Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendments Nos. 2, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 55, 57 and 58 and these may be discussed together.
Fisheries Bill, 1979: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following new definition:
" `the Act of 1977' means the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977;".
These amendments extend to the European institutions what already exists in regard to our parliamentary institutions in the way of preclusion from membership or employment on central or regional boards of any member of the European Assembly. It is really technical and just extends what we have at present in regard to our own institutions to the European Assembly.
I am not disagreeing with this amendment. I take it that the words "European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Automic Energy Community" as far as the EEC are concerned mean that this Bill, out to 12 miles, covers what is under the ocean as well as the fish in the sea and so on.
Yes. The extension from three to 12 miles arises under another section.
What we are talking about here is up to a 12 mile radius. If that is the case it means that anything under the sea belongs to the Irish people. The thought strikes me that when the Minister is negotiating at a future date he will be talking about a 12 mile exclusive limit under something similar. Am I right in thinking that there is a 12 mile limit and this is why the Minister brought in these amendments?
Yes. There is a subsequent amendment on that aspect on which there can be a debate. These amendments are concerned with the procedural aspects of adding the European Assembly and the European institutions to our national institutions as far as preclusion from membership or employment on central or regional boards are concerned. There will be a full opportunity to discuss what the Deputy is talking about.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following new definition:
" `the European Communities' means the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 42.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following new definition:
" `the Salmon Conservancy Fund' means the fund described in section 49 of the Principal Act;".
This is a drafting amendment to define the term "Salmon Conservancy Fund". It was used in sections 20 and 52 and was designed for the purposes of section 52 only. The amendment provides for a general definition which would make it specific that it applies to both sections. There was a lacuna in the section where it applied to one section and not to the other. It is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following new definition:
" `strokehaul' means any weighted instrument or device which may be used, whether with a rod and line or otherwise, to foul-hook fish;".
I came under a lot of pressure and had a lot of representations and advice from people genuinely concerned with conservation and the need to strengthen the law in regard to conservation to define strokehaul. There had been a number of cases where there was a legal flaw in the strokehauling offence, which is deplorable and to be condemned, in that there was no definition of strokehauling. On the technical legal flaw arising out of existing legislation many offenders were getting away. Lawyers were raising points on a technical basis. My advice is that a lack of definition of strokehaul was the problem and we are now defining it for the first time. I am told by those enforcing it that this should help substantially in successful prosecutions for strokehauling fish.
As regards the reference to "any weighted instrument or device" designed as a strokehaul surely we require further clarification as to a weighted instrument or device? In many aspects of legal fishing weights of one kind or another are used. Does the Minister have any particular weight in mind?
At present there is no definition. We are trying to introduce a definition. I agree with the Deputy that it may not be fully satisfactory but if we have a specific weighted thing written into the Bill it would be unsatisfactory. The amendment states that it is "any weighted instrument or device which may be used, whether with a rod and line or otherwise, to foul-hook fish". By reason of the fact that there was no definition, court cases against offenders as regards this totally illegal fishing were being successfully defended. We are making a start and will see how it goes.
My concern is that the average angler legitimately fishing for trout, salmon or other fish who applies a weight, as is usual in some instances, for example, a small portion of lead, could be charged under this section as having used a weighted instrument or device for legitimate fishing purposes. That is why I asked whether the Minister might be prepared to specify the weight, beyond half an ounce, one ounce or whatever. The weight could affect legitimate anglers.
I agree with Deputy Treacy. This is very important. We would be making a big mistake if we did not define some kind of weight. What the Minister said is that anyone who uses any weight on the line can be prosecuted. Strokehaul means any weighted instrument and that means that anybody using anything on the line could be hauled before the courts. This is what Deputy Treacy is concerned about and rightly so. Perhaps it should be defined more clearly on Report Stage. We are not disagreeing with the Minister but we should like a clearer definition.
I appreciate the points made by Deputies Treacy and White. We are talking here, first, about strokehauling, secondly, about a weighted instrument or device and finally about foul-hooking fish. The whole amendment is subject to the final phrase "to foul-hook fish" which puts it into the illegal category as against what both Deputies have been talking about here—the legal or legitimate category. Certainly I shall have a look at it between now and Report Stage.
We know what the Minister means but when it goes before the courts a justice might not take the same interpretation.
I will certainly have a look at it.
I am grateful to the Minister. It appears we can expect something on this matter on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Treacy. Amendments 6, 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 5.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, lines 19 to 25, to delete subsection (2).
This amendment, if adopted, would mean the deletion in toto of subsection (2). Therefore, my main amendment is amendment No. 11 which reads:
In page 8, subsection (1), paragraph (g), lines 7 to 11, to delete all words from and including "but this paragraph" in line 7 down to and including "Act" in line 11.
My reason for putting down these amendments is that for the past two decades the Inland Fisheries Trust have been the only body carrying out research on sea angling and sports fisheries. Most of the fish species concerned are of little or no commercial value to the overall annual catch of professional fishermen. However, to judge by statistics supplied by, say, Bord Fáilte, marine sports fisheries make a very definite and worth-while contribution to the State's economy. I understand that some £4.6 million were garnered from this source in the form of tourist revenue in 1977. If the new board are precluded from carrying out such research it seems to me it is unlikely that their essential work will be continued or be undertaken to the same degree and in as satisfactory a manner as we would all desire.
Naturally, commercial species such as herring, mackerel, cod and so on would have precedence over non-commercial species. The investigation of a sea angling development programme, as suggested in the Bill, as a function of the board makes little sense if the fishery authority are not allowed to engage in their own research in this important area.
The purpose of my tabling this amendment was to bring again to the Minister's notice the importance of sea angling sports to our tourist revenue, something of growing importance, and to ensure that it is adequately provided for in the Bill. That was the reason also for my adverting to this on Second Reading. This amendment is tabled to afford the Minister an opportunity of doing as I have proposed here—ensuring that the excellent revenue—raising area of sea fisheries is adequately protected. I think it would be the wish of tourist bodies generally and all those engaged in industry that this be done. I trust the Minister will see his way to accepting my amendment in its present form.
The Minister, replying to the Second Stage debate on 23 October 1979, at column 486 of the Official Report said:
I assure the Deputies that so far as sea angling is concerned there is no intention in regard to this Bill to remove sea angling in any way in terms of research, development and management, from the responsibility of the new Inland Fisheries Authority.
So far so good. What Deputy Treacy is endeavouring to ensure, quite rightly, is that the research undertaken by the new central board will not be in relation only to lakes and rivers but possibly also restocking and conservation, enabling our tourist revenue to be protected. Deputy Treacy quoted a figure of some £4 million. When I was speaking in this debate I stated—and I honestly believe—that £4 million is a drop in the ocean only by comparison with what we could be doing in sea angling were it properly promoted and advertised. But we cannot undertake these projects unless there is also undertaken a lot of research to establish that the different species are available to sea anglers. I think Deputy Treacy is endeavouring to ensure that these people's interests will be looked after, not merely as regards the fish but in relation to research also.
I take fully the points made by Deputies Treacy and White. In fact it was because of their interventions on Second Stage that I introduced amendment No. 12 which I think meets the substance of what Deputy Treacy has in mind in his amendments 5 and 11. In effect what we are doing in amendment No. 12 is to retain the existing research situation as far as the Inland Fisheries Trust are concerned. The Inland Fisheries Trust would be subsumed by the new central board organisation but any work being done by them at present will continue to be done by the new central board. I think the wording of amendment No. 12 meets the views expressed by both Deputies, in that research being carried out by the trust prior to their dissolution will continue. They have done a lot of very valuable work—and I should like to take this opportunity of saying so—in regard to sea fish. That is also written into amendment No. 12. That work has to be respected and continued. Therefore, the present sea fish angling research work being carried out by the trust will be carried into the new situation.
I am pleased to hear the Minister speak in those terms. I will concede that his amendment No. 12 very largely meets my wishes in the matter. But I should like to be thoroughly assured that the wonderful experience, research and expertise built up by the Inland Fisheries Trust in this vital area of angling sports fisheries over a long number of years will continue to be availed of and be utilised by the central board. It would be a tragedy were that lore of information and expertise to be lost to us.
I appreciate that the Inland Fisheries Board is about to be subsumed into the Central Board. The talent is there; the information is there; the experts are there. If the Minister can assure me that that great lore of experience and expertise in this area will be utilised to the full in the future, I shall be satisfied that amendment No. 12 very largely meets this situation.
The Deputy can be absolutely assured on that aspect. I have tremendous admiration for the work done by the Inland Fisheries Trust, precisely in this area of sea angling, in particular, and the whole investigation into stocks of sea angling and tourism benefits and the amazing benefits that arise generally from their work and their excellent research facilities. I can assure the Deputy that there was never any intention of interfering, in any way, with that development. The intention was always to make more progress in this precise area. A legislative drafting omission was raised by both Deputies and by some others on Second Stage and I immediately saw that there could be a wrong interpretation and this amendment rectifies the situation.
Arising out of what the Minister has said, may that group of personnel involved in the Inland Fisheries who have been dealing specifically in this area over the past years take it that they will be allowed and encouraged to continue that work in the future, that the group who have responsibility will continue to exercise this responsibility?
The Deputy can be absolutely assured of that. I have nothing but admiration for the work they have done over the years and there was never any intention of interfering with the continued development of that work. We are moving this amendment to make sure that there was no doubt in anybody's mind.
I am grateful for the Minister's assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, subsection (2), to insert "section 7 (1) (g)" after "molluscs," in line 20.
Could we have an explanation of this amendment?
We have discussed this amendment with amendment No. 5, as it was related to amendment No. 5.
We discussed this amendment with amendment No. 5. It was consequential.
It was just the drafting?
That is correct.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I am not disagreeing with this section but would like a definition of the fishery year and the mention of the "31st day of December as may be specified in the order" and so on. Has the Minister given any thought to the voting patterns of this five-year voting system? Can we take it that the voting will also take place from the 1st day of January and that there will be a new start from 1 January every year, if the Minister follows me?
I have the Deputy's point, yes. That is the target I am trying to achieve in regard to the voting end of it, that we start on 1 January, that we have the voting prior to the end of the year—at the end of next year in other words—that we have a voting day in November or December and that people take office then.
From 1 January?
That is right.
And every five years there is an election?
That is right.
And that a new term will start on 1 January every five years?
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 16 and 17, to insert:
"(iv) appoint a Scientific and Technical Committee to advise, monitor and assess the scientific and technical policies of the Central and Regional Boards,".
My reasoning here is that, as outlined in my Second Reading speech, the board of the central fisheries authority will, of necessity, represent both commercial fishing and angling interests throughout the country. As much of the work of the new central authority will be of a highly technical nature, an advisory committee of technical people could and should play a valuable role in terms of: firstly, advising on the formulation of a work schedule; secondly, monitoring the progress of technical research and development programmes; thirdly, assessing the quality of the work in progress. Such a committee would necessarily be composed of representatives from major bodies with executive and professional responsibilities in the fisheries field. A similar committee is already active in relation to the water resources division of An Foras Forbartha and the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards, where they perform a useful role in the areas outlined above and also have acted as an important link group in the interdepartmental studies that have gone on from time to time. A similar committee in the inland fishery authority context would provide a useful liaison between fishery pollution control and drainage interests. I leave my point with the Minister on that basis at the moment.
I agree with Deputy Treacy on this and feel that the Minister will also agree. What we want is to leave this section as wide as possible. If we confine the central board's position and do not clearly allow them a widening of role, we shall be making a big mistake. On Committee Stage, the Minister might include the very important words "scientific and technical committee". Everyone realises that we need more and more research and technical laboratories to look at the reasons for, for example, the shortage of salmon in our rivers, leaving out the drift-net position altogether, purely from research. I have talked about hybrids or a very special type of cattle, and we all agree that a very special type of fish can be produced with the right technical know-how. This wording is very important indeed. I would like to see far more use being made of our hatcheries, that they should be provided with much more money, time and energy for their research and that the hatcheries should be the most modern in Europe. If we have not got the technical and scientific know-how, we are wasting our time over this Bill. It is very important not to curtail but to enlarge the technical side to give the central board as much power and as much money as they want.
I agree with what the Deputies suggest in the amendment. It is fundamental to have proper advice and monitoring in regard to the scientific and technical policy of the central and regional boards. I disagree that it is necessary to write this into the legislation. I do not like to have superfluous sections or language in legislation. Section 7, as it stands, gives the widest possible functions to the central board and I hope that they will be engaged in the sort of work that the Deputies have spoken about. Paragraph (g) says:
The Central Board may, as regards any fishery carry out such research or experimental work as it considers necessary for the performance of its functions.
It cannot be wider than that. They have complete authority to engage in the type of work of which Deputies have spoken. If we pin them down by setting up an additional committee we would be muddying the waters in terms of administration. We are setting up a central board having under them seven regional boards. Let us appoint the best people at every level and let them get on with the job. It is not necessary to put this into the legislation and I oppose the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 17 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 17 and 18, to insert:
"(iv) encourage, promote and develop angling for salmon, trout, coarse fish and sea fish, and for the purposes of any or all of these kinds of angling provide such facilities and amenities as the Central Board thinks fit,".
My reason for this amendment is that the functions of development, promotion and research are presently being carried out within the Inland Fisheries Trust by a small co-ordinated team of highlyspecialised people working on a country at large basis. This concentrated effort will lose its effectiveness and economy if broken up into regional effort. The work is being carried out in 17 counties. As stated by the Minister, we can see that the primary function of the regional board should be the protection and regulation of fisheries and the issue of commercial licences and the central board's functions should be to co-ordinate and direct regions and to carry out development, research and promotion on a national scale. As the Bill stands, that will not be the position. To allocate the development and promotional functions to the regional boards will cause overlapping and duplication of effort and it will also mean dilution of staff in respect of that main effort. Administration costs alone will be unnecessarily high and wasteful of limited resources which should be concentrated as much as possible on staff engaged in development protection. It would regionalise a function which could be fulfilled on a national basis both effectively and economically. I hope the Minister will see the reason behind my amendment and will find it possible to accept it.
More consideration should be given to the definition of what is meant here. At present subsection 3 (a) of the Bill reads:
Species of fish as are specified in the authorisaion.
Nowhere in the Bill is there a definition of this authorisation. The type of fish should be defined here. At the beginning of this debate we were talking about the 12-mile back zone plus the rivers and lakes, along with the problems encountered in regard to pollution, hatcheries, research and so on. It is important to define here what exactly the Bill covers.
Is the Minister satisfied with it as it stands?
I know what Deputies are seeking to do, but from my experience with inland fisheries problems I realise that the regional aspect is very important. The problems and the answers vary enormously in different regions. To have an over-centralised approach would be a mistake. The purpose of this section is to put the primary responsibility on a regional basis. I go along with Deputy Treacy and Deputy White that there must be a central coordinating board. However, I would like to place the responsibility for initiative and for proposals at local level. The amendment seeks to transfer from the regional boards to the central board a function in regard to development, promotion, direction and so on of fisheries, and I do not agree with that. The central board will now be there with the sort of expertise which the Inland Fisheries Trust have and Deputy Treacy is seeking to incorporate in the amendment that they, in effect, should have the primary function. I feel that it should be the other way round. The regional boards should have the primary function because they know the regional facts and the necessities of each area and the central board or authority should handle it from there. I know that there is another point of view which suggests that we could have a flying squad system throughout the country. Looking at the situation in Ireland, there is no question that the various regions and catchment areas of rivers all have different complaints, problems, solutions and answers. You cannot equate the Suir with the Shannon or the Finn with the Maigue or the Feale. It is much better in this area to pin responsibility down on a region and let us have an overall central board coordinating it so that regions do not get out of hand and go crazy in regard to administration. I would like to see the balance titled towards the regions rather than towards a central board.
The Minister will doubtless be aware that there is abroad a very strong feeling that things should be more centralised. I know it is not possible now. I agree also that it was the very definite desire of the Inland Fisheries Commission when they reported that there should be one unified board rather than the regions which we are now establishing in this section. Quite obviously there were reasons for that. It would ensure a united mobile staff, automatic co-ordination and effort in planning, execution and development of the protection work involved, and all would be done under the aegis of a central board. I feel that my amendment will do much to allay their anxiety. The Bill as it stands may create the possibility of non-cooperation to a large extent, or friction or even conflict between one regional board and another and indeed with the central board. This danger can well be compounded by the wording of section 7 where it limits the powers of the central board to direct the activities of regional boards, and I quote:
where it considers it necessary so to do....
In practice that could mean that there would be no clear line of authority from the central board to the regions and that the control might be occasionally spasmodic or continuous and depending on the views taken from time to time. I have tabled this amendment to avoid the situation where there-would be lack of co-operation and hindrance to staff mobility, to the overall achievement of a united protection and development team and to the adoption of a comprehensive and balanced plan of operation. It is not possible now to have this unified force to which I have referred, but the amendment which I have tabled would do much to create the kind of liaison, goodwill and co-operation so necessary in order to make this Bill work.
Having in mind different people of different interests, there are two lines of thought here. One is of a central board with full powers and the regional boards under that central board as envisaged here in the Bill. I am not against what is in the Bill. Indeed, I favour it as long as the Minister can give the House some kind of guarantee, as I am sure he will, that there will be full co-operation between the central board and the regional boards.
As far as the regional boards are concerned, it would be a great pity if the local people had not some say in the fishing in their area and it is only right that the local people, as envisaged in this Bill, would be elected properly and that the right people with the right knowledge would be on the regional boards and their chairman in turn would be sitting on the central board. All the money should be paid to the central board who should have their headquarters in Galway and who should be responsible for full technical administration, for full research and for administration generally. With regard to the regional boards, we are talking about protection, seeing that the licences are paid and so on. The important thing here is to see that we define clearly the different functions of the two boards.
Regarding the central board, last week a few people asked me if, for example, it would be possible for people in my area in the west to move back to Dublin. I am sure that people living in Dublin have contacted the Minister to ask if it would be possible to leave Dublin to go back to Galway or elsewhere in the west. At this time people who want to go back to the west of Ireland should be given the opportunity to go back. Alternatively, people working in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in the west who want to go back to Dublin should be given the option of doing so. It is not pleasant to be compelled to go to Galway when other people are prepared to go there. I am not saying that some of our head researchers should be replaced by people of lesser knowledge, but I think the Minister takes my point and I hope he will give the people who are working in the Inland Fisheries Trust and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry every opportunity to live where they want to live.
It is important to define the functions of each board. The central board are the head board and they are the body who will be handling the money, doing research and looking after the technical side of things. The regional boards will deal with local problems and local people and will bring their local knowledge up to the central office.
This is a difficult matter for someone seeking to bring in a completely new structure and define functions. I am against over-definition of functions here. Under section 7 we have given a very full, open mandate to the central board. The section covers the whole area of development, research and education. You cannot get more than that and the central board have that function. The regional boards will work to the central board, each preparing their own development fishery plans related to their own areas. This is very important. I can think of no area of development more unsuited to overcentralisation than fisheries because the problems of Lough Sheelin are totally different from the problems of the Shannon estuary and are totally different from the problems of Donegal and the problems of the Slaney. One can go around Ireland and see the variations and the situations. It would be foolish to over-define.
I appreciate the point made by Deputy Treacy and I know that there are people who are worried about the aspect of losing the expertise which might be there but that expertise will be available to the central board. It will be available to them for translation to specific problems in any particular regional board area. This is the way I envisage the matter working out. What we have in the Inland Fisheries Trust will be subsumed by the central board and will then be available to each of the regional boards as the problems arise in each particular area. If one started to define the matter one could add to the confusion.
We have discussed this at great length with all the organisations involved. I feel very strongly that the best way in which this new system will work is on the administration aspect rather than over-definition in the legal sense. I believe that ultimately what will count in how well this works will be the calibre of the management personnel we will appoint at both central board level and at regional level and the calibre also of the people who are elected to the boards and who will be on the central board.
This will depend largely on administration. Up to this in inland fisheries development there has been a lack of co-ordinated administration to ensure that management, development and conservation of stocks was done in an ordered manner. Under this Bill we can now do this in an ordered manner. We should not tie down whatever administration we establish by an over-definition, an over-compartmentalisation, of regional boards and the central board.
I want the Minister to indicate to me that he is completely satisfied that the central board envisaged in the Bill will be in a position to stimulate and co-ordinate the efforts of the regional boards, that there is not any likelihood of friction, lack of co-operation, of certain regional boards going their own way and doing their own thing. I am all for centralisation as such but one requires at the top centralised authority which will percolate down to every aspect of the regional boards.
We need to ensure that there will not be conflict and that there will be co-operation. My amendment is designed to provide that kind of liaison between regional boards. If the Minister is completely happy that this co-ordinated effort and many others as well that I desire will be there, fair enough. Many people who have a positive interest in this area are concerned that, in the manner in which regional boards are included in this Bill, they may not feel a duty and a responsibility to the central board in relation to many aspects of activity. If the Minister is happy that the centralised authority is there I will leave the matter as it is. I would like him to comment again on possible co-operation.
I would like to give Deputy Treacy that assurance because I feel very strongly that this has to be an interlocking arrangement between the central board and the seven regional boards. We have written that into the Bill by ensuring that seven of the 11 members of the central board will be the chairmen of the regional boards. Each chairman of each regional board will go on to the central board and then there will be four ministerial appointees. That will ensure interlocking which I feel is very important.
I agree with a lot of what Deputy Treacy has said and I can appreciate the worries he has in this matter. I believe it is much better to do it that way rather than as he suggests in the amendment, "as the central board thinks fit". It is better not to put that in. It is better to do it the way I mentioned. As we have the seven regional chairmen out of the 11 members on the board in effect what Deputy Treacy suggests will be done in practice. It is better to do it that way and preserve the regional aspect as well.
In the event of some of the worst fears of certain people being realised in relation to contention, disputes and lack of co-operation who will be the arbiter? Are the board sufficiently geared to deal with problems of that kind?
I hope, provided we get a proper professional management situation into the protection and development of inland fisheries, that they will be able to deal with them. We will now have for the first time some sort of professionalism in the management of the situation which was never there. In those old fashioned boards, going back over the years, when people were recruited on an ad hoc basis there was no organisation. This will improve that situation. I envisage us having a situation, rather like the county management system, where first-class people are appointed as chief executive officers of each of the boards and the central board also with top-class people appointed independently, building up their own structure of responsibility to do the job properly. When that is linked in with the regional boards, represented largely on the central board, with a chairman from each of the regional boards on the central board, I hope that common sense, good administration and professional approach will work out. I do not see the need to write it all into the Bill.
Does the Minister envisage that there will be an executive officer of that calibre in charge of each of the regional boards?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (1), paragraph (c), to delete all words from and including "The Central Board" in line 31, down to and including "contain" in line 54 and substitute: "The Central Board shall at intervals of five years prepare and submit to the Minister for his consideration a research and development plan and programmes prepared under this section may contain".
This is a very clear, specific amendment but nevertheless a very important one. It seeks to ensure that the central board would at intervals of five years rather than at intervals of one year as provided for in the Bill, submit to the Minister for his consideration, a research and development plan. It must be obvious to anyone in this modern age that to expect a new and important body of this kind to work on an annual basis is unfair and unrealistic and is bound to impede planning and programming. In embarking on a worth while plan of any kind, a number of years are required for an effective carrying out of that plan. Therefore, to expect the board to do their work on a long-term basis but to report annually is to stultify them. Therefore, I trust that the Minister will see the reasonableness of the case I am making. Most boards work to a plan of five years—some boards even work to plans of ten years. A one-year programme is neither feasible nor realistic. It is not fair to expect this board to execute a meaningful programme on an annual basis since much of their work must depend on progress during the year and also on submissions from the seven regional boards we are establishing. Approval of the longer term programme, incorporating ministerial policy with the agreement of the central and regional boards, would enable the central board to plan on a long-term basis and would allow them time for discussion and agreement on overall policy between the Minister and the central board. In addition, it would obviate the need for repeated requests for ministerial approval.
The Inland Fisheries Trust are used to working on a ten-year plan basis. More or less the same personnel will be involved largely now in spearheading the programme of this central board, but they will not be helped in their work if they must begin to operate on a one-year planning basis. For all practical purposes, then, I trust that the Minister will be able to extend the period of time beyond one year and to specify that the board operate on a five-year basis. Four years would be the minimum period that I would regard as being reasonable and practicable.
The Inland Fisheries Trust found from their vast experience down through the years that it was impossible to undertake fisheries development on a yearly basis and they negotiated and costed on the basis of a ten-year development plan but working through on an annual programme. This approach proved successful, as I am sure the same sort of approach would prove successful also for this new board. On the basis of the ten-year programme, targets were achieved and, in many instances, surpassed. In these times, when we have such major changes and fluctuations in regard to prices, costings and so on a one-year plan is ridiculous.
Perhaps it is not too bad to be in a middle-of-the-road situation once in a while, and that is the question in this instance so far as I am concerned because I am in agreement both with the Minister and with Deputy Treacy. Would the solution to the question lie in providing for a report to be submitted each year but with a research and development programme being submitted at five-yearly intervals?
I am grateful for that suggestion from Deputy White. I was about to suggest to Deputy Treacy that we could incorporate both provisions. Therefore, I would go along with his suggested amendment but not to involve the deletion of the yearly accountability because I consider that to be important. I agree that we should write into the Bill the notion of a five-year development programme because that is the sort of planning that is required in respect of an area such as fisheries.
Between now and Report Stage we shall prepare an amendment on the lines of Deputy Treacy's amendment, not in replacement of the yearly accountability provision but in addition to it.
I would prefer that we incorporate research so that the programme would become a research and development programme, having regard to the importance of research in this field.
We could do that.
Is the Minister assuring me that on Report Stage he will bring in an amendment which will provide that the board operate to a five-year plan but with annual accountability?
That is so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, subsection (1) (f), line 2, to insert "or the promotion of such other matter so relating," after "fisheries,".
Section 7 defines the functions of the board while subsection (1) (f) provides that the central board may charge fees for services covering the management, conservation, protection, development and improvement of fisheries. We consider this to be desirable in respect of promotion services also and that is the reason for this amendment. The amendment is largely in tune with what was said earlier regarding the work done by the trust in the promotion of angling generally and of sea angling in particular.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, subsection (1) (g), line 11, to add ", other than research which is similar or analogous to research in relation to sea fish which was being carried on by the Trust prior to its dissolution".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
As amendments Nos. 13 and 64 are related, they may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, subsection (1) (c), line 30, to insert "and Rosnalee Weir" after "Mallow Hatchery".
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.