angling club development contribution but he has specifically directed in the Bill that a share certificate shall be purchased and he has put prices on the various share certificates which shall be purchased by the various people who want to be shareholders in a co-operative. Where is the co-operation? There is no co-operation, it is dictation all the way.
In relation to the Sean de Brún case about which Deputy Gilmore and Deputy G. O'Sullivan are concerned we, too, on this side of the House are extremely concerned about that case. That is why we have brought forward amendments which would try to accommodate as far as possible the wishes of the angling clubs and also the individual. At present angling clubs and fishery boards exist but that does not prevent Sean de Brún from going out fishing. Under these amendments we propose, if a similar situation were to exist, where there are angling boards, angling clubs and fishery boards that Sean de Brún would still be able to go out and do his fishing. Most of the people who go fishing and are not involved in angling clubs are young people. I have never heard of members of angling clubs interfering with young people who want to fish. The other people who fish are anglers who come to the country on angling holidays. When booking their holiday the various angling interests would be prepared to make a contribution through Bord Fáilte, towards angling in Ireland.
Most people are involved in angling clubs of some shape or form. Even in areas where there are no angling clubs people fish in the local rivers.
We have an opportunity here to ensure that goodwill and reason supersede bureaucracy. I hope the Minister appreicates that the amendments from this side of the House have not happened by chance. As I have stated, these amendments were put down after discussions, negotiations and regular contact with the various interest groups. This formula was regarded as the best suited to resolving the overall problems.
I appeal to the Minister to accept the sincerity of the contributions of Deputies on this side of the House. The genuine concerns referred to by us reflect the concerns felt by many people throughout the country. We had a serious shemozzle three years ago and we do not need a repeat of that. I appeal to the Minister to take on board the sincere views expressed by Members on this side of the House.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Stafford, John.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 2, lines 29 and 30, to delete "on such day as the Minister by order appoints" and substitute "not later than the 30th of April, 1991.".
Everybody in this House, and outside, who has ever fished, and even those who live with people who indulge in, particularly mayfly fishing, knows the first days of May are most important. People living in areas where the mayfly rises send messages to anglers to come and fish. I know the Minister, and everybody, will appreciate why it is of the utmost importance that the Bill is passed quickly. I hope it will be a constructive Bill that takes into account the concerns of everybody, particularly Deputy O'Sullivan. Fishers, men and women, realise the mayfly rises only for a limited period and at no definite time.
It is of the utmost importance that this legislation is passed and that fishermen are satisfied with it as they embark on one of the most important fishing seasons of the year. Apart from mayfly fishing, which is one of the great celebrations for all fishing people, we are also aware that, in those early months, a tremendous number of tourists come to this country. I hope they will be able to participate in fishing and that our tourist season will begin in early May.
I put it to the Minister and the House that the date for the Bill to be enacted should not be later than 30 April 1991.
I agree with Deputy Barnes because it is very important for the Bill to be enacted by 30 April. In relation to the last Bill, unfortunately Bord Fáilte produced brochures saying that there was free fishing in Ireland. Indeed, a number of people in the tourist industry went to the Continent and to England trying to attract tourists here. Although a licence was required to fish, the Board Fáilte brochures said that fishing was free.
I am sure the Minister will agree that free fishing is one of our major tourist benefits. It is very important for people in the tourist industry to know where they stand because, with the shortfall in tourists from America, it is vitally important to have an increase in tourists from continental Europe and Britain. If there is active and aggressive promotion by people interested in coarse fishing it will pay dividends because it is the one area in which we can dramatically increase the number of tourists. That is why this legislation should be enacted before 30 April.
I also agree with the point Deputy Barnes made in relation to mayfly fishing. There is great interest in mayfly fishing in parts of my constituency and, as Deputy Nealon said, Lough Arrow is one of the best — if not the best — trout fishing lakes in the country. Many people are waiting, with bated breath, to see whether this legislation will be in place before the season opens.
I agree with the sentiments behind this amendment as it is desirable that the legal position regarding fishing should be regularised as quickly as possible. It should, ideally, be put in place in time for the mayfly season. However, I am not optimistic. If this were simply legislation repealing the 1987 and simply abolishing the rod licence, it could get quick passage through the House — and the Seanad — and could be in place by the end of April. Unfortunately, that is not the case; parts of this legislation are quite complex, others controversial. At the rate of progress today, it will take some time for the legislation to be teased out on Committee Stage and Report Stage and then sent to the Seanad. The House will rise on 22 March, I understand, there are the Easter holidays and, in between, we will have to debate the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill. In addition, the whole system of local government must be reorganised in time for the local elections to go ahead in June. Quite honestly, I cannot see this Bill being enacted by the end of April. Regrettably, we will be going into another tourist season with a highly ambiguous situation in regard to fishing, where legislation is in place, and the best that can be done is for the enforcers of the legislation to turn a blind eye to it. While I agree, as I said, with the sentiments I am not optimistic that the target can be met.
I disagree with this amendment. The Bill, as I said earlier, is a total disaster and the sooner it is out of this House the better. If Deputy Barnes had the year 2091 in mind — not 1991 — I would agree with her, otherwise I will oppose the amendment and the section.
Normally I would not oppose the Minister's right to bring in legislation as he sees fit because, taking everything into consideration, it is something we would allow him to do. However, there is urgency attached to this legislation as many people have the threat of court proceedings and imprisonment hanging over their heads. There is confusion in other countries regarding whether people can fish here and that is why putting a time constraint on the Minister to bring in legislation is so urgent. Prior to Christmas, we got the impression that the legislation would be introduced early in the year and that we would probably be well on the way to having it finalised before the Easter recess. However, it appears as if it will be a long time before the Bill is finalised. That is why there is a degree of urgency attached to putting a date for having the Bill finalised.
I support Deputy Barnes's amendment for reasons which have been clearly outlined to the House. The most compelling one is that the mayfly season starts on 1 May, the beginning of serious angling right across the country. There are difficulties so far as anglers and tourists are concerned. There are also difficulties for business people whose livelihoods are involved and, for that reason, there is a need to regularise the matter. In addition, there is the extraordinary situation where there is legislation in existence which is the law of the land and which has never been repealed by this House although suggestions were made over a year ago that this should be done. However, technically speaking, it is still on the Statute Book and is the law of the land. Quite a number of people across the country — particularly in the west — have summonses hanging over their heads, I understand that many chief superintendents in the Garda have summonses ready to be issued but are not sure whether they should do so. They are in a dilemma as they want to ensure that law and order are observed but they do not know their position. The poor unfortunates who are supposed to have broken the law, which is now on the shelf, do not know whether they will be before the courts for breach of the law.
This matter will not be sorted out until proper legislation is put through this House to resolve it. I compliment Deputy Barnes on tabling this amendment which is wise and appropriate. If the Minister and his Department recognised the seriousness with which this side of the House view the matter he would take on board some of our suggestions and amendments. The matter could be very quickly and readily resolved and peace and normality could be restored by 30 April — before 1 May and the mayfly. Maybe the Minister cannot accept the amendments now because he wants to be in a position to consider very seriously Report Stage amendments being tabled by this side of the House, and he will have to consult seriously with this Department. If he cannot accept the amendments it would be good to think that that might be one of his reasons.
Deputy Michael Creed is offering. I ask the Deputy to move to report progress.
I move.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.