Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Sep 2008

Role and Functions: Discussion with Central Fisheries Board.

I welcome Dr. Ciaran Byrne, CEO, and Mr. Kieran Murphy, director of human resources, at the Central Fisheries Board. This meeting has been arranged to allow the Central Fisheries Board give an overview to committee members of the work of the board.

Before we begin I would like to draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege, but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Dr. Byrne to make the presentation.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I thank the Chairman and committee members for inviting me to speak to the committee. I am here ostensibly to talk about the Central Fisheries Board annual report for 2007 and I propose to give an overview of the fisheries service. Many members will be familiar with the fisheries service and the Central Fisheries Board but others may not be so familiar. I will divide my presentation into two sections. I will talk about the fisheries service and then I will focus on the Central Fisheries Board and its role.

The mission of the Central Fisheries Board is to ensure that the valuable natural resources of inland fisheries and sea-angling are conserved, managed, developed and promoted. Those four words are enshrined in legislation. The mission is to promote these resources in their own right and to support sustainable economic activity, recreational amenities and job creation.

The principal function of the Central Fisheries Board is to provide advice to the Minister to allow for policy formulation and development and to answer any scientific questions. Other functions include supporting, co-ordinating and providing specialist support services to the regional fisheries boards, for example, in the areas of human resources, finance, science, etc. I am accompanied by the director of human resources. We advise the Minister on the effective and efficient performance by the regional boards of their functions and also the national and international development of the promotion and marketing of angling with other State agencies and regional fisheries boards. It is all about promoting game, sea and coarse angling. We provide a research and development service to the regional fisheries boards, the Minister and other State agencies. These are the principal but not the only functions of the Central Fisheries Board.

I have brought along an organogram to show to members. It is not factually accurate in that not all staff members are represented but it gives a sense of the organisation. I am the chief executive officer and I am in the fortunate position of having five directors reporting to me. The vast majority of staff work in the research and development division of the Central Fisheries Board. They consist of senior research officers, research officers, technicians and fisheries assistants. The core function of that division is research and development, providing research services. The next division is the field service division which provides catch management services, the co-ordination of large protection vessels — two LPVs. We have fleet protection and warehouse management and also salmon management services. Every salmon caught in this country is tagged and recorded in log books and licences. All this information comes to our offices under the salmon management programme.

The next division is the angling marketing division and its core function is the promotion and development of angling in Ireland. Its aim is to encourage more Irish people to take up angling and also to encourage international angling visitors. To this end we have a number of advisers on angling. This area was previously split into game, sea and coarse angling but we now adopt a multifunctional approach where the advisers look after all angling. We also have an angling information officer who provides information to the likes of other State agencies, tour groups, angling clubs and so on. The website has been moved away recently from ICT and into the angling and marketing promotion division. The human resources division is a service provider to the regional fisheries boards. The bulk of the work in this division is in the provision of services to our regional fisheries board colleagues. The division includes HR operations, training and development and the health and safety executive who provides health and safety advice and services.

The final division is finance and ICT which provides a number of services to the Central Fisheries Board but predominantly the division is focused outwards to the regional fisheries board colleagues. We do the payroll for all the fisheries service, both accounts receivable and accounts payable, and we also have an ICT function. This is an overview of the organisation of the Central Fisheries Board.

The principal function of the regional fisheries boards is the protection and conservation of the inland fisheries resource as per the Acts and the preparation and development of inland fisheries management plans. They also have a marketing and promotion function in terms of game, sea and coarse angling and they work hand in glove with our own division. The regional fisheries boards have a role in co-operating and co-ordinating with other regional fisheries boards and also with the Central Fisheries Board to ensure that we achieve efficient deployment of resources. They also have a role in promoting private fisheries to achieve best management practice for conservation and the management of fisheries. These are the principal functions of the regional fisheries boards.

In terms of a generic regional fisheries board structure, there is a CEO and they all have an assistant CEO. Typically in the head office they would have an administrative function helping with the day-to-day running of the business. It is then broken down by fishery districts. Each fishery district is broadly headed up by an inspector who would have one or a number of assistant inspectors reporting to him or her. Each assistant inspector would have one or a number of fishery officers.

In a broad sense, the regional fisheries work is broken down into two main categories of protection and development. Where there is protection, the vast majority of staff are fishery officers. Where considerable development goes on, many general operatives and foremen are involved. They are very much to the fore in doing the development work of the fisheries service. There is another string to the bow of the regional fisheries boards relating to environmental services. The boards all have senior fishery environmental officers and environmental officers. Their function is to investigate pollution infringements and work with State agencies and local authorities to ensure the best outcomes are achieved on water management with a fisheries focus. That will give members a sense of the regional fisheries board structure.

I will give a quick snapshot of who we are. The fisheries service has approximately 425 staff of whom 297 are permanent, 104 are temporary and 24 are EU-funded. The permanent complement of staff is reasonably constant subject to the normal vagaries of staff turnover. The temporary staff numbers depend in many cases on the season and also the project-funded staff numbers go up and down as projects are taken on or concluded. The total Vote for the fisheries service is €28.6 million and last year the water framework was funded separately at €2.93 million. The next line on the PowerPoint slide gives a sense of the breakdown of the Vote between the boards. Some 65% to 70% of the money we receive is spent on salaries. Of the remaining non-salary money, as a rule of thumb, 65% to 70% is used essentially for fixed costs, including rent, rates, etc. The free cash available for fishery development work is quite limited.

Regarding the resource itself, we have approximately 74,000 km of rivers. Most of them are first and second-order streams, which means they are approximately 1.5 m or 2 m wide — small streams. There are 12,026 lakes, most of which are less than 1 ha. Members will gather from this that the resources are very well spread. We are not talking about two or three great lakes or three or four big rivers — the kind of situation that may exist in certain countries in Europe. We are talking about a very diverse resource all over the country. We have approximately 28 species of freshwater fish. The reason I say "approximately" is that it depends who is counting and whether invasive species are included. As recently as two years ago a chub was identified in the River Inny which is a new species to Ireland and was introduced nefariously. If the angling species are included, we have more than 50 species of fish.

We have seven regional fisheries boards. Working clockwise around the country we have the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, covering the area down as far as Arklow; the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, continuing as far as Youghal; the South-West Regional Fisheries Board, taking in Cork and Kerry; the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, covering the entire Shannon catchment; the Western Regional Fisheries Board, taking in the tip of Clare, all of Galway and the bottom part of Mayo; the North-Western Regional Fisheries Board, taking in the rest of Mayo and Sligo; and the Northern Regional Fisheries Board, taking in Donegal and Cavan. For members' convenience, on that diagram I have overlaid the outline of the river basin districts, which were established to deal with the water framework directive. Members can see the shape of the regional fisheries board areas and the shape of the river basin districts to get a sense of where the overlaps occur.

The fisheries service is noted for the hard edge — protection and enforcement. I will give members a sense of what we are doing on protection and surveillance. My presentation shows the number of nets seized. Last year, it was 25,000 yd. of net and the previous year it was 29,000 yd. We initiated 157 prosecutions versus 104. The figures are broadly comparable year on year. Prosecutions can be for offences such as not returning logbooks, fisheries-related poaching offences, water pollution offences, etc. On the environmental side of fisheries work, we carry out pollution control. The reported fish kills reduced dramatically in 2007. However, the number of pollution-related warning letters issued and the prosecutions initiated increased. That will give a sense of the hard edge of the fisheries service, the enforcement and protection side.

There is another edge to the fisheries service that I want to bring to members' attention, which is the education and social responsibility role. I will outline a small example. The Eastern Regional Fisheries Board has established the Dublin angling initiative in order to get children from underprivileged backgrounds involved in fishing rather than being involved in anti-social behaviour. The Dublin angling initiative has established fishing clubs. It runs fishing courses, holds workshops and organises competitions. It has replenished fish stocks on lakes. I understand that it has introduced fish to Darndale pond. It has given fishing tackle to young people and organised fly-tying workshops. The initiative is trying to raise public awareness of its role through the media. Its work is based on the principle that those who are involved in fishing and have an awareness of their environment are less likely to throw shopping trolleys into canals and lakes and less likely to get involved in other types of anti-social behaviour. There are two significant photographs in the documentation on which this presentation is based. The first photograph depicts a man catching his first fish and the second photograph shows what happens when one does not hold one's fish correctly.

I would like to comment on the role of the Central Fisheries Board. The organogram in my presentation outlines the shape of the organisation. I do not have time to give a full profile of every action of each division, although I would like to do so. I will give the committee a snapshot of the key programmes in which each division is involved. The four key programmes associated with the board's research and development division involve giving advice, assessing fish stocks, implementing EU directives and dealing with the environment and biodiversity programme.

When our colleagues in the Department ask us for advice on salmon management, we provide it to them. We are sometimes asked for advice by our colleagues who are involved with regional boards, external agencies and fishing clubs. It is incredibly difficult to estimate the amount of time and energy the board spends giving advice. I cannot say whether the next six pieces of advice to be given by the board will be given by the end of the week or the end of the year. We might not have to give any advice for the next month. Advice is very important.

As part of its fish stock assessment role, the board undertakes netting programmes on a year-to-year basis. Our information on Lough Sheelin in County Cavan constitutes the longest continuous sequence of netting data of any lake in Europe, as far as we are aware. We have over 30 years of data on the lake's fish populations and communities. We are engaged in a continuous programme of fish stock assessment. The fish stock assessment section of the board is also charged with examining emergency events. When problems arose last month on the River Smearlagh, which flows into the River Feale, our scientists were at the scene the following Monday morning to conduct electric fishing surveys. We had surveyed the river in the preceding years, but we surveyed it once more in the aftermath of the bogslide.

The Central Fisheries Board is currently dealing with two main EU directives. It is responsible for sampling fish under the water framework directive. Its teams are involved in a nationwide fish monitoring programme, in line with the directive. The board is also working closely with the Department on the implementation of the habitats directive.

Under the environment and biodiversity programme, the board deals with issues relating to canals, coarse fisheries and invasive species. The board's laboratories are managed under the programme.

I would like to give the committee a sense of what the board does by referring to a case study that was undertaken under the fish stock assessment programme. Eel stocks have declined catastrophically in Ireland and across Europe over recent years. An EU directive requires member states to produce eel management plans to help the recovery of eel stocks. I am sorry to be showing the committee so many graphs. The red line on the graph on the bottom left of the screen which is visible to members depicts eel stocks in 1980. Eel stocks have been declining since then. The rate of decline has increased over recent years. The EU has asked all member states to produce a national eel management plan. It has set member states a target of ensuring that 40% of silver eels — eels at the life cycle stage at which they travel to the Sargasso Sea — can escape in such a manner. We were not sure how best to achieve that target, given that we had so little information on Irish eel stocks. As part of a project funded under the national development plan, our scientists have been working with the Marine Institute and the ESB, using habitat-based modelling, to assess what historic eel populations might have been. That has allowed us to calculate the escapement rate. The board's fish stock assessment section works on projects of that nature.

The key programmes with which the board's angling and marketing division is involved pertain to the national and international promotion and marketing of angling. Our public relations and communications personnel tell people the good and bad news stories which relate to the things we are doing. They often have to counter the misinformation that exists among the public. Last week, RTE's "The Afternoon Show" featured a lovely recipe for silver bream, even though the board has put a by-law in place to protect the species. We have to ensure that the right information is transmitted.

The updates published on the board's website represent a key aspect of its efforts to provide information on angling. We provide angling information to industry service providers, such as tour operators and angling clubs. If Pierre from France or Günther from Germany makes an inquiry on the board's website about fishing in Ireland, we can provide angling information. As this division of the board has an education and public awareness role, it is responsible for the "Something Fishy" programme.

I referred to social responsibility and the Dublin angling initiative. The "Something Fishy" programme is about educating younger people. It has been widely recognised that while enforcement achieves a certain amount, education and focusing on children is much more cost efficient. For this reason, we introduced the "Something Fishy" programme.

On the promotion and marketing programme, we run the angling tourism marketing strategy with Fáilte Ireland and the regional fisheries boards. We have a suite of headline brochures for different species. When a French or German angler indicates he wishes to fish for pike, he is given the brochure on pike. The central and regional fisheries boards produced a vast amount of information for these brochures, which are being branded under Discovery Ireland. This is the headline material. The angler who wants to fish for pike may decide he wants to fish in the River Shannon. We are in the process of producing a further suite of regional specific brochures which gives precise details, for example, on the River Shannon, which would allow anglers to find a bed and breakfast and so on. These brochures are being distributed at the international shows by our colleagues in Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. We are also translating some of them into French and will translate relevant brochures for relevant markets, for example, Germany and the Netherlands. I hope this gives members an idea of what the international marketing programme entails.

In the field service division the key programmes are strategic business planning and governance and funding. It also includes the protection and marine advisory service and salmon management service. Every salmon tag and licence in the country comes through our office, which holds the Bradán database for compiling this information. The field service division also encompasses State fisheries management.

The protection and marine advisory service has two large patrol vessels, An Cosantóir Bradán and An Bradán Beatha, both of which are currently in service around the west and south-west coasts. While one vessel is operated by the Central Fisheries Board, the second is leased to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority in an example of resource sharing. All aspects of the operations of the vessels come through the office under the protection and marine advisory service.

The Central Fisheries Board also liaises with the Air Corps and Naval Service to run protection and pollution patrols. These are co-ordinated and managed through the office. The board also provides advice on protection legislation. The information we obtain in the field is used for policy formulation and forwarded to our colleagues in the Department. This allows us to formulate the necessary by-laws, statutory instruments and similar measures.

We have an advisory service on rigid inflatable boats, RIBs, and all things marine, whether boats, RIBs or trailers. Two years ago the board was fortunate to secure funding to purchase replacement RIBs, which we procured centrally. We also co-ordinate intelligence and act as an intelligence hub, receiving and circulating intelligence. I hope I have given members a sense of one of the programmes operating in the field service division.

As I indicated, the finance and ICT division is focused inwards on running the Central Fisheries Board's business. However, much of its time and energy are focused outwards on co-ordinating with the regional fisheries boards. Budget submissions, service level agreement requests and various other statutory obligations are co-ordinated by the finance division. The main programmes in this division involve the production of financial accounts and financial governance. The division produces management accounts for the Central Fisheries Board to identify how the organisation is faring. ICT, the computers and technology side, and facilities management are the other headline programmes in this division.

Compliance with statutory obligations comes under the area of financial accounting and governance. The most important of these obligations is the submission to the Comptroller and Auditor General of financial accounts. The delivery of effective management services to the Central Fisheries Board involves the division keeping the organisation in line by ensuring it spends the right amounts in the right areas in the right way. This is the case in all businesses.

A number of internal audits have been carried out and others are being scheduled. One will be carried out this year with a second possibly taking place early next year. The purpose of these measures is to keep us in line with best practice in industry. Essentially, it is about hopping the ball. The internal audit is the best way to ensure we are doing the best we can. We provide comprehensive financial, ICT and value for money programmes for the central and regional fisheries boards and financial support services to divisions.

There are, therefore, two areas of work for the finance division. The first is to keep the board on track in terms of incoming and outgoing moneys, while the second is to provide advice on procurement, tendering and costing projects.

Although the human resources division does some work for the Central Fisheries Board, its main focus is on the regional fisheries boards. Overall, the service employs more than 400 people which creates considerable work for the division. The day-to-day operations with 400 people involve many human resources minutiae but which are nonetheless important. There are also human resources development, a training programme and the Health and Safety Executive which plays an important function in keeping the boards apprised of forthcoming legislation that may affect them. One example is how we co-ordinated national disability audits for all the boards as required under the Disability Act.

In human resources development, a management development programme has been established. The Central Fisheries Board is 28 years old and many of the staff have been with it from the start. Many have grown up with the organisation but have never received formal management training. To this end, several years ago we initiated the middle management development course which is in its third year and has been very successful. It provides middle managers with the formal training they may never have received and gives them a lift to the next level.

In conjunction with the Institute of Technology, Sligo, a certificate in fisheries management course is available. It is in its fourth year and 41 students have undertaken it. The fisheries service has received many employees from other agencies but who had received no formal training in the fisheries science or management sector. The certificate, taught in conjunction with the Institute of Technolcogy, Sligo, is about giving these staff some formal training. It has been running so well that we are seeking to upgrade it to a degree programme next year. This year there will be direct entrants from the CAO.

Competency development is about building capacity. Some people have different strengths and weaknesses. We are trying to capitalise on our strengths. I use the phrase "train the trainer". The Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, for example, had several staff members who were very good at boat handling. They were trained to coxwain-level 2 boathandler standard and are now training other fisheries boards' staff, building on existing skills.

We have several partnership groups. This makes sense when dealing with industrial relations issues. Senior management can be very isolated, believing it is making wonderful decisions at the top when often the staff at the coalface know better as to what will and will not work. The partnership process is about seeking everyone's opinion. It is not about senior management dictating downwards but bringing proposals upwards. Delivery of targets under the 2016 agreement has been achieved through partnership groups.

Regarding operational skills development, areas in which fisheries biologists and technicians need training such as electro-fishing and powerboat handling, is provided for by the Central Fisheries Board.

I welcome the delegation and congratulate Dr. Ciaran Byrne on his appointment. It is positive that the board is involved in outreach programmes in various communities and the education sector.

There was no mention in the presentation of the Farrell, Grant and Sparks, FGS, report on restructuring the fisheries boards on a central and regional basis. There was also no mention of our obligation under the Good Friday Agreement in implementing an integrated cross-Border marine strategy. Are there any recommendations made in the FGS report that are being implemented, followed up or will come down the line? I raise this in the context of the current economic position with regard to value for money, economic and scientific best practice and cutbacks.

I appreciate that excellent work is being done at a regional level under the various chief executive officers. However, from an outsider's perspective, seven chief executive officers under the direction of Dr. Byrne might seem excessive. I am not talking about personalities or questioning the role of the other chief executive officers in a regional context, but I would like Dr. Byrne's opinion of the existing model.

People working within the aquaculture section, for example, in freshwater systems and in small businesses in general, are finding it difficult to secure loans from the banks. In addition, there is little public investment in spawning grounds. I refer in particular to spawning areas for salmon where, in some cases, rehabilitation work has not been carried out since as far back as 1929. Are there plans for an intensive roll-out of funding to rehabilitate spawning grounds?

Will Dr. Byrne elaborate on the status of the integrated cross-Border marine strategy? In east Inishowen in my constituency, the Loughs Agency is doing an excellent job of trying to work with two accountable structures at Stormont and Dublin. However, under a fisheries governance restructuring which incorporates Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, the Environment Agency in the United Kingdom is seeking to subsume the function of the Loughs Agency in the North. Is there not an opportunity for us, at a further outreach level, to look to a model of best practice where we go back to the natural river basin using the north west as an example, as administered by the North-Western Regional Fisheries Board and the Loughs Agency? We should show leadership on this side of the Border in view of our obligation under the Good Friday Agreement to devise an integrated marine strategy. Could we not advocate a position whereby we go back to the natural terrain of the north-western river basin, which would incorporate Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry, Donegal and Cavan? Is that discussion taking place within the Central Fisheries Board?

I welcome Dr. Byrne and Mr. Murphy and thank them for their presentation. Most members are accustomed to dealing with their regional board rather than the Central Fisheries Board. My personal experience in this regard has been good and I have encountered a progressive attitude in terms of regional development issues and connecting with local communities.

However, there are issues of concern to me which are a matter not so much for the board as for the Minister and the Department. The first of these relates to the decentralisation programme. The plan to decentralise the Central Fisheries Board to Carrick-on-Shannon was never realised, but some €1.5 million was spent on accommodation which may not now be used. I assume the delegates would also like to have some certainty on this issue. Will they clarify why so much money is being spent in the absence of any definitive decision, particularly in view of the limited budget? This is a crazy way to proceed. There are a sizeable number of personnel but most are located in the regions.

In a way the questions are interlinked. Last November the Houses of the Oireachtas were asked to postpone a decision on the structure of the fisheries boards. It had already been postponed once and the Minister now responsible was very critical of the original postponement when in opposition. I suspect we will be asked to postpone the decision again. I would like to have the delegation's views on what should be happening regarding restructuring. The Government is talking about amalgamation and grand plans. What is the delegation's view on the future of the Central Fisheries Board and how, for example, it relates to the marine sector? I have concerns. The delegation has a good critical mass of research and the capacity to do research. How does it connect with the Marine Institute? Fish do not stay inland, they like to move around. I thought there would be some synergy between the two. Perhaps the delegation might discuss future research.

I have a question on encouraging tourism and the development of angling. What is the growth in the number of rod licences? How effective has the Central Fisheries Board been in growing the product in the last few years and what are its projections? What is being done on the issue of sea lice and related issues?

I also welcome the presentation which I found really interesting and helpful. I want to touch on a number of issues of concern to me, one of which is water levels. I wonder if the Central Fisheries Board has an official position on the proposal from Veolia to carry water from the Shannon basin into Dublin and the impact that would have. More generally, I would like to hear how the delegation feels about the domestic run-off of water into rivers and the impact that is having on water levels and stock.

An issue I never hear discussed is the second run of salmon. Representations have been made to me on a number of occasions that salmon coming upriver later in the season fail to pass through weirs because of low water levels. One point made many times is that perhaps the fisheries authorities should help those salmon to get upriver or take eggs from them. There is huge waste on that basis. I would like to know where we stand on the issue.

Another related issue is the management and ownership of small rivers. I spoke to the Central Fisheries Board three or four years ago when there was an eight mile river, Clahane river, a good salmon river on the northern side of the Corca Dhuibhne Peninsula, with about five lakes attached to it, right under the Conor Pass, for sale. Local people made a proposal to buy and manage it properly but there seemed to be no support. An appropriate way to protect stocks would be if local people took an interest in the matter. For a start it would deal immediately with the issue of poaching and other issues arising from this.

I was very interested in what the delegation had to say about learning and teaching. During the years I have come across people who have tried to develop this but who have received little support from the Central Fisheries Board. I saw an advanced proposal for the development of a fishing school between Tuamgraney and Mountshannon on the western side of Lough Derg but it was simply blown out of the water. While I know development must be protected and that the delegation has an input into planning decisions which I salute and support, I wonder how we can achieve a balance between developing an industry and protecting stock. The different boats on waterways were mentioned, with the involvement of the Central Fisheries Board in ribs and boat handling. While that is very important, it all relates to the same issue. There is an industry waiting to grow.

Perhaps the delegation might explain the counting of salmon. I was in the minority in the House of those who did not support the decisions on salmon fishing in the last couple of years and would like to hear an expert view. I have seen the increase in stocks in recent years which tells its own story. Other countries, Canada in particular, have managed to allow driftnet fishing at particular times when the stock going up river to replenish and meet the needs of the industry has been considered to be enough. Has that approach ever been considered here? I ask that question for a reason. It seems to me that the sea fishermen, particularly salmon fishermen, do not have a voice and are not listened to on the east coast or in this House. Effectively, we are losing a century's old industry and that bothers me. I would balance this by saying that last year I saw either the Cosantóir Bradán or the Bradán Beatha being welcomed to the salmon festival in Corca Dhuibhne which I thought was a major move forward, instead of standing at arm’s length from each other. I was certainly impressed.

I read somewhere recently of somebody taking a pike from Lough Ree. How does that happen? How does a pike suddenly emerge after centuries in what I think is a trout fishing lake and does it cause damage to an industry? Is that something about which we need to be concerned?

I thank Senator O'Toole. Will the delegation comment on the effect of the measures put in place in respect of salmon stocks? Has the delegation any figures on how they have reflected in the replenishing of our rivers? What is the effect on the River Barrow, where there was a total ban on salmon fishing, and on the River Nore, where fish caught had to be put back? Which of the two ideas is the better one or do they both work satisfactorily?

I wish to raise the issue of the board's contacts with the Office of Public Works in cases of mutual interest, particularly the replacement of weirs. In Kilkenny five or six years ago, there was a major problem where the Office of Public Works had to do work on a weir on the river. It created havoc because the salmon could not get up river. Does the Office of Public Works consult with the board before it starts such work?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I will begin with Deputy McHugh's questions. I thank the committee for its positive comments and its welcome. In relation to the presentation, members were correct that I did not cover a number of areas. Having been allowed about ten minutes, it was impossible to do so. The Deputy asked for my views on restructuring, as did Deputy McManus. I understand the Minister appeared before the committee last November and put forward proposals. At the time an initiative was coming forward from the central and regional fisheries boards where the chairpersons were going to meet with his officials to push forward restructuring with their own plan. Subsequently, a liaison group was formed of the chairpersons and CEOs of the regional boards who put forward their own proposal for restructuring. They have worked very closely with our colleagues in the Department on this proposal. Again, the feeling was that nobody knows better than the people on the ground what should and should not happen. To that end, at the start of the summer break we finished our meetings with the liaison group and put forward our proposals to the Department. They are now with the Department to be dealt with as it wishes. Factored into that, in terms of restructuring, have been more global considerations regarding the issues of quangos, cost and general budgets. However, our proposal for fisheries boards restructuring has gone to the Department.

There is a serious amount of debate and many opinions on restructuring but one aspect of it is clear — the fishery service is different from others. Its public is different. Compare it with the EPA and the Marine Institute. They do not have a fishing club in almost every parish in the country. These clubs are vocal and are linked to organisations and associations. That is just one level. On another level there have been comparisons with a centralised structure such as the HSE. The HSE and the fishery service are very different entities. One has more than 400 staff and a €28 million budget while the other has 120,000 staff and a budget of €15 billion, so one is not comparing apples with apples. With regard to our proposal for restructuring, there are local issues and these are best dealt with locally through angling clubs. Senator O'Toole referred to the situation in Corca Dhuibhne. To have local people to deal with matters is particularly important. However, our submissions on restructuring have been put forward to the Department and, essentially, we are awaiting instructions from the Minister on the matter.

The Deputy asked about spawning grounds and rehabilitation, and said that certain spawning grounds had not been properly addressed since 1929. I am not sure what spawning grounds were being referred to but, broadly speaking, Ireland has come an incredibly long way in the last number of years in managing salmon. I can offer an example. We used to attend the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, NASCO, and up to about two years ago, we were pilloried by every other country in that organisation. We are now leading the way in managing salmon. Recently, the head of Norwegian salmon management visited the board to examine how we are putting systems in place and how we are tagging and monitoring. We are pushing forward on that.

With regard to spawning grounds, we have the conservation stamp fund which is for the rehabilitation of spawning grounds. There is a constant flow of money coming through and it is being distributed to the regional fisheries boards to operate locally on that issue. While I cannot comment on specific spawning grounds, over the last number of years significant funding has been put into the salmon resource and, hopefully, we will continue to do that through the conservation fund. The Deputy referred to the integrated marine strategy and the Loughs Agency being subsumed by the British Environment Agency. Unfortunately, I am unable to comment in detail on that. I will revert to him with more detailed comments after this meeting. I do not have the information with me.

Deputy McManus asked about decentralisation and the accommodation spend. The Deputy is correct that we have spent a considerable amount of money on accommodation. Unfortunately, I am not the master of my own destiny in this regard. We are subject to decentralisation and are to move to Carrick-on-Shannon. Since the Minister's appearance before the committee last year we have met with officials in the Office of Public Works and identified a site in Carrick-on-Shannon. We have met with the county manager, officials and various county councillors there and we are progressing the specifications for that premises with the OPW. That is the current position.

However, the point must be made that we are no different from other State agencies. The vast majority of our staff are not running to Carrick-on-Shannon. That is simply a fact and I will not hide it. They are not anxious to go to Carrick-on-Shannon and we must deal with that. I understand it is being dealt with by the Department of Finance directly with ICTU at a high level to establish what happens to those staff members and their promotion. In the interim the FÁS judgment came through, which put another shadow on decentralisation. Currently, we are earmarked to go and are preparing for it. Approximately 60% of our staff now have decentralisation clauses in their contracts and we are progressing the specification for Carrick-on-Shannon.

It is a fact that we are spending an amount of money on rent for accommodation in our Swords warehouse and laboratory facilities. We have had a number of rent holidays, in terms of taking over new buildings and various things the developers put on, but the total spend on rent from 2005 to 2009, inclusive, will be €1.15 million. There is additional spend for rates, parking and service charges.

Have contracts been signed?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

No. I was not in this position at the time. We met the developer, the Leitrim county manager, Jackie Maguire and various county councillors. We walked the premises and said it may be an appropriate one. That is as far as it has gone.

It is absolutely crazy. That is no disrespect to Dr. Byrne but it is a crazy situation for him in which to be working.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I appreciate those comments. I do not disagree.

Dr. Byrne should not be on this side.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

The question of the postponement of elections again is a very valid one but is beyond my control. The Minister postponed them. He was vociferous in his opposition when he was an opposition Deputy. I have dealt with the restructuring. Our proposal has gone to the Department and we await a response in regard to it. I do not know whether the Minister will appear before this committee or in the House in regard to the elections. That is his decision and that of the Department.

I refer to tourism development in terms of licensing.

I asked about the relationship between the Marine Institute and the Central Fisheries Board in terms of research.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

We are fundamentally different in terms of research. There is very little value to be added by the research function moving to the Marine Institute. Two big words arise here, namely, "diadromous" and "anadromous". Salmon are anadromous in that they live in the sea and come up to fresh water to breed, so they have a marine and fresh water function. Eels are diadromous in that they live in fresh water and go out to sea to breed. They also have a marine and fresh water function.

However, broadly speaking, the vast majority of fish species at which we look are internal fresh water species only. They are fundamentally different and have different biologies. We have a head of expertise in that regard. There is an acquaculture and catchment management services division in the Marine Institute — the field station in Newport, County Mayo — which focuses more on the role on which we work. It looks inwards rather than outwards. That has a synergistic role with us in terms of what we are doing. Our scientists are working very closely with scientists there in terms of the provision of salmon management advice, catchment dynamics, trapping facilities and so on.

We work hand in glove that way but value would not be added to moving the function from the Central Fisheries Board to the Marine Institute. It is now generally accepted that there is not value added to that. Whatever chance the likes of rudd, roach or pike have with us and the regional fisheries boards, we suspect that brought into a bigger marine structure, they will drop down the pecking order somewhat. I hope that answers the question.

I refer to tourism development in terms of the licensing question. On average, we have had approximately 26,000 licence holders in recent years, except for the past two years. Needless to say, when we went to single stock management, we started to close rivers for conservation reasons. If one is living in the River Barrow district, which is now closed, one is probably not as likely to buy a salmon angling licence when one's local river is closed so there has been a decrease. There are approximately 18,000 to 20,000 licence holders and it seems to be holding steady at that number.

It is very hard to make projections. Historically, the figure has been fairly constant year on year. However, it is pulling back. That has to do with participation in angling. We are no different from other agencies in that one of the problems we face is that children nowadays are more interested in PlayStation, Xbox and so on than in picking up a fishing rod. Fishing is a sport which is very hard to pick up if one was not brought up with it or if one's uncle, grandfather or father did not bring one out. Very few adults decide to become fishermen.

We have specific figures for salmon angling. We do not have figures for the other types of angling because there are no licence requirements so we do not capture them. In terms of projections, we have the angling tourism marketing strategy. It is more focused on the tourism element of the market but the Something Fishy programme combined with the tourism marketing strategy is aimed at getting people who might have had a fishing rod in the shed to dust it off and bring it back out.

In terms of developments, I mentioned small businesses and what is happening. I will give a small example of how we have promoted it. There is a charter boat skipper in Cobh, County Cork, who, as a result of tapping into the French market for bass fishing, has bought five or six boats and is leasing them full-time to bass fishermen to fish bass in Cork harbour where bass fishing is extremely good. It is a recreational fishery. This person is now making a go at his bass fishing business in the local area. Through the angling tourism marketing strategy, we are helping increasing numbers of people to become involved in that. For example, we are working hard with bed and breakfast owners and providers to give anglers the full package of angling services required. I hope that covers the question.

I am glad Deputy McManus raised the question on sea lice and I thank her for doing so. As she probably will be aware, the research staff of the Central Fisheries Board and, indeed, myself have worked closely on the sea lice issue for a number of years. The bad news is that sea lice levels this year are as bad as or worse than they have ever been. The good news is that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is the parent Department of the Marine Institute, has produced a new strategy on sea lice. We made a submission on this and we are working closely with colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on refining the strategy and putting key deliverables in place. It is hoped we will make some progress on tackling sea lice.

When will that be published?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I do not know. It is not in my control. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in control of that strategy.

Senator O'Toole's first question was on the water level from Lough Ree to Dublin. He may have seen the "Future Shock" programme produced by RTE and broadcast last week or the previous week.

I did not see it but I know of it.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I was lucky enough to be in the position of assistant chief executive officer of the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board when the engineers from Veolia and RPS Kearns first mooted the proposal. The proposal is within the remit the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, which is opposed to it.

Are you opposed to it?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I am not allowed to give a personal view.

I did not mean Dr. Byrne personally.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

The board would have concerns. If I may balance it out a little, I would not like to be a water services engineer for any of the local authorities because they have a job to do. I have seen the projections for the greater Dublin area growth. At present, we are using 300 megalitres per day. Given the projection growth, by 2012 we will be running constantly at 100% capacity. By 2015, we will be over the bar and encountering the problem of full-time water shortages. It is an engineering fact that this is the problem. They are short. The quick-fix solution is to take it from Lough Ree. There is another solution. I note Dublin City Council spent €116 million on upgrading the infrastructure. It is accepted, broadly speaking, that the infrastructure is Victorian in nature. I would prefer to see money targeted at that first before we opt for the easy solution — the low-hanging fruit — of merely piping water straight from the Shannon.

On a biological level, I recently gave a presentation about the effects of taking water out of a lake such as Lough Ree. There are many feeder streams going into the lake. The interaction between the river and lake fisheries is affected. The euphotic zone, which is the zone which light can penetrate and which is the productive area of a lake, can also be affected. One may have variable water levels. For example, macrophytes and chara, which are the primary vegetation in most of our lakes, do not root well, are sensitive to wave action and tend to go to the bottom. If the water level in a lake drops by a couple of feet, this vegetation becomes exposed to wave action and tends to blow up onto the shore. That amounts to the loss of a significant source of productivity. There are biological effects arising from taking that amount of water and we have not fully captured those. To take water is a fine engineering solution which makes sense, but the biological effects have not been considered enough in the proposal.

Every argument Dr. Byrne has given is a good reason for not doing it. Why is he not saying so?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I suppose the matter is in the remit of the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, which has said so, and we support the board with science.

I appreciate Dr. Byrne's position.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

Senator O'Toole mentioned domestic run-off. Domestic run-off is an important area in which the pollution officers of the regional fisheries boards and, indeed, our own scientists are involved. I have spoken about it. There has been significant development of all types, shapes and sizes in this country. This has taken a number of flood plains such as bogs out of commission through drainage. In addition, a new housing estate, for example, involves many concrete footpaths and roadways where the conveyancing of rain water is an issue. Following rainfall, the water gets to the river three, four or five times faster than it ever did previously. It brings in pollutants, for example, cadmium from the catalytic converters of cars, which have sub-lethal effects on fisheries. In other words, one is seeing not a fish kill per se but sub-lethal effects which decrease productivity over the years. As Senator O’Toole will appreciate, it is difficult to link a domestic run-off from a new housing estate to a decrease in productivity. There is no smoking gun per se. If, for example, there was agricultural pollution, it is possible to trace slurry or effluent back to a particular source. This is a sub-lethal type and it is an issue.

I appreciate that. If a housing estate of approximately 300 houses is being constructed in an area, the water for which will come from the river, can the Central Fisheries Board estimate the likely effect of this on water levels? I wonder about the board's input to the county development plan rather than in regard to individual houses.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

It is fair to say that environmental officers in the regional fisheries boards have close links with their colleagues in the local authorities. In some cases, they have better links with their colleagues in the local authorities than local authority environmental officers have with their planning sections. The Castlebar river is a classic example. It is a tributary of the River Moy. There are astounding levels of roach in that river which did not exist previously as a result of utrification of the river. Water is being taken from the river for use in various developments and returned to the river utrified. There is a direct link in this regard to development.

Senator O'Toole's next point related to the second run of salmon and low water levels. The second run of salmon is not new though it is a unique phenomenon. It is a little like the spring fish run which we do not yet fully understand. As we understand it, the spring fish run is a genetic component to a stock and as such there is something that makes a spring fish. We are beginning to get a good handle on the second run of salmon. It does not happen everywhere. A factor which adds smoke to the mix and is clouding matters is that salmon runs are taking place later and later each year. Our water levels have dropped and things have changed during the past two years. Anyone who attended the EPA conference held yesterday will have heard that we can expect to have drier summers though that has not been the case this year. The salmon run has been happening later and later each year. Fish that would normally have come in June or July are not coming until July, August or September. This raises the question of whether what is taking place is actually a second run of salmon or the original group coming later. Work on this issue is ongoing.

The second run is taking place at a time when water levels are low and as such the fish are unable to get up the river. I have been told that many salmon died because they could not get up the river.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

In terms of salmon life cycle and biology that would be the norm anyway. Traditionally, the salmon enter the angling pools and sit there until the first flush of water following which they move on again. Senator O'Toole has made a valid point in the sense that the first flush is not coming at the end of a week or two, which is the norm, but rather is coming at the end of the month. Salmon can only remain in one place for a few days. After this, they become stressed and may perish.

In terms of how we address this issue, we have set traps in several of the ESB fisheries. In Ballyshannon, we have installed lifting facilities which link in with the reservoir and push the fish along. In regard to a point made earlier, when it became obvious that many salmon were lying below the weir in Kilkenny the OPW installed rock ramps which allow salmon to move even in lower water conditions. We are including these types of structures in our developments.

On the management and ownership of small rivers and the situation, as referred to by Senator O'Toole, in regard to the Clahane river, I cannot comment specifically on that matter. However, in a broad sense we have established management estate fisheries and are undertaking a review of said fisheries. As a result of the Land Commission (Dissolution) Act 1992, the Central Fisheries Board inherited ownership of marine fisheries throughout the country. We are working with the Department to get a handle on these fisheries. Anyone who has ever delved into the ownership of fisheries area will know it is a complex area. It is an indictment of our history. People have come to us with rights dating back to the Magna Carta. When one takes out a file that dates back to 1997 and the person with whom one is dealing has papers which date back to 1070 one quickly realises there is some work to be done.

The Kenmare river is a classic example. A law was passed which took it away from the people.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I cannot comment on local rivers. This is a complex area. We have also encountered problems in terms of the formation of the State when many English landlords left Ireland. Some left and took the rights with them and others left the rights to local people. We regularly receive calls from well-to-do people in regard to the cost of a particular fishery in the country which they have just found out they own. This is a complex area and we will make haste slowly in this regard.

On learning and teaching, I cannot comment on the situation with regard to the angling school on the River Shannon, but I am aware of the Senator's background with regard to the teaching side of things and I have a background in terms of improving science education. In terms of bank fishing, it is much more efficient to get younger people involved, to take ownership of their local river and to understand it. Without this, they are more likely to pollute it, throw a shopping trolley in, overfish or poach. We are working very much with our regional fisheries board colleagues on the "Something Fishy" programme and other initiatives to try to get people involved.

The business sector has the business of corporate social responsibility nailed down well and we have this idea of social responsibility. Committee members will have seen advertisements on television on the social unacceptability of littering or drink driving. We are trying to work with our colleagues and young people on social responsibility. We are also trying to educate older people, perhaps the Judiciary and law services and the Garda, about the unacceptability of a few salmon in the boot of a car or a bit of poaching. That gives much better bang for our buck in terms of the long-term approach to sustaining our rivers. The "Something Fishy" programme will begin again this September. It is about bringing schools on board, teaching students and bringing a package that will help them understand the environment in which a river runs.

The Senator also asked about sustainability and the counting of salmon, and mentioned the Canadian situation. We had 15 fish counters. These originally started off in the Marine Institute, but the Central Fisheries Board and its regional counterparts have taken them over. Approximately 16 or 17 new counters are being put in place as part of development. I wish to make a technical point with regard to counters. Many people not familiar with them think a counter is a piece of technology that is popped in the water and gives counts of fish. The counters were originally set up for the aquaculture industry where fish of virtually the same size were being moved from pond to pond. We are now putting counters into wide rivers and spate rivers. In the west Kerry area in particular, many rivers are spate rivers. Therefore, they might have a low flow of 1.5 ft. for most of the year and flow at 10 ft. for some of the year. Typically, fish run when the river is in spate or high flow.

Counting is not as simple as putting a counter in place and thinking we will get the figures from it. We have to mother the counter along. We estimate it takes approximately a year of tweaking, calibrating and working with the counter to get valid, accurate data on it. Where counters have been successful, some person has been dedicated to working with the counters, downloading them, upgrading them and ensuring their Internet connections work. There is significant work involved with counters.

Counters are not the only counting mechanism. Where we have rod fishers, we take in the rod angling statistics. As well as this, the field service division has a salmon management section within the Central Fisheries Board. Details of all angling licences, commercial and recreational, are compiled in this division and this gives us a handle on all salmon caught by recreational angling or commercial fisheries.

We also have a number of other indices. For example, our staff use a new technique called catchment-wide electrofishing. This is colloquially known as five-minute fishing because they take a quick snapshot of what is in a particular spot in a catchment with regard to juvenile salmon. Staff use this technique to take a snapshot. If there are significant numbers of juvenile salmon, the inference is there are a number of adults. Therefore, when we mix counters, rods, commercial and catchment-wide electrofishing, we get a sense of what is in a particular river or region.

I am not in a position to comment in great detail on the Canadian situation. Canada is a country of two halves. On the east coast rivers like the Miramichi are undergoing significant problems with regard to the netting of Atlantic salmon and strict rules and regulations have been put in place. I could not say exactly what is being done in terms of commercial fisheries, but I am not 100% sure drift netting takes place.

I understand that and I am not trying to pin down Dr. Byrne. However, Canada has managed to keep the commercial salmon fishermen working and at the same time not have an impact on the inland fisheries. That is worth investigating and doing in this country. The situation here has been a source of concern for me.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

Coming back to the commercial aspect, the west coast of Canada has Pacific salmon. There are significantly higher numbers of these than Atlantic salmon. We are talking about millions of fish rather than hundreds of thousands. On the operational working of commercial fishing, what we did in terms of moving to single stock management was we ceased indiscriminate mixed stock fishing at sea. Once one goes beyond an estuary, one is exploiting not just one stock of salmon but up to 20 stocks of salmon. We said we could not keep that up and therefore must conserve stocks.

Driftnet fishing is not banned, but cannot de facto take place. Where one goes fishing at sea it is highly unlikely that one will get a single stock of salmon above the conservation limit. However, we have commercial fisheries in estuaries on rivers where there is a surplus and we are exploiting a single stock. It is not likely that driftnet fishing will take place again because even if the salmon stocks are absolutely perfect, it is likely that 12 or 15 miles out by Eagle Island in north-west Mayo, for instance, a shoal of salmon will be of mixed stock.

Does this mean that if they went closer to the shore into specific single stock they could still have driftnet commercial fishing at particular times without causing an impact?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I will go back to the cover of scientific advice. Where we are above conservation limits, we can give a catch code to say one can catch X number of fish which can be caught recreationally or commercially. The Minister has been very clear that everybody should have a fair opportunity. Where there is a single stock of fish and where it is above a conservation limit, I would say it is a conceivable "Yes".

The Senator's final point was about pike in Lough Rea which is a privately-owned lake. We surveyed it under the water framework directive. I do not have the full facts and figures with me regarding the survey but it was last surveyed in 1987 and I do not recall that pike were in the lake. We have two angling lobbies, those who fish for trout and those who fish for pike. Unfortunately, a number of people believe that pike should be introduced to lakes all around the country. Pike have been introduced into several lakes in south Donegal but they predate on trout and the effect of their introduction is negative. It is not such a problem in larger lakes because there is a separation of habitat, for instance in Lough Corrib, and while the pike predate on trout, there is space for everything. Lough Rea is a smaller lake and pike could do quite an amount of damage to that trout fishery.

On the counting of salmon, is the salmon being counted in the rivers that have been closed? Such closed rivers do not provide the data from licences. Is the board able to observe how the rivers are improving from being closed year on year?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

That is a very valid question. We have several counts from closed rivers. We also use tracking and tagging techniques, such as one called passive integrated transponder, PIT tags. These are radio frequency tagging with receiving stations. We have undertaken test angling in rivers and put a tag on the fish to see if they make it up river. We are also doing catchment wide electro-fishing. This is an index of what is happening in a river for example, if the river is closed and we find juvenile parr which are this year's parr. If one were to electro-fish tomorrow morning, one would find juvenile parr that were spawned last Christmas. We started this last year and hope to continue. We have the first data point on the graph from last year and we are putting on the second data point to link with some degree of accuracy what happens to juvenile parr and the relationship between those and adult salmon. This gives us an index of our rivers that are closed. For management reasons we have opened rivers on a catch and release basis. We decided they are not above the conservation limit therefore they should be closed but for management reasons we decided if they get 65% or more of their conservation limit they should be opened on catch and release. This allows us to get the fish to tag and to radio track and we also get an index of the fish coming through, even though they are released. We know that exploitation is on average around 18% nationally. With fishermen fishing on day one or day two, whatever the season, we can get information on the number of days they fished and the number of fish caught, even though they have all been released. This gives us another index. Where a river is completely closed and with no catch and release, broadly speaking, rivers in the same region operate in the same way, so similar returns will show between nearby rivers. We can then see if one river has higher weirs or barriers and those indices of data can be obtained rather than individual numbers for each river.

Deputy Nolan asked about salmon stocks. Our management advice is provided on a five year rolling platform. One good year or bad year does not spike the advice. Last year was an exceptionally good year for salmon. It was a wet year. It is a bit like Cheltenham. Some years the bookies win and some years the punters win. When it was wet we had salmon getting up to parts of rivers they might not previously have reached because there was water. Certainly in the southern region in the Three Sisters — the Barrow, Nore and Suir — people reported seeing salmon where they had never seen them before. It is not just about looking over the bridge and seeing salmon. We need to consider an entire river holistically. This year is much more mixed. It will probably take two or three years to get a full sense of how the removal of drift nets will affect us. We got a pulse last year. In 2005 we took 101,000 fish in drift nets. In 2006 we took 70,000 fish in drift nets and in 2007 we took none. There was a pulse of fish that scientists have estimated at approximately 65,000 additional fish getting into the rivers. We saw many of those. However, it is a case of maintaining that all the way through.

This year has been mixed. Some fisheries reported very good returns of fish and other fisheries are reporting very poor returns. Some fisheries are based on the angling pool at the bottom of a river where the fish are traditionally trapped. However, because there has been more water the fish are up the river and spread out more. Therefore, while fishing may be poor it is not to say that the fish are not in the rivers. It will take several years before we get a full handle on what is really going on there. That is why the Barrow is closed. While I do not have the figures, attainment of the conservation limit for the Barrow was approximately 30% to 40%. It was very low. We made a management decision which meant that at that point there is really no catch at all. Even though catch and release is quite successful the few fish that will die as a result are a few too many. However, the Nore is open on a catch and release basis meaning that it is above 65% of its conservation limit which means that we can open it for catch and release. Hopefully with the index we will get and the additional information we have on the Nore and the fish coming back we will move it further up again and it will allow it to be opened on a full angling basis.

The final point the Chairman made related to our interaction with the OPW. The Kilkenny weir is a specific and very visible example. I cannot comment about the interactions in that regard. The CEO of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, Brian Sheerin, worked with the OPW on that project. I cannot comment on how we ended up with the situation with the weir, but I can comment on the advice we provided. We have been working with the OPW to develop a rock ramp solution to that issue.

Mr. Kieran Murphy

That rock weir was based in Germany or France. I know that Brian Sheerin, CEO of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board travelled with representatives of the OPW. They jointly designed this weir which I believe is now working effectively.

I had a few questions on conservation, but the witnesses have coped with those very well. I note that the fisheries service has 425 employees, approximately a quarter of whom are temporary. What does "temporary" mean? Are they seasonal workers? While it may be somewhat unfair to ask the following question, if the witnesses are not in a position to answer perhaps they might come back to us in writing. For comparison purposes how many people were employed in the service ten years ago?

I note that one of the board's objectives in its corporate governance section is to provide comprehensive value for money programmes. When did it last issue a report on value for money? What were the key recommendations and what was the value of savings identified in the report?

Mr. Kieran Murphy

Regarding temporary employees, the structure of the board is such that we conduct projects for other State agencies, such as OPW, Waterways Ireland etc. The central board would employ a number of staff specifically to conduct particular projects. They would be employed on a specific purpose contract which might be one or two years in duration. When that project is finished it is finished and we do not have the continuity of employment to continue with those people. However, they know what they are being employed for when they join us, which is to conduct a specific project. There are 425 people employed across the service.

They are in both the central board and the regional boards.

Mr. Kieran Murphy

Correct. The regional boards employ seasonal staff on protection duties when the salmon runs are on and they need additional staff on the rivers and so on. The staff in question are employed for six months of the year and tend to be re-employed year after year.

I have not been working for the board long enough to be familiar with its employment patterns of ten years ago. I suspect that the number employed by the regional boards has remained static, but we can get back to the Senator in that regard. The Central Fisheries Board's number of employees has increased in line with its demands. We are engaged in projects under the water framework directive, for example. We are doing a great deal of work with the OPW, etc. The board has approximately 100 employees. Its authorised number of staff is 56, but it has employed further workers to handle specific projects.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I will answer the questions about value for money. The accounts of the board are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General each year.

Does each audit relate to the previous year? Is the board running a number of years behind?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

The audit completed this year related to last year. The audit completed last year related to the previous year. We sign off on——

The audit for 2007 has been completed already.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

It has been completed already. Management issues various reports in response to each audit, in advance of the final sign-off. The audit for 2007 has been completed. That is a large element of the value for money process. The Central Fisheries Board has also conducted a number of internal audits. Its fish farming and internal credit control activities have been audited. We are considering the possibility of undertaking an internal audit of the funding allocated to our research and development section. The outcome of a typical audit is not "do X and you will save Y". Audits tend to result in a number of recommendations being implemented. I can give the committee a tangible example of how we have achieved value for money. We have been availing of the services of the Government supplies agency for approximately two years. We bought 52 vehicles through that agency in 2007, thereby saving approximately €250,000 by comparison with what we would have paid if we had bought the vehicles on the open market.

The presentation suggests the board is engaged in a comprehensive value for money programme. It seems, from a corporate point of view, that such a programme would involve a team of people examining all aspects of expenditure within the organisation, producing a report, making key recommendations and identifying specific savings that should be targeted. Does that happen in the Central Fisheries Board?

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

As I said in the presentation, we bring our finance unit on board before we start any project. The unit examines whether value for money can be achieved during the project. For example, it considers whether various sections of the board can cross-fertilise in the use of resources. The Senator is technically correct when he suggests a team does not come in to examine specific projects in terms of value for money.

That is a deficiency in any organisation with an income and expenditure model like that of the Central Fisheries Board. If such organisations do not constantly refocus, they build inefficiencies and become less cost-effective. That is one of the problems with the model used throughout the public service. I was trying to get a feel for how the board managed its affairs.

I thank Dr. Byrne and Mr. Murphy for their first-class presentation and comprehensive replies to the questions asked. I congratulate Dr. Byrne on his appointment as chief executive and wish him every success. I look forward to meeting him and Mr. Murphy at a future meeting of the joint committee.

Barr
Roinn