Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 have been ruled out of order under Standing Order 123 as they would involve a potential charge on the Revenue. Nonetheless the Deputy can make any point he wishes when the section is being discussed.
SECTION 5.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I am amazed that my amendments have been ruled out of order. What I was asking in them was in order. Section 5 (3) gives total power to the Minister in the issuing of fishing licences, which brings me back to the point that a future Minister may not have the capability or qualities of the Minister who is at the helm at the moment. This section closes off the possibility of making representations to a Minister because it could be almost impossible to change the mind of an arrogant Minister. I maintain that a licensing authority should be established to decide the issue of licences and the matter taken out of the Minister's hands. Such licensing authority should be representative of the fishermen, of the fishing vessel owners, of the people who are marketing the fish and appointees from the Department. That would give an across-the-board consensus of opinion which would be taken into consideration when applications for licences are made. If we do not incorporate that degree of flexibility in this section of the Bill, we will be copperfastening a system of bureaucratic dictatorship by the Minister of the day which may not be to the benefit of the fishermen concerned. No matter what the potential charge on the Revenue the job should be done properly; a job half done is a job not done. People in the fishing industry are entitled to representation on a body such as this independent licensing authority I am advocating. We should make an all out attempt to reach a compromise. I urge the Minister to listen to my request and to compromise on this matter if possible.
Before I call on any other Deputy, I would remind Members that they must address their remarks only to the section because Deputy Sheehan's amendments have been ruled out of order.
These amendments have been ruled out of order on the basis that they would result in an extra cost to the State. That is an assumption. Looking at it realistically, bodies like the county enterprise boards operate effectively. The people who participate in the county enterprise boards do so voluntarily — I have been a member of such a board. There is an automatic assumption, because it is an independent licensing authority, that these people have to be paid. In all legislation one person — the Minister — assumes responsibility for everything. Although the amendments have been ruled out of order, I question the reason for doing so. I appreciate the validity of Deputy Sheehan's point in regard to independent licensing authorities because the people feel the Minister has too much control. I would be sympathetic to these amendments even though they have been ruled out of order.
There is no authority in existence at present and for that reason it was felt there was a cost factor involved.
If there were no county enterprise boards in existence there would be no cost involved.
That is a separate issue.
It is not.
I am surprised at the comments being made because there is nobody more publicly accountable for any decisions taken than a Minister. I would quesiton the notion of independence when the issue is removed from political accountability. I wholeheatedly support this section. It encompasses what we want because, as Deputy Sheehan knows there would be jealousy between one coastal region and another if fishermen were to be included in decision making of this kind. I am happy with this section and with the political accountability of the Minister when it comes to decisions. The section as it stands will ensure there is fair play and equity in relation to any decisions made by the Minister and his Department.
The Minister must be aware of the widespread concern throughout the sea fishing community about the method of granting registration for fishing vessels where the Minister as the political figure has sole responsibility. In the past concern often turned to anger over many of the decisions made. This is seen as an area where there is a great deal of political interference. There have been occasions where decisions were made on the basis of political choice only and fishermen had little recourse to alter decisions made. That is why Deputy Sheehan has tabled the amendments requesting that this important function be taken out of the hands of the political personage in the Department of the Marine and be given to a body in which not just the fishing community but the community at large can have absolute confidence that their applications will be dealt with fairly. That is the reality. I am not surprised that Deputy Coughlan is very pleased to see the continuation of the existing system where, by and large, it has mostly been abused by Ministers who were appointed from her own party.
We cannot ask parliamentary questions about the NRA. Is that what the Deputy wants?
The amount of information you would get in response to a parliamentary question of that nature is minimal. We are already aware that the Beef Tribunal has cost millions of pounds, which was necessary, because of evasive replies to parliamentary questions. We know the answers are carefully worded in the Department so as to give minimum information when that is the desired objective. If the Minister thinks I am exaggerating I can tell him that I am drawing from my years of membership of the House and from the number of fishermen I have met over the years who have been very angry about this. I will quote a statement from the Minister in the Irish Fishermen's Organisation Bulletin 3/94 which issued on 2 June this year. This is the voice of the Irish fishing industry. I quote:
There is a long standing and widespread perception of political involvement and influence in the issuing of licences. Far greater transparency and clear-cut independent procedures are desirable in this regard.
That is confirming what I know is going on.
As the Minister is a fair minded person, he should give very serious consideration to removing this function from the arena of the Minister and handing it over to a body in whom the community at large could have absolute confidence. Over the years the Dáil strove to achieve transparency as far as possible and to ensure that procedures are put in place to remove the perception of political involvement and actual political involvement.
As a former Minister I was involved in an extreme case on planning appeals which was decided by Ministers and the Dáil decided to remove that function from the Minister. I am not making any personal accusations against the Minister but I am alleging that decisions have been made in the past with which there was widespread dissatisfaction throughout the fishing industry in the allocation of licences for fishing boats. It is important that that be changed and this Bill gives the Minister the opportunity to do so.
To dismiss the amendment put down by Deputy Sheehan on the basis that it would involve expense on the Exchequer is not facing up to the issue. That may be a technical reason for ruling the list of amendments out of order but that does not remove the legitimacy of the argument that there should be a clear arm's length between the Minister and the granting of licences and the political involvement alleged by the fishing organisation and by me.
I hope, now that the matter has been raised, the Minister will be prepared to consider this issue and accept that there is a widespread perception of political involvement and influence and that he will establish a body which will be seen to act in a fair and non-political way when it comes to the issuing of fishing licences.
I support the views of Deputies Sheehan and Finucane and concur with much of what was said by Deputy Molloy. We should make the maximum effort to do away with the culture of political patronage from the decision-making process in relation to such matters as the granting of fishing licences. Rightly or wrongly, the notion abroad is that people with political clout get the licences while people with no political connection or people who have the wrong political connection, do not.
It has been said that while we have no difficulty with the present Minister — he is probably embarrassed with flattery at this stage — we have to put in place a system where the personality or the political persuasion of the Minister will not matter when it comes granting licences. An amendment on the lines of that proposed by Deputy Sheehan seeking a clear, transparent guideline, which would be above politics, would ensure that every applicant would have a fair crack of the whip
The section gives the Minister power to delegate to an authorised officer the decision-making process but that is not what we are speaking about. We want to put in place a clear guideline for the granting of licences by a clearly independent group and I hope the Minister will respond to our pleas. Obviously we have to accept that there is a technical difficulty with Deputy Sheehan's amendment but perhaps the spirit of the amendment could be encompassed by the Minister? Does he agree with our argument for transparency?
I oppose this amendment.
The Deputy must speak to the section.
I oppose the views put forward by the previous speakers. There is a view that politicians, TDs and Ministers, cannot be trusted and are less than human. If we as politicians do not stand up for ourselves and reject that view, nobody will. The Minister together with the professional Civil Service are the most appropriate people to deal with this. That is the way it should be done. The Minister is accountable to the Dáil as well as to his or her constituents, similarly TDs are accountable to their electorate. It is about time we stood up for ourselves and rejected the view proclaimed in the media that Ministers are less than trustworthy in these situations. At the end of the day the electorate is supreme and the democratic process works; with all its faults the democratic system is the best system to govern our affairs. There has been a tendency in recent years to set up independent bodies in all sorts of areas — Deputy Coughlan mentioned the National Roads Authority; there is another in Dublin, Temple Bar Properties. There is a view that some of these bodies are accountable to nobody; for example you cannot get answers to parliamentary questions. The Minister says he has no responsibility in this area and very often these bodies are responsible for the allocation of huge sums of finance, and TDs cannot get answers. I reject the view that independent bodies can do this better. To whom are the independent bodies accountable?
Who guards the guardians?
Was that a quotation from Shakespeare or Aristotle? I have no doubt that the Minister does not need any guarding; he is a man of the highest integrity.
I strongly support what the Deputy is saying; it coincides with my view. If we are to wound ourselves daily with suggestions that we have been reduced to the ethos of cowboys and gangsters as suggested by Deputy Molloy, no wonder we are held in disrepute .
The Minister has summed up exactly my views on the issues so I will leave it at that.
I want to respond in the strongest possible terms. First, I reject totally the very serious allegations made by Deputy Molloy.
And the Irish Fishermen's Organisation.
Are they not the Deputy's views? It is unfortunate the Deputy has promulgated in this committee unsubstantiated charges against the Fianna Fáil Party — a party of which he was a member in the past — and suggested that previous Ministers were guilty of interference. That is dealing with this matter with a very broad political brush. The Deputy says, by and large, the system is being abused. That is a very broad statement which reduces the Dáil and the denizens of that institution to the category of cowboy and gangster. Is it any wonder that we are perceived in the public mind as chancers and gougers out to do the best for ourselves and the worst for the people we represent? That is the ethos in which the Dáil is operating. To blame the media for that is wrong, the blame lies with ourselves and more particularly with Deputy Molloy and members of his party. As far as they are concerned the high moral ground is occupied by the Progressive Democrats Party only.
On the question of political accountability I thoroughly support the views of Deputy Coughlan. Why should the Minister not do this? Who is to guard the guardians? It is the same argument for taking the appointment of judges out of the hands of the Government of the day. What authority will appoint judges if not the Government of the day? This appears to show a total lack of trust in the political system, in the Constitution and in the integrity of the Taoiseach and the Government of the day. As I have said if we are to continue to wound ourselves with the sort of commentary we have had here from Deputy Molloy this morning we are not doing the body politic any good; I think we are doing it a great deal of serious damage. Let us not point the finger at the media, but at ourselves. In the main the damage is caused by a small minority of Deputies. This has not happened only this year or last year; it has been happening over years. Deputy Molloy will recall that when Members got salary increases inevitably one or two Deputies would criticise such increases. In the following election those Deputies would no longer be Members because they were not being honest; they were engaging, as I saw it, in political opportunism. If we do not stand up for ourselves and if we are not masters of our own destiny in the Oireachtas, no one else will do it for us.
It was not I who ruled the amendments out of order, it happened elsewhere. The manner in which Deputy Sheehan expressed his views was temperate and reasonable as always, so too were the other Deputies who contributed to what was in the main a very reasonable debate, Deputies Finucane, Coughlan, Haughey and the Opposition spokesman Deputy Bradford. As the amendments were ruled out of order, I should be addressing myself to the section.
If the amendments were carried, the statutory responsibility for licensing fishing vessels would be removed from the Minister and transferred to currently non-existent licensing authorities. Supplementary amending legislation would have to be introduced setting up such a proposed authority and funding, staff and premises would have to be provided for such a body. In fairness to the reasonable views expressed by the proposing Deputy, he may feel that the creation of a licensing authority would improve transparency and fairness in deciding a licensing application. Any authority would have to have regard to, and act in accordance with, national policy on fleet capacity and related commitments entered into on the foot of multi-annual guidance programme decisons — MAGP, in other words, the same constraints and considerations that currently apply to the Minister would also apply to the deliberations of any such licensing authority. If the Minister is engaged in crooked decisions, as has been alleged, so can the licensing authority. If the Minister is subject to transparency, openness and close scrutiny, so is the licensing authority. What is the difference? Why can we not give Members of the Oireachtas a little credit from time to time? Why should we hand over everything to somebody else just to bow to what is perceived to be the public will? Can we not engage in leadership from time to time and stand up for what we believe in?
Since applicants can appeal licence decisions directly through political representatives to the Ombudsman and finally the courts, their rights and interests are more than adequately cared for. If people are dissatisfied with the Minister or the licensing authority there are other avenues of appeal open to them, for example, the Ombudsman and the courts, which will protect the rights and interests. I did not rule these amendments out of order, and I must accept the will of the people who did so.
The provisions governing the licensing and registration of fishing boats are being extended to nationals and corporate bodies of other member states. Is the Minister satisfied that by requiring applicants to establish a real economic link with this country the Bill will ensure that Irish quotas are used, and will continue to be used, for the benefit of this country? I have in mind a problem in my constituency where trawlers fish under the flag of convenience and when they come ashore they are not worth anything to the port of Castletownbere — the fishermen on these boats do not even buy a loaf of bread in the town. They land their catches in Bilbao, Coruna and other Spanish ports. Under the Treaty of Rome boats must be granted a licence if they have an economic link with this country. Will the Minister include in the Bill a provision that vessels which are granted licences must establish an economic link with this country and purchase as many of their requirements as possible here? Vessels which fish under flags of convenience and which are of no benefit to our economy should not be allowed to sweep up all the fishing stock off our coastline.
If the Deputy wants to add a new section to the Bill so be it but he must put down an amendment to that effect.
I am not surprised at the rush to defend the existing system where the Minister, the political head of the Department is the only person who can issue licences under this——
Is the Deputy suggesting that I am not acting in accordance with Standing Orders? I am not rushing in to defend anybody, I am here to defend the procedures of the House.
I am referring to the contributors to the debate. You did not make any contribution. The Minister referred to high moral ground etc., but I want to remind him that the amendment was not put down by me or my party but by the Fine Gael Party.
The views expressed by the Deputy and the members of Fine Gael were totally different. The Deputy introduced us to the ethos of cowboys and gangsters.
Chairman, am I not entitled to speak?
Not to the amendments, only to the section. The amendments have been ruled out of order.
I am speaking to the section.
The Deputy is referring to the amendments. Speak to the section, please.
I am referring to section 5 (3) (a) which states that the Minister may grant licences for the purposes of this section. I am opposing the section and responding to what the Minister had to say, which I am fully entitled to do. The Chairman should act in an impartial fashion and should not be rushing in to cut short my contribution. I am sorry if he does not like what I am saying but I was not making any reference to him or his party. I am referring to the Minister's comments and the concern about this matter, which is evident from the amendment put down by Fine Gael and the comments made by the Irish Fishermen's Organisation in the leaflet it issued earlier this month.
Give us the facts and the cases. I do not intend to be discourteous to the Deputy, but the allegations are very serious.
The Minister said we should show leadership and stand up for what we believe in.
Correct.
Does the Minister agree that given my experience, my commitment to leadership and my courage to stand up for what I believe in I have a duty to speak on issues of this kind? If I believe that there is need for change to alleviate the concerns being expressed and to ensure that the issuing of licences under this Bill is done in an open manner so that all people in the industry can be seen to be dealt with fairly, particularly in view of what has happened in the past, than I have a duty to say so. I made it clear that I am not referring to anything that has happened during the Minister's term of office; rather I am referring to things that happened in the past and which were very serious.
Given the need to allay the fears of the fishing community and to ensure that these matters are dealt with in an open way, the Fine Gael amendment merited greater consideration by the Minister. The amendment has been ruled out of order, and that is fair enough.
I asked the Minister if he would accept that there was concern about this matter and to indicate that he was willing to look at this issue. Yet he flatly refused even to consider appointing some other group to allocate these licences so that he would not have to do it. I oppose this section which reaffirms that the Minister only may grant the licences. I believe I have fulfilled my duties as a public representative in outlining my concern and that of others about this section.
I am pleased that the Fine Gael Deputy who put down this amendment is present. I am deputising for a colleague of mine who is not able to be present today. The suggestion that politicians cannot be trusted will have to be interpreted in whatever way one wants to interpret it. The Dáil has taken the view that it is better for independent bodies, separate from a political personage, to make decisions in certain areas of economic activity. I am suggesting that consideration should be given to that view for this purpose. I will be opposing the section.
The concerns of the Irish Fishermens' Organisation about section 5 (3) (a) do not relate to whether someone is recommended for a licence by a Department to the Minister but rather to a lack of new licences. This restriction will not necessarily be imposed by the Department of the Marine but by the European Union.
We could argue about whether one should push hard politically for X, Y and Z and Deputy Molloy can rightly say that the fishermen in Galway are not being treated fairly — I could say the same about the fishermen in Donegal, while Cork and Kerry people could say exactly the same thing about their fishermen. By its nature the fishing industry is very competitive. Instead of being so negative about the Minister's role in this area we should be supporting the expansion of our fishing fleet and the provision of more licences. There are huge restrictions on how one can obtain a licence, for example, the expense of replacement tonnage. The Irish Fishermen's Organisation may have an opinion, but that is only one body. There are many other bodies, for example, the KFO and the people from Dunmore East. The IFO does not necessarily support the viewpoint being expressed. If the organisation in Donegal was not supportive of this section I would have known about it. Many of the fishing organisations support the ethos of the Bill.
The debate is not really about transparency in relation to licences and the appointment of those who obtain them, but about the frustrations and the small number of licences available. The Minister must pursue that matter. People are frustrated about issues such as fleet rejuvenation, additional species and new licences and not about whether the Minister says yea or nay to an application for a licence.
Question put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 7.
|
Tá |
|
|
Andrews, David. |
Haughey, Seán. |
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
Moynihan-Cronin, Breda. |
|
Coughlan, Mary. |
O'Sullivan, Toddy. |
|
Fitzgerald, Brian. |
Smith, Brendan. |
|
Upton, Pat. |
|
Níl. |
|
|
Bradford, Paul. |
Dukes, Alan. |
|
Bruton, Richard. |
Durkan, Bernard. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
Finucane, Michael. |
|
Sheehan, P.J. |
Question declared carried.