Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, (Southern Regional Fisheries Commission) Order, 1996: Motion.

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

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, (Southern Regional Fisheries Commission) Order, 1996,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 9th February, 1996.

I propose to establish a commission to carry out the protection, conservation and management functions of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. I propose that the board will retain responsibility for fisheries and angling development in the region as well as for licensing and fisheries rates.

In November 1995 the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, was signed by the President. This legislation was prompted by recurring allegations of activities of a corrupt nature which had been made against certain employees of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Last week two officers of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board were charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906. For obvious reasons I do not intend to deal with matters which are now before the courts. In any event, my immediate concern has been with the adequacy of the manner in which the Southern Regional Fisheries Board addressed these allegations when they arose.

The boards are financed primarily by way of an annual Exchequer grant which now amounts to over £9 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.

The fisheries boards have a most difficult job and with present structures and resources, they are making a major contribution. Over the past year, I met representatives of all the boards and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the board members, their managers and their staff.

When these allegations concerning the Southern Regional Fisheries Board were brought to my attention, I met the chairperson and the manager of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Following these meetings and following an examination of the existing legislation and taking into consideration what steps had been taken concerning these allegations, it became clear that the existing legislative provision would be an inappropriate and cumbersome mechanism to deal with the issues arising. In particular, the legislation then existing did not provide for circumstances in which the Minister might be obliged to move quickly to restore public confidence in the proper functioning of the board, and without removing a board, to relieve that board of some or all of its functions.

I, therefore, brought the 1995 Fisheries (Amendment) Bill to the Oireachtas last year to provide me with a means of intervening where it appeared that a fisheries board was failing to manage its affairs effectively. As a norm, it is only in rare and exceptional cases that one would expect that central Government would have to intervene directly with possible serious difficulties in the management of a State board. It is entirely reasonable, in the public interest, that the Minister should have such powers. However, this right of intervention must be carefully tailored to prevent arbitrary Ministerial intervention and to protect the legitimate rights of boards.

The Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995 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.

Within days of the Act being passed I appointed Mr. Dermot Rochford, a personnel consultant, under the provisions of section 2 of the 1995 Act to prepare a report for me in relation to the management and organisation of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Mr. Rochford reported to me on 12 December 1995. He concluded that the affairs of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board were not being and, in the foreseeable future were not likely to be, managed in an effective manner and recommended that I should consider exercising my power to establish a commission under section 3 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995. Having fully considered the report, I moved to establish a commission to carry out the protection, conservation and management functions of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. I have noted that the report of Mr. Rochford emphasises "the valuable commitment, knowledge, ideas and voluntary effort available within this Board" and, accordingly, I propose that the board will retain responsibility for fisheries and angling development in the region as well as for licensing and fisheries rates.

In accordance with section 4 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1996, I wrote to the chairman of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board on 13 January 1996 advising him of my proposal to appoint a commission to carry out certain functions of the board and giving that board 14 days to make representations to me as to why the order should not be made. The chairman has since replied and indicated that he and his board welcomed the appointment of a commission and looked forward to a constructive working relationship with it.

A draft version of an order entitled "The Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, (Southern Regional Fisheries Commission) Order, 1996" was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 9 February 1996, as required by the 1995 Act. I now propose to appoint a commission and, accordingly, I wish to move that the House approves the draft of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995, (Southern Regional Fisheries Commission) Order, 1996.

I am confident that the appointment of a commission will help to restore public confidence in the Southern Regional Fisheries Board and address the management deficiencies which were identified by Mr. Rochford in this report.

I commend this motion to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

We have no hesitation in supporting the Minister in taking the final steps to establishing the commission which follows from the passing of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1995. We know that inland fisheries are an extremely valuable resource, not only because of the availability of annual Exchequer funding and EU funds but also because of the employment and tourism potential. We have an obligation to ensure the effective operation of all the boards.

The regional fisheries boards, including the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, have done an excellent job in difficult circumstances. However, the publicity attaching to certain incidents and the Garda investigation illustrated that the existing legislation was, as the Minister said, too cumbersome and unwieldy. It was decided that the establishment of a commission, based on earlier legislation and experience, was the wisest course to take. The Minister had the support of all parties in this House and in the Seanad in taking that action. We were concerned to ensure it would be tightly focused, that there would be a strict time limit on its operations and that the specific regional board concerned, the southern board, could get back to its own work with its own management and board members.

For years many of us have argued the principle of subsidiarity. Local representatives and fishery organisations must operate with the greatest possible freedom and that is what we would like to achieve. In this case the establishment of the commission will hopefully bring to an end the long saga of allegations. While we do not want to get involved in the court developments, injure the rights of any individual or prejudice the normal legal process, we all want to see it ended as conclusively as possible at an early date.

The Minister will recall that during my Second Stage speech I interpreted a paragraph as indicating that he appeared to intend a wider remit than just the establishment of a commission to deal specifically with the problems which have developed in the southern fisheries board. I was concerned that this statement appeared to indicate that he had more than just this in mind. I was assured, in his reply to Second Stage, that this was not the position. Since then it has come to my notice — I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the situation — that allegations contained in anonymous letters sent to the Department have been included in letters sent to certain board members in both the northern and southern part of the country.

In light of the difficulties experienced in the southern fisheries board, the last thing we want is to create a lack of confidence among the fisheries boards with developments of that kind. We certainly do not want a trial by anonymous letters. Will the Minister indicate to the House whether he is proposing, is involved in or has knowledge of these developments which have been reported to me and which indicate a willingness on the part of his officials or himself to become involved in these circumstances again. We witnessed a saga last year which related to a response to anonymous letters. If people do not have the courage to put their names to the accusations they are levelling at individuals, those letters should be discarded.

We have recognised for a long time the value of our inland fisheries. We also know of the difficulties, constraints and conflicts between fishery interests. It is not an easy task. It is crucially important that we achieve two things. It should be possible for the regional boards and their officers to protect the resource and to do it as independently and with the maximum freedom possible. We should not embroil them unnecessarily in controversies of this kind without having absolute, credible evidence to hand. It is because of my concern on those two fronts that I was worried that there was, in some people's minds, a potentially more extended remit than the current one.

I accept that the legislation is not specifically designed to deal with one particular problem. This would be unwise if another problem should arise. However, we should not generate a feeling that all is not well and that the Department of the Marine has a total lack of confidence in the operations of the fisheries boards and that confidence is so lacking that information conveyed to it, which does not even bear a signature, becomes vital. I want the Minister to clarify those circumstances to ensure that, as we grapple with one set of circumstances and seek a satisfactory solution to it, we do not become embroiled very quickly in another potentially hazardous and difficult set of circumstances.

Mr. O'Malley

I am glad that this motion to approve this draft order is before the House. I agree with and support it. I understand that the commission will be appointed from next Monday and I hope it will take up its functions immediately. Incidentally, the draft order states that it will come into operation on 19 February which was two days ago. That will have to be amended.

I hope that the commissioner, or whoever he employs, will be there on a full-time basis to deal with the problems in this fisheries board. If not, the whole process would be unsatisfactory. As the Minister stated, two individuals attached to this board have been charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The surprise in the area and among people who have known about these matters for many years is that only two people have been charged. Will the Minister deal with that aspect of the matter when he is replying? It would seem appropriate that at least one other individual should be charged under this Act and, perhaps, some other legislation also.

It strikes me as strange that after these two individuals were charged, many years after the first complaints were made against them, they are suspended from duty but on full pay and are allowed to retain their warrants of office, the board's motor cars and mobile telephones. They are in no way penalised because of the situation in which they now find themselves. I find that remarkable and I compare it to the manner in which another employee of the board has been treated because he had the temerity over a number of years to provide evidence to the Garda and others about what was going on. He was seriously injured in the course of his duties. His back was broken with an iron bar by people he was endeavouring to arrest. He is crippled for life and is in constant pain. He is effectively on social welfare and has had great difficulty in the past two years and more trying to keep body and soul together. It is remarkable that somebody who upheld the law should be treated so badly by a fisheries board or any public body while people who were charged with serious offences have all the presumptions in their favour.

The commissioner will have a difficult job unless he can manage all the activities of the board other than minor matters, such as fisheries rates and angling development which are of no consequence and are left to the board. The commissioner must assume full control — including day to day control — of what goes on. It will not be possible for the commissioner to operate side by side with the existing management. It must be one or the other. This should be made clear to the commissioner before he starts and he should take steps accordingly.

This problem arose because certain individuals wanted to act in a particular way. There are difficulties in all the fisheries boards, not related to corruption, but in terms of doing the job properly and protecting salmon and sea trout stocks. Many of the problems arise from the structure of the boards. The Minister described boards as constituting 22 people but I understood there were 25 people on each. There is not much difference between the two, but, in either event, it is a huge number of people and they all represent conflicting interests. In most cases each member is only there to plead his own case or that of the economic interest group he represents. This is entirely unsatisfactory and one of the reasons there is such a bad situation in the regional fisheries boards and the entire structure.

The relationship with the Central Fisheries Board is, apparently, not very good and there is no direct relationship between the Department and the regional boards. This is why the Act was introduced last year. However, the Act is only minor legislation which deals with a problem in a particular place. A review of all the legislation, beginning with the 1980 Act, is required. Things will never be put right while the 1980 Act remains the principal legislation.

It is a great disappointment to people interested in angling and tourism that our wild salmon stocks, which are one of this country's most valuable assets, are treated as they are. At best, they are ignored and at worst, they have been damaged and destroyed for years. No country would allow the vast bulk of its salmon to be taken for commercial purposes at sea to the detriment of angling in its rivers. It is gravely disappointing that this is occurring.

I understand a predecessor of the Minister tried to do something about it. A report produced in 1994 by a firm of management consultants made some sensible recommendations. However, apparently, there was uproar when a meeting of all members of the various boards was held in Dublin. They did not even discuss the recommendations or suggestions because it interfered with all the vested interests. I understand the firm concerned tried to water it down subsequently to see whether there was any possibility of reaching agreement. It appears there was no possibility and the then Minister abandoned it as a hopeless task. However, it cannot be abandoned. The current situation is totally unsatisfactory. Whatever the difficulties and whatever problems may arise, this is one case the Minister must pursue and get right because what is happening now cannot and should not be allowed to continue.

I pay tribute to the limited number of board members and staff who, despite enormous pressures to do otherwise tried to rectify what was going wrong in the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. It has taken many long and painful years for this day to arrive and I am glad it has arrived. I want the Minister of State to deal with the case where somebody who, perhaps more than anybody else, tried to clean up the situation is so heavily penalised, while those who were charged with criminal offences are not penalised and are allowed to retain, not only their full pay, but also all their various perks and rights.

As we are constrained in discussing in detail the situation in the southern fisheries board, I ask the Minister in his reply to deal with the general situation throughout the country. What does he think he will be able to do in the next number of months with a view to amending the 1980 Act and subsequent legislation amending the boards' structure and trying to introduce something which is more workable?

From what I gather, virtually nobody who thinks about this matter or looks at it regards the current situation as satisfactory. I was heartened to discover recently that one of the principal bodies seeking radical change in the current set up is the principal trade union involved, SIPTU. It states that the current system is abysmal and appalling and must be changed. It is right as are all the various people who have endeavoured to do something about the matter. Even if there was failure in 1994, I hope there will be some progress in 1996.

Mr. Gilmore

I intend to give five minutes of my summing up time to Deputy Deasy.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Deasy

I thank the Minister for sharing his time. I welcome the motion and compliment the Minister for the action he has taken. We should recall that a number of his predecessors were made aware of irregularities with regard to the Southern Regional Fisheries Board area and they did not take action.

The whole matter is concerned with corruption. Corrupt activities in State agencies are much more serious than elsewhere. Deputy O'Malley referred to the fishery officer who made a statement in court approximately 15 months ago and which gave rise to the present investigation. It should not be forgotten that I made a public statement in September 1990 along the same lines on foot of information provided to me, not only by drift net salmon fishermen but also by an employee of the Southern Fishery Board. This statement was widely publicised, mainly in The Cork Examiner. I sent copies of it to Ministers in Government and the Garda Commissioner among others but no action was taken.

All those who were notified of the seriousness of the situation at that time stand indicted of complicity, inaction or whatever. Corruption should not be tolerated at any level but, regrettably, it has been. I ask the Minister, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions to look into the matter in an overall context, and not merely in the context of what has hapened in the past 15 months because it has been well known among the fishing fraternity in southern fishery districts that corruption has been rife over the past ten to 15 years. Nobody who has been aware of it, no matter how high their position or their office, should be exempt from prosecution or examination.

A number of people who might have given evidence have not done so because they felt that nobody would ever be prosecuted because of a culture in this State which amounts to the old pals' act whereby those in positions of trust or authority will never be answerable to charges for which they should stand trial. Deputy O'Malley referred to one other official who should be charged. A series of people should be charged. Some of them are political figures or in high places in the Garda Síochána. They were made aware of corrupt activities but did not bother to investigate. I made an allegation on foot of good evidence and information but I was never even interviewed on the basis of what I stated. How can the public have confidence in the institutions of the State if matters which are well documented and extraordinarily serious are not investigated?

How many people will constitute the commission? What will be their authority? When do they expect to complete their work? When will new elections to the board be held? Will the Minister act on the statements made by Deputy O'Malley and ensure that those under investigation or being prosecuted should have no influence on the day to day workings of a board under investigation? This is the position at present as they still have access to premises, vehicles and craft and continue to hold positions, which should not be the case until the court cases and all the legal proceedings have been finalised.

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

I thank Members on all sides of the House for the co-operation I have received both in introducing the legislation to enable the appointment of a commission to the Southern Fishery Board, and with regard to the motion before the House for the appointment of a commission. With regard to Deputy Deasy's inquiries, it is my intention to appoint one individual as a commissioner. The appointment will be made immediately following the motion, which must also be put to the Seanad later today. The commissioner will be full-time, based in the Southern Regional Board office at Clonmel and will have responsibility for the full management of and for the protection and conservation functions of the board. The appointment is initially for a period of six months but under the legislation it can be extended up to a maximum of two years.

Deputies O'Malley and Deasy raised the issue about the number of people charged. This is a matter for the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. When the Bill was before the House I said that if there had never been a Garda investigation or if there had never been a situation in which somebody had been charged, allegations of this serious nature, which were made over a period of time, required a response from the board and its management. This response did not come and the report I received from Mr. Dermot Rochford confirmed this position when he concluded that the board was not being managed effectively and that it was unlikely in the foreseeable future that it would be managed effectively. Consequently, it has been necessary for us to appoint a commissioner to take over the management, protection and conservation functions of the board, which is what we are now doing.

With regard to Deputy Michael Smith's remarks, I repeat what I said when the Bill was before the House in that I do not want the impression to be created that all is not well in the fishery boards, I wish to dispel this. The regional fishery boards — the board members, management and staff — do a very good job in difficult circumstances. Their job is very difficult and has traditionally been very contentious, giving rise to much passion and high feelings in local communities. I have met them all and have the greatest of respect for them.

Unfortunately we have had to take action with regard to one board but it should not be assumed that a problem which exists in one board is, by implication, extended to the other boards. That is certainly not the case.

I am at a loss to understand Deputy Smith's comments about anonymous letters. I do not generally take any notice of anonymous letters other than accepting that they are anonymous. If Deputy Smith wishes to bring to my attention the particulars of the case he has in mind I will be happy to examine them and will respond directly to him.

Deputy O'Malley raised the wider issue of the future of the inland fisheries service. A review is at present under way in the Department of the Marine of the fisheries service which includes the inland fisheries service. The Minister and I expect to receive shortly a report from a team of consultants that has been looking at the fisheries service, including the inland fisheries. Arising out of that report we may have to consider some reforms of existing inland fisheries structures. That does not in any way reflect on the competence, integrity or commitment of those involved, far from it. It is inevitable, however, that after almost two decades of operating the 1980 Act, the structures and management of our inland fisheries need to be looked at afresh. Policy issues that need to be addressed concerning inland fisheries are also being examined.

In addition, a group is reviewing the management of our wild salmon resource and is due to report within the next couple of months. I expect we will be addressing afresh the way wild salmon stocks are managed. I anticipate some changes in the inland fisheries both in relation to structures and policy. They are required to face the new challenges in the management of our inland fisheries. That process has been under way as a separate exercise from that which we are engaged in today.

I do not want the unfortunate set of circumstances that has arisen in one fisheries board to be regarded as typical or symptomatic of a wider problem of that type in other fisheries boards because that clearly is not the case.

Mr. O'Malley

Can the Minister of State explain why the Department of the Marine did not do anything about this matter from 1986-87, when they were first told about it, until last year when it was forced on them by public evidence?

Mr. Deasy

That is a relevant question.

Mr. O'Malley

Was the Department not condoning what was going on? Why did it consistently refuse to do anything about it?

Mr. Gilmore

I would have happily answered that question if it had been asked in Deputy O'Malley's original contribution.

Mr. Deasy

I asked it in 1990.

Mr. Gilmore

When these allegations were brought to my attention, I met with the manager and chairperson of the fisheries board, as I stated in my contribution. Following that, action was taken. One of the problems has been that under the Fisheries Act, 1980 the only recourse open either to ministerial or departmental involvement in a fisheries board was the institution of a formal public inquiry. Until the Oireachtas passed the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1955 there was no mechanism, short of a full-scale public inquiry, by which the Minister could intervene in the affairs of a fisheries board. That was why we had to introduce that legislation.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996