Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND THE MARINE debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 1999

Vol. 2 No. 6

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1999: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, and his officials, Mrs. Sarah White, Mr. Maurice Mullen, Mr. Patrick McHale and Mr. Kieran McCann, to this meeting which will be devoted to our consideration of Committee Stage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1999. As another committee is due to use this room after us, we must conclude our deliberations by 5.15 p.m. at the latest. Members are notified that I have accepted amendment No. 8a on the first additional list of amendments which was tabled by the Minister.

SECTION 1.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 16 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, subsection (3), subsection (3), line 38, to delete "1997" and substitute "1998".

The amendments to the Bill arise from the debate on Second Stage. A number of them may appear lengthy but that is due to the fact that we wish to restore a number of elements to the Bill.

Amendment No. 1, which appears in my name and that of Deputy Bell, is a necessary technical amendment to section 1 regarding the collective citation and construction of the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1998. Amendment No. 16 is also a necessary technical amendment to section 19 of the Bill regarding the collective citation of the Forestry Acts, 1946 to 1988. I thank Deputy Bell for tabling this amendment which corrects a drafting error.

I thank the Minister for accepting these amendments.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 1, to delete ", unless the context otherwise requires".

This is a technical amendment to section 2, which deals with interpretation. The amendment was proposed by the parliamentary draftsman as the correct text for the interpretation section.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, line 48, after "functions" to insert "but this paragraph shall not be construed as enabling the Board to carry out research or experimental work on or in relation to any species of sea-fish, within the meaning of Part XIII of the Principal Act, other than research similar or analogous to research in relation to sea-fish being carried on by the Central Board immediately before the commencement of section 5 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999”.

This amendment to section 5 deals with the functions of the central board. At our meeting with representatives of the board, we discussed the continuation of the sea-fish tagging programme. The purpose of the amendment is to reinstate the provision of the Fisheries Act, 1980, under which the board was able to carry out the tagging programme.

Does the amendment include the fish-tagging programme which has been in operation since 1971?

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 5 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 13 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, after line 54, to insert the following:

"(6) For the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, but subject to the directions, if any, of the Minister, the Central Board may enter into such partnership or other arrangements with such persons or bodies as it thinks fit.".

This amendment to section 5 deals with the functions of the central board. At our meeting with representatives of the board, they requested that an explicit enabling provision be made which would allow the board to enter into partnerships. Those representatives provided an example of a fishery which was in need of development. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the board to enter into partnerships or other arrangements subject to directions, if any, of the Minister. A similar provision is proposed in the case of the regional boards. With increased powers and responsibilities being devolved to them, the regional boards will be able to enter into partnerships or other arrangements if they wish to do so. This would also be subject to directions, if any, given by the Minister.

Various functions have been devolved to the regional fisheries boards. For example, the Moy fishery will come under the control of a regional fisheries board. What partnership does the Minister have in mind?

If, for instance, it were considered desirable to gain a degree of control along stretches of a river or enter a partnership to promote development, such a proposal could be made. Many parts of rivers are in private ownership and the boards may wish to enter into some arrangement with the private owners. This is just an enabling provision for them to enter such arrangements and ultimately they will be under the general supervision of the Minister. However, it opens many new possibilities in that regard.

The amendment, therefore, refers to private ownership rather than that the Minister will devolve the functions to the fisheries boards.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 8, line 5, to delete "1999’.” and substitute the following:

"1999.

(7) The Minister may, if he or she thinks fit, authorise the Central Board to engage in the processing and marketing of such species of fish as are specified in the authorisation.

(8) The Central Board shall have regard to the particular role and contribution of angling clubs and associations in the sustainable management and development to the public benefit of State, public and other inland fisheries.".

Section 5 deals with the functions of the central board. The amendment has two elements. First, the new subsection (7) reinstates the provision of the Fisheries Act, 1980, which enables the central board, subject to the Minister's authorisation, to engage in the processing and marketing of fish. At the meeting with the representatives of the Central Fisheries Board, they raised the issue of dealing in fish for bait and hatchery fish. They foresaw that they would need to provide for these activities. The purpose of the amendment is to reinstate this provision.

Second, with regard to the new subsection (8), for the first time the valuable contribution of angling clubs and organisations in the management, conservation and development of fisheries is given specific legislative recognition. In the exercise of its remit the Central Fisheries Board cannot be constrained in the management and development of fisheries and their attendant services for the overall public good and in accordance with the provisions of relevant public service financial and operational requirements. However, the amendment will enable the board to recognise the unique role and contribution made by the clubs and organisations in circumstances where, for example, the club is involved in undertaking in-stream development work or providing private waterkeeper services or operating hatcheries to enhance fish stocks. It recognises the existence of the clubs. They were concerned that, with the new arrangements which devolve powers to regional boards, which is progressive, they might be overlooked. Their work and contribution are now enshrined in legislation.

The amendment does not refer to staff of the Central Fisheries Board. I understand the Minister is meeting with my colleagues from SIPTU and me tonight. I refrained from tabling amendments on this issue pending these discussions. If agreement can be reached, any important issues can be facilitated on Report Stage. I will not ask the Minister to agree to anything in advance of the discussions. I hope he will reach some accommodation regarding their concerns.

My amendment proposes the substitution of the words "have regard to" with "fully recognise". On Second Stage the Minister said he would acknowledge and copperfasten in statute the long standing role of angling clubs in the management and development of their resource. "Have regard to" does not copperfasten that role as it is vague. The phrase "fully recognise" is stronger and more meaningful.

We have considered that and I accept Deputy Finucane's point. However, my legal advice from the parliamentary draftsman is that my amendment is tighter and more beneficial to the clubs.

On what basis is it tighter? The phrase "shall have regard to" almost provides a sneaking recognition as opposed to "fully recognises". The latter phrase could not cause conflict from the parliamentary draftsman's point of view if appropriate recognition were to be given to angling clubs. I do not understand why he quibbles with my proposed wording.

The legal advice is that while one can recognise them and everybody is happy, "having regard to" implies that their position and what they say must be recognised and in that sense it is tighter. One may still decide at the end of the day to take a different decision but one must have regard to them whereas recognising them is looser.

What was the legal advice regarding "fully recognises"?

"Having regard to" is a tighter term.

Is the Minister happy that it copperfastens his commitment on Second Stage?

Yes, it is a stronger term.

I accept the legal opinion.

Is the Deputy happy?

I am reasonably happy, but as a non-legal person, I think that "fully recognises" gives the angling clubs a greater status and "have regard to" is almost a begrudging acceptance. However, I accept the spirit of the Minister's legal advice from the parliamentary draftsman.

Section (8)(2)(a) of the 1980 Act refers to "specialist and support services". Are research, experimental work, fisheries development, water quality and monitoring, angling support services, promotion, information, technology, industrial relations finance covered by that?

Section 5 (5)(a) states the Central Board may "carry out such research or experimental work as it considers necessary for the performance of its functions. . . . ".

That is as previously but a separate clause has been inserted so it does not overlap with the Marine Institute.

The Minister is happy that iscovered?

I accept that.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 5 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Central Board and divisional boards have jurisdiction over sea angling which has developed rapidly. However, there is great potential for further development. It may not be necessary to include it in this section but it is covered under the functions of the central board and the regional boards. Sea angling is becoming more important as a recreational activity and as a tourism revenue earner. It is timely to look at this valuable resource which needs to be conserved, protected, managed and developed.

Eel fisheries are a valuable resource which have not been developed to their maximum potential. Recently there has been some criticism of the decline in eel fisheries, particularly on the Shannon. Given the potential of these fisheries, is the Minister giving any consideration to how this should be approached, especially in the context of the North-South bodies? There could be co-operation with the eel fisheries in the North which have been developed to a high standard in the past few years.

That is a relevant point. As the Deputy knows, I obtained grants for the safety of sea angling vessels. It is a developing area and it is legally provided for implicitly in the Bill. However, we will accept Deputy Finucane's amendment No. 15 to make it more explicit. I agree that sea angling should be developed. Eel fisheries also need to be looked at. Given this discussion, I will establish a strategic review group to look at the issue. We have been dealing with many sectors, but the eel fisheries sector needs special treatment in its own right. In that context, the North-South relationship is important. There is good communication between North and South already. Fr. Kennedy seems to be on the Shannon very often and fishermen from the Shannon visit the North regularly. An excellent job is being done but the area needs to be developed. The strategic review group will also consider the North-South relationship.

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to representations made by the Shannon Eel Fishermen's Association. I am sure the Minister has copies of the documentation. If he does not, I can forward them to him. The association has made a good case why special attention should be given to eel fisheries. Perhaps the Minister will take this into account in the establishment of the strategic review group.

I met with the association recently. My discussions with them were relevant to my thoughts about the area and the urgency of its development. I have received the association's submission.

What about their voting rights? On the Shannon, the rights are held by the ESB. However, if individual fishermen have authorisation, perhaps they have a right to vote.

There appears to be an anomaly. The licence is held by the ESB; therefore the fishermen do not have a vote. Early in the new year we will examine the scope for legislative change. It is a fair point.

I raised the question of staffing on the central board on Second Stage and I asked the Minister to undertake an examination of this. That will probably be part of the discussions the Minister will be having this evening. I will await the outcome.

As regards the ESB and the eel fisheries, a court case is being threatened in that regard. Will the Minister look at the ESB in the context of the strategy review group? Perhaps he should consolidate the regional fisheries board in this regard. The role of the ESB, which goes back to the 1930s should be changed with regard to its involvement in fisheries.

I agree with the Deputy. We need to look at that in the context of the strategic review. Several groups and Deputies have made representations about different aspects.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.

Amendment No. 6 is a ministerial amendment. Amendments Nos. 8, 8a and 20 are related, amendments Nos. 19 and 21 are consequential on amendment No. 20 and amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are alternatives to amendment No. 20 - all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No.6:

In page 8, subsection (1), lines 22 to 36, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) in subsection (4), by the substitution of the following for subparagraph (ii):

'(ii) subject to paragraph (ab) of this subsection and subsections (5) and (6) of this section, not more than 8 shall be appointed by the Minister after such consultation as the Minister considers appropriate, and

(iii) one shall be a member of the staff of the regional board nominated by the staff of the board.',".

This amendment provides for the ministerial appointment of up to eight members of a regional board and that one member should be nominated by the staff of the board. Amendment No. 7 provides for the prescription of interested organisations from whom nominations will be sought.

Amendment No. 7 is not being discussed.

I was making a brief reference to it. I will bring forward a late amendment No. 8a consequent to amendments in this section. Lines 17 to 26 on page 9 or paragraph 7(1)(c) to 7(1)(e) are being deleted and a new paragraph is being included. These paragraphs amend section 10(11) of the 1980 Act which enables the Minister to set by order the number and type of fisheries representation on regional boards. Given amendment No. 6, it would not be appropriate to delete section 10(11) of the 1980 Act.

On Second Stage I emphasised the importance of having staff representation by election and the name of the person elected being then forwarded to the Minister. I welcome that and I am sure the staff of the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards will also appreciate it. There is a great deal of expertise in the boards, especially the Central Fisheries Board. They will play an important and positive role in improving the driving force of the Bill. I thank the Minister for responding positively.

I agree with Deputy Bell. I received a communication from the Field Officers' Association alerting me to the fact that no staff representative was included in the Bill as originally framed. It is regrettable that that error was made, but I am glad it has been redressed. The Minister mentioned an amendment which we received late this morning. Perhaps he would clarify the motivation for the amendment which states that the Minister may, by order, alter the number of elected members of a regional board. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that?

It maintains the status quo already provided in the 1980 Act.

It covers that in general?

That is fine.

Will the Minister set down any regulations or rules of procedure for the method by which the staff member is elected or will it be left to them?

It will be left to them but it would be an agreed method. That is normal. We want them to decide the method as long as it is an open and fair one.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 8, subsection (1)(b), to delete lines 39 to 46, and in page 9 to delete lines 1 to 11 and substitute the following:

"(aa) (i) The Minister shall prescribe not less than 2 organisations which, in the Minister’s opinion, are representative of each of the following classes of organisation:

(A) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the promotion of the development of aquaculture or are representative of persons carrying on the business of developing aquaculture;

(B) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are representative of persons whose professions or occupations relate to agriculture;

(C) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are representative of persons concerned with the protection and preservation of the environment;

(D) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the promotion of regional tourism;

(E) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the protection and preservation of the national heritage within the meaning of the Heritage Act, 1995; and

(F) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the promotion of regional or local development.

(ii) The Minister shall appoint as members of a regional board from amongst those persons nominated by each of the classes of organisations prescribed under subparagraph (i) one member to represent each class of organisation, or in default of such nominations after the Minister has given each a reasonable opportunity to do so, then from among such persons as the Minister thinks fit.

(iii) An organisation prescribed under subparagraph (i) shall, whenever so requested by the Minister, select such number of candidates (not being less than 2, of whom one shall be a woman) as the Minister may specify for appointment as members of a regional board and shall inform the Minister of the names of the candidates selected and of the reasons why, in the opinion of the organisation, they are suitable for such appointment.

(iv) The Minister shall not appoint a person to be a member unless the person was amongst those selected pursuant to a request under subparagraph (iii) in relation to that appointment, but-

(A) if all of the appropriate organisations refuse or fail to select any candidate, or

(B) if the Minister decides not to appoint as a member any of the candidates selected by such organisations,

pursuant to a particular request under subparagraph (iii), then either-

(C) the Minister shall appoint as a member a person who was amongst those selected by such an organisation pursuant to a previous request (if any) under that subparagraph in relation to that appointment, or

(D) the Minister shall make a further such request and shall appoint as a member a person who was amongst those selected pursuant to that request made in relation to the appointment.

(v) Where a request is made under subparagraph (iii) or (iv)(D), failure or refusal by the organisation of whom the request is made to select the number of candidates specified in the request shall not preclude the appointment as a member of a person who was selected in relation to that appointment either by the organisation or by any other organisation.".

This concerns the appointment of eight members to a regional board. This amendment provides that the Minister shall prescribe two organisations representative of agriculture, aquaculture, the environment, regional tourism, the national heritage and regional and local development. Paragraphs (ii) to (v) detail the nomination selection procedures to be applied which are modelled on the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, regarding the appointment of the aquaculture appeals board. Through the process of prescribing relevant organisations from whom nominations for board membership will be sought, this amendment answers the issue raised that the appointment of members by the Minister would be purely political.

I welcome the Minister's proposal as it meets fully the points which I and my colleague, Deputy Finucane, made on Second Stage. I am pleased he has recognised those points. However, the amendment does not specify net fishermen. Is there a reason for that?

They are included as before.

If two net men were on the previous boards, does this mean that those two net men will automatically be on the new board?

There is no amendment because we accepted the original amendment.

I just wanted clarification.

The greatest controversy and the largest amount of correspondence we received concerned this section which deals with the composition of the regional fisheries boards. The Minister has outlined those members he will nominate, but the different sectors involved in regional fisheries are up in arms because of the reduction in their number to eight members. We could lose sight of the fact that these are regional fisheries boards. I know why the Minister wants to include other stakeholders and that is understandable, but we should not forget that they are regional fisheries boards. I am aware the Minister's officials have done a great deal of work on this, but they have had up to 30 months to prepare this legislation. Those of us in Opposition have had the benefit of about three weeks to hold discussions with interested parties and to analyse and debate the Bill.

The Minister has met and listened to the views of the different groupings. I have had correspondence from net men, especially regarding their level of representation. It must be recognised that they made sacrifices in the area of conservation. The closest contact I would have had with many of the angling lobbies is in the context of the legislation. One thing which impressed me about them was their commitment to the fishery concept and to ensuring that they act responsibly with regard to the fisheries they control. Therefore, it is right that they should be recognised in the Bill.

The farming sector was originally included in the list of ministerial nominations and this has now been changed to agriculture. Is that because the Minister assumed the farming sector was too narrow a focus whereas the agriculture sector gave him scope to appoint people within agriculture who were not farmers? Would I be right to interpret it that way?

Yes, the Deputy is correct. It allows the Minister to appoint someone from Teagasc, for example, who would have an interest in the area.

Would the Minister define the nominations for environment and local government because, to me, environment calls the shots in many cases for local government? Where would the Minister see a representative of the environment being appointed and where would he see one being appointed for local government? Does he intend duplicating the same resource?

No, we do not intend doing that. The people must be broadly representative of the environmental and local government sectors. Aswe know, local government is especially important in the development of catchments and rivers. The purpose is to have an involvement so that there would be good communication which would lead to better plans which would have the necessary support. We intend the nominations to be for regional and local planning, regional assemblies and any other local groups.

I can understand who would come from local government; it would probably be a person from a local authority. Who or what category of people does the Minister have in mind for the environmental lobby?

Does the Minister have in mind pollution officers or elected members?

We have in mind representatives of organisations in the environmental sector. I would be open to further discussion as to which organisations might best represent that. The wording leaves open the possibility of appointing a person from that area. We will have to work out the segments and which ones will be included. As I said, I have a very open mind on this matter.

Am I correct in saying that local authorities were not involved in the composition of fisheries board in the past?

That is correct.

There is a need for more clarity between local government and the fisheries boards in terms of water pollution. I often wonder if there is a certain amount of duplication. Is the thrust of including local government in the composition of membership an attempt to ensure a more clear cut role for fisheries boards and local authorities in the area of water pollution, one of the essential issues in terms of water quality?

I have made the point repeatedly that the fisheries boards are not responsible for the water, but for fish and the pollution which affects them. Local authorities are responsible for water and its pollution, yet we are left with many of the problems which arise as a result of pollution. Therefore, it is very important to relate these two issues as closely as possible. From the outset I have argued that the fish are an indicator of the health of the water and are the first to be affected when water is polluted. I have, therefore, pushed for a more urgent involvement by us in pollution matters, as fish suffer when it occurs. We are also responsible for mining, and I liken this to the old days in the mines when the first men sent down were afraid of gas. They brought a tomato plant with them which was the first to suffer.

The Minister is an expert in that regard.

I was at one time. If the tomato plant began to suffer from the gas the miners would know it was time to get out. In a way it is similar with fish which are a very good indicator of the health of waterways. Therefore, we have a very direct concern and can make a very valuable contribution to local authorities. Hence the importance of involving local authorities and them having a good understanding of what we are doing. The national plan, for example, broadens the horizons and relates both issues. We hope it is successful.

Aquaculture is represented on the regional fisheries boards, or at least the Minister has the scope to appoint a person from that sector. On a quid pro quo basis, is the Minister satisfied that the regional boards are involved in aquaculture projects in their areas? In particular I am reminded that last summer every Member of the Oireachtas received a communication from the chairman of a fisheries board outlining his concerns, backed up by photographs, about a number of rotting fish in an aquaculture plant. He was pointing out the limited if not non-existent scope of the regional fisheries boards in terms aquaculture projects. Does the Minister see a more enhanced role for the regional boards in this area?

The specific case was investigated by the Department. The boards have a monitoring role, but the Department has been the main source of control and has provided inspection. Of course the Department works very closely with the fisheries boards and their officers.

I do not want to discuss specific instances. I think the liaison should be more effective and that action should be taken in a shorter time than has previously been the case.

I accept that.

In my county both main rivers are within the area of responsibility of Drogheda and Dundalk local authorities. While there are three local authorities in the county, the pollution control officer is effectively an employee of the county council under the existing pollution legislation.

That is correct. I have been pushing for a greater role because we must meet somewhere along the way. We do not want to find that fish have been killed. As Deputy Finucane said, a rapid response is necessary from our point of view and a close working relationship is very important.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.

I move amendment No. 8a:

In page 9, subsection (1), lines 17 to 26, to delete paragraphs (c) to (f) and substitute the following:

"(c) by the substitution of the following for subsection (11):

'(11) The Minister may by order alter the number of elected members of a regional board.'.".

Is the Minister satisfied that my amendment No. 8 is fully covered in the provisions of his amendment?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 9, after line 47, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) If the first election of members to a regional board after the commencement of this section is to be held in the year 2000 but before 1 October of that year, then, subject to section 14 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, but notwithstanding any other provision of any enactment or instrument made under an enactment, the persons entitled to vote at that election, to nominate a candidate for election and to accept nomination and stand as a candidate for election, shall be determined as if the election date were the third Tuesday in December, 1999.".

This is an amendment to section 7 which deals with membership of the regional boards. In the past, elections to regional boards have been held in December. However, the Bill provides that elections will be held within three months of the commencement of the relevant section. The angling representative groups and the boards have said this would pose a particular difficulty in creating election lists as many people would not have acquired a fishing licence for 2000 by the time of the election and therefore would not be eligible to vote. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent this problem from arising by providing that eligibility to vote and stand for election shall be determined as if the election date was the third Tuesday in December 1999, that is, the day on which the elections would take place this year if not postponed. A similar provision is proposed in the case of the fisheries co-operative societies. It is, therefore, a technical amendment.

We all made representations on this matter and the amendment meets the points raised.

This is a very sensible amendment. The crucial date over the past two years from the Minister's point of view was 14 December. The appointments may not be made until the new year, and the amendment provides the necessary scope in that regard. Do I take it the Minister will not be looking for approval from the House to extend the date for the regional fisheries boards?

That is a slightly different issue. If the Bill is passed by then the matter will not arise and it will not be necessary to introduce such an order.

If the Bill has been passed by 14 December?

The Bill will have to be passed by 21 December, which effectively means 14 or 15 December.

It will be a happy Christmas for many people in terms of appointments.

I do not know. The elections will have to be arranged.

I think much of the process will take place in the new year.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, paragraph (a), line 34, after "promote" to insert ", market".

This amendment is to section 8 which deals with the functions of regional boards. The amendment makes explicit that regional boards have a duty to market angling for salmon, trout, coarse fish and sea fish. This was always intended. I thank Deputy Finucane for his amendment which places the matter beyond doubt.

I tabled the amendment because I believed there was a narrow focus without the word "market". There had been attempts in the tourism and angling measures to market, look into the future and devolve more powers to the regional fisheries board. Marketing must be an essential component of these powers. I welcome the fact that the Minister is accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 11 and both will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 10, paragraph (a), to delete lines 39 and 45.

In relation to amendments Nos. 11 and 12, the purpose of the provision in question is to facilitate the concept of catchment management. The process is a means of bringing local interest groups together to optimise the benefits that can be derived from sustainable development of a fishery on an agreed basis. It is important to clarify that the provision does not impose catchment management as a mandatory regime. By definition, catchment management is a voluntary process which aims to bring all the stakeholders together in partnership and to mutual benefit.

The Bill seeks to facilitate the development of catchment management where and when it is agreed to be potentially beneficial. It clarifies the respective roles of boards, inland fisheries interests and other local interests in developing such a process. The catchment management approach is now well established internationally as a fisheries management technique. It is based on the four principles of communication, co-operation, compromise and consensus. The process acknowledges the highly complex inter-relationships between diverse interests and works to deliver shared solutions through dialogue. Fisheries catchment management in Ireland is still at a very early and experimental stage. The six pilot projects which have been under way throughout the country for 18 months were endorsed by me as a means of testing the concept. The practical experience of these projects will help to inform the future development of national guiding principles for catchment management. The experience to date has underlined the importance of adapting the process according to the needs and circumstances within particular catchments. We are gaining a better understanding of the complex challenges and difficulties inherent in bringing groups together in this way. There is still, however, a long road to travel.

I am aware that particular difficulties have arisen in progressing the pilot catchment management project for the Laune/Lein catchment in Kerry. At this time the Killarney Angling Federation has withdrawn from dialogue. This underlines the highly complex issues which have traditionally characterised inland fisheries ownership, management and access. It also underlines the need to build trust among all the interests and a better understanding that catchment management is not about winners and losers but about working together to mutual benefit. I do not under-estimate the difficulties at local level which have emerged in Killarney and, indeed, in other pilot projects. I believe, however, that with more time, effort and understanding these difficulties can be overcome. We must be conscious of the genuine concerns of some groups while acknowledging the commitment and hard work which all groups, including the angling organisations, have put into the pilot process over the last 18 months.

My statement today is designed to encourage renewed confidence and trust in the process among all the parties involved in the pilot projects. We should give the concept of catchment management a chance to work within the new framework of regional and local empowerment which the Bill provides. I ask the Deputies to reflect on what I have said and to consider withdrawing their amendment and supporting amendment No. 12.

Is the Minister satisfied that the fears we have expressed in relation to the section will be met? Does he intend to table further amendments on Report Stage?

I am satisfied this is an enabling provision with which people wish to co-operate. The fears expressed relate to provisions being enforced. This is not envisaged. I am inviting each of the six catchment groups to provide a mid-term report on the outcome of their work to date, outlining achievements as well as problems encountered and lessons to be learnt. This was the idea behind the pilot studies. I am asking the groups to report to me early in January. In light of the reports, I will review the timeframe for development of the national guiding principles with the national catchment management steering group, the Central Fisheries Board's national co-ordinator, as well as the regional fisheries board and the catchment groups themselves.

The national guiding principles will learn from and take account of the practical and catchment's specific experiences to date. This process of review will give everyone involved time and space to discuss and reflect on the overall future directions for catchment management while continuing to progress the valuable work of the groups to date. We need to give the concept of catchment management a chance to work and the time needed to deliver successfully for all concerned. Within the new framework of regional and local empowerment for inland fisheries, and with the new funding provision of £24 million under the national development plan, the time has never been more suitable for realising the full potential of our inland fisheries resource. I will be pleased to meet with the Killarney anglers at an early date during the review.

This issue has caused concern to Deputy Bell and myself. This morning we both considered seeking the deletion of the section but discussions did not take place. It is interesting that we were both of this frame of mind.

A meeting took place in Killarney last Sunday night at which a strong objection to this section was voiced. I discussed with the Minister's officials the concerns expressed regarding the section. I hope to receive a copy of the Minister's statement. However, I am not sure this will appease the people who approached us on this issue. They approached us on the basis of an experience with catchment management which the Minister acknowledged was probably unsatisfactory. It is understandable that their response was based on their experience of a catchment management pilot project which was unsuccessful. We have tried to be constructive in debating the Bill. The Minister accepted some of our amendments relating to the different organisations involved. In replying to this issue, he stated that it is an enabling measure which he hopes to develop further. I have discussed the matter with Deputy Bell and we have decided to table an amendment on Report Stage and Report Stage will, presumably, be taken next week. I would like to see dialogue on this between the officials and the organisation which had a bad experience in this area to see if the response given here is satisfactory to them. I will also consult with them. The issue of the catchment management approach has not been teased out effectively. While the Minister might say it is an enabling measure, he should have taken time to tease it out satisfactorily. If it still has to be moved, even outside the exercise of this Bill, let it then be successful. I am putting the Minister on notice that I will be moving an amendment to this on Report Stage and will call a vote on it if necessary. In the meantime, it gives the Minister an opportunity to speak to the people involved on what is the most contentious issue remaining in the Bill.

I agree with Deputy Finucane. When we met this morning, as he rightly said, we realised we had both come to the same conclusion even though we had not discussed the amendment. That is the message that came across loud and clear to me. There is a certain amount of fear about this. Being a fisherman I appreciate fully the different interests in the various areas of fisheries and fishery management. I am not under-estimating the difficult task involved in getting an overall consensus on any matter in some areas. We agree to withdraw this amendment on the understanding that further consultation will take place and an effort will be made before Report Stage to meet the points directly and indirectly raised.

This is an enabling provision. The amendment tabled by me seeks to strengthen the provision and highlights the bodies and organisations in the fisheries region. Nothing is written in stone. This provision only enables these arrangements to be pursued if the fisheries board wishes to pursue them in a particular area. Most of the angling groups and associations agree with this provision. They do not wish to throw out the baby with the bath water in the sense that this is a very good and necessary arrangement. There need be no fears in relation to this provision. I know one particular association had a bad experience in this area. We will certainly speak with them as early as possible.

The purpose of this legislation is to provide general cover where there is agreement and where people can advance on an agreed basis. I do not see a problem from the general enabling legislation side of the argument. It is welcomed by the vast majority of associations with whom we have had discussions. They see this measure as a very important element in the future development of the fisheries and that if it is not included they will not get the results they wish. It is a question of addressing the issues which have arisen in one unfortunate situation, which we will do.

We all wish to have catchment management policy which we regard as very essential. Six pilot projects were undertaken and one of them had a bad experience. The public meeting was attended by about 300 anglers. The matter caused a great deal of concern in that area. A further meeting took place last Sunday night. On the basis of what the Minister said about this being enabling legislation and what he intends to do in the new year, surely it is possible for the Minister's officials to talk to these people between now and Report Stage.

We will do that right away.

I would also appreciate receiving a copy of what the Minister said so that I could relay to these people what he had to say on this matter.

We will try to arrange a meeting.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 10, paragraph (a), line 39, after “co-ordinate” to insert “together with the inland fisheries owners, bodies and organisations in its fisheries region,”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 11, paragraph (b), line 21, to delete “fit.’.” and substitute the following:

"fit.

(2A) For the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, but subject to the directions, if any, of the Minister, a regional board may enter into such partnership or other arrangements which such persons or bodies as it thinks fit.

(2B) A regional board shall have regard to the particular role and contribution of angling clubs and associations in the sustainable management and development to the public benefit of the State, public and other inland fisheries in its fisheries region.'.".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 13 not moved.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 11, line 44, to delete "inland fisheries" and substitute "fisheries within a fisheries region".

This amendment deals with ministerial directions to the central board or a regional board. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that a direction of the Minister can be in respect of any fishery, game, coarse or sea within a fisheries region. This was always the intention. However, the original phrase "inland fisheries" was not defined and could have been interpreted as excluding sea angling. This amendment is in response to amendment No. 15 in the name of Deputy Finucane. I thank him for drawing attention to that matter.

Amendment No. 15 seeks to allow the Minister to give a direction in relation to sea angling which is being addressed by amendment No. 14.

I am pleased the Minister is taking that amendment on board. Sea angling has always been a type of Cinderella activity which does not receive the emphasis it deserves.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister will have power under this section to make grant assistance to the central or regional boards to cover expenditure incurred in the performance of their functions. Will that include grants towards the development of specific projects within the regional board areas? For instance, if a regional board set a proposal to deal with impediments to fishing activity within their region, would it be able to apply for grant aid under this section?

It will cover capital investment of all kinds. It would include the development plans and implementation of the national plan which is very important. It is a new development.

We often find that angling clubs have people assigned to pollution control to at least patrol their own part of the river. Quite often such people are paid from the angling club's funding. I wrote to the Minister on behalf of a specific club and he indicated that his Department had no control or involvement in that area. That is true. Could the Minister ensure some flexibility in dealing with the regional fisheries board where it considers that angling clubs and associations show a great sense of vision as regards what they are doing on the river? It should be able to reward people by way of subvention for the work they are doing. I speak in the context of the regional fisheries boards in their new devolved role.

We have an arrangement for the co-operatives, which is enshrined in the Bill. We can look at the clubs in the context of the national development plan. It gives us a new opportunity to look at the way they operate. The Bill gives recognition to the fact that they undertake a very important function. That eases the way in which we might act under the plan.

I accept money will be available for inland fisheries and the fisheries boards under the national development plan. Perhaps funding was not adequate to the regional fishery boards in certain cases in the past. Each board should be able to undertake an audit of their area, should identify the progressive clubs and become involved in enhancing rivers and dealing with pollution difficulties. The boards should be able to reward clubs which adopt a progressive approach. Substantial funding is not required. Often a few thousand pounds in the right direction can be of significant help.

I hope the boards will undertake audits. It is also desirable that they engage in enhancement work.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

It is proposed to change the name of the regional manager of a regional fisheries board to chief executive officer. A number of people have been assistant regional managers. Will similar recognition be given to them and will they be described as assistant chief executive officers? Is that possible under this section?

It is a logical follow through and we will look at it.

Is the Minister saying that the chief executive officer of the Central Fisheries Board will be a de facto member of the board?

No, he will not be.

Even though the two regional managers will be?

There will be one representing the regions.

One regional chief executive officer will be a member of the board but the chief executive officer of the board will not be a member. Is that correct?

They will not be members of their own boards.

Is there not an anomaly here? A junior chief executive officer of a regional board will be a member of the Central Fisheries Board while the chief executive officer of that board is not a de facto member of the board.

They represent the seven other boards on the central board. I thought the Deputy would be keen on representation for them.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 15 line 42, to delete "1976" and substitute "1988".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Minister will be aware that for a number of years the Central Fisheries Board has offered for tender for sale or leasing a number of fisheries, mainly those under the control of the board. I presume these will be transferred. There was a difference of opinion among local bodies as to whether the board had the right to offer the fisheries for lease on Lickeen Lake. A number of fisheries are advertised each year. Will these be included in the transfer to the regional boards or will they still be maintained under the control of the Minister?

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for transfers, but it will take time to proceed because of the legalities involved. The River Moy was transferred and we look forward to the transfer of the River Erriff. Once the Bill is passed it will facilitate transfers to the regions, but the process will entail a sizeable amount of work. They will be transferred to the regions over time.

Is it envisaged that the regional boards would be consulted before leases are made? There has been a problem here and it is important to avoid a repetition.

Yes, it would be desirable. I am aware of the problem referred to by the Deputy. It is also important to develop guidelines for the operation from thereon. Consultation will be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.

Amendments Nos. 18, 26 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 26 are related to amendment No. 17 and amendments Nos. 17, 18, 26 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 26 will be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 17, subsection (1), line 29, after "Minister on" to insert "any scheme in relation to the management, development and conservation of stocks of wild salmon or sea trout (within the meaning of section 24 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999) and in particular the tagging of such fish, and on”.

I propose the following technical amendments to section 23 for consideration. They will follow the adoption of amendment No. 20: In page 18, subsection (1), line 29, to delete "and"; and in the first line of amendment No. 20 to insert "and" after "Islands".

Amendment No. 17 amends section 22, which deals with the establishment and functions of the national salmon commission. At the meetings with the angling representative groups, a request was made for more consultation in relation to the scheme of tagging and log books for wild salmon and sea trout. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the commission shall have the function of making recommendations to the Minister on the tagging scheme, which is provided for in section 24.

Amendment No. 18, in the name of Deputy Finucane, proposes an amendment to section 22, which deals with the establishment and functions of the national salmon commission. The purpose of the amendment is to require the commission to consult with angling organisations in the fulfilment of its functions, that is, to assist and advise the Minister in relation to the conservation, management, protection and development of the national salmon resource. It is recommended that the consultation with the national representative bodies could operate outside the forum and could work against the development of consensus within the commission. Amendment No. 26 is an amendment to section 24 of the Bill which provides the Minister may make regulations to provide for a scheme of tagging and log books for wild salmon and sea trout. At the meetings with the angling representative groups, a request was made that the National Salmon Commission would have a consultative and advisory role in the scheme. This amendment enables the Minister to make such regulations after consultation with the commission.

Deputy Finucane tabled an amendment to amendment No. 26. It would require the Minister to consult the National Angling Organisation before making regulations to provide for a scheme of tagging and log books for wild salmon and sea trout. We do not favour that because our amendment to amendment No. 26 provides for consultation with the National Salmon Commission, which is intended to operate on a consensus basis. Selective consultation with the national representative bodies outside the commission could work against the development of consensus within the commission. The commission will be broadly based and will seek consensus. The purpose for this is to seek representations within the ambit of the commission.

When the Minister talks about a national salmon commission, will that include anglers? It was in that context that I wished to insert other bodies which the Minister directs, such as angling organisations.

Yes. All groups have been invited to send representatives forward. Most of the nominations have arrived at the Department.

So the organisations will have a say from within and will be able to articulate the concerns of their members?

Yes. The commission will be broadly based.

If that is the case, I will withdraw the amendment.

Will the salmon fishermen have any say in this commission?

Yes, the commercial fishermen will also be involved.

I welcome that. I chaired the all-party committee on the salmon task force report. There was a broad consensus on that. It would be better to leave matters with the commission which represents all the interests in the industry. It would be difficult to hold a series of meetings throughout the State. We found that there were differences of opinion in different regions, even in the same sectors. This is the wisest course of action to take.

How is wild salmon defined?

That would be salmon which is not farmed.

We know what a farmed salmon is but how would wild salmon be defined?

There is a grey area in which there are ranched salmon. That must be looked at.

That was what I meant.

That will be examined.

A number of salmon fishermen have done badly in recent years. They would be willing to negotiate compensation if the Minister was in a position to buy their licences. The Slaney draft net fishermen have been looking for a compensation scheme for some time which would enable them to leave the business. That would have a beneficial effect on catchment conservation. Will the commission have the authority to enter negotiations or pay compensation to fishermen?

There are two areas - buy out and set aside. Set aside is when commercial fishermen agree for a period of, say, six years to cease fishing for that period for a price and then the effects of that cessation are examined. The alternative is a buy out, where the licence is entirely bought over.

Individuals have approached me to ask for a buy out for a certain sum, although that is not what the Slaney fishermen are doing. They would then use the money to buy tonnage for inshore fishing. That is an area which the commission will immediately take up. This year there was provision for pilot arrangements. It is difficult to secure agreement about what to do and to finalise any deal. The commission will take it up from there and will have resources to proceed along those lines.

We would have to examine any proposals. If many people opted for buy out, there would be substantial costs involved. Some people only want set aside for some years. Others are asking a reasonable price. It is hard to find agreement but the commission will make progress in this area. We have opened it up. A year ago there was no official recognition of buy out. The position is different now.

I am sure when the Minister approaches the national salmon commission about courses and tags, the biggest problem will be a figure for buying out and the data upon which that data is based. When the commission is established and gets down to statistics for quotas and tags, there will be a figure. I welcome what the Minister has said. In the central fisheries five year document, a voluntary buy out was mentioned. The Minister has provided funding for that this year.

Deputy Daly is right, many commercial fishermen have renewed their licences but it was not economical because of the catch. If the licence is not renewed and a voluntary buy out scheme comes into operation, they have nothing to go on. Many of them want to opt out. I would welcome developments in that direction in 2000. I use the words "voluntary buy out" in all cases.

I support Deputy Finucane's point. With the reduction in weeks available for fishing in most rivers, there is no opportunity for a family to earn a livelihood. It will be some time before the season is extended, particularly for net fishermen. It would be an important step forward.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 18, subsection (1) (a), line 19, to delete “8” and substitute “9”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 18, subsection 91) (a), line 32, to delete “Islands.” and substitute the following:

"Islands,

(f) one shall be a member of the staff of the Central Board appointed on the nomination of the staff of the Board.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page18, subsection (1) (a), line 34, to delete “(e)” and substitute “(f)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 cannot be moved.

The Minister has given me an undertaking that the matter is fully covered.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

Amendment No. 23 cannot be moved.

I have been given the necessary reassurance.

Amendment No. 23 not moved.

Amendment No. 25 is an alternative to amendment No. 24 and both may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 19, lines 7 to 16, to delete subsection (2).

This amendment removes the provision enabling the Minister to appoint chairpersons of regional boards. Boards will continue to elect their own chairpersons. In proposing the provision in the first place, I was concerned with the level of friction created by the election of chairpersons in regional boards in the past and we had considerable representation on that issue. However, the majority view is that the matter should be left as it is and I accept that. Deputy Finucane's amendment - No. 25 - is not then necessary as my amendment meets the point he raises.

I accept that the Minister has acceded to the practice of regional fishery boards electing their own chairmen.

I welcome the Minister's amendment. There was much controversy about this proposal, not because the present Minister might abuse it but because a future Minister might do so. The boards might then be chaired by political appointees from branches or cumainn or whatever rather than by people chosen by the boards for their ability to do the job. I welcome that and support it fully.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
SECTION 24.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 19, subsection (1), line 19, after "may" to insert ", after consultation with the National Salmon Commission,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 26 not moved.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 20, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) The powers conferred by subsection (1) are in addition to and not in substitution for the powers conferred by section 9 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959.”.

This is an amendment to section 24 which provides that the Minister may make regulations to provide for a scheme of tagging and log books for wild salmon and sea trout. This is a technical amendment proposed by the parliamentary draftsman in order to make explicit the power of the Minister to make the aforementioned regulations. It is in addition to the power of the Minister to make by-laws under section 9 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, for the government, management, protection and improvement of fisheries.

Has the Minister any plans to replace the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959?

My Department is working on this currently. It is one of the matters I put in train some time ago. The Act of 1959 may be replaced by a number of Acts covering various areas. Aquaculture will be one and salmon might be another. We are working on that and good progress is being made. The lack of time in the parliamentary draftsman's office is a problem.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 20, subsection (4), line 47, to delete "should" and substitute "shall".

This amendment has been proposed by the parliamentary draftsman and substitutes the word "shall" which is the usual word, for "should" in relation to the penalty applicable in the case of persons in breach of provisions. The subsection provides that it is an offence not to comply with the requirements of an authorised officer within the meaning of section 24.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 21, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) Whenever the Minister proposes to make regulations under this section, the following provisions shall have effect-

(a) the Minister shall publish notice of his or her proposal at least once in such newspaper or newspapers published and circulating in the State as he or she may specify,

(b) the notice shall include a statement of the purposes for which the regulations are proposed to be made and an intimation that a copy of the draft regulations are open for public inspection at a place specified in the notice and that any person may submit to the Minister objections to the draft regulations at any time during the period of 30 days commencing on the day of the first publication of the notice,

(c) the Minister shall, during the said period of 30 days, keep a copy of the draft regulations open for public inspection at the place aforesaid,

(d) any person who objects to the draft regulations may submit his or her objection to the Minister in writing at any time during the said period of 30 days and the Minister shall consider the objections, and

(e) on the expiration of the said period of 30 days, the Minister shall, as he or she may think proper, refrain from making the regulations or make the regulations either without modifications or with such modifications therein as he or she may think proper.".

This is an amendment to section 24. At meetings with angling representative groups a request was made for a consultation prior to the making of these regulations. The amendment provides for a period of 30 days for public consultation before the Minister may make the said regulations. The provision is that the regulations will be available in draft form, that persons may submit objections to the draft regulations to the Minister and that, on the expiration of the said period of 30 days, the Minister may refrain from making the regulation or may make the regulation with or without modifications as he thinks fit and proper. The amendment builds in a consultation period of 30 days. This is being done at the request of angling representative groups.

Once the regulations are made they will be laid in the normal way before the Houses of the Oireachtas within 21 days.

The regulations would not come before the Dáil, as such. They would simply be lodged in the Dáil Library.

This is an extra provision ahead of the laying down of the regulations. It provides for extra consultation in advance. The normal procedure would then be that they are laid on the table of the House and if someone wishes to object thereafter they can be objected to.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 21, subsection (6) (b), line 11, after “board” where it firstly occurs to insert “or angling club when a private watertaker is employed by them”.

I have discussed this amendment with officials of the Department and they can clarify if my interpretation is correct. The Minister has specified "authorised officer" in the context of regional board appointments and ministerial officials but there is no definition of the role of the waterkeeper of whom there are some and who are paid by angling associations. I have been assured by departmental officials that the section is silent with regard to private waterkeepers because, under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, there is no change in the role of the private waterkeepers and that is why it is not specified. The status of the private waterkeepers remains.

That is true.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 21, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) The Minister may make special regulations to provide for an action programme for sustainable management and development of wild salmon, sea trout and brown trout fisheries which have suffered serious stock depletions. Regulations made under this subsection may provide for controls on any factors which impinge on or adversely affect wild fisheries whether in the marine or inland ecosystems.".

I propose this amendment in the context of an action programme. It is self-explanatory. I would like to hear the Minister's response on how it would interact with the Bill.

While I appreciate the concerns underlying the amendment, these powers are already comprehensively provided for in existing fisheries legislation. Under section 9 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 the Minister may make by-laws for the more effective government, management, protection and regulation of fisheries. The section provides the necessary scope to meet the Deputy's concerns. Under section 71 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, the Minister may make regulations in relation to the management and operation of aquaculture. This addresses other concerns inherent in the amendment. It is, therefore, possible to take the actions proposed.

I thank the Minister for defining sea trout as Salmo trutta and wild salmon as Salmo salar.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 21, subsection (2)(b), line 27, to delete "£50" and substitute "£100, index-linked to the Consumer Price Index,".

This section deals with the on-the-spot fine provisions of the scheme of tagging and log books for wild salmon and trout. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the on-the-spot fine from £50 to £100. We are agreeable to this provided it is not index-linked.

That is welcome. It is my understanding that the problem of poaching has been brought under control. The view was that the on-the-spot fine was much too low and that if it was to act as a deterrent it should be increased from £50 to £100. The reason I proposed that it be index-linked to the consumer price index is that fines provided for in legislation enacted a long time ago are not compatible with current values.

We will table an amendment on Report Stage in which the on-the-spot fine will be increased from £50 to £100. It will not, however, be index-linked.

That is acceptable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill".

This section marks a major departure. It relates to the granting of authorisations in respect of eel fisheries by regional boards. Heretofore they were granted by the Department. Eel fishermen have only one representative on the Shannon board. It would be sensible to increase this to two to facilitate the putting in place of better arrangements for those applying for authorisations. It is possible that a particular board will decide not to grant any authorisations. It would seem wise therefore to provide for a right of appeal to the Minister where someone is dissatisfied with its decision to have his or her application re-examined.

If something is done that does not seem fair or right the Minister may intervene and issue a direction. It is preferable that authorisations for eel fisheries be granted by regional boards rather than by the Department. If necessary, the Minister may intervene and issue a direction.

Does the Minister propose to increase the representation of eel fishermen on regional boards? This will be a bone of contention, especially among those to whom I referred where the authorisation is held by the ESB.

I met them recently and we are looking at the issue for them.

Does the Minister propose to increase their representation on the board to two?

Not at this stage. We want to consider the matter first. As the ESB holds the licence they do not have a vote, which is not helpful.

Will there be a right of appeal to the Minister where somebody is dissatisfied with a decision of a regional board?

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 28

We now proceed to amendment No. 33. Amendments Nos. 34 to 36, inclusive, are related and amendments Nos. 33 to 36, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 23, lines 33 to 47, and in page 24, lines 1 to 30, to delete subsections (1) to (5) and substitute the following:

"(1) Section 5 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1991, is hereby amended by the substitution of the following for subsection (4):

'(4) In addition to the elected members of the management committee of a society, the Minister may appoint not more than 2 persons to be members, of whom one shall be a member of the staff of the regional board of the fisheries region of which the society's area consists or forms part appointed on the nomination of that board.'.

(2) If the first election of members to a management committee of a fisheries co-operative society after the commencement of this section is to be held in the year 2000 but before 1 October of that year, then, subject to rule 9(4) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Fisheries Co-operative Societies) Rules, 1992, (S.I. No. 127 of 1992) but notwithstanding any other provision of any enactment or instrument made under an enactment, the persons entitled to vote at that election, to nominate a candidate for election and to accept nomination and stand as a candidate for election, shall be determined as if the election date were the third Tuesday in December, 1999.".

This section deals with fisheries co-operative societies. The amendment has three elements and restores the status quo on elections and share certificates. It deletes subsections (1) to (5) which were to provide for the appointment by the Minister of seven members of a management committee of a co-operative and the provision of the 1991 Act whereby the membership of a co-operative can decide that in its area a person is required to hold a share certificate to angle for trout or coarse fish. The proposed section 5(4) of the 1991 Act provides that one of the Minister’s appointees to a management committee should be a member of the staff of the relevant regional board nominated by that board. The proposed section 28(2) of the Bill deals with the election of the management committees of the fisheries co-operative societies. Amendments Nos. 34 to 36, inclusive, provide for deletions from the Bill consequential on amendment No. 33.

Angling representative groups have stated that the Bill as it stands will pose a particular difficulty as many anglers will not have acquired an annual share certificate for the year 2000 by the time of the election and therefore will not be eligible to vote. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent this problem by providing that eligibility to vote and stand for election shall be determined as if the election date was the third Tuesday of December 1999. This point was discussed earlier. It provides the same procedure for the co-ops.

I welcome that because it is a follow through on the discussions we had. It is reasonable and meets all the points raised.

We received correspondence from the different co-ops around the country. The Minister can be satisfied that their concerns are vindicated in the proposals before us and he has had separate discussions with them on this issue.

If the Deputy takes the majority view it would be true we met that. There are some who wanted the original arrangement. There was a proposal from the review but it is clear the majority want to stay as they are. In any event they have options. I am quite happy with that.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 24, subsection (6), line 32, to delete "sections 13 and 14" and substitute "section 13".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 24, subsection (6), lines 45 to 50, to delete all words from and including "it." in line 45, down to and including line 50, and in page 25 to delete lines 1 to 12 and substitute "it.'.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 25, lines 13 and 14, to delete subsection (7).

Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.

We will now discuss amendment No. 37. Amendment No. 38 is cognate and amendments Nos. 37 and 38 may be discussed together by agreement. Agreed.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 25, subsection (1), line 46, after "services" to insert "and seafarer training".

I am amending section 30 to expand the functions of the Irish Maritime Development Office to include matters relating to seafarer training. This function is in addition to the office's proposed new functions relating to the shipping and shipping services sector. In order to avoid any doubt in the matter I am explicitly providing that seafarer training may be one of the policy matters which I may specify for implementation by the new development office. With the upcoming development of a new national maritime college, it is desirable that a body charged with promoting and expanding economic activity and employment in the shipping and shipping services sector in Ireland should be explicitly mandated to have seafarer training as one of its areas of responsibility. As it stands, my Department has, for some years past, provided the shipboard training subsidy to students at the nautical studies department of the Cork Institute of Technology. I would envisage that the Irish Maritime Development Office will assume responsibility for this area of my Department's budget, the allocation for which is £300,000 in 1999.

I think we would all welcome that proposal. Is the Minister satisfied that the level of finance to which he has referred is sufficient to cope with the level of training required?

The amount is about £100,000 more than the take-up last year so it would seem adequate for the present. The Irish maritime development organisation is a new venture. The success of the IMDO will depend on the fullest involvement of the sector and independent legal and fiscal expertise in steering work of the office. To that end I intend to announce a broadly based advisory group which will be charged within the Marine Institute with the task of ensuring that the office meets its targets in terms of developing the shipping and shore related service sectors and employment generation. I intend to announce the members of this important advisory group before Christmas, followed by an inaugural meeting as soon as possible after that. I am pleased, however, to announce today that the advisory group will be chaired by Mr. Pádraig White, former chief executive of the IDA.

He is going well.

He would have very special experience in that area.

There will be some great appointments. He will want more than experience.

I have no doubt that in discharging his duties, Mr. White will bring to bear his vast experience in promoting Ireland as an attractive location for foreign visitors and in expanding employment and economic activity in the shipping and ship related services sector.

I wish Mr. White well. I am sure it is not his first or last appointment. Has the Minister given a timescale in which the organisation will have to prove itself? I note from his Second Stage speech that six monthly progress reports will be required for the first three years of operation. Is the Minister saying that if it does not prove its mettle in three years the organisation will be dissolved?

Yes, that is the basis on which the Government agreed to our proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 26, subsection (1), line 10, after "sector" to insert "and seafarer training".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amendment, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 26, after line 25, to insert the following new section.

"31. - Notwithstanding anything in the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1998, the area comprising the Dundalk Fishery District does not include any part of the Carlingford Area within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Part 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland establishing Implementation Bodies done at Dublin on the 8th day of March, 1999, the text of which is set out in the Schedule to the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999 (No. 1 of 1999).".

This amendment provides for a new section in the Bill. The new section provides for the exclusion from the Dundalk Fishery District of the Carlingford area which, since the commencement of the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, comes under the Foyle-Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission for the purposes of the relevant fisheries legislation. The reality of the Agreement is that we are delegating the responsibility and authority to the Foyle-Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.

That is the end of my constituency. Is that related in any way to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution? Will representatives from the Carlingford-Louth area be on the commission? Will it be a joint arrangement or will it be manned entirely by people from Northern Ireland?

No, it is a joint arrangement. There are six Implementation Bodies of which this is one. It is a formal body, will have a board and chief executive and will be given the power and authority to manage in a real sense these different areas, the Foyle-Carlingford area, from the fisheries point of view, and the Irish Lights Commission.

Will it be jointly funded by the British and Irish Governments?

Yes. This is the first time Irish Lights will be Irish Lights North.

The Minister's timing is good.

Thanks very much.

Amendment agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

I thank the Minister and his officials. I thank also Deputies Finucane and Bell, the main Opposition spokesmen, and all Members for their constructive comments and co-operation today.

I wish to avail of this opportunity to thank the officials for their co-operation in ensuring we received the necessary information.

I join with my colleague in thanking the officials and the Minister. I have told a number of delegations I was satisfied that the Minister would, if a reasonable case was made, meet most of the amendments proposed. That has been borne out. I hope he makes further progress tonight at his meeting with my colleagues from SIPTU and MSF.

Top
Share