I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the committee. We are here to discuss a motion on the Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2008. A note has been circulated concerning the reasons for the postponement of elections to the fisheries boards.
I invite the Minister of State to make his statement.
I am glad to be back with the committee members and I imagine I can expect the same type of co-operation I got previously.
I welcome the opportunity to outline the thinking behind this motion.
Responsibility for the management and development of the inland fisheries sector currently resides with the Central Fisheries Board and the seven regional fisheries boards. Members will be aware that elections to the regional fisheries boards are due to take place on 16 December 2008, following an extension agreed by the Oireachtas last year. However, I propose to make an order postponing elections for a further year, subject to the approval of the Dáil and Seanad.
I make this proposition with the very real prospect of having a restructured streamlined alternative in place for the inland fisheries service during 2009, to be delivered in the context of the Government's general rationalisation of State agencies. In 2005, on foot of an independent review of the inland fisheries sector in Ireland, my predecessor announced plans for significant restructuring of the sector. However, due to the complexity of the legislation required to implement the proposals, and because of competing priorities, it did not prove possible to introduce the required legislation within the envisaged timeframe.
Committee members will recall that, in seeking sanction to postpone the elections in 2007, my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, advised of a new initiative being undertaken by the boards of the inland fisheries sector in respect of the proposed restructuring of the sector. This was to be developed in detail during 2008. Representatives from the central and regional fisheries boards worked with officials from the Department in developing these proposals in the early part of 2008. The Minister's consideration of the finalised proposals was, however, overtaken by the Department of Finance's review of State bodies, announced in July. As committee members will be aware, on foot of that review, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, announced in budget 2009 that the Government had decided to reduce by 41 the number of State bodies and agencies. As part of this rationalisation process a new national inland fisheries body is to be established which will replace the existing Central Fisheries Board and the seven regional boards. The eight existing trout and coarse fisheries co-operative societies will also be affected under these restructuring proposals.
This decision superseded all other proposals under consideration for the future of the sector and will be implemented without delay. A deadline of August 2009 has been set for vesting day of the new organisation. A small group, chaired by the Department and with representation on behalf of the existing boards, has been established to guide the implementation of the decision. This group will develop the key features of the new model and will advise on the legislative provisions required to deliver the new regime. It will also devise appropriate transitional arrangements to ensure the smooth changeover to the new structures next year. Although the proposal involves the creation of a single national authority, I stress that the Government is committed to maintaining a strong regional input into the management of inland fisheries.
Amending legislation will be required to give effect to the new structures and in this regard the Department is well advanced in the process of drawing up a draft scheme of Bill. It is hoped this will be submitted to Government for approval in the coming weeks. In addition to providing the legislation necessary to facilitate the new structures a separate study is to be undertaken to examine 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 members will appreciate, a considerable amount of work is involved in such an exercise.
A sub-group of the national fisheries management executive has been established to ensure that those dealing with the consolidated legislation at an operational level will have an input into proposals for the new legislation to govern the sector. This group is working closely with the Department on developing legislative proposals. I hope to be in a position to bring forward proposals for that legislation late next year. In the meantime, the focused effort of the Department will be on the legislation enabling the establishment of the new inland fisheries authority.
I recognise the valuable contribution made by the existing members of the boards to the inland fisheries in their regions. Given the significant changes that will be experienced by the sector in the coming year, I am anxious that they be given an opportunity to maintain that important role, not only in offering a continuing input to the work of the regional boards, but also in ensuring a smooth transition to the new structures. Accordingly, I propose to postpone the elections to the regional fisheries boards for a further year in accordance with section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1980. The order, when made, will extend the term of office of the existing board members for a further year, or until vesting day of the new authority, at which time the boards will cease to exist. The order will also result in the postponement of elections to co-operative societies. This will facilitate the continued contribution from those individuals directly involved in overseeing the service, who will have a key role to play in advancing the restructuring of the sector.
While I am fully committed to the restructuring of the sector, I recognise there will be challenges in bringing it about. I stress that the changes to the sector will be progressed on an open and transparent basis.
I trust that the committee will recommend that the Oireachtas should pass a motion approving the order to defer the elections.
Might we have a copy of the Minister of State's speech? The briefing note we received is much shorter and contains less detail.
Are copies available?
Yes.
There is much frustration in my party with regard to what the Government is doing. It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest, as was done in the briefing we received, that as part of the overall rationalisation of State agencies announced in budget 2008, the Government has decided to do take this action. That is rubbish. This has been in the pipeline for three years. We had this discussion at the same time last year when we postponed elections to the fisheries board so that we could do in 2008 what we are now proposing to do in 2009. Let us have an honest briefing, at least. We are to postpone elections again because the Government has not got its act together in setting up the new centralised inland fisheries authority.
The Minister of State will get agreement from the committee on the need for rationalisation and change. That is not what is under discussion. My understanding is that the original decision was taken in 2005 to replace seven regional fisheries boards with a centralised system that could deal in a more efficient way with the inland fisheries sector. What we are being asked to do is to give the Government a break and let it get on with this matter in its own time. At last it has commited to a new date to have new structures in place, namely, August 2009. This news does not inspire us with confidence that the Government will be able to achieve this outcome within that timeframe.
I refer to the actual order that the Minister of State asks the committee to accept and support. Its second point states that 2009 is fixed as the year in which the elections for the members of the regional boards shall be held, which, but for this article, would fall to be held in 2008. However, if we are to replace the boards why is there need to have elections for regional boards in 2009? Are the boards not to be replaced by a centralised inland fisheries authority? What does the Minister of State intend by this delay and by proposing a new election for the members of the regional boards? I do not understand that. Perhaps I have misunderstood something but we must have some clarity.
My understanding is that the Minister of State is now to set a date of August 2009 for the new arrangements to be in place. The briefing note states that, given that the new structures will not be in place until 2009, arrangements must be made to deal with the fact that elections to the existing regional fisheries boards are to be held on 16 December 2008. The Minister of State is making a commitment today that new structures will be in place by August 2009. Why is the Minister of State providing by way of an order to allow elections to the regional boards? If what the Minister of State says, and asks us to accept, is the case, they will be gone by August 2009. He is asking us to postpone elections to the regional boards which will not exist after 2009. That is my understanding and the order does not seem to make sense.
I will interrupt the Deputy. A vote has been called in the Dáil, so I suggest we suspend the meeting and resume immediately after the vote.
It is a great shame since the Deputy was in full flow.
I was building up to a——
We were awaiting the Minister of State's response.
It will give me time to ponder.
It will give the Minister of State time to figure out a response.
We will resume after the vote.
Our concern with what has been proposed is that is puts on the longer finger again something that should have been dealt with months, if not years, ago. I have some questions for the Minister of State. If the new structures must be in place by August 2009, why can they not be in place by March? There is a new subgroup to be established to examine what legislation is required. This might take some time to complete. Why has the Department not developed this legislation in the last 12 or 24 months?
The Minister of State might outline the difference in structure since the announcement of the Government's rationalisation plan for State agencies and quangos some months ago. How has it changed its approach towards the inland fisheries sector? I understand this was to be done and had nothing to do with its rationalisation plan for State agencies. All of a sudden we are hanging it on that hook but there was agreement of the part of the committee and the Government on the need to rationalise the seven regional fisheries boards long before any Government decision was made on a rationalisation plan for State agencies. The Government was to proceed and talk to the regional fisheries boards. They were to treat people with respect because the change would affect jobs and the role of the regional fisheries boards. The transition would not be easy. Will the Minister of State tell us about the approach taken by the Government since last summer? The briefing note states the Government decided to reduce the number of State agencies and as a result, is in the process of setting up an inland fisheries authority to replace the seven regional fisheries boards. How does that differ from what was done before last July when the Government made its decision? Unless I am missing something, I do not see a significant difference between the two. This is being sold as a new rationalisation plan to improve the efficiency of inland fisheries management, to reduce the number of State agencies and to establish the national inland fisheries authority. It is as if this is a new Government initiative that will take time to implement and a reason for postponing elections. As far as I am aware, this measure has been on the cards for three years. Will the Minister of State tell us why it has taken so long to get this far and why his Department has not put legislation in place? There is no reason the legislation should be delayed, even if there are human resource issues in the transition required. Why are we fixing 2009 as the year for the election of members to regional fisheries boards when the briefing note states they will be replaced from August that year? Can we have an explanation on both issues?
This is a sorry state of affairs. For the fourth year in a row we are receiving a copy of an order and the only difference is the name of the Minister and the date, which I presume were Tipp-Exed out and replaced by the name of the current Minister and date. The postponement of the elections amounts to a postponement of a democratic input in how our fisheries are managed. This is the fourth time they have been postponed. During the debate that surrounded the decision to postpone them in 2006Deputy Eamon Ryan, now the Minister responsible for this mess, described the second postponement as a shocking indictment of the Government’s inability to prioritise the environment and the preservation of wild fish stocks. He went on to describe the postponement as a cowardly act.
I do not want to repeat what the Minister of State has said. My view is that this is more about competence than cowardice. We are in an extraordinary position where for four years issues have not been addressed, provisions for rationalisation, restructuring and better management were to be laid out and legislation introduced. None of this has happened and we are now asked to believe an announcement made in the budget was the trigger for another postponement. That is not credible. I presume a new agency will emerge but there are many questions on how the project will be realised. Where is the legislation that is needed? Where are the heads of the Bill? It is the minimum one could expect before being asked to make a decision. What are the transitional arrangements between now and establishment of the new agency? What arrangements are being made for redundancies? Will there be a voluntary redundancy scheme?
There are echoes of something which happened on a larger scale and has lessons for us — how the HSE was established. When proper preparations were not made, we ended up with an unwieldy, inefficient structure which was supposed to solve many problems but which created a new range. While setting up a national agency has merit, it requires that regional management of our fisheries continues. The idea of catchment management was reinforced in 2006 when a decision on salmon stocks was made on that basis. We cannot wipe away the regional management structure; it must continue in some form. We need to know how that is to be done. It is worth noting that this is being done in the context of an ongoing issue — decentralisation. As I have said before, it is very unproductive in achieving decentralisation, and very costly to the taxpayer and the fisheries board which does not have a large budget. Each year money is spent on temporary accommodation and fitting out offices. Meanwhile, the decentralisation project has been abandoned. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us what is the plan.
I wish to refer to the presentation from Dr. Ciaran Byrne, CEO, Central Fisheries Board and ask that the Minister of State come back to me on it as I do not expect him to have the answers today. When one sees what has happened in other State organisations, the whole principle of scrutiny is central to good governance. The questions raised today do not allude to any individuals but they have not been answered. I would like to have an answer to them so that we can all be reassured that the planning is in place in terms of the future and that the practices are robust enough to allow for future responsibility. When Dr. Ciaran Byrne appeared before the joint committee he said that the Central Fisheries Board was in good shape. I do not have a quibble with that.
On financial management, he said that the order for 2007 was completed but that the Comptroller and Auditor General has not signed off on it. It is now December and the board still has not signed off on the 2007 accounts. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify the situation. It seems that the Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned that ongoing very large rent is being paid on three premises in Swords, County Dublin.
Dr. Ciaran Byrne said that the total spend on rent from the years 2005 to 2009, inclusive, would be €1.15 million. There is additional spend for rates, parking and service charges. If the Minister of State has more up-to-date information I would be delighted to hear it. Just looking at the 2005 audited financial accounts, the amounts for rents and rates were in 2005, €195,679 and in 2006, €469,160. We still have no idea of the 2007 figures for rent and rates because the audited accounts are not ready. Dr. Byrne's figure of €1.15 million does not seem realistic. I appreciate these are estimates and he has to do his best shot on it but there seems to be a bad history in relation to audited accounts. I would like to know the up-to-date position because we need to be absolutely secure in the knowledge that money will be spent wisely and invested where it is needed, that we will not continue with the nonsense which has arisen out of the failed decentralisation programme and that resources are managed at regional level, albeit in a new agency structure so that we do not lose the strength we have at the moment in the management of our fisheries.
If we had confidence that the change was being managed well and that preparation was in hand, that legislation or at least the heads of the Bill had been published, that there were continuing negotiations with those affected and that there was a certain amount of drive and urgency about this, it might be easier to swallow the idea that there would be a fourth postponement. I do not think any of us has confidence that that is the scenario. I hope the Minister of State will put our minds at rest as regards our concerns. Postponing elections until 2009 — Deputy Coveney has made this point very well — which we all know will not happen unless a complete bags is made of it and the Minister of State comes back in 2009 and says he is still stuck, undermines the work we do. If the Minister of State had come back and said the elections were not being held and set out what was being done and the statutory basis upon which it is being done, some guideline as to how it will be done, at least one could have confidence that there is logic to it. At the moment we are in a kind of Alice in Wonderland.
The central point is that people have been in place for nine years, certainly four years longer than they should be. People have a right to select who represents them. It is a basic tenet of good management, where there is public accountability, that there is continual change. We are all subject to a five-year scrutiny by the public and that is very good. It should apply across the board, whatever the accountable body. In this case, it is an accountable body that is not functioning properly — the Minister of State has not been performing properly in that he is forced to come back here, yet again, and go through this rigmarole for the fourth time.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the committee. In his contribution, the Minister of State said the Government is committed to maintaining a strong regional input into the management of inland fisheries. I welcome that statement, but unfortunately it is completely disingenuous. It is an untruth and it certainly does not grapple with my sense of reality in terms of how regional fisheries should operate. I say this in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, within which there is a commitment to promote and work towards an integrated marine strategy. We are looking at a new mechanism in terms of how we monitor our inland fisheries and there is no mention whatsoever of the Good Friday Agreement, under which we have a responsibility to work with our colleagues north of the Border.
The Minister of State may argue that there is a Loughs Agency which is accountable to Dublin and Stormont, and that is correct. It exercises a statutory remit across Lough Foyle. From a practical level, tributary rivers flow into Donegal and bailiffs and officials from the Loughs Agency come into the county and work alongside bailiffs and officials from the northern regional fisheries board. There is a duplication in terms of the practicalities of working in the two jurisdictions. I suggest we contact the Loughs Agency and our colleagues north of the Border because we have a written legal, democratic obligation to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which calls for an integrated marine strategy for those working in inland fisheries in Donegal, Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh.
We must heed the needs and frustrations of two bureaucracies, possibly three — there is an accountability to Dublin, Stormont and London — by introducing practical measures. We have enough problems here with red tape in every Department without having more. There is an opportunity to do this. Those in the Loughs Agency are practical and pragmatic, and they want less red tape in going about their work. I suggest the Minister of State heed the Good Friday Agreement because it contains practical suggestions. If we continue to work the Dublin-centric mindset towards Border areas we will not find practical solutions that would help people on both sides of the Border. The Minister of State is from Kildare but he is not completely Kildare-centric and, having travelled the world, he has an open mind to these issues. During his term of office I ask him to focus on this area. He should not be political in this regard. The sense of urgency with which the Minister of State's party, Fianna Fáil, tried to amalgamate with the SDLP does nothing for the harmonisation of good relationships North and South.
That is not being political.
I apologise for my voice; I have a cold. Most of the questions have been asked. It is not desirable to postpone the elections again but I note the reasons given by the Minister of State and the structural changes taking place. My questions concern the points raised by Deputy McManus regarding the 2007 accounts. Given the failure of the Comptroller and Auditor General to sign off on the accounts, are there concerns in the Department with regard to that? Specifically, has the Department undertaken any investigation into the accounts of the Central Fisheries Board? Is there a current investigation or is one planned? I ask that in light of the recent episode involving FÁS. It is important that there is due diligence. I would not like to see these issues exposed again through freedom of information requests. People are paid to police and monitor, and the Department has responsibility in this area. Can the Minister of State give us an assurance that the Comptroller and Auditor General has signed off on the accounts and, if not, what is the reason for that?
Like my colleagues, I am disappointed that the election will not go ahead. This is my first term but I am aware it has been postponed on a number of occasions. I am concerned that we will end up with a Health Service Executive type structure, which is nothing short of a disaster. We do not want that but we must bring some finality to the position.
I thank the members for the questions they raised and will answer them as best I can. I thank them for their support for the proposed rationalisation. On the postponement of the elections, a mechanism in the current legislation provides for the postponement of an election until the following year, and that is what we are doing. I accept members are frustrated, given the commitment in previous years that the position would be different the following year. I am not responsible for what happened in the past. I am aware commitments were given and for a variety of reasons they were not honoured, but it is our intention to have vesting for this new authority in August and that there will be no future need for elections.
To outline the history briefly, members mentioned 2005, but at that stage we were following on from an independent review of the inland fisheries sector. An announcement was made on restructuring of the sector and, as we all know, that did not happen as promised. There was a variety of reasons for that, including complexity of legislation and a certain resistance within the sector to the changes proposed. It did not happen. In 2007, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, indicated that he was examining alternatives and announced that he was working on a new initiative. That development progressed fairly significantly earlier this year.
Members are aware of the serious financial position that has arisen here during the year and we decided the budget should be brought forward to 14 October. At that stage an announcement was made regarding the rationalisation of the regional fisheries boards and the Central Fisheries Board, which were to be replaced with one new authority. Within 48 hours the chief executive officers of those boards came to a meeting here with me, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and officials from the Department, at which we explained the Minister's decision. While difficulty may have arisen previously in implementing some of these decisions — we had promised a certain restructuring that did not take place — we were 100% certain that what was being proposed then would be implemented and we wanted the support of everyone involved in implementing that.
As a result of that, a small group was set up chaired by my Department, with the representation of the existing boards. It is guiding the implementation of the decision announced on budget day. That group will develop the key features of the new model and advise on the legislative provisions required to deliver the new regime we are putting in place. We are legally obliged to postpone the elections for 12 months but it is not a question of playing for time.
With respect, they are not postponed. The Minister of State is saying elections will not take place.
Yes.
Why are we postponing the elections until next year? If the Minister wants us to have some faith in the fact that he will get on and do this, he should call it as it is. There will not be elections.
I listened to the Deputy and I appreciate his frustration, particularly in view of the history, but there is a mechanism in the legislation that provides for the postponement of elections, and that is what we are doing. We have no intention, however, of holding elections next year because we will have a new authority in place in August. We have worked with the boards and we are happy we are getting good co-operation from them. They are represented on the small committee that is working towards ensuring a smooth change-over.
On the 2007 accounts of the Central Fisheries Board, we are awaiting the report. The Comptroller and Auditor General must sign off on those accounts. We are not aware of any difficulties. In view of difficulties that may have arisen in areas, people may be putting two and two together and getting five, but it has not come to our attention that there are any difficulties with those accounts. We await the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Deputy McManus mentioned the matter of rates. The previous accommodation was owned by the Central Fisheries Board and no rent was payable but that accommodation did not meet health and safety requirements. The Office of Public Works was involved in securing new accommodation in Swords.
On that, my understanding is that the Department has not disposed of the first premises. Is that the case?
It is allocated for an affordable housing initiative.
Therefore, it will be knocked down and the site built on.
I do not have the precise details of it, but I will get them for the Deputy. I do not want to give her small amounts of information.
I would be grateful for that.
I will be happy to follow up on that matter. I take the point members made on the need for scrutiny. We will all have——
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State, were the premises sold to the local authority?
It was under the affordable housing initiative——
Yes.
——and therefore there was not a transfer of money.
No. It is called social conscience. I take the point made about scrutiny. Another committee of the House is meeting now and I am sure we are all anxiously awaiting its report and any recommendations it might make.
Regarding the future role of regional boards, on the establishment of the new authority, the existing Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards will cease to exist but the Government is committed to maintaining a strong regional structure as it is in our interest to do so. The existing central and regional fisheries boards will have an important role to play in the transitions of the new structures. The creation of the new forum will present opportunities to input into the policy formulation of the sectoral development board nationally and locally.
Deputy McHugh mentioned the Loughs Agency, which operates under the aegis of the North-South Ministerial Council. I had the pleasure of attending some of its meetings. There is close co-operation between the three fisheries boards, the Loughs Agency and the Fisheries Conservancy Board. Such co-operation will continue with the new authority. It will have the same type of relationship. There are good relations among the boards. I take on board the Deputy's point.
In reply to Deputy McManus's point, transitional arrangements are being considered by the restructuring and implementation group. The matter of the decentralisation of the board to Carrick-on-Shannon was postponed pending a review until 2011, but this is not to apply to the new authority. It will continue to operate throughout the regions.
The Carrick-on-Shannon project is postponed until 2011.
A commitment was given that the Central Fisheries Board would be decentralised to Carrick-on-Shannon. That will not now happen.
What did the Minister of State say initially after that point?
In overall terms, the Minister announced on budget day that the Government will postpone any further such decisions pending a review until 2011.
The Minister of State said something after that.
It will not apply to the new authority.
What does that mean? Is the Minister of State saying that the decentralisation process will not apply to the new authority? Is that what he is saying?
A commitment was given to decentralise to Carrick-on-Shannon.
To decentralise what?
The Central Fisheries Board.
Perhaps I should clarify my point. I am a bit bewildered by what was said. The Minister of State said the decentralisation decision would be reviewed in 2011. I understand that, but he then said it will not apply to the new agency. Does he mean the decision to postpone decentralising the board will not apply to the new agency or that the agency will not be decentralised?
The original decision to decentralise is dead. We are setting up a new authority, which will not be influenced by decentralisation.
It will not be decentralised.
Why did the Minister of State say the decision will be reviewed in 2011?
I was making the point that on budget day a decision, in overall terms, was made on decentralisation concerning all projects.
Therefore, decentralisation is a dead duck in terms of the new agency as well as the Central Fisheries Board. That is what the Minister of State is saying.
I would not call it a dead duck.
It is.
We will continue to operate around the regions. It is not a matter of the regions being neglected.
Where will the new authority will be based?
That decision has not yet been made. It will be a matter for the authority.
It will be up and running next August.
Yes.
That is less than a year from now and we do not know where it will be based. Is that what the Minister of State is saying?
That decision has not been made. An implementation committee is in place, the members of which will make such decisions. We will not make decisions for them. There are not that many options available to them.
I know, but surely the Minister of State has an idea where the new authority will operate. Will new offices have to be bought or are existing offices available where the Central Fisheries Board currently operates? Is that where the new authority will operate?
It will inherit the regional offices. I am sure the possibility of operating from the office in Swords currently being used will be seriously considered by it.
Essentially what the Minister of State is saying is that under the new structure, we will still have the old structure of the regional offices and that what is being done away with is the accountability of the boards to the Department.
No, the board structure did not work efficiently. The setting up of the new authority will represent a much more efficient use of time and resources.
Will the authority still have regional offices?
Yes.
Will the Department still have the regional offices and the Central Fisheries Board offices in Dublin? I am not complaining but just trying to ascertain the accountability of the boards to their representative bodies.
I am not clear as to the Deputy's question.
The Department is eliminating the boards. The Minister of State said there will not be elections to the boards. The boards will no longer be in place, but the regional structure will exist in that there will be regional offices, with, presumably, the chief executive officers of the fisheries boards still in place and answerable to the Central Fisheries Board. Is that the way the system will work?
They will work towards one board.
Yes.
The Minister of State has brought quite a degree of clarity to why the elections are postponed and will not happen. In view of the answer given on the 2007 accounts, is the Department aware of the reasons the Comptroller and Auditor General has not signed off on the accounts?
No, we have not been given any reason. Until the report is published, we will not be aware of that.
I raise this point given what has happened and the great public disquiet regarding FÁS, which probably is only symptomatic of what is happening in other agencies, although I have no idea whether that is the case in this respect. Given that all private companies must file their accounts within nine months of the end of the year, auditors must sign off on or qualify them and it is 12 months since the end of the fiscal year for the Central Fisheries Board, I would have thought it would have been prudent, not only in the case of this Department but all Departments, that where accounts were not signed off on, the Minister responsible should have been given the reason for that immediately. The Comptroller and Auditor General is aware why he is not signing off on the accounts. That reason should be conveyed to the Department to ensure that if there are issues to be investigated, we will not have to wait a further 12 months until the report is published to learn about them. Such management systems should be put in place.
That is an excellent idea. In terms of the Department reviewing these reports, we have had to wait a long time for the 2006 report to be published and laid before the House. I support the Senator's suggestion. The Minister of State might revert to us when he has the answer on this.
We are not aware of any particular difficulty. I would not like organisations to be tarred with the same brush in view of the difficulties being experienced by one organisation.
I wish to clarify that I am not inferring that. I have no information to suggest that.
I appreciate that.
As a matter of prudence from the point of view of how we manage taxpayers' money, if an auditor is not signing off on accounts, it strikes me that there must be a reason for it. It may be a technical reason and there may be nothing ulterior to that, but it could represent a serious issue within the organisation. Once that occurs, and this should apply not only to this Department but to all Departments, surely it should be asked what is the reason. The Minister should be proactive in seeking to discover the reason for it rather than waiting for it to be given 12 months later when God knows what may have exacerbated the situation in the meantime. The experience we have had, to which the Minister of State alluded, highlights the need for this to be done.
Perhaps the Minister of State could establish why the Comptroller and Auditor General has not signed off on the accounts and revert to the committee with the reason. Senator Walsh's point is spot on. This is a question of accountability. It is our job to ensure public money is spent responsibly and is properly accounted for. We are not casting aspersions. We have an obligation to ask the question, however, and the Department also has an obligation to establish why because the fisheries boards are under the Minister's stewardship. Perhaps he will establish that and come back to us.
I was the one who raised this matter originally and I agree with what has been said. Two points need to be made, however. First, we would like to know what the reasons are. Second, we need to be assured, as does the Minister of State, that there are sufficient moneys from the payment of rents in future. I presume that the changes that will be required of the central fisheries board will add to the accommodation and staffing requirements. They will be taking over the role of the regional fisheries boards so there will be a centralised system which will require some capacity. The Minister of State needs to know the costs that will be involved compared with previous costs.
Under the previous arrangement, there were premises that had a real estate value but they are now being used for another purpose without any payment to the Department or the Central Fisheries Board, which will be at a disadvantage. A lot of rent is being paid out for the Swords site and the board will not be going to Carrick-on-Shannon. The Minister of State therefore needs to undertake a thorough assessment of the costs involved in centralisation, which must underpin legislation for the new structures. One only has to look at the HSE model to see the staffing requirements, which are terrifying.
When will the heads of the Bill be published and what are the transitional arrangements? It is not good enough to say it is up to the implementation body because how often has that body met? Does it have any arrangements to continue to meet? Will there be a voluntary redundancy scheme or will only board members be made redundant? Will additional staff be taken on in the central office in Dublin?
The Minister of State should give us some more detail on the implementation group, as well as answering the questions raised by Deputy McManus. One must look at the mistakes the Government made in establishing the HSE. That deal was essentially done to smooth over the transition so that nobody who previously worked in a regional health board would be laid off, everybody's employment would be protected and they would be given a different, new role. The result is that the head of the HSE says he has 2,000 or perhaps 3,000 middle management staff whom he does not need.
Presumably this is about restructuring the management of inland fisheries to improve efficiency, ensure cost-effective expenditure and improve the job that is being done. There is a strong suggestion in the briefing note that the implementation group will comprise existing regional board members. It states: "conscious of the valuable contribution made by existing regional board members, the Minister is anxious that they be given an opportunity to play a key role not only in continuing the work of the regional boards in the interim, but in advancing the proposals as adopted by Government to restructure the sector." Perhaps the Minister of State will let the committee know who will be on the implementation group. This is about the final result in terms of improving efficiency.
Obviously, we need to treat board members and those working with regional fisheries offices with the required respect. If we are restructuring to improve work efficiency let us not make the same mistake that was made with the HSE in order for the transition to be easy. In that context, I would like to get a sense from the Minister of State as to who will be on that implementation group. The committee should know that and should have some interaction with them at some stage between now and when final decisions are being made.
On foot of the budget day announcement, the Department began to work immediately on putting in place necessary measures to ensure the deadline of August 2009 would be met. Various work has to be undertaken in this respect. Work is progressing quickly on the draft scheme of the Bill to give effect to the legislative changes required to establish the new authority. We expect to bring that to Government in the next couple of weeks. We expect that the heads of the Bill will be published early in the new year. It is relatively simple and straightforward legislation, so we do not foresee any great difficulty with it. It will have to be done early in the new year to meet the August 2009 deadline.
A small group, chaired by the Department and with representation on behalf of the existing boards, has been established to guide the implementation of the budget day decision. This group has met on a number of occasions to date and is developing the key features and structures of the new model that we hope to operate.
Can the membership of that board be circulated to the committee?
It can. There are two members from the central board, two from the regional boards and two from the Department. I will provide the committee with the six names. There is no difficulty with that. It is working quite well and I am very confident that we will——
How many times has it met?
I understand that there have been four meetings to date and another meeting is scheduled for next week. The work has been productive and I am happy that it is doing the job it set out to do.
Eight boards in total must furnish accounts. Members have raised issues concerning the Central Fisheries Board, but the Comptroller and Auditor General has an independent role and I do not want to interfere with that. There is communication between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the board if particular issues need to be clarified or if he has particular concerns. I will contact the Central Fisheries Board to see if any issue is delaying publication of the accounts. I take on board what members of the committee have said about scrutiny when we are dealing with taxpayers' money.
Will the Minister of State advise us accordingly?
I will be happy to advise the committee.
I thank the Minister of State.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending the joint committee.
