Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995

Vol. 455 No. 7

Estimates, 1995. - Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to include new provisions in the Fisheries Acts whereby the Minister for the Marine may intervene, in accordance with a strict process and subject to the approval of both Houses, to deal with the failure of a fisheries board to manage its affairs effectively.

In such circumstances, or at the request of a board, the Minister may appoint a commission for a specified period, generally speaking not exceeding two years, to take over some or all of the functions of that board.

These provisions supplement existing provisions in the Fisheries Acts which allow the Minister in certain circumstances to remove a board from office.

The principle of ministerial intervention involved in this Bill is thus not new to the Fisheries Acts. Moreover, the model proposed has already been adopted in other legislation relating to State boards.

I emphasise in the strongest possible terms that this legislation is not prompted by any general view that the fisheries boards are not being well managed. On the contrary, fisheries boards have a most difficult job to do and with present structures and resources are, by and large, making a major contribution. I have over the past number of months met representatives of all the boards and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the board members, their managers and staff.

It is only in rare and exceptional cases that one would expect central Government to intervene directly with possible serious difficulties in the management of a State board. It is reasonable in the public interest that a Minister should have such powers. This right of intervention must, however, be carefully tailored to prevent arbitrary ministerial intervention and to protect the legitimate rights of boards. This new legislation strikes the right balance.

While this legislation is not based on a view that there are serious general management weaknesses in fisheries boards, the new provisions arise from a review of existing provisions which was prompted by recurring allegations concerning the Southern Fisheries Board. Deputies will be aware that for some time, there have been allegations concerning the Southern Fisheries Board, some of which have appeared in the press, and some of which related to a Garda investigation into certain matters in that board.

When these allegations were brought to my attention, I met the chairperson and the manager of the Southern Fisheries Board. Following these meetings and an examination of the existing legislation, it became clear that the existing provision would be an inappropriate and cumbersome mechanism to deal with the issues arising. Accordingly, it was decided to prepare the Bill now before the House.

As regards the position in the Southern Fisheries Group I must repeat what the then Minister said on 9 May last.

The administration of the Southern Fisheries Board is, and remains, a matter for that board. As matters stand, Ministers have no direct function in relation to the investigation or handling of the reported allegations. We are not in a position, nor do we have a basis, to form any opinion on the allegations made. We must be particularly conscious not to prejudice the ongoing legal process, or in any way injure the rights of persons involved.

I repeat that no decision has been or could be taken by us at present on what actions we might initiate in respect of that board if and when this legislation is enacted. That matter will be considered at that time in the light of the prevailing circumstances which we do not wish to anticipate.

Before looking in more detail at the background to the Bill and commenting on its main provisions, I would like first to set the context by looking at the constitution and role of the fisheries boards.

The Fisheries Act, 1980 replaced the Inland Fisheries Trust and the 17 boards of conservators with the central and seven regional fisheries boards.

The Central Fisheries Board has primary responsibility for the overall coordination and direction, where necessary, of the activities of the regional fisheries boards in the areas of protection, conservation, management and development of the inland fisheries resource and the promotion and development of sea angling. The board also provides specialist scientific, technical, financial, personnel and engineering services to the regional boards, ensures that policy directions are carried into effect and advises the Minister on matters relating to the most effective conservation, management and development of the resource.

The seven regional fisheries boards are responsible for the management, conservation, protection, development and improvement of the fisheries within their region, and offshore to the 12 mile limit insofar as the protection of wild salmon is concerned, and for the promotion and development of sea angling.

The boards are financed primarily by way of an annual Exchequer grant which now amounts to more than £8.5 million. In recent years the boards have also had access to additional funding under the Structural Funds, INTERREG, Surveillance and other EU-funded programmes which has led to a considerable increase in their development and operational activities.

Elections to the regional boards, membership of which ranges from 20 to 22, including seven ministerial appointments, take place every five years from panels representing various interests in the region. Membership of the central board, which also has a five-year fixed term, comprises 13 members, seven of whom are ex-officio chairpersons of the regional boards and the remainder, including the chairperson, appointed by the Minister. Some 315 permanent staff are employed by the fisheries boards.

At this point. I would like to refer to the existing provisions whereby a board may be removed from office. Under section 24 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, a board may be removed from office if it has not complied with a policy direction given under section 8 (1) (b) of the Act or where its functions were not being duly and effectively performed or where the performance by a board of its functions has been unsatisfactory. In the latter two cases a formal inquiry must be conducted under section 50 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, as amended by section 65 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, into the performance by a board of its functions. If the Minister is satisfied, following that inquiry, that a board has not duly and effectively performed its functions or that the performance by the board of its functions has been unsatisfactory or, as I have already stated, where a board has not complied with a policy direction, the Minister may, by order, remove that board from office and replace it with a person or persons who would carry on the functions of the board until the next elections to boards generally or a special election is held to the board in question.

Section 24 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, and related statutory provisions provide a means by which the Minister could intervene to ensure that the functions of a fisheries board are performed in the public interest. For example, if a fisheries board failed to comply with a direction given by the Minister in relation to general policy for the management, conservation, protection, development and improvement of fisheries he or she could, in accordance with section 24 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, remove that board from office and appoint a person or persons to perform its functions. Equally, if concerns are raised as to whether a fisheries board is duly and effectively performing its functions the Minister could, in accordance with section 24 of the 1980 Act, hold an inquiry under section 50 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, as amended. If, on the basis of that inquiry, the Minister is satisfied that the functions of the board are not being duly and effectively performed he could remove the board from office and appoint a person or persons to perform is functions. These powers have not been used to date.

While the existing statutory provision in the 1980 Fisheries Act relating to the removal and replacement of a board provide a means of ministerial intervention in circumstances in which a fisheries board, among other matters, has failed to manage its affairs effectively, I do not consider these provisions to be sufficiently flexible or sufficient to deal with the range of specific circumstances which can arise. In particular, the requirement to hold an inquiry, which would be subject to the detailed provisions set out in the Fisheries Acts and in High Court Rules governing notice, the summoning and examination of witnesses, the service of documents, etc. could be unduly protracted. It would also be open-ended and prone to litigation. Such a process could also be extremely costly and could shift the focus from the immediate problem giving rise to the inquiry in the first place.

The existing legislation does not provide, therefore, for circumstances in which the Minister may be obliged to move quickly, and without removing a board, to relieve that board of some or all of its functions. In addition, there may be circumstances in which a board may request the Minister to relieve it of some or all of its functions. It is of the utmost importance that the fisheries boards are in a position to perform their statutory functions effectively both at a general level and in specific circumstances and that the State can intervene effectively on those occasions, which admittedly will be rare, when those functions are not being duly and effectively performed.

The Bill is designed to address the shortcomings in the existing legislation outlined already. It provides that the Minister may, by order, appoint a commission to perform some or all of the functions of a board where a board has so requested or after considering the report of a person appointed by the Minister to examine the management and organisation of a board and the performance by it of its functions generally or in particular. The provisions of the Bill are similar in many respects to those in the Regional Technical Colleges (Amendment) Act, 1994, relating to the appointment of a commission to a college. That Act provides a mechanism whereby the Minister for Education can act quickly in a case of emergency caused by deficiencies in the governance or management structures in a college.

I wish at this point to outline the main provision of the proposed Bill. Section 1 governs the interpretation of terms used in the Bill. Section 2 provides for the appointment by the Minister of a person or persons to report to him on the management and organisation of a board and the performance by it of its functions and for the inspection by such person or persons of a board's records or documents.

Section 3 provides for the establishment by the Minister, following a request by a board or after consideration by him of a report of a person or persons appointed under section 2, of a commission to carry out one or more functions of a board as he may determine. Section 4 makes provision for the furnishing of notice to a board where the Minister proposes to appoint a commission following consideration of a report under sections 2 and 3 and for the making of representations by that board. Section 5 lays down detailed provisions in relation to the appointment, membership and removal of a commission. Section 6 provides for co-ordination between the commission and a board where one or more but not all of the functions of a board have been conferred on a commission and for the resolution of any dispute or disagreement which may arise therefrom. Section 7 provides for the furnishing of information and documentation by a board or its officers to a commission.

Section 8 provides for the removal of board members for failure to comply with sections 2 and 7 insofar as compliance with a request for documentation or records is concerned. Section 9 governs the making of orders by the Minister and provides, among other matters, that such orders, drafts of which shall be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, may be annulled by a resolution of either House. Section 10 provides that the powers conferred by this Act to a board are not in substitution for any other powers conferred on the Minister or any other person in relation to the board immediately before the passing of the Act. Section 11 provides that expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 12 makes provision for the short Title of the Bill.

The central provision of this Bill is the proposed granting to the Minister of the power to appoint a commission to carry out some or all of the functions of a board. As the appointment of such a commission would be an exceptional measure, a number of safeguards have been provided for in the Bill. First, section 4 makes provision for the furnishing of notice to a board where it is proposed to appoint a commission and for the making of representations by that board. Second, unless a board has so requested, a commission can be appointed only after consideration of a report made under section 2 thus making it a statutory requirement that a decision to appoint a commission must always have some objectively determined basis.

A third safeguard is that a commission can, in accordance with section 3 (5), be appointed for a maximum period of two years thus preventing the indefinite transfer of a board's functions and ensuring that board members cannot be left without knowledge of their future role for any lengthy period. The fourth and final safeguard is the requirement, under section 9, for Oireachtas approval of any order providing for the appointment of a commission. As such an appointment is an exceptional measure and is defensible only by reference to the common good it is appropriate that both Houses of the Oireachtas should consider orders which provide for the appointment of commissions while leaving in situ the bodies whose functions they are to exercise.

I have outlined in detail the background to the proposed legislation and its broad provisions and implications. This legislation must also be seen in the wider context of the more general review of policy and strategy and the major development programmes now being pursued by the boards. Last March a fundamental overhaul of marine policy was initiated with a view to tapping the full potential of the marine sector in the interests of coastal development, leisure and tourism and increased national economic and social prosperity. This review, being undertaken in full consultation with the sectoral interests in the marine sector, will involve a series of public seminars to focus public debate on the issues, the establishment of a marine advisory council to advise on longer-term strategic options in marine policy and a major review of the organisational and management structure of the fishery service.

The review will examine the institutional framework for the development and regulation of sea fisheries, acquaculture and inland fisheries sectors and recommend any changes necessary. The central and regional fisheries boards are encompassed by this review and particular account will be taken of the important role they play. National policy on wild salmon is also being reviewed as part of our review of general policy.

I again express the Government's appreciation of the valuable contribution the fisheries boards have made, often in difficult circumstances and subject to resource constraints, to ensure that our valuable inland fisheries resource is managed, conserved and developed in its own right and to exploit its economic potential.

The considerable developments in the inland fisheries sector, the challenges arising from pressures on stocks and the freshwater environment and the obligation on the State to ensure that State agencies operate efficiently and effectively require that the State be in a position to intervene in cases where a fisheries board cannot, or is not, duly and effectively performing its functions. The proposed new legislation provides a well balanced and measured means to allow such interventions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

Over a long period in public life I have consistently fought to extend local democracy. I am in favour of leaving to people in local areas the responsibility for making decisions about their lives and it is always a matter of regret when one must support in the House an extreme measure of this type. At a time when the principle of subsidiarity is much debated in the wider European and world context, it is a pity to come upon a circumstance in which the Minister deems it necessary to take these new powers.

I intended to support the Bill but I find myself in a difficulty from which the Minister must try to extricate me. I understood the Bill was to provide for an exceptional circumstance in the Southern Fisheries Board. Newspaper reports about these matters are of concern and the fact that the matters are now in the hands of the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions heightens that concern.

It is important that the reputation and management of all the fisheries boards are safeguarded. I agree with the Minister that, for the greater part, the boards do an extremely difficult job without adequate resources and occasionally without adequate support from local communities. They serve the country well and I wish to be associated with the tributes paid to the boards by the Minister.

I was satisfied with the safeguards in the Bill which include the requirement to come before the Oireachtas and the time limit on the establishment of the commission. It can only be established following an inspector's report, so clearly there will have to be specific circumstances in which this action could be taken. The measures also ensure that due regard must be given to the views of the individuals named or involved so that they have every possible opportunity to outline why these powers may be removed from them.

I was happy with these provisions and prepared to support the Bill until the Minister stated in relation to the review: "This legislation must also be seen in the wider context of the more general review of policy and strategy and the major development programmes now being pursued by the boards." I regret that statement because it takes away from what I thought was the Bill's specific purpose. I had no idea the Minister intended this type of legislation and the removal of power from local communities to be part of an overall strategy. Perhaps the Minister could ease my mind in that regard in his reply.

The Minister must accept I am prepared to support these extreme measures and safeguard the integrity and management of fisheries boards which do an extremely difficult job. However, I could not, under any circumstances, support a Bill of this character if it is to form part of the general strategy and thinking of the Department of the Marine.

I share the Minister's previously expressed view that it is often considered the country can only be run if further powers are brought back to the centre. The more that is attempted, the more frustration is created at local level. We should remember that the fisheries boards and their predecessors go back to the latter part of the previous century and that many of the angling, fishery, land owners and other interests are embodied in what the boards set out to do.

There will always be circumstances in which, for various reasons, regional boards may not be as co-ordinated as possible and may not do as good a job as many feel they ought to do. However, I have no doubt if powers are pulled back to the centre — regardless of the reasons for doing so — it will not only take away from the democracy, commitment and resolve at local level, but it will be impossible for a handful of people at central level to know exactly what is going on.

While research, surveillance, training and personnel matters can be better handled in a co-ordinated way at central level, the primary function of operations and their success depends on a commitment to devolve power to local people, even if they make mistakes, and allow their capacity to manage to grow without interference. The Minister must spell out his intentions specifically because it is regrettable that this legislation is forming part of Department of the Marine thinking in this area. If that is not the case, the Minister must explain why he made that statement.

The Minister covered the importance of the inland fisheries sector. It is a very valuable national resource which attracts a huge number of visitors. I do not have the exact figures but probably 200,000 people visit Ireland to fish in our rivers and lakes. The protection of these assets in terms of fisheries surveillance, etc, is a critical part of our industrial and tourism infrastructure. Providing more sustainable jobs and improving access are critical matters. We welcome the resources being provided to inland fisheries and it is time we considered devoting more energy and time to ensuring these resources are improved.

The Minister referred to the operational programme and the technical and other assistance granted at EU level. It has been brought to my attention that many of the fisheries boards are acutely frustrated that they are unable to access these funds. Physical works, instream bank development, stock management, the provision of improved systems for monitoring and protecting water quality and the rehabilitation of depleted stocks have been mentioned. Given the elements of the national plan which were devoted to the marine sector, particularly the tourism and angling aspects, it is a pity we now find ourselves in a bottleneck. I do not want the Minister to take this criticism personally but it appears that an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy surrounds decisions at European level to release funds which formed part of the national plan and agreed at all levels including the Council of Ministers. These funds, earmarked for development of our fisheries, cannot now be accessed as we move into the latter half of this year. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to ascertain to what extent we can more quickly access these funds. We were very happy to support that development in the national plan. We are glad the Government is pursuing the same line but it will prove fruitless if these unnecessary obstacles are put in our way.

We paid tribute earlier to the fisheries boards and the difficult work they do. Many anglers and others involved in the inland fisheries sector are themselves involved in restocking waterways, in the erection of slipways, the purchase of gravel for spawning areas, the purchase of brown trout and in cleaning river banks. I have been in touch with them in recent months. Many of them put up their own funds. That they should do so as well as raising funds locally to provide the necessary facilities — better access to our waterways, etc. — in the interest of tourism demonstrates serious commitment. They need and deserve support. That support is available, but in many areas it is not possible to access it as quickly as we ought to.

We welcome the reduction in fish kills, which is accounted for by an increased public awareness of the need for environmental protection and by massive investment by the farming community. Despite the improvement, however, there is a steadily growing nitrification of our waters. This is brought about by intensive agricultural production, over-use of fertiliser, inadequately designed systems for sewage treatment and the increasing use of certain types of detergent. I have referred to this before in regard to the Lough Derg catchment area in my constituency. I put down parliamentary questions in regard to this matter, although the Department of the Marine transferred them to the Department of the Environment. However, I wish to mention briefly that the schemes which were designed for that catchment area are tied up in the same kind of bureaucratic bottlenecks at European Commission level.

Funds were provided for in the Estimates. Funds are available under the national plan. We talk about subsidiarity, yet the vital national interest is affected at European level in circumstances in which there are resources. Where there is a commitment by the present Government, as was the case of previous Governments, and by local authorities in regard to the cleaning up of these waters, an outcome on which the improvement in fish numbers, fishing and angling tourism depends, I ask the Minister to use his good offices to solve this problem despite the fact that he and his officials maintain that it is primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment. It is of equal concern to the Department of the Marine.

I welcome the review. I intend to be involved as much as possible in deciding how to reshape the structures which will use the additional resources to develop inland fisheries in a new and dynamic way. I do not want this Bill to be linked, even in the slightest way, to that review. I do not want the power given to the Department of the Marine in this Bill, which is an exceptional measure for an extreme circumstance, to form a part of that review. If that were to happen it would lead to increased centralisation of control which is not the direction in which we want fisheries policy to go in the future. I came into this House to support an extreme measure, and find that the Department's thinking on this matter is different from what I assumed it was.

Mr. O'Malley

I welcome this Bill, by and large. It is necessary and, in general terms, appropriate though I would quibble with some of the detail and consider that it does not cover some areas it should cover.

It is deplorable that a situation in a certain fisheries board which caused difficulty for so many people should have been allowed continue for almost ten years. The matter the Minister of State referred to this morning did not just come to light recently. A letter was written by the Chairman of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board to the then Minister for Fisheries in December 1987, pointing out that there were serious problems in the management of the board about which he was extremely unhappy. He did not receive any reply to or acknowledgment of that letter. Complaints were made at about the same time to the Central Fisheries Board. They failed to deal with the matter. That is very unsatisfactory.

It is to the credit of the present Minister of State that he is at least bringing forward this legislation now. The procedure for removing a board under the 1980 legislation is ponderous. I agree, in the light of some recent experience we have had of tribunals of inquiry, that one would be slow to set up a tribunal so the approach in this Bill is more practical and for that reason I welcome it.

One of the weaknesses of the Bill is that there does not seem to be any direct power to suspend any official of a board at any level. It may be that when a commissioner is appointed he will take steps to suspend certain people but up to now one of the major difficulties has been the failure, rather than the inability, of the board in question to suspend certain officials.

The Garda to their credit have engaged in a very thorough investigation of this whole matter. I understand that they finished their investigation six or seven weeks ago and have submitted a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions who, as far as I know, has not yet issued a decision on the issue. As this is an urgent matter I hope there will be a decision without further delay.

Power to replace, suspend or remove the whole board is often an unnecessarily wide power. Unfortunately, it is a feature of this board, and potentially of others, that while the board as a whole and a great majority of board members are not engaged in improper practices, one or two individual members may be. Between now and Committee Stage, the Minister should consider replacing or removing certain individuals rather than have the whole board set aside as circumstances may arise where this is the appropriate thing to do.

The Minister specifies a period of not more than two years for the duration of a commission. The boards are elected at five yearly intervals, therefore, the appropriate period of time is until the next election. This may be less or more than two years. Whichever way it works out, it is more appropriate than specifying a period such as two years. If it is necessary to replace a board, the right step to take would be not to reinstate the board, but to have it replaced by a new, elected board.

I agree with Deputy Smith's remarks on trying not to interfere with local representation and local democracy, but unfortunately it has been a feature of some areas of administration that inadequate supervision from the centre unhappily damages the concept of local democracy because abuses appear to arise from time to time. I am not aware of any evidence from the other regional boards of any serious abuses or malpractices. I am sure there are none, but the Bill was necessitated by what happened in the Southern Fisheries Board, and to cope with the possibility that something similar may unhappily occur on some other board in the future.

With regard to making an order by the Minister, section 9 is long and confusing. The Minister should look at it again before Committee Stage. Section 9 (4) states that an "...order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House". I agree with this. However, section 9 (5) states that where either House fails to pass such a resolution within 28 days the order concerned may, notwithstanding subsection (4) be made after 28 days. The number of days does not refer to 28 sitting days, but 28 calendar days. Given subsection (5), what is the point of subsection (4)? Subsection (4) will not be used if the Minister does not wish to attend the two Houses to have the order made and debated.

Section 9 (6) has an annulling procedure where the orders are not approved by a resolution. This would not be appropriate. If the two Houses had approved the order they should not then have the right to annul it within 21 days of their approval. Section 9 is a confused section. It must be made clear.

While I am aware of what has been happening over a long period in the region covered by the Southern Fisheries Board, I do not wish to go into detail as it is not appropriate to do so here. However, it is often the case that the chief sufferer is the chief whistle blower. In this case, the man concerned is suffering in every sense of the word. He gave the Garda every co-operation in its attempts to have the facts elucidated, but was assaulted in the course of his duties as a fishery officer. The most serious injuries were inflicted on him. They have necessitated his being in hospital and his confinement to a wheelchair for long periods. They have also caused him to be in pain of different degrees of severity, some extremely severe, over a period of more than two years.

The man is getting a pittance from the Southern Fisheries Board. He is getting his social welfare allowances plus £20 per week. He is now being sued by hospitals for his maintenance in hospitals while he was having operations necessitated by the injuries inflicted on him.

It is grossly unfair that this man or any fishery officer, or servant of the State who is severely injured by assault while trying to enforce the laws passed by this House, should be put at such an appalling personal and financial disadvantage. The man has had to borrow money to try to support himself and his family. He has run into debt and is trying to live on a pittance. This is not good enough. A fishery officer, like a prison officer or a garda, should have a proper code of compensation available to him for injuries inflicted on him in the course of his duties. This man has been treated deplorably. I do not know how the Minister, and especially the Minister for Finance who apparently will not agree to him being paid his wages, can stand over their testament to him.

The man who blows the whistle is the one who suffers most. This is the Irish system. We saw it in the aftermath of the beef tribunal and we are seeing it here again in another matter, which is not perhaps as widely known but is of some importance because of what has taken place. I have had a number of conversations with the Minister of State about this matter and I believe him when he tells me he is entirely sympathetic to this man, but the man has still received no money. Court cases are now being brought against him which will probably result in judgments being made against him and bailiffs seizing his goods. This is extremely unfair and wrong.

I have no objection to the Bill. In all the complicated circumstances, it is a reasonable stab at attempting to deal with the situation. The Minister dealt in broader terms with inland fishery policy, which I would have liked the opportunity to address. Having observed the workings of the regional fisheries boards in some detail I have concluded that the Central Fisheries Board does not achieve any great purpose. It is doubtful if it is worth retaining it.

If the seven regional fisheries boards could deal directly with the Department an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy would be removed. The central board did nothing to resolve this problem, to support officers who were under greater pressure or to stop the abuses and malpractices brought to its attention over a lengthy period.

An official in the Department explained its difficulty under the 1959 and 1980 Acts in dealing directly with the regional boards because of the intervention of the central board in the legislative framework between the Department and the regional boards. That unnecessary difficulty should be removed. The Department and the Minister should be able to deal directly with the regional boards in cases where it is necessary, such as the one we are discussing today.

I remind the Minister that the people who assaulted the officer I mentioned, but did not name, were convicted by a jury in County Wexford and sentenced to a period in prison for their activities. Yet the officer has received no compensation and has no chance of getting any from his assailants. He is entitled to be paid his wages from the date of the assault. Nobody should ever be put in the position in which he now finds himself.

Mr. Deasy

Thank God something is happening at last. At times facts can be stranger than fiction. What has happened in the Southern Regional Fisheries Board area over the past ten years, maybe longer, is a terrible blot on the system. It is a disgrace the way in which power has been abused. We are indebted to the former Minister for the Marine, Deputy Coveney, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, for initiating this legislation. It should have been done years ago. I hope the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, will put his shoulder to the wheel, although he may not be as au fait with the situation as the former Minister and the Minister of State.

It is an appalling situation if the allegations which have been made are true. Many people, not only the fisheries officers concerned, but senior people in high office and in other ranks stand indicted if the allegations are true. This alleged skulduggery or criminal activity has been going on for at least ten years. It was starkly portrayed to me on a number of occasions by fishermen who suffered under the regime, which will exist until this legislation is passed. I spoke about this matter in the House on numerous occasions to different Ministers but nobody lifted a finger to do anything about the injustices perpetrated against good, hard working fishermen in the Southern Regional Fisheries Board area.

Deputy O'Malley referred to the fisheries officer who was assaulted off Dungarvan harbour approximately one year ago and who has been seriously ill since then. He was right when he said that the treatment of that individual, a public-minded citizen above and beyond the call of duty, is another blot on the system. He has been virtually forced into submission and the system allowed that to happen. This man was viciously assaulted by a fisherman but was still decent and public-spirited enough to go to the Circuit Court in Waterford last November to tell the court and the judge, who must have been surprised that he did not blame the fisherman who had assaulted him with an iron bar because he was aware that fishermen were being discriminated against, hounded and blackguarded to such an extent that he could understand why one would react in such a manner. We should think of the system and the people who allowed that situation to evolve. If there is a court case as a result of the file being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, many senior people should be in the dock with the fisheries officers against whom the allegations were made and which have been made to me by fishermen for ten years.

On 5 September 1990, almost five years ago, an article appeared in The Cork Examiner as a result of a statement I made. The headline stated: “Deasy Urges Inquiry into Drift Net Law”. I had information from another fisheries officer, not the man who was assaulted, to the effect that malpractices were taking place. He was very frightened when he made those allegations and found it difficult to come forward. I sent a copy of my statement to the Minister for the Marine, the Minister for Justice, the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the manager of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board and I got acknowledgments in most cases. The Garda Commissioner said he did not believe it was any of his business. Imagine that. Although a Dáil Deputy made an allegation on the basis of information given to him by fishermen and a fisheries officer pursuing fishermen fishing illegally, they did not consider it worthwhile investigating the matter. I was never asked by the Garda Síochána to substantiate my allegations.

The Minister for the Marine did not acknowledge my letter which referred to the newspaper article in which I pointed out the seriousness of the allegations made which were from a number of very reliable sources. The then Minister for Justice, Deputy Ray Burke, acknowledged it and said there would be a follow up letter, but there never was one. The manager of the board wanted to know what I was talking about, although the dogs in the street knew what was going on. Those people in high places who did not act should be brought to book. The fisheries officer who was seriously injured last year and who made the allegations which form the basis of an investigation should be congratulated.

The people who did not react in 1990 are guilty. It is a shame more fishermen who have information of serious irregularities have not come forward and given statements to the Garda Síochána. They are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves.

This matter arises from the use of monofilament nets — which are illegal — for salmon fishing. A salmon review group was set up in 1987 but its report was never acted upon, that is the basis for the present conflict. The group comprised higher civil servants, a Garda Chief Superintendent, the Commander of the Naval Service, and the Secretary of the Department of the Marine, who acted as chairman. The report recommended that a certain length of monofilament net be legalised. These problems would not have arisen if that report had been acted upon. However, every subsequent Minister has also ignored its findings.

There has been total indifference to a serious problem which nearly resulted in loss of life and which was never addressed by anybody at senior level until Deputy Coveney, then Minister for the Marine, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, became involved. I am glad a commissioner is to be appointed to ensure the board is run in a proper and fair-minded manner. I accept the majority of board members are fine and upright citizens. However, there is an element which needs to be investigated and I hope those investigations will result in fair play for the fishermen who have suffered.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I wish to share my time with Deputy McDaid.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): The Bill gives is an opportunity to deal with the allegations, to address the operation of the fisheries boards and assess their advantageousness to the regions they represent. Deputy Michael Smith made the point that too much ministerial intervention in the fisheries boards would not be good. Within reason the actions and operations of the fisheries boards should be left to them. If there are wrongdoings or problems the Minister should have power to deal with them. When other Departments, such as the Department of the Environment, intend to give more power to people at local level, there should not be too much ministerial intervention by the Department of the Marine. That would not be good for the operation of the fisheries boards.

I am amazed that the Central Fisheries Board and the Department of the Marine are not aware of the alleged malpractices referred to, particularly by Deputy Deasy, given that the boards are comprised of seven ministerial appointees and that the Secretary of the Department of the Marine is a member of the Central Fisheries Board. They would be in a position to know if wrongdoing was taking place and should have a duty to report it to the Department or to the Minister directly.

I hope the commission being set up will not be permanent or interfere willy-nilly with the operations of the fisheries boards. The Central Fisheries Board seems to operate separately and distinctly from the regional boards and there does not seem to be much co-ordination or co-operation between them. Does the Minister feel there is a clash of personalities involved or a clash as to how the boards should operate?

Inland fisheries have a major role in attracting tourists and developing rural areas but we do not seem to be operating as we should in that regard. In his review I hope the Minister will examine how the boards operate, if we need seven regional boards and if we need a Central Fisheries Board in Dublin operating separately? I hope the review will be available to us as soon as possible.

I accept the fisheries boards have been short of money; they do not have the financial wherewithal to operate and develop as they should and more money should be made available. The Minister said that EU funds will be available. Local groups and concerns should become more involved with the fisheries boards. There should be greater involvement and co-operation between those in the private sector of the tourism industry and the fisheries boards as ultimately, they are all working to benefit their local areas. In his overall review I hope the Minister will examine that matter seriously.

There should not be too much political or ministerial interference. He should only become involved if serious problems arise. The Minister should consider how he can "beef up" the fisheries boards and make them more relevant to the development of tourism by giving them a more developmental role and more funds. He should also encourage the private sector to become involved.

Dr. McDaid

I thank Deputy Browne for sharing time with me. What can the Department of the Marine do about articles which have appeared in The Sun, The Belfast Telegraph and The Sunday World concerning a dispute on one of the best trout and salmon rivers in County Donegal, the River Finn? This matter has come to a head as a result of a High Court decision by Mr. Justice Costello some years ago in which he decided that a verbal agreement existed between namely Mr. Leslie Mackie of Glenmore Estate and Mr. David Wilde of Cloghan Lodge regarding 17 miles of the River Finn.

As a result of that decision Mr. Wilde spent a month in jail. The Foyle Fisheries Commission and the Department of the Marine will not examine the dispute. I urge the Minister to ask the Foyle Fisheries Commission to become involved or to ask the Department of Justice to hold an inquiry. One party to the dispute wants to make an exclusive club out of this area and the other party, an elderly English gentleman, who would prefer to leave the river for the locals, has been harassed and harangued into selling. There has been skulduggery behind the scenes yet nobody seems to be interested in the case.

This elderly man has been jailed for contempt of court because he has stuck to his principles and I urge the Minister to investigate this matter which has attracted the attention of the national and local newspapers.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate and their support for the Bill. I reassure Deputy Michael Smith that the Bill is not a Trojan horse for a centralising agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill is intended to address exceptional circumstances which can arise from time to time and which require quick action.

I do not want to get into the allegations made in relation to the Southern Fisheries Board. It would be quite improper to prejudice any investigation which might take place but once those allegations — some of which were the subject of a Garda investigation — had been made, repeated consistently and had appeared in the public press, it would have been quite wrong for the Minister not to take some interest.

The difficulty under the existing legislation was that the only recourse open to the Minister was to initiate an inquiry. For all the reasons that have been stated here that would be an inappropriate way of dealing with this issue. We need a simple mechanism whereby allegations of this type can be inquired into, a report made to the Minister and appropriate action taken.

Under the existing legislation the only sanction which can be brought to bear on a fisheries board is that the entire board can be stood down. It was felt there was a necessity for some means other than that. For example, the personnel functions of a board might be taken on by a commissioner for a period to address whatever deficiencies were thought to exist in that board. They are functions which, essentially, are being provided for in this Bill.

I assure Deputy Smith that there is no agenda to overcentralise. My reference to the overall review of marine policy and, specificially, to the review of salmon policy currently under way in the Department, was to indicate what we are doing in that context. A number of Deputies have raised other issues which touch on the inland fisheries sector. These include the points raised by Deputy O'Malley about structures for the governance of the inland fisheries sector, and the points raised by Deputy Deasy on salmon policy generally. They are issues which have to be addressed and I simply wanted to put on record that they are being examined. I wanted to locate the Bill in that context. There is not an agenda to centralise the administration of inland fisheries.

It is fair to say that the safeguards we have built into the Bill, requiring notice of matters to be brought before the House, are specifically intended to prevent this legislation from being used in future for purposes other than the type of purpose for which it is being introduced.

Deputy O'Malley referred to the length of time these allegations have been going on and I am aware of that. He also drew my attention to a number of provisions which we can usefully address on Committee Stage.

Deputies O'Malley and Deasy referred to the case of a fisheries officer who was injured in the course of his duty. The fishery officer concerned was assaulted during the course of a fishery patrol on 28 July 1993 and appears to have suffered damage to his lumbar region. I am fully aware of, and sympathise with, his position and circumstances arising from the injuries received by him and as Deputy O'Malley knows, have met him to discuss the conditions of employment which govern entitlements arising from such injuries and to assure him that every means at my disposal will be employed to reduce or meet, within reason, any losses arising from these injuries. The appointment, grading, remuneration, tenure of office and conditions of service of staff of the central and regional fisheries boards are governed by the terms of a staff scheme drawn up in consultation with the recognised unions and approved by the Minister and the Minister for Finance in accordance with section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1980.

The fisheries officer has received the following assistance since the injury: under the board's staff scheme he remained on full pay for six months after the assault; he received benefits under the occupational injuries scheme operated by the Department of Social Welfare and refunds under the State's medical care scheme. These benefits are similar to those to which public servants in general are entitled.

In addition, Department of Finance sanction was secured, as an exceptional measure, to maintain him on full pay for an additional period of seven months. I regret, and I have informed the fisheries officer concerned, that I have now been advised by the Minister for Finance that there is no scope for further exceptional arrangements.

In so far as compensation is concerned, the fisheries officer has a number of options by which he may proceed. As I understand it, he has not yet exercised those options. It is an area where, perhaps, he may take the advice of his trade union which has a scheme that may be able to assist hin in that area.

The 1980 Act provides that the central board may, after consultation with each of the regional boards and with any recognised staff associations, at any time, and with the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, amend a staff scheme.

The Central Fisheries Board and SIPTU agreed in January 1985 to the establishment of a joint working party consisting of three representatives from each side, to consider an amendment to the staff scheme or other appropriate arrangements, to provide for an extension of benefits applying to officers injured in the course of their duty. The working party issued its report which was submitted to the Central Fisheries Board. Recommendations made by the central board on foot of this report are being considered by the Minister. Any such amendments will also require the approval of the Minister for Finance.

I am anxious to ensure that officers of fisheries boards do not suffer financial or other loss arising from injuries received in the course of their duties. I will approach the Minister for Finance on this matter in the very near future with detailed proposals for an amendment of the staff scheme which may be able to assist the fisheries officer in this case.

On the matters raised by Deputy McDaid, I am not a regular reader of The Sun and, consequently, I did not see the articles to which he referred. However, I can certainly arrange to have the matters he referred to examined.

Deputy Smith raised a number of issues which touch generally on the question of inland fisheries administration. For example, he referred to access to EU funds. Virtually all the funds available under the tourism angling measure for 1995 have now been approved. In relation to 1996 and subsequent years we have decided to bring forward the closing date of applications — in the case of 1996 the date will be the 15 September 1995 — to facilitate regional fisheries boards and others making applications for these funds, and to allow sufficient time for applications to be processed and decisions made to enable work to commence in the spring and summer of the following year.

The Deputy also referred to fish kills. I share these concerns, particularly in connection with the recent kills in a number of our waterways. There is a danger, when water levels are low in rivers, that fish kills can occur more easily.

Gabhaim buíochas le na Teachtaí uilig a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht seo.

Mr. M. Smith

Is it intended to take the remaining Stages in September?

Mr. Gilmore

They will be taken as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In accordance with the Order of the Dáil of 7 July 1995, the Bill is hereby referred to the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy. In accordance with the Order of the Dáil of 7 July, the sitting is suspended until 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.