JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 2007

Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2007: Motion.

Chairman

No. 3 is a motion regarding the Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2007. I welcome the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and his officials. A note on the reason for the postponement of elections to the regional fisheries boards has been circulated. The motion reads as follows:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following order in draft:

Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2007,

copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 8 November 2007.

I invite the Minister to make his opening remarks.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan)

I welcome the opportunity to come before the joint committee again today to outline the rationale for this motion. Responsibility for the management and development of the inland fisheries sector resides with the Central Fisheries Board and the seven regional fisheries boards. Elections to the regional fisheries boards are due to take place on 18 December, following an extension agreed by the Oireachtas last year. However, I propose, subject to the approval of the Dáil and Seanad, to make an order postponing elections for a further year.

In 2005, on foot of an independent review of the inland fisheries sector, my predecessor announced plans for the restructuring of the sector. Under that policy, the sector was to be reorganised by subsuming the existing central and regional fisheries boards into a single national inland fisheries authority, NIFA.

Deputy Liz McManus

Are we taking them all together or separately?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I will take the motion regarding the elections first.

Deputy Liz McManus

There are two motions, one on licences and the other on the elections.

Chairman

We are taking, first, the motion on the Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2007. We will then take the Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alteration of Duties) Order 2007. They were referred from the Dáil in that order. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Due to the complexity of the legislation required for the establishment of the new body and competing priorities, not just within the Department but also across Departments generally, for time in the Oireachtas legislative calendar, it has not proved possible to introduce the required legislation to date.

In the context of providing the legislation necessary to facilitate the new structures, an examination is also being undertaken as to how the existing 17 pieces of legislation governing the inland fisheries sector, which date back to 1959, can be modernised and consolidated into a single statute. As the joint committee will appreciate, there is a considerable amount of work involved in such an exercise.

A sub-group of the National Fisheries Management Executive has been established to ensure those dealing with the legislation at an operational level will have an input into proposals for the new legislation that will govern the sector. This group is working closely with the Department in developing legislative proposals which I hope to be in a position to bring forward next year.

The joint committee may be aware that the Government has recently appointed an interdepartmental group charged with overseeing the independent review of inland fisheries. This should ensure significant progress is made in the coming year in advancing proposals to restructure the inland fisheries sector.

A new initiative being undertaken by the boards of the inland fisheries service in relation to the proposed restructuring of the sector has recently been brought to my attention. I look forward to hearing the detailed proposals for the future management of the sector at a meeting with the chairpersons of the central and regional fisheries boards which is scheduled for this coming Friday.

My objective is to deliver an effective legislative and regulatory framework and value for money management for the inland fisheries sector. This will be best accomplished by putting in place a new modernised management framework for the sector and providing the necessary legislative and regulatory support to deliver the new structures.

Given the significant changes envisaged for the sector, I am anxious that, in view of their valuable contribution, the existing members of the regional fisheries boards be given an opportunity to play a key role, not only in ensuring a continuing input to the work of the boards, but also in advancing the proposals to restructure the sector. Accordingly, I propose to postpone the elections to the boards for a further year in accordance with section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1980. This will facilitate the continued contribution of those individuals directly involved in overseeing the service, whom I believe will have a key role to play in advancing the restructuring of the sector.

The order, when made, will also result in the postponement of elections to co-operative societies, the position of which will be addressed in the context of the new legislation to be introduced. It is my firm belief that, through the newly appointed interdepartmental group, proposals to restructure the sector can be significantly advanced in the coming year, thereby allowing the sector to reach its full potential through more coherent and consistent policy-making and resource allocation, better decision-making and value for money.

While I am committed to restructuring of the sector, I recognise that there will be significant challenges in bringing it about. The changes in the inland fisheries sector will be progressed on an open and transparent basis, to ensure as much involvement as possible by as wide a range of stakeholders as possible. I trust that the committee will recommend that the Oireachtas pass a motion approving the order to defer the elections.

Deputy Liz McManus

I am concerned at this postponement. We now have boards that have been in place for more than seven years. They are well past their sell by date and it is inevitable they would lose touch with their base having represented it for such a long period. Concerns were expressed to me about the lack of transparency of the boards, especially the salmon conservation fund. Many people outside the loop, such as associations and clubs, feel they cannot access these funds and do not know how to go about it. There seems to be a fairly rigid structure there at the moment.

This is the third time these elections have been postponed. That is hardly promotion of democracy. They were last postponed 12 months ago and the Minister, then an Opposition Deputy, described the postponement as "a shocking indictment of the Government's inability to prioritise the environment and wild fish stocks". At the time, he said it was a cowardly act. I do not know why he called it a cowardly act. Perhaps he could explain why he felt it was a cowardly act then, but a good idea now.

A consolidation Bill consolidates existing legislation and I do not imagine anyone will object to it. Is that all it will be, or are we dealing with something other than a consolidation Bill? Can the Minister explain this? I also hope he can deal with an issue about drift net fishermen, who are currently represented on the boards. Is it the Minister's intention to keep that representation on any future structures? There have been changes to the scheme currently in place, but will the same form of representation continue on the inland fisheries boards?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The salmon conservation fund is a new fund that was set up following the increase in licence fees last year. It seeks to ring-fence certain funding that was erased from the sale of licence fees in the specific area of salmon conservation. As a new fund, it has taken time to set out the structures and the approach for funding. I am quite happy that the internal measures there are based on good conservation grounds and that funding, which has been approved for various projects, will be allocated in an absolutely proper and transparent process. As it develops, it will increase in significance. The level of funding will be built up and the applications for projects coming under its remit will be undertaken. I am confident this is a proper approach.

I must go back and read the debate in which I made those comments to which the Deputy referred.

Deputy Liz McManus

Is that mature reflection?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I will have to go back and look at what I said at that time. There is general recognition that the current structures are not delivering the best management system for fisheries here. Even prior to the Farrell Grant Sparks report, there was recognition that our current structures were far from optimal. The political question is about how that can be changed to move towards a more effective management system.

I look forward to meeting the chairmen of the various boards on Friday to find the best way for us to move towards a better structure. That structure must not only be based on a review of the regional boards but of the relationship between them and a central authority. I am confident that we can proceed, in collaboration with the existing boards. The reason we sought a further one-year extension is that those people have a role and an interest and if we can get a consensus among the various boards, their chairmen and chief executives on the need for change, it will be possible to deliver the changes to which I referred at the talks last year. Failure to do so is not in anyone's interest. This sector would be regarded as ineffective in terms of the management systems, and that is not in anyone's interest. On a collaborative co-operative basis, I hope to bring those chairmen together in conjunction with the chairman of the Central Fisheries Board to find out what consensus we can reach on the new structures. These will have to take into account the changing legislative background as regards the European water framework directive and the changing structures around salmon management and other systems and achieve an effective modern system and put that in place in the next year.

That is the job of the Department. It is one we take on in co-operation with an interdepartmental group the Government set up in October this year, recognising there are other players with an interest in this area such as the Departments of Arts, Sport and Tourism, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This interdepartmental group will have an important role in overseeing and developing that co-operative approach in terms of the change that is necessary.

In reply to the Deputy's last point on drift net fishermen, in the allocation of a further year, or a continuation of the suspension of elections for a further year, it would not be right or possible to go in and amend the particular board structures. In the long-run, however, there will be a role for commercial fishermen in this whole area. While in opposition, I made it clear that when we moved towards a single stock management system for salmon, in particular, there would be an ongoing role for commercial fisheries, in the draft net sector. It is appropriate for us to take the commercial views of, not just the netting, but the food processing sector into account in any future role.

That, however, is probably not the primary area for reform. Where reform is needed is as regards clear lines of demarcation between central and any regional authorities — a transparent management system that does not lead to conflict between the different authorities. That is the primary area that must be put right. After that, the membership of boards issue is something that can be worked out. My instinct is that they should be smaller. It is difficult to get good strategic thinking where there is very large board membership. They should be aligned to what will have to be done in terms of the water framework directive. There is now a large and increasing role in the whole fisheries sector as being a test area for water quality, and that is important. Initially, however, initiatives must be taken on the basis of co-operation and transparency, as the Deputy said. Such an effective system will make it much easier for us to direct the increasing resources, as we need to do, into this area.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

I was just trying to fathom whether the Minister has a structure in mind. Sometimes when one hears the word "smaller" being applied to structures, they tend to become even less accountable than they are already. The regional fisheries boards, certainly, have raised the ire of many a public representative. I can only speak of County Wexford and my colleague will probably agree, as regards people who want to discharge into waters. Perhaps I am straying off the point, but while I have the opportunity I intend to use it to point out that the fisheries boards have been extremely belligerent as regards stopping planning permission throughout the countryside. This needs to be said and discussed and the Minister is doing so with this committee, which includes rural Senators and Deputies.

The regional fisheries boards must be accountable to public representatives, which they are not. Will there be any version of accountability of the boards to public representatives? I have made the point consistently, and there is no better example than the regional fisheries boards which are not interested in betterment. They can say a certain river is a Q3 or Q4, but if there is an issue on a river, stream or watercourse, they do nothing about it. However, they keep their foot in the door and say nothing else can be discharged into it. It is a crazy scenario. The Minister quotes the water framework directive, but if the regional fisheries boards do not identify the sources of the problems, who will? Some of these questions must be answered.

I have a criticism of this meeting. I do not know where the electorate is to elect members to the regional fisheries boards. There is a lack of information. We received the Minister's speech and a few briefing notes. As we are busy people, we should receive the information on what we will be discussing well in advance of any meeting.

Chairman

The information we had to hand was circulated last week to members.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

I know what I received was circulated.

Chairman

We could not circulate a copy of the Minister's speech in advance.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

I do not expect that to happen, but we are discussing restructuring the regional fisheries boards.

Chairman

We are not. We are speaking about postponing the elections. I am not being flippant, but that is the issue.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

I understand the Chairman, but postponing the elections requires the backing of the committee to go to the Dáil and Seanad. I suggest more information and accountability and less belligerence on the part of the regional fisheries boards

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The latter point on the electorate is set out in the primary legislation on angling clubs, tourism interests and other local bodies. However, in this instance we are not reverting to the electorate, but postponing such a reversion and use of that legislative mechanism. Deputy D'Arcy is correct about the need for transparency and accountability in the regional fisheries boards. It is important there is full accountability to local authorities in respect of the decision-making of the boards.

I support the scientific role the regional fisheries boards have played. Members of the boards often face difficult circumstances where in following scientific advice and making the right submissions to the planning process, they have seen acute hostility. It is appropriate for scientific advice to be given in such a forthright manner. It is right for local authorities to listen to and follow scientific advice on water quality, even if it goes against possible development interests they might want to pursue. The "Prime Time" programme on Monday night showed that while development interests have their rightful place, sometimes it is better for us to take cognisance of water quality issues in a way that might not be in the interests of the council, politicians or developers, but is in the long-term interests of the people and the environment. I stand squarely behind the right and position of regional fisheries boards in protecting the environment in such circumstances.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

I have no issue with that. However, when the receiving waters are clean and capable of taking discharges and the regional fisheries boards still object, I have an issue.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

That is a scientific judgement which I would leave to the regional fisheries boards.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

That is fine, but there is no accountability. Nobody can put a submission to or question the regional fisheries boards on why they object when the scientific evidence shows the assimilative capacity of the receiving waters is sufficient to take additional discharges. The fisheries boards still put up objections. They go further than that. If the local authority grants permission, and local authorities also have scientific technicians who are capable of assessing the data, the fisheries boards will appeal the discharge licences through An Bord Pleanála.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I agree with the Deputy on the case for fisheries boards showing scientific evidence for the need to protect water sources. In the Deputy's area there are clear examples of long-term consequences of development on some aspects of water quality. Monday night's programme highlighted certain instances where water availability, not to mention water quality, was affected because changes in planning were not taken into account.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

Water availability was affected because all the pipes were leaking.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I fully support the motion to postpone the elections to the regional fisheries boards in order to give the Minister the opportunity of making the change to the new authority. It is better to wait and get it right than to rush and get it wrong. I agree with the Minister that there is no point in amending the legislation to change the method of election to the current regional fisheries boards.

In reply to Deputy McManus's question on the future of driftnet fishermen on these boards, the Minister said there will be a role for commercial fishermen in the future. He specifically mentioned the draftnet sector but did not mention the driftnet sector. There are driftnet fishermen who will still be legally allowed to fish once the conservation limits have been reached in certain estuaries. That should be borne in mind and they should have a role to play in the future.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

One of the most progressive environmental measures in recent years, and this committee did much work on this issue in recent years, was the agreement on a single stock management system for the fishing of salmon. That has consequences elsewhere in that it allows us to concentrate on issues in real need of attention, namely, habitat management, water quality management and mortality at sea. The move to a single stock management system takes out of the equation the whole debate regarding whether fish are being caught in one district that were heading for a river in another district. I am firmly committed to the maintenance, development and further sophistication of the single stock management system.

I can only presume that what the Deputy is saying with regard to the continuation of a driftnet sector is that it would be within a context where driftnetting within an estuary system could be seen to be in compliance with the single stock management system.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

That is my point.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Where that is the case it may be a viable future fishery.

The main development in this area will, through good habitat management, better scientific knowledge as to what is happening at sea, and a very sophisticated tag based single stock management system, see us going back to opening up individual rivers to catch and release for angling or for commercial draftnetting because we are seeing a return of stocks. It will take a number of years to see whether or not we can effect that because the regulations are done on a rolling average of, approximately, a five-year period. The first indications are that we had a good run of salmon this summer. That may have been due to a range of different factors. Rivers were very high in the late summer. However, we cannot judge yet. It will take a number of years to judge whether the move towards a single stock management system is having an effect.

In terms of potential, it will be limited in regard to estuary or driftnet fishing. There is only a site specific and limited potential in that area. The real potential is in being able to return salmon to rivers such as the Boyne, the Liffey, the Shannon and the Corrib — to areas of the country which in recent years endured increasingly critical conditions. If we could return salmon to those rivers to the extent that we could open them up if they exceed their conservation limits, that would be celebrated and a greatly significant positive step in the protection of the environment. The ability to cut a ribbon as we reopen a river that exceeds its conservation levels should be our target, rather than continuing certain practices that are marginal in the overall scheme of things.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I could ask other questions on the Minister's comments, but they would be more appropriate to the other motion. Therefore, I will wait.

Senator Jim Walsh

The Minister has made a reasonable explanation of why we should extend the date and I accept his logic. However, I note that the independent review was carried out in 2005. As a person from a private sector background, if a report required one to make changes and one had not done so within two to thee years, serious questions would be asked. If we are extending for one year, I hope that at the end of that year we will have an outcome that will mean legislation will be drafted and we will not sit here in 12 months time discussing a further extension.

I note we are moving from central and regional fisheries boards to a single national inland fisheries authority. That was the recommendation of the independent review. I have some reservations, as centralisation has not worked well in other instances. I wonder if we could have a debate at committee level on the pros and cons if the intention is to give it serious consideration. The Minister mentioned legislation, on which I appreciate there must be a consultative process. Has a start been made on drafting the legislation? When is it envisaged that the heads of the Bill will be ready?

I support what Deputy D'Arcy said and endorse the Minister's response on water quality, which is a serious issue. In bodies such as these where people are appointed, accountability structures should be built in. I like the model of the joint policing committees introduced by former Deputy Michael McDowell. While I do not suggest we should go that far, the legislation should incorporate a requirement for consultation at least annually, perhaps biannually, with local authority members who have an electoral mandate. There should be interaction between them where one might, I hope, get a more enlightened approach from both sides on the issues involved.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

I welcome the Minister and his officials and thank them for their briefing. I would like to articulate some concerns. I heard much of what the Minister had to say in his speech, comments and answers to questions before when the HSE was being established and the health boards were being abolished. We were told this would be the answer to everything and give us a better system, but we have found out to our cost that this was not true. I am concerned the same may happen with the regional fisheries boards. It does not make sense that the Minister is concerned about the state of the boards. His objective is to secure value for money management for the inland fisheries sector. It is like a criticism to say the current members of the boards have not delivered this. If the Minister is anxious to change the system, why does he not introduce new thoughts, new ideas and new members? Why continue to delay? Like Senator Walsh, I would like a specific answer on whether the proposed delay is for one year only and will not roll over.

The Minister mentioned scientific evidence when defending the actions of the regional fisheries boards. I have no problem with the Minister's statement in regard to scientific evidence but it should apply across the board. In my area we have had much difficulty with the regional fisheries board which objected to private development and appealed decisions on a continuous basis to An Bord Pleanála. At the same time the local authority, which was discharging into the same river, was penalised on a number of occasions in court, having been found guilty because there was not an adequate sewerage system in place. The reason there was not an adequate sewerage system was that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government failed to provide the necessary funding for it. The requirement to provide scientific evidence should apply across the board and not only in respect of private individuals. It should not happen that a State body is allowed to have a major development and discharge into the river while local and private individuals are penalised.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I thank Senator Walsh and Deputy Coonan for their questions. In regard to the delay since 2006, if there was a report in other areas one would expect implementation to occur fairly quickly. To be honest, the recent evidence is that there was not widespread political support for some of the main directions.

Deputy Coonan stated that his party voiced considerable concern about an excessively centralised model, to paraphrase the concerns expressed at the time. The delay provides an opportunity to see whether, by co-operative consultation, we can achieve an effective structure. Failing that, we will have to consider proceeding on a legislative basis. I am happy to state that if within this short period of time we cannot achieve some sort of development, we will not return next year for further deferrals and postponements. This cannot continue. However, I would hate to miss the opportunity to collaborate with the various chairmen and other parties to see whether a more effective management system can be put in place.

We need a different management system. As a member of this committee over the years, Deputy Kenneally will remember how remarkable and openly apparent the differences of opinion were between regional and central fisheries boards. The system was clearly not functioning. Maintenance of the status quo, therefore, is not a viable option. We have a greater chance of achieving a successful and effective management system by deferring elections for one year and working in co-operation with the various chairmen and chief executives of the various regional and central boards. We have not had collaboration to date. That the system was not functioning effectively is widely acknowledged. Even among people, such as Deputy Coonan, who argued around the changes being proposed, I have not heard the argument that we should continue indefinitely with the existing system as a model of management.

The Bill is complex because it consolidates quite an extensive breadth of legislation. I hope to have the heads of the Bill ready for Government early in the new year and to have achieved a resolution of this structural issue next year. It is not necessarily appropriate to compare this area directly with other areas of authority, such as the HSE. No one is seeking the removal of or complete separation from a regional structure. The real issue is identifying the clear lines of authority between the structures at central and regional levels. For good management at both levels clear lines of authority are needed. Failing that, one ends up with internal wrangling between bodies that should work collaboratively and effectively together.

In regard to the last issue mentioned, namely, scientific evidence in the context of planning, particularly in regard to developments where the regional boards are appealing to An Bord Pleanála, I take the point that it is important to tackle the source of the problem in terms of habitat management.

I have stated that moving towards a single stock management system draws attention back to the habitats issue. In some instances, the Deputy may be right that it is the local authority which has responsibility for habitat protection. However, there are other instances where the planning decision being sought poses a threat to the habitat. Sewerage systems in place in some developments, particularly once-off developments, have had an effect on the habitat. In those instances, it is appropriate for the regional fisheries boards to highlight the effect to An Bord Pleanála and let the board make a judgment on the matter as the independent planning body.

Chairman

That concludes our consideration of the motion on the regional fisheries board.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

Are we taking a decision on the motion?

Chairman

Not yet. We will take the next item first.