We will now consider the motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2008, considered by the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources on 4 December 2008.
Regional Fisheries Boards: Motion.
Is the white flag raised?
Yes, in fact the tapes are up.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2008,
copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 25 November 2008.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the motion on the Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2008. At present the management and development of the inland fisheries sector resides with the Central Fisheries Board and the seven regional fisheries boards. Members are aware that elections to the regional fisheries boards are due to take place on 16 December 2008 following an extension agreed by the Oireachtas last year. However, I propose, subject to the approval of the Dáil and Seanad, to make an order postponing elections for a further year. If this is not done, the existing boards will fall.
It is not my intention for these boards to continue in existence indefinitely and I am making this proposition with the real prospect of having a restructured streamlined alternative in place for the inland fisheries service during 2009. This will be delivered in the context of the Government's rationalisation of State agencies generally.
In 2005, on foot of an independent review of the inland fisheries sector in Ireland, my predecessor announced plans for significant restructuring of the sector. However, due to the complexity of the legislation required to implement the proposals and competing priorities, it did not prove possible to introduce the required legislation within the original timeframe envisaged.
The proposals put forward in 2005 met with a lot of opposition from all stakeholders and this alternative initiative was considered to represent a deliverable prospect for real change within the sector. Representatives from the central and regional fisheries boards worked with officials from the Department in developing these proposals and the legislation required to give effect to them in the early part of 2008. The Minister's consideration of the finalised proposals was, however, overtaken by the review of State bodies by the Department of Finance, announced in July.
On foot of that review, the Minister for Finance announced in the budget on 14 October that the Government had decided to reduce the number of State bodies and agencies by 41. As part of this rationalisation process, a new national inland fisheries body is to be established, which will replace the existing central and seven regional fisheries boards. The eight existing trout and coarse fisheries co-operative societies will also be affected under these restructuring proposals. This decision has superseded all other proposals under consideration for the future of the sector and will be implemented without delay. A deadline of August 2009 has been set for the vesting day of the new organisation.
Following the announcement on budget day, I, along with the Minister and officials from the Department, met with the CEOs of the central and regional fisheries boards to outline the Government decision and ensure their support in implementing it. Following that meeting, a small group, chaired by the Department and with representation on behalf of the existing boards, was established to guide the implementation of the decision. The group comprises two officials from the Department, the CEO and HR director of the Central Fisheries Board and two of the regional fisheries boards' CEOs. This group is developing the key features of the new model and has advised on the legislative provisions required to deliver the new regime. It will also devise appropriate transitional arrangements to ensure the smooth changeover to the new structures next year. The group is meeting for the fourth time today and I am pleased to say is making good progress towards meeting the target of August 2009 for the establishment of the new body. I am confident that an effective system can be put in place under the auspices of the new body which will ensure that the important work relating to the inland fishery resource will be implemented efficiently.
While the proposal involves the creation of a single national authority, the Government is committed to maintaining a strong regional input into the management of inland fisheries. It is clear from the nature of the inland fisheries work that the new body will require a strong regional presence. Amending legislation will be required to give effect to the new structures and in this regard the Department is well advanced in the process of drawing up a draft scheme of the Bill. It is hoped this will be submitted to Government for approval in the coming weeks.
I reiterate that the terms and conditions of employment of the staff of the central and regional fisheries boards will not be any less favourable than those currently obtaining. It is intended that staff will be afforded specific statutory protection in this case.
Outside the context of providing the legislation necessary to facilitate the new structures, a separate examination is also being undertaken as to how the existing 17 pieces of legislation governing the inland fisheries sector, which date back to 1959, can be modernised and consolidated into a single statute. As the House will appreciate, there is a considerable amount of work involved in such an exercise. A sub-group of the National Fisheries Management Executive has been established to ensure that those dealing with the consolidated legislation at an operational level will have an input into proposals for the new legislation that will govern the sector. This group is working closely with the Department on developing legislative proposals and will examine areas such as licensing, rates and conservation imperatives as part of their deliberations. I hope to be in a position to bring forward proposals for that legislation late next year.
In the meantime, the focused effort of the Department will be on the legislation enabling the establishment of the new inland fisheries authority. It is my intention, subject to Government approval, to publish the draft heads of the Bill as soon as they have been approved.
I recognise the valuable contribution made by the existing members of the boards to the inland fisheries in their regions. I thank them all for their efforts over the years. Given the significant changes that will be experienced by the sector in the coming year, I am anxious that they would be given an opportunity to maintain that important role not only in ensuring a continuing input to the work of the regional boards, but also in ensuring a smooth transition to the new structures.
Accordingly, I am proposing to postpone the elections to the regional fisheries boards for a further year in accordance with section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1980. I wish to advise the House that postponing the elections until 2009 is the only mechanism available to me within the existing statue to provide for the continuation of the existing boards until the establishment of the new body next August.
The order will extend the term of office of the existing board members for a further year or until vesting day of the new authority, which I expect to be in August 2009, at which time the boards will cease to exist. The order will also result in the postponement of elections to co-operative societies. This will facilitate the continued contribution from those individuals directly involved in overseeing the service, who will have a key role to play in advancing the restructuring of the sector.
While I am fully committed to the restructuring of the sector, I recognise that there will be challenges in bringing it about. The changes to the sector will be progressed on an open and transparent basis. I thank the members of the implementation group, who have been working hard in that regard. Last week, I met members of the fishing industry, where we discussed the process of restructuring and I was happy with the support I received from them. I thank Members for their co-operation and I trust the House will pass the motion approving the order to defer the elections.
I wish to share time with Deputies McHugh, D'Arcy and Ring.
I thank the Minister of State for coming back to me since last week's committee meeting to clarify a number of outstanding issues in this regard. However, Fine Gael will not support the order because it facilitates government incompetence. The elections should have taken place two and a half years ago. We had the same debate as last year when we were informed the only mechanism available to the Government was to postpone the elections for a year to restructure the sector. A year later we are being asked to the same. This is not part of the Government's rationalisation plan, even though it has been put in that category. Three years ago a good report supported by Fine Gael recommended the restructuring of the inland fisheries sector. However, we have lost patience with the Government's capacity to do this. We are being asked again to take another leap of faith and to trust the Minister to do what he says he will do this time when this could have been done over the past two years.
We also have concerns regarding the composition of the restructuring implementation group because no outsider is involved to introduce new thinking or experience from abroad. The group comprises two departmental officials — an assistant secretary and a principal officer — and four, granted they are excellent, officials from the central and regional fisheries boards. Many good people are working in this sector but if restructuring is to take place and something new is to be done to improve the system and provide efficiencies, new thinking is needed. An examination of the sector in other countries must be conducted and we need to benefit from their experience.
The Minister of State is saying that if everyone agrees to restructure, no one will lose his or her job and everyone will retain his or her current working conditions. We had a similar debate when we agreed to set up the HSE. Every official was told on the record in no uncertain terms that he or she would retain his or her job and nobody would be inconvenienced but the HSE is a now a mess and similar assurances are being given to fisheries board staff. People who are working well in the sector should have an input but if we are serious about restructuring and achieving efficiency through an improved system, the Minister of State cannot make a grand statement that nobody will be inconvenienced or upset regarding his or her working conditions. That does not make sense in the context of restructuring to improve the system.
I am concerned about the way the Minister of State is going about this and, in particular, that the Government is unable to meet the deadlines it sets for itself. We have no faith it will do so this time either. On that basis, we cannot wave another green flag enabling the Government to continue on the road to restructuring the inland fisheries sector because of our experience of its delays and incompetence to date.
I welcome the Minister of State. I refer to the issues I raised at the joint Oireachtas committee meeting last week. The Government needs to develop a mentality that it has bought into the Good Friday Agreement, which clearly provides for an integrated marine strategy. This presents a serious challenge because it will create additional layers of bureaucracy. However, the Government needs to reach out to capable people, for example, in the Loughs Agency who are willing to work with it in partnership. I do not mean in a tokenistic way because there are ways we can co-operate and share expertise and create opportunities not only to manage our inland waterways but also to promote tourism through joint marketing.
The Minister of State did not mention meeting members from the Loughs Agency, perhaps he is restricted from doing so because of protocol and so on, but I ask him to meet them. He needs to work more proactively. The Lough Foyle basin comes under the auspices of Belfast, Dublin and London, which involves many layers of bureaucracy and difficulties. However, we should be proactive and acknowledge the proposal for an integrated marine strategy, North and South, which will provide opportunities that should be built on. We should learn from other examples of co-operation such as that between the PSNI and the Garda.
This time last year the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources attended a meeting of our committee and asked us to facilitate the postponement of the elections. We said we would go with that for one more year but if he showed up 12 months later with the same request, we would not facilitate him further. I am satisfied that we are correct. At some stage somebody must get the Government parties into gear to do what they should. They have a number of years to hold the elections.
With regard to the Minister, never has a poacher turned so quickly into a gamekeeper. When he was in Opposition, he was very excited about the elections being postponed time after time in his role as a poacher but he has been a gamekeeper since he went into government. How quickly the Green Party members have become immersed in the politics of Fianna Fáil.
I thank Deputy Coveney for sharing time. Last week the Minister of State met people from my area regarding this issue. There is great concern about what is happening. Governments must show leadership but this is the third time elections have been postponed and that sends out the wrong signal. Deputy Coveney made a valid point about amalgamating the fisheries boards into one regional board which would be elected, yet people will retain their jobs. I do not say they should be removed but if boards are being amalgamated, jobs will have to be lost. Deputy Coveney referred to the HSE and we have witnessed what that has created. Leader boards have been also amalgamated and the same number of people will administer what has to be administered. We want more efficiency.
It is appalling that the elections are being called off again. There is no leadership in the Department and I am beginning to wonder whether the Government parties care about this industry. That is the part of the problem in this country. This is similar to the issues relating to pigs and cattle that were discussed earlier. We have had so much corruption in this country for so long that it is spreading down. We want real leadership and we want the Ministers and the Government to lead the people. They are sick and tired of what is going on. There are enough officials in the Department and in the Parliamentary Counsel's office to draft the necessary legislation. A committee meeting should not have been held last week before the Minister of State came to the House this week to postpone elections again. It does not make sense and it sends out the wrong signal. The elections should have taken place and we should be discussing the necessary legislation to deal with the restructuring. It should have in place for next year but, instead, it has been put off for another year. The same people are in place and no leadership is being given. Nothing is happening and that is wrong.
I wish to share time with Deputy Ferris.
The Labour Party is opposed to this order. It is shameful for a Minister to come back again seeking a further deferral. It means it will be nine years since elections were held for these regional boards and this is unacceptable. Each time the order comes back a new Minister's name is on it, along with a new date, and yet again we have a further deferral.
Reforms have been promised over this period. The reason the original deferral was proposed was for reforms to be made but this did not happen. Now the excuse is given that the budget provided for consolidation and change to come about and we are expected to believe all of this will be done and dusted by August 2009. It is extremely difficult for us to believe that this has any credibility when one considers the track record in this sorry saga.
There is an "illogic" — if there is such a term — whereby we are being asked to defer elections on the basis that elections will not be held next year. This raises questions on what we are doing here. There is an inaccuracy in the order which refers to section 15(4) but it is section 15(3) of the Fisheries Act which is relevant. I am happy for the Minister of State to make this change as a technical change.
Is a legal issue raised? I hope the Minister of State has taken legal advice because there is at least a variance between the order and the original Act. Section 15, which is the section of the Act referred to, allows for postponement. However, from the wording it appears to allow for one postponement, which was made back in 2005, but not for serial postponement which has led to a different wording on the order from that in the Fisheries Act. I am curious to know whether the Minister of State has taken legal advice. He stated this is the only way to defer elections. It might be worthwhile to know whether he has taken legal advice to see whether what he is doing is sound.
I thank the Minister of State for the information he sent us with regard to the various questions raised, in particular with regard to the audited accounts for 2007. I appreciate they have finally come through and I ask that they be published as soon as possible. When this proposal was made in 2006, the current Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources was extremely critical of the approach being adopted by the then Minister. He used sensational words and spoke about a shocking indictment and an act of cowardice. Now we are presumed to simply entertain the idea that this is fine and part of a reform process and that we should not challenge anything the Minister is doing.
We have a bad precedent in terms of reform. We have seen how the HSE came into being and what a disaster it was. I recall very clearly, because I was spokesperson for health at the time, warning the Minister that she was in danger of creating a new monster and that is exactly what happened. It was not properly prepared for or planned. I have concerns that the Minister of State is telling us that everything will be sorted by August but he cannot tell us, and I have raised this at committee meetings, what are the transitional plans for these new structures. How will regional management and accountability be maintained in these new structures? What is the redundancy package? Will there be voluntary redundancy? What are the staffing requirements for the Central Fisheries Board? What are the accommodation requirements in terms of the new arrangements and the new agency?
We need to see good robust management. We have seen yet another problem arise in terms of Government failure to deliver on an IT facility which promised a major change on how the public could access information. Government competence is at issue here as much as anything else. So far, the track record is abysmal. I am concerned that if we simply nod this through we will facilitate further incompetence in the future. Will the Minister of State consider the points made here and return with answers? He has provided some answers but other answers are required on how this change, if it is to be managed properly, will be done within the timeframe. One sure thing is that it will not be tolerated if he returns again with the same rigmarole and expects us to nod it through as he expects us to do now.
I thank the Labour Party for providing me with an opportunity to speak. It is an awful indictment that this is the third occasion on which the election to the new structure has been proposed. In the Minister of State's address he mentioned that if it is not done, the existing boards will fall and effectively this is a threat to the Opposition, in other words that we would be responsible for the boards falling.
I did not hear the point.
I stated that in the Minister of State's presentation he stated that if the postponement is not agreed the existing boards will fall.
Yes.
If the existing boards fall it will not be Opposition's fault it will be the Government's fault because it has failed to bring forward the necessary legislation during the past three years.
I agree the current structures need improvement. While the regional boards, with which I have worked through the years, left a lot to be desired at times, in general they were representative in so far as one had access and someone from a coastal or rural community would know somebody on the board whom he or she could contact and who would take issues on board and raise them at meetings. As Deputy McManus stated, we will have to see what are the proposals and see how representative and democratic it will be. I have a feeling this will be extremely centralised and one will not have the same accessibility as one has through the regional boards.
I also agree with the points raised by Deputy McManus regarding the legal legitimacy of postponing these elections. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister of State would share the legal advice he received so we can form our own opinion on it.
I, on behalf of my party, will not support this motion for the reasons outlined. I hope the Minister of State takes them on board. It is an awful indictment on the Government that we are back here for the third time and we still do not have an election.
There is no provision in the order for a reply from the Minister of State but there are a few minutes left.
I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the Opposition. When this announcement was made on 14 October, Fine Gael accused us of stealing its clothes and stated that this has been its policy for some time. Now we are in the House it wants to oppose it.
No, we are not opposing it.
I explained clearly the history behind——
The Minister of State should not twist our words.
——why we arrived at the place——
We are opposing his incompetence. That is what we are opposing.
——we are at today. The independent review which was mentioned also recommended a single authority so I am convinced that what we are doing is the correct path to take.
The commitment we have made to existing staff is limited to terms and conditions and not to their future roles in a new organisation. That will obviously change.
We have had meetings with the Loughs Agency. All actions taken by the agency must be approved by the appropriate Ministers both North and South. It is something we are working on and which we can build upon.
I made the point at last week's meeting in Leinster House with industry representatives that despite the change that is taking place, we will continue to place great emphasis on the regions. In that context, a certain amount of the co-operation that is taking place in the regions will continue. Instead of a chief executive officer, we will have regional managers who will not have the difficulty and demand on their time of managing and working with a regional board. Instead, they will only have to consult and work directly with one central board. This will afford them more time to work with local fishermen and fishing organisations, thus enhancing the traditional co-operation we have had in the past.
I cannot answer Deputy McManus's query regarding the wording of the order but will undertake to have the matter examined in detail. The order itself is being drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel of the Office of the Attorney General. It is possible that the original Act may have been amended, which could account for the change in the section numbers to which the Deputy referred.
This issue goes back to 1980, so that is not the case.
I will have the matter examined and will get back to the Deputy.
Thank you.
I take on board what was said about having to postpone elections, which would not happen in an ideal world. However, I have explained clearly the progress we have made and the sincerity of our efforts in respect of this restructuring. I ask Members to accept in faith our objectives in bringing forward this proposal. We will deliver on it next year.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Behan, Joe.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Carey, Joe.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.