Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1991

Vol. 409 No. 2

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, to delete lines 28 and 29, and substitute the following:

"2.—(1) Section 3 of this Act shall come into operation immediately.

(2) All other sections of this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister by order appoints and such day shall not be earlier than 1st July, 1992.".

On Committee Stage we spent a lot of time arguing that the Bill before us is not just a Bill to abolish the rod licence, which proposal is contained in section 3, but that it is also a Bill which proposes to bring in by the backdoor another charge for fishing through the establishment of so-called fishery co-operatives, enabling those co-operatives to charge a share certificate for people who want to fish and on top of that, enabling them to make rules which would exclude individual citizens who have not purchased a share certificate from fishing our rivers and lakes.

On Committee Stage my colleagues and I argued that the Bill should end at section 3 and pleaded with the Minister to withdraw the rest of it until such time as further consideration had been given to it. However, he declined to do this. We then went through each section, teased them and pointed out that since the average citizen would have to pay for the privilege of fishing in our rivers and lakes, the principle about which we had the rod licence dispute would not be resolved in this Bill as people would still have to pay to fish. We lost that battle.

I am attempting to do two things in my amendment. As it stands at present, the Bill will come into operation on such day as the Minister, by order, appoints. There are two very distinct sets of provisions in the Bill, one of which is contained in section 3 which proposes to abolish the rod licence. My amendment provides that section 3 shall come into operation immediately. This would be desirable as we now have to deal with a very ambiguous situation where the 1987 Act is still in force, where, theoretically, fishery officers are required under that Act to implement it and somebody going out to fish is required to hold a rod licence, but, in practice, the Minister has made some kind of a nod and wink arrangement with the fishing community and fishery boards to the effect that they should ignore the 1987 Act and not insist on people holding rod licences. That is undermining the status of legislation which is passed by this House and the enforcement of law generally. It is not desirable that a situation should be prolonged whereby in theory you are required to hold a rod licence but in practice you do not need to have it, so let us bring section 3 of the legislation into effect immediately.

The establishment of fishery co-operatives by their very nature will take some time. The Minister will have to draw up draft rules for them and he will have to make the order which will bring the so-called fishery co-operatives into being. They will then have to be formed, elections held and that inevitably will take a certain amount of time. A certain period should elapse before the fishery co-operatives come into effect because there is a need for some further reflection on what kind of rules they will have. On Committee Stage the Minister gave an indication that at this stage we might have received copies of the draft rules he was proposing for the fishery co-operatives. To date we have not received them. It is desirable therefore that a period should elapse before these bodies are brought into being so that everybody knows where they stand.

My amendment proposes that the remainder of the Act which deals essentially with the co-operatives be brought into effect not earlier than 1 July 1992; in other words I am talking about a period of 12 months. That is not unreasonable. In practice it will take that length before these bodies are up and running and the time could very usefully be used in preparing the groundwork for them. Essentially, I am making two proposals in the amendment: first, the immediate abolition of the rod licence in order that people can go out once this Bill is passed and signed to fish without a rod licence; and, second, that a period should elapse which could usefully be used in preparation for the setting up of these bodies. I am suggesting a breathing space of about one year. That is a very reasonable proposition, which I ask the Minister to accept.

Mrs. Barnes

This is an eminently sensible amendment and as a legislator the Minister might appreciate, in so far as Deputy Gilmore has pointed out that section 3 would come into operation immediately. As legislators we have expressed our concern here about the no man's land or limbo in which people find themselves at present regarding their right to fish, and whether the licences are operable. In that clear still light — which I know is not good for fishing — the Minister would then have the time and the opportunity to bring in the rules and regulations and to allow the shareholders and the fishery co-operatives to be established.

I note from the debate on Committee Stage that the Minister said he would do his best to have draft rules and regulations circulated before Report Stage because they are fundamental to the concerns of everybody in the House regarding the setting up of the co-operatives and the way in which they will be run and established. As noted by Deputy Gilmore the Minister does not seem to have been able to produce those draft rules and regulations as of now. The Minister and his Department must ensure that they are devised and developed in the best possible way without pressure within that time limit. It would also enable the Minister and his Department to have full information and knowledge available to the angling clubs to sort out all the difficulties and differences we tried to tease out on Committee Stage. Above all, the setting up and registering of these co-operatives and the development of the shareholdings will take time.

Now that the deadline of 30 April which I had put down in my previous amendment to include this year's May Fly fishing has passed and we are into the tourist and angling season which we all worry about with regard to giving freedoms and rights to anglers for this year, the amendment, if accepted, would allow the Minister an opportunity to bring in the rules and regulations and have them discussed here before he gives them to the co-operatives and the interested groups outside. It would be an acknowledgement of the concern and interest expressed on this Bill both inside and outside this House. I would commend the Minister for giving himself and ourselves that breathing space.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I support this important amendment. It complements a previous amendment I had put down on Committee Stage. The present situation is financial. People are out fishing with no licences, for whatever reason, because the Minister has turned a blind eye to the rod licence issue. It is no longer relevant. In fairness to everyone a law that is no longer relevant should be repealed immediately. The amendment seeks to deal with the Gilbertian situation: laws exist, nobody abides by the law, everyone is out fishing and there are contests all over the country and no one seems to care anymore about rod licences. The sooner we get this matter rectified the better for everyone.

It is incredible that since 17 December 1987 we have been fooling around with this bad legislation because that is what it was the first day. We were told that in this House. We voted against it but it was brought in and we knew it would never be activated. No one seems to know the correct situation. People are asking whether they should have a rod licence; strictly speaking the answer is yes but the reality is that it is not necessary. Every day of the week people pass by my house with their rods going off fishing. It is a great joke with them because they say: "Gerry, what are you doing up there wasting your time?" At the start we tried to bring this into line with the present position by getting rid of the rest of the Bill and getting us back to where we were in 1987 by saying this is what we want, this is the situation that has caused all the problems, without going into details on the co-operatives. I am aware the Minister did not give us any leeway whatsoever. He put the boot in on a few occasions and said he was adamant that it was going through. I still have grave reservations about the legislation governing the rod licence. If this amendment were accepted and implemented immediately we would have redeemed ourselves somewhat in the eyes of the public. Even through I would still have reservations at least it would show that this House has some control over the matter. At present fishery board officers do not know what to do. They do not know whether or not to implement the law. The Minister should consider the amendment very carefully. If it is accepted this House will be seen to be doing something about the present position. We discuss this issue month after month knowing that the position outside is farcical.

I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. We are at the height of the fishing season and in every pub in the country angling contests are advertised. The position in regard to licences is a standing joke and this House is being brought into disrepute. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and then we can consider the rest of the legislation.

Mr. McCormack

I appeal to the Minister to face up to the position which now prevails, through no fault of his. For the past year it has been the law that a person who wants to fish should have a rod licence but the Minister announced one year ago that the rod licence was to be abolished. We are now in the final stages of abolishing that licence officially and setting up co-operatives. When this Bill becomes law we will not immediately be able to replace the rod licence with co-operatives. Let us not continue with the farce that has gone on for three years. I often heard of a three act comedy but this has been a three year farce. A year ago we were told we could not abolish the rod licence because amending legislation would not be introduced but today we are discussing the final Stages of amending legislation. As a citizen I believe there should be no rod licence. We are legislating here to replace the rod licence with another system. We should not carry the farce any further.

In this Bill we are introducing co-operatives in place of the rod licence, and anglers can pay their contribution through the co-operatives. While we are awaiting the setting up of the co-operatives the rod licence should be abolished by this legislation so that the farce will not continue. As Deputy O'Sullivan and people like myself who come from an angling area will know, there are many anglers on the lakes at present. Headford and Oughterard are full of anglers anxious to fish. The law is an ass in that these people are fishing without licences even though the law states that they must have a licence to fish. None of us wants to see this position continuing and, therefore, we should adopt this amendment.

Mr. Garland

Looking back at the debate on this provision on Committee Stage none of us got it right. As Deputy Gilmore said, there are two entirely different matters being dealt with under this Bill: one is the abolition of the rod licence and the other is the introduction of the so-called co-operatives. Much of the debate on Committee Stage was misguided because we were talking about two entirely different matters and trying to set the most suitable date for them. This amendment offers a solution to the problem. The Minister will agree we should get rid of the rod licence immediately so that the anglers will know where they stand.

One could argue about the best date for the implementation of the other provisions of the Bill. Deputy Gilmore, in his amendment, suggested 1 July 1992 and I accept that. It could be 1 June 1992 or 1 August 1992; nobody will argue about that. The Deputy is trying to establish a very important principle, that the co-operatives will not be up and running for some time. I suspect that if the Minister does not accept this amendment we will have to consider what is in section 2. That section simply states that the Act will come into operation on such a date as the Minister by order appoints. It will be some months before the Minister so appoints because he is not addressing this matter in the right way. He is trying to deal with two entirely different matters. I will be interested to hear his reply.

The Minister may argue that it is essential that the rod licence be substituted by the co-operatives, that the rod licence be abolished at the same time as the setting up of the co-operatives, but that is not a good argument. Let us abolish the rod licence now once and for all and if we need these wretched co-operatives, as the Minister suggests we do, let us bring them in on 1 July next year or some other suitable date some time from now.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Wilson)

The Bill, and this section as an integral part of it, is a cohesive whole. I worked out a set of proposals punctiliously, and fine-tuned them as part of a package. I promised this House, and the various interests, that this legislation would be on the Statute Book and the co-operatives would be in action at an early date, and I have committed myself to that. Deputy Gilmore referred to a nod and wink, but I reject his suggestion. I was going to say I resent it but that is not a very productive emotion. I would like the House to know that I seldom nod and for many years I have been economical with the wink.

Mr. McCormack

A bow.

Mr. Wilson

The calends of July are too far away for my acceptance. People who say we will not be able to get the co-operatives on the road, so to speak, are under-estimating us. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

I am very disappointed first to hear that the Minister has given up winking.

Mr. Wilson

I said I was economical with the wink. It is not quite the same thing.

Mr. Gilmore

Secondly, I am disappointed he is not accepting the amendment. I am not hung up on 1 July 1992.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister could set an earlier date.

Mr. Gilmore

If the Minister has an earlier date in mind I would be happy to agree to it if that is what is required. There are two issues involved in this amendment, the first being the question of the immediate abolition of the rod licence. The Minister in his reply gave no indication as to when he proposes to bring the Act into operation. It is most desirable that the section of the Bill dealing with the abolition of the rod licence is brought into effect immediately. As Deputy McCormack said, the position has prevailed for three years whereby the legislation states that people going out to fish are supposed to have a rod licence, but in practice they do not have one, and nothing has been done about it. The House is now passing legislation that, among other things, abolishes rod licences. That should be put in place immediately so that people fishing this season will be put on side — in practice they do not have a rod licence and nobody expects them to have one, nor does the law expect them to have one. That is what I am trying to achieve in the first part of the amendment.

In his reply the Minister said the Bill comes as a cohesive whole, that it is a package. I know it was negotiated as a package but in practice it cannot be implemented as a package because it will take some time to establish the co-operatives. Realistically, I do not see them being established inside a year, but I am open to persuasion on that point.

It is not desirable to leave the abolition of rod licences until such time as the co-operatives are established unless, as I suspected at the very beginning, the Bill is not about the abolition of rod licences but is simply about replacing them, and the Minister in wanting to keep the legislation as a cohesive whole does not want to put an interval between the legislative abolition of the rod licences and the introduction of the payment of share certificates because he simply wants to replace one form of payment with another. I suspect that the Minister is afraid that if he does abolish rod licences by the passage of this Bill and allows time to elapse before the establishment of the so-called co-operatives and people are asked to pay for share certificates, the concept may never get off the ground and his whole purpose in the Bill, which is to replace rod licences with some other form of payment, will be thwarted. I suspect that is the reason the Minister is opposed to this amendment.

I intend to put the amendment to the House. Quite honestly — and I ask the Minister to reflect on this — it would be highly unusual for the Government to vote against a proposal to repeal immediately legislation that has not been working for some time and that is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, which has the blessing of all concerned. It is not desirable to have legislation on the Statute Book that is not observed, that everybody knows is not being observed, that nobody is doing anything about and that nobody wants to do anything about. The Bill repeals that legislation on the one hand and introduces something else on the other hand. The repeal should take place immediately. I am disappointed the Minister has not responded more positively. If his problem is with the date in the amendment, then I am quite happy to change to whatever the Minister thinks reasonable.

Mr. McCormack

He is ready to do that now.

Mr. Gilmore

If the Minister is not prepared to do that, then I shall want the amendment put.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Stafford)

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Mr. Gilmore

Yes.

Mr. McCormack

Is the Minister not ready to concede?

Acting Chairman

As the Minister has already replied, he cannot speak again on this amendment.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• 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.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Byrne and Flanagan.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will now move on to amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Garland. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related so they can be taken together for the purposes of debate. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Garland

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 14 to 16.

This amendment is identical to amendment No. 14 which I moved on Committee Stage. Unfortunately the Minister has not responded. I dealt with this matter fairly adequately on Committee Stage but I will repeat what it is about. It is about removing the requirement under section 5 (1) of the Bill under which the Minister may:

make rules for the regulation of societies and such rules shall constitute the rules of each society from its establishment.

We had quite a lengthy debate on this on Committee Stage and everyone on this side of the House was very unhappy with the concept of the Minister imposing rules on the society and, furthermore, that these rules were not contained in the Bill. Nobody at this stage knows the content of these rules, it is a very important point and I appeal to the Minister to give the matter further consideration even at this late stage.

Mr. Gilmore

Amendment No. 3 in my name deals with the same subject. On Committee Stage debate the Minister indicated that he would make the draft rules for the society available to us but, so far, we have not received them. Basically, we are being asked to allow the Minister to establish, by order, certain bodies who will have very far reaching powers in relation to fishery matters. They will have power to decide who fishes the rivers and lakes, to impose charges by way of share certificates and even to identify people to be prosecuted. Remarkable powers are being given to them and we do not even know the rules of the society. We do not know their composition, how their meetings will be conducted, what a quorum will be, how ballots will be conducted and how democratic these bodies will be because we have not seen the rules.

I had hoped that we would have been given a glimpse of the draft rules before this late stage but that has not happened. My amendment is that the rules should be published at least six months before any order is made to establish a fishery co-operative society. That is reasonable as it would give the people who will set up the society an opportunity to see what is in store for them and enable prospective members of the fishery co-operative society to know how the society will be governed.

It would be preferable if these rules were brought forward before the legislation is enacted but, unless the Minister proposes to give us a copy of them across the Floor of the House, we will not see them. It is intolerable that we are being asked to legislate for something, the detailed governing of which we do not yet know.

Mrs. Barnes

This was one of the areas of most concern to all Members and I am sure the Minister will recall that the reason for the amendments put forward by Fine Gael was that at least we would be building on structures where rules, regulations and expertise were already in place. We felt that even if they needed change or amending, we were building on a familiar foundation.

I agree with my colleagues that we have a special responsibility in this House. When we are introducing legislation, the implications of which are so far reaching and will have such an effect on a major resource — one of the most important natural resources in the country — as legislators we must consistently say to the Minister that it would be irresponsible if we did not make the point about the rules and regulations which, he said, he would try to have for Report Stage. We need to know how far reaching and powerful those rules and regulations will be, not just in regard to including people in the co-operatives but also with a view to excluding people. It would be an acknowledgement of the importance of this legislation — and indeed a commitment by the Minister to the concerns, interests and contributions from this side. of the House — if we could see the rules and regulations of the society before we pass this legislation through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Garland — because he did not get satisfaction up to now — attempted to cope with this by deleting the section, thus removing the lack of knowledge and ignorance about the powers and the rules. When taken in concert with Deputy Gilmore's amendment and the underlying motivation of both, it is obvious that not alone should legislators behave responsibly and realise what they are legislating for, but that the rules should be published and discussed before the final structures are made. Again and again people dealing with amendments, rules and regulations on a day to day basis can, for very practical reasons, point out loopholes and implications of which we as legislators may not be totally aware. I ask the Minister to seriously consider the two amendments in relation to this issue in deference to the expertise of people outside, from the administrative level to the pursuit of angling, so that we can enact the very best legislation and rules and regulations to underprint it.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

If we do not debate all aspects of the rod licence legislation we will get nowhere. Some of the most controversial provisions in the Bill are the rules governing the co-operative movement and the society. We should have learned from the past but we are debating the final stages of this Bill — we will soon be asked to vote it into law — and we still do not know the rules governing the societies. It would be daft to go down the same road we took in 1987. I have not doubt that the Minister consulted officials in his Department who have the expertise to put in place rules and regulations governing any matter, but we must remember that in the 1987 legislation certain regulations were also put forward. We all know what happened to them because the anglers would not accept them.

It is not too much to ask that the Minister should give the House, the angling groups or the elected representatives, at least some idea of what the regulations will be. The Minister pointed out on Committee Stage certain aspects of the regulations but that is not good enough. People want to be given the opportunity to study the rules and perhaps make suggestions to the Minister. It is even possible that their ideas may be better. Indeed, some of the angling groups have asked me if they will be given a copy of the rules before the Bill is passed, as they were quite entitled to do given that they are deeply involved in this matter. Bureaucracy is being forced on them once again. We should avoid doing this at all costs. I am sure that the angling clubs, the Department and the Minister who has been given the responsibility to clear up the mess caused by the rod licence dispute realise that we may find ourselves in serious difficulty if the rules and regulations laid down are not acceptable. It has to be said that the Members of this assembly are being asked to agree to the Bill even though they do not know what the rules will be or the problems that will arise.

On the last occasion we discussed this matter the Minister indicated that he would be prepared to issue a copy of the draft rules as soon as he was in a position to do so but that is not the answer. We are being asked to agree to the Bill even though we will have no input into the rules and are not in a position to discuss them as we do not know what they will be. Perhaps some groups are aware of what they will be. The Minister may inform us later that he has shown a copy of the draft rules to some groups and that they are quite happy with them but they are not being asked to vote on the legislation. We will have to vote on it and we are supposed to know what we are voting on. I am of the view that before the rules are finalised a copy of the draft rules should be presented to those who have an interest in this matter, the angling clubs and the Members of this House who have a responsibility to resolve this major problem.

This is one of the most controversial aspects of the legislation. Indeed, the Minister was not very convincing on the last occasion we discussed this matter but he did indicate that he would be prepared to bring before the House a copy of the draft rules before they were passed into law. Unfortunately, we are going to vote on the Bill without knowing what the rules are going to be. This is sad given that there is goodwill on all sides of the House — even though the Minister has not accepted any amendment — that we should resolve the problem.

The last thing we want to see is another dispute of the magnitude of the rod licence dispute which proved very damaging. I would ask the Minister therefore to consider what Deputy Gilmore has suggested which has that the rules be published at least six months before any order is made to give people an opportunity to study them and to say that they would like to be associated with them or would like to see them amended. If necessary, we should be given the opportunity to come back into the House to amend them. I am quite sure we would be willing to do so. The Minister is wrong in asking us to agree to the Bill as it stands. I need to know in what direction we are headed. Unless we know this we could face another major problem and bad legislation could be replaced with something far worse.

Mr. Wilson

I cannot accept the amendments because I do not want to vitiate the structure of the Bill. I indicated on Committee Stage and I think on Second Stage also that what we are dealing with here is a number of voluntary societies — there is no question of compulsion — who are coming together to do what they told me they would do and want to do, that is, to make a contribution to the development of inland fisheries. Another motivation was the need to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. Given that the Opposition have just come from the lobby having voted in favour of the starting date of July 1992 and a short time ago pressed me to accept a date in April 1991, I find it very difficult to assess the thinking — I would not be so uncharitable as to think that it was opposition for the sake of opposition — behind the big drive to have it commence in April 1991 and the move all of a sudden to go through the lobby in favour of a date in July 1992.

Mr. Gilmore

That is democracy.

Mr. Wilson

I suppose the seasons change and views can change with them. As I said, the societies are voluntary and open to anyone who wants to participate in the development of inland fisheries. The procedural rules have been put together for the benefit of those societies. The fishing interests will be consulted and suggestions will be accepted and considered. What I find most strange is the contention that we have not revealed anything about the rules even though section 5 on page 3 of the Bill——

Mr. Gilmore

Not at all.

Mr. Wilson

I did not interrupt the Deputy and he should allow me to speak.

Mr. Gilmore

They are just headings.

Mr. Wilson

Section 5 states:

The Minister may make rules for the regulation of societies and such rules shall constitute the rules of each society from its establishment.

Subsection (2) states:

(2) Rules under this section shall, in relation to a society, provide, in particular, for——

(a) the functions of the first trustees of the society;

(b) the membership and functions of a management committee (including its functions as trustees) and the appointment, or election, and terms and conditions of office, of its members or any of them;

In fact I was advised that I was going into too much detail so far as the rules were concerned. The subsection continues:

(c) the quorum for meetings of the trustees or management committee of the society;

(d) membership and termination of ordinary and corporate membership of the society;

(e) ballots for the purposes of this Act;

(f) the establishment and management of a development fund for the receipt of payments to the society and the disbursement of moneys of the fund, including provision for payments to the appropriate regional board to promote the purposes of the society;

(g) the provision of guidelines for the society in relation to the disbursement of its funds, having regard, in particular, to the development programmes and plans of the appropriate regional board;

(h) accounts of the society and the audit of its accounts;

(i) the grant of share certificates by the society.

All those matters will be covered by the rules which were revealed to the House and open for debate, yet I have been told that I have not given enough information to the House. I am afraid that I cannot accept amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Garland

I am amazed that the Minister is maintaining that he has provided us with a copy of the draft rules. He quoted from time to time on Committee Stage and now, once again, he has quoted at great length from the rules. Surely he is not maintaining that this amounts to publication of the rules. The rules should have been sent in draft form to us prior to the taking of Report Stage. The Minister is treating the House with contempt. This is deplorable. I intend to press my amendment.

Mr. Wilson

On a point of information, I was quoting from the Bill. Obviously, the Deputy did not realise that.

Mr. Garland

I accept the Minister was reading from the Bill but that does not take away from my amendment.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are alternatives and it is proposed for discussion purposes to take amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Wilson

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, to delete lines 40 and 41, and substitute the following:

"(3) The Minister, with the consent of a society, or a society, with the consent of the Minister, may amend or revoke the rules of the society.".

On Committee Stage suggestions had been made by speakers on the opposite side and it was on foot of the promise that I made following my acceptance of their suggestions that I tabled this amendment. I do not want the Minister, whoever he may be now or in the future, to be in a position to be accused of dictating to the societies and it is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment.

There is an old legal adage that clear words do not need interpretation. The words are clear in this amendment and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Garland

I am pleased to see that the Minister has responded to my Committee Stage amendment, and as he appears to have dealt with the problem I will not be moving my amendment No. 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. Garland

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, lines 5 and 6, to delete "such fee as may be specified by the Minister" and substitute "a fee".

This deals with a relatively minor point. I had raised it on Committee Stage but unfortunately the Minister did not respond to it. The Bill provides that the rules may be obtained on the payment of a fee as may be specified by the Minister. I made the point on Committee Stage, in the hope that the Minister would take it on board, that this was an unwarranted interference by the Minister in what was a very trivial matter and that it could be left to the good sense of the clubs not to fix an exorbitant fee like £10,000 or even £10. This is just bureaucracy gone mad and I had hoped that the Minister would have taken a simple amendment like this on board.

Mr. Wilson

The Deputy has correctly categorised this as being of no great importance. The rules will be published by Foilseacháin Rialtais and the charge will purely be to cover the cost of printing, which will hardly be more than £1 a copy.

Mrs. Barnes

I thank the Minister for one smatter of detail.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(7) Each society shall maintain a register of members which shall be available for inspection by members.".

This amendment arises out of an amendment which was moved by Deputy Garland on Committee Stage, to the effect that any person shall be entitled to a list of shareholders of the society on payment to the society of a fee. In the course of that debate it was argued that this would be desirable because of possible controversies that might arise over decisions that would be made. For example, if the societies decide by a 60 per cent majority vote, which they would be entitled to do, that everybody has to hold a share certificate and that an individual who wants to go fishing on a Sunday cannot do so free of charge but has to pay for it, this could give rise to a certain amount of difficulty as to who is a member of the society. We may well find that in a number of years somebody who will be aggrieved at a decision made by a society will say: "That crowd are only a clique and who do they represent anyway?" It would be desirable therefore that there should be a register setting out who the members are. The Minister in his reply stated "it is envisaged that there will be a register of members which will be available for inspection by members". As you can see, therefore my amendment takes word for word what the Minister said on Committee Stage he envisaged would be the situation and I do not think there are any grounds for the Minister to oppose this amendment. If he envisages it happening it should be in the Bill, otherwise it will not happen.

Mr. Garland

I support this amendment. Deputy Gilmore has put the reason very eloquently that it seems a basic right that the register should be available for inspection. It is a very simple matter and, like Deputy Gilmore, I hope the Minister will take this very simple, straightforward idea on board.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

This is a technical but very important amendment. It allows the members of a society to check on who are the registered members of a society. The Minister may say that it is not necessary to put this in. The mere fact that it is in the Bill will give the right to members to inspect the register should a dispute arise at any time in the future. In cases where there is a dispute as to who is or is not a member, the register is the ideal way to solve it. If we are setting up co-operatives it is only right that we would follow the normal practice of any association, club or other body of having a book of registered members at any time they feel be open to members at any time they feel like checking it.

Mrs. Barnes

I look forward to hearing the Minister reply in the affirmative, particularly in view of the fact that, as Deputy Gilmore has pointed out, the Minister indicated on Committee Stage that he believed this would be part of the democratic working of such co-operatives. Voting rights have serious implications, particularly voting rights that may give more influence to one group over another. There has to be a register to ensure that that type of voting is carried out to the satisfaction of everybody, particularly as we have built into this Bill a 60 per cent majority vote that can include or, even more disastrously, exclude. There must be no possibility of élitism. I know the Minister is a great believer in democracy and he must ensure that not alone is the register there but kept in order. If he does not do that, as we know from experience, registers might go missing or will not be filled up or there will be pages missing or whatever. I do not wish to sew into the record of this House the kind of mismanagement or misinterpretation there can be when voting rights are in question, but we all know about them. This would ensure that there would be no such attempt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not wishing to purvey bad thoughts?

Mrs. Barnes

No, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I can merely hint at it in this House.

Mr. Gilmore

I have no idea what the Deputy is talking about.

Mrs. Barnes

As political groups in this House, naturally we are above this, but in the course of our experience we might have come in touch with it. Perhaps the Minister would clear that up.

Mr. Wilson

As I indicated on Committee Stage, there will be a register. Each co-operative will hold a register of its members and Roinn na Mara will have a list of the members on computer. In fact, I hope to be a member of a co-operative myself. It will be open to members, as Deputy Gilmore suggests it should be. I agree with Deputy Barnes that where there is voting one must be sure of the register, know who is entitled to vote, etc. What I have outlined is the ordinary co-operative procedure. The only reason I am not accepting this amendment to the Bill is that it is pleonastic here in this section. It is covered by the rules of procedure of co-operatives.

Mr. Gilmore

I would hate to have to start arguing the Minister's latter point. I take it from what the Minister is saying that this provision will be in the rules of the societies that he intends to give the societies. If that is the case then I will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wilson

It is the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Garland

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, to delete lines 19 and 20, and substitute the following:

"(4) The management committee may co-opt persons to fill vacancies amongst its members, the co-option to be confined to the next person in line per previous ballot.".

This is identical to my amendment No. 25 on Committee Stage. The Minister did amend section (4) on Committee Stage but it is still not satisfactory. As it stands subsection (4), as amended by the Minister, states that vacancies among elected members shall be filled in accordance with the rules of the society. We are back to this problem again. I would be quite happy with that amendment but for the fact that the rules of the society are and can be and probably will be imposed by the Minister. It becomes necessary for us here in the House to try to take some of these powers from the Minister and put a specific provision in the Bill which will cater for co-option, which I am sure will be quite a common matter. Over the course of a year one finds that a couple of people retire or, occasionally, die and it is a very real problem.

My amendment will provide that the management committee may co-opt persons to fill vacancies among its members, the co-option to be confined to the next person in line as per the previous ballot. It may be that that rule will go into the rules of the societies. We do not know. If it does, so much the better. Perhaps the Minister will give us another little peep into the draft rules of the societies which he has up his sleeve. This is an important point of principle; it is a point of democracy. I have not seen this one before but I think it is an excellent provision that when management committees are being appointed, and 12 people are to be on the management committee, we should elect 16 or 18, the first 12, to serve initially and, as and when members drop out for one reason or another, they are replaced in the order in which they were elected. There is nothing more democratic than that. It is a simple amendment and surely the Minister can accede to that.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

It is a reasonable amendment taking into consideration that a ballot would have taken place in any case. It would also prevent any abuse of the system. We are shooting in the dark here again because we do not know what the rules governing such an occasion will be if such an occasion should arise. It goes back to what the Minister said a while ago when he outlined the rules governing societies. The Minister read out not rules but a list of headings. I am sorry to come back to this but I must get it straight because Deputy Garland's amendment hinges on it. What Deputy Garland is trying to do is to copperfasten one aspect of the society where a gap may appear so that the next person in line would automatically be elected. It is a reasonable request but again, because we do not know exactly what is in the rules to govern such a situation, we are left in limbo. This is my only chance to have some input into the rules to be drawn up in the near future. I support the amendment because at least I will have some say in governing the aspect of bringing someone to the society. Unfortunately it is the only chance I have to do so.

Mr. Wilson

We had a fairly long, pingpong discussion on this on Committee Stage and I indicated, and it is on the record of the House, that I intended that the rule would provide for the situation envisaged by Deputy Garland. However, the wording of Deputy Garland's amendment is not satisfactory. It provides that: "The management committee may co-opt persons to fill vacancies amongst its members, the co-option to be confined to the next person in line per previous ballot." It is just a little simplistic and does not cover all the eventualities, but the rules will provide precisely for the next person on the previous ballot to fill a vacancy. As well as that the rules will cover the eventuality, quite a common one, where there is not a next person, where there is nobody available, so the management committee will have power to co-opt.

Mr. Garland

The Minister may well be correct in saying my amendment is slightly flawed, but this is the whole purpose of the way we do business in the House. This amendment was put forward on Committee Stage. I do not have resources through a parliamentary drafts-person, and for the Minister to say he has some sympathy with the amendment makes the whole point. He should have brought in his own amendment on Report Stage to tidy up what he regards as inadequacies in my amendment, but he has not done so. Again he is quoting from these draft rules. That is unsatisfactory and I wish to press my amendment.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 11 in the name of Deputy Barnes. Deputy Barnes, with your indulgence, let me say that amendment No. 12 is an alternative. It is proposed, therefore, for discussion purposes to take amendments Nos. 11 and 12 le chéile.

Mrs. Barnes

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 4, to delete lines 37 to 44, and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 5.

I will not hold up the House for too long towards the end of this Report Stage. We all spent a good deal of time and perhaps even passion on this section of the Bill. I decided to put down this amendment because of fears we still share. It may seem a very fundamental, even crude, way to deal with it but it is to draw attention to the anxieties we feel regarding this section. I acknowledge that the Minister in his response to us here this evening at various stages agrees with us when we talked about democracy, the importance of voting rights and the desirability of openness of voting registration. However, this section which my amendment proposes to delete builds in something that could be seen as antidemocratic and at its worst discriminatory, because it does not give one person one vote as is usually understood in democracy.

The section is loaded on behalf of corporate membership. It provides that the corporate member shall be entitled to nominate without fee one other member of the society. Again and again we urged the Minister to remember the implications of this. Section 8 (3) compounds the fear we have of that type of loading or even privilege in that it provides that: "In considering whether to grant recognition to an angling club or other body for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section or fixing the amount of a fee to be paid by a corporate member under that subsection particular regard shall be had to the outlay of the body concerned on fisheries development work of public benefit in the area in which the society operates.".

I will not labour the point, but this section as now worded leaves the way open to providing privilege for people, particularly corporate members, with a vested interest in getting a special position and perhaps could eventually exclude less well off or individual members because it provides for more than one vote and particularly because of the extra investment they could afford in their own self-interest in this fisheries development and the fisheries within this co-operative society could then demand that the fee be decided on that kind of privilege and extra investment. This section reeks of a kind of privilege and to a certain extent allows the abuse or use of this to corporate members with money, with interest, and maybe with a motivation for their own reasons to annex parts of fisheries or waters that we all regard as national, natural and open to the public. That investment might give certain members an undue influence on the co-operative societies and perhaps in respect of the fisheries we want to leave open as a national asset.

Mr. Garland

I think Deputy Barnes is proposing the deletion of the section. On reflection I think the section is so badly flawed that there is not much point in pursuing my amendment. Instead I support Deputy Barnes' amendment and propose that this whole section be taken out altogether. It is full of problems and I think Deputy Barnes has put the matter very eloquently. I strongly support her amendment.

Mr. Wilson

I have referred to this already but perhaps saying a few words on section 8 with regard to corporate membership would not be amiss at this stage. During the course of negotiations with individual anglers and groups of anglers the cri de coeur from them all the time was that they had over the years put a great deal of money and effort into the development of angling but they got no recognition whatsoever for this. It was on that basis the idea of corporate management was introduced by me into the Bill and it was appreciated, judging by the correspondence I got. There was a danger, if one accepted open-ended sponsorship, of having the heavy wallet brought to bear on membership in the co-operative societies and this would not be good for the societies and it would not be good for the development of fishing. We decided that where an angling club had developed amenities in their area— remember it is one member one vote— they could subscribe an amount of money to cover ten or 20 members. If they wanted to cover 20 members they would have to pay £240. It is important to realise that the share certificate would attach to the individual member.

In many of the negotiations I had, I was told that many people who did very well out of, say, angling tourism never made any contribution at all and that the fruit of the work of the clubs was enjoyed by business people, restaurateurs, guesthouses, hotels and so on who had no opportunity to make any subscription, the old idea of sponsorship, so to speak, or leitourgia, providing a public service. Section 8 will provide these people with an opportunity of subscribing.

I want to refer to the procedure involved. If an hotel, maharajah or horse owner decides to subscribe £1,000 for the development of a fishery they will get one share certificate only. I do not think this has been fully grasped but it is important that people realise this. Therefore, there is no question of a lack of democracy or of anyone having power through their cheque book. If people fully grasped this idea, which was subject to criticism by Deputy Barnes and Deputy Garland, any fears in this regard would evaporate. The only motivation behind this provision was to give recognition to the clubs and to their contribution to the development of our fisheries, and to give people of good will, whoever they might be, an opportunity to subscribe to the development of inland fisheries in their areas.

Mrs. Barnes

I recognise what the Minister and the people with whom he had discussions were getting at. I accept that angling clubs and other groups who did not make any contribution got more than their fair share of fishing rights. It is extraordinarily difficult to include in legislation a section which recognises the contributions made by some people and which deals at the same time with the fears I have in this area.

I agree totally with the Minister that a maharajah or someone else might want to give £1,000 out of the goodness of his heart because he loves a certain stretch of water and the people living there. However, as the Minister is well aware from experience, people who make a gesture of goodwill very often have their own self-interests at heart, on which they will collect later. This is what worries me about this provision. I am afraid that it could be manipulated in the way I outlined earlier.

The recognition the Minister is attempting to incorporate in this section might more properly be incorporated in the rules and regulations which are open to amendment and are flexible. With the consent of the Minister, the rules and regulations could very from area to area. The rules and regulations would be flexible enough to allow co-operatives to protect themselves against the type of manipulation to which I have referred. As we know, it has taken three years to bring this legislation before the House. If an attempt was made to manipulate this section in the manner outlines by me, how long would it take this House to introduce amending legislation, debate it, vote on it and enact it? I am concerned about any section which would allow for manipulation which would take us a long time to deal with.

I agree with the Minister that recognition should be given to the contributions made by sincere people working in this area. However, this should be provided for in the rules and regulations which would have a certain flexibility which unfortunately this section does not have. That is why I raised the matter again. I know that, like me, the Minister would be absolutely appalled at any manipulation of this provision but, as we know, this is a possibility. In order to show the sincerity of my concern about this matter. I will press my amendment.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

Amendment No. 13 has been ruled out of order as it does not arise out of Committee Stage proceedings.

Mr. Gilmore

I do not want to delay the House but I cannot understand this decision. We had a long debate on Committee Stage about this closed shop clause as I referred to it. This provision will enable societies to decide by a 60 per cent vote to exclude other people from fishing or to require them to hold share certificates. I believe this amendment arises directly out of the discussion we had on Committee Stage.

Acting Chairman

I have been advised that this amendment does not arise out of Committee Stage proceedings and is out of order. I have to ask the Deputy to accept the ruling of the Chair.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

"(3) For any fee which is increased under subsection (2) of this section, the amount of such increase shall not exceed the rate of inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.".

Section 10 gives the Minister the power to increase the fee for a share certificate. Under this section, an annual share certificate will cost £12, a 21 day certificate will cost £5, and a three day certificate — presumably this would be purchased by someone who wants to try his or her hand at fishing — will cost £3. Under the Bill as it stands the Minister will have a right to make an order altering the level of the fee at any time. As I said on Committee Stage, I am concerned that the Minister may use this power to increase the level of fees of the share certificates up to the fee for a rod licence and even beyond it. I am simply proposing that the fee for a share certificate should not exceed the rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index. I think Deputy Garland put down a similar amendment on Committee Stage and that the Minister indicated a willingness then to give favourable consideration to such amendment.

Mr. McCormack

As I said, I would be reluctant to give any Minister the power to fix the fee for a share certificate at any level he wishes.

Mr. Wilson

I indicated on Committee Stage that we had given considerable thought to the consumer price index. If I tied the level of the fee to the consumer price index, we would end up with all kinds of weird fractions. I amended the rules so that any increase would be made with the consent of the majority of societies. That was agreed on Committee Stage. Nothing could be more democratic than that. Deputy Gilmore wanted 70 per cent instead of 60 per cent but he will accept that if a majority of the societies agree to an increase then that is the democratic decision of the societies and it is better than to have to fiddle around with fractions and the consumer price index.

Acting Chairman

As it is now 7 o'clock I am required to put the following question in accordance with the resolution of Dáil Éireann of his day. The question is: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 57.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West.)
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connor, John.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.

Question declared carried.