Will responsibility for inland fisheries remain with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in the long term? At present, responsibility for marine and fisheries issues is split between approximately six Departments. Moreover, the position appears to be extremely fluid, in that individual responsibilities appear to be moving between Departments within a matter of one or two years. I understand there is still some movement of responsibilities in this regard from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. What is the position on this aspect of the brief? Why did the Department not simply decide to opt for the default position? My understanding is that if we did not do anything about it, a mandatory reduction of 50% as an immediate emergency measure would apply. Surely this would have been preferable. Why did we not simply opt for this for the time being and ascertain thereafter whether the entire subject could be examined in greater depth? Has an analysis been undertaken on this issue?
I note Mr. Sheridan's concluding remarks that every effort will be directed at identifying opportunities for commercial eel fishermen. Has there been an analysis of what this will mean in term of job losses? In Mr. Sheridan's view, what are the implications? Did he state there definitely would be no compensation or hardship scheme or is this being considered?
Mr. Sheridan has stated an evaluation will be made every three years until 2018 and every six years thereafter. Will it be possible to review the plan at any time to change it? Will we be committed to it for so many years or will we be able to modify it next year?