This meeting has been convened for the purposes of consideration by the committee of motions referred to it by the Dáil and Seanad regarding the Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2005 and the Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alteration of Duties) Order 2005. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher.
Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2005 and Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alteration of Duties) Order 2005: Motion.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the joint committee today to outline the rationale for the Regional Fisheries Boards (Postponement of Elections) Order 2005.
At present the management and development of the inland fisheries sector resides with the Central Fisheries Board and the seven regional fisheries boards. Members will be aware that elections to the regional fisheries boards are due to take place on 20 December 2005. However, I propose, subject to the approval of the Dáil and Seanad, to make an order postponing elections for one year.
On 15 November 2005, the Farrell Grant Sparks report on the review of the inland fisheries sector in Ireland was published and details of adopted Government policy on the restructuring of the sector were announced. There are differences between the report's recommendations and Government policy. The Government has decided that a fundamental restructuring of the sector will take place, in two phases, over the period 2006-08. This restructuring process is based on four key principles. Subject to appropriate regulation, local users and beneficiaries will be empowered to take responsibility for the management, promotion and development of the fisheries.
The role of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will, in future, focus primarily on the protection and conservation of the inland fisheries resource. Subject to appropriate regulation, regional management structures, representative of all users and beneficiaries, will be created to manage access, development and maintenance of fisheries. A regulatory regime will oversee appropriate mechanisms governing the transfer and use of and access to fisheries, the licensing, including distribution of rights of fishery activities in the commercial and recreational areas and the determination of fishing effort and total allowable catches and so on in relation to fish stocks.
The restructuring of the fisheries boards will involve the establishment of a single strengthened national inland fisheries authority, the establishment of strong regional advisory boards, and the transfer to the Marine Institute of the current resources and responsibilities of the inland fisheries sector for research.
The second phase of development is that of a model whereby local users and beneficiaries of the inland fisheries sector will be empowered to take responsibility for the effective management of fisheries and the fisheries resource subject to appropriate regulation. Phase 2 will be the subject of an extensive, open and inclusive consultation process designed to achieve optimum buy-in from all stakeholders. Given the imminence of the significant changes to the sector, I am anxious that, in light of their valuable contribution, the existing regional board members be given an opportunity to play a key role, not only in ensuring a continuing input to the work of the regional boards, but also in advancing the proposals to restructure the sector. Accordingly, I am proposing to postpone the elections to the regional fisheries boards in line with section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1980. This will ensure a continuity among those individuals directly involved in the operation of the sector, who I strongly feel will have a key role to play as we enter this exciting new era for the inland fisheries sector.
This order, when made, will also result inthe postponement of elections to co-operativesocieties. The position of co-operative societies will be addressed in the context of the legislation to establish the new national authority. I want to emphasise that none of the staff or resources of the current boards who have worked hard to safeguard water quality and to promote tourism angling will be affected by the changes envisaged. They will, however, be required to work much more closely with their colleagues in the Environmental Protection Agency and Fáilte Ireland.
I am happy this model will allow for the sustainable development of our inland fisheries resource and that the new model, when implemented, will lead to reduced State intervention and micro-management, more ownership and management by users and beneficiaries of the resource and better co-ordination of public good roles, such as environmental protection and tourism promotion, with the central policy Departments having political accountability for these areas. The policy as agreed by Government will allow the sector to reach its full potential through more coherent and consistent policy making and resource allocation, better decision making, better value for money and, most importantly, by giving the whole range of stakeholders the opportunity to be central to the development, promotion and protection of a resource from which they benefit from and will continue to do so.
While the Government is committed to this new model, it recognises there will be significant challenges in bringing it about. On behalf of the Government, I commit to progressing this reform on a patient, open and comprehensive basis to ensure as much ownership of the new model as possible by as wide a range of stakeholders as possible. I trust the committee will recommend that the Oireachtas should pass a motion approving the order to defer the elections.
We will take the Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alteration of Duties) Order 2005 and then discuss both motions.
I also welcome the opportunity to appear before the joint committee this evening to outline the rationale for the Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alteration of Duties) Order 2005. The motion seeks the joint committee's approval for the order which prescribes the licence fees to be payable in respect of salmon, eel and oyster commercial fishing and dealers licences as and from 1 January 2006.
The members will recall the joint committee gave its approval to a similar motion on 7 December 2004 for the increases to apply to all of these licence fees in 2005. As with last year, the proposed increases for 2006 are in line with the change in the consumer price index for this year and in accordance with the commitment, first given when presenting the motion to the joint committee in 2003, that in future all salmon fishing licence increases would be applied in line with the consumer price index on an annual basis.
In keeping with my commitment to the committee last year, the licence fee increases now proposed for 2006 are set at 2.1% to allow for inflation since their last increase on 1 January 2005. I also confirm to the committee that I intend to increase the salmon rod licence fees for 2006, again in line with inflation, at a rate of 2.1% by way of a separate by-law.
Application of the licence fees now proposed will mean all licence duties in respect of inland fisheries will continue to be set next year in a fair and equitable manner. The proceeds from the sale of licences contribute to the revenues of the central and regional fisheries boards, which are currently statutorily responsible for the conservation, management and development of inland fisheries in the State, including the fisheries to which the licences apply.
In addition to the Exchequer funding of more than €25 million in 2006, the proceeds from the sale of licences will further support the fisheries boards' ability to maintain services. According to the Central Fisheries Board, the proposed increases in all categories of licence fees, both commercial and rod angling, are expected to generate an additional €61,000 in revenue for the boards in 2006. This revenue will be reinvested by the boards directly into the ongoing management and development of the inland fisheries resource.
I thank the Chairman and committee members for their support both last year and this year. It is much more sensible to increase fees each year in line with the consumer price index rather than having a substantial increase every four or five years. That happened a number of years ago when the increase was substantial and there was great opposition to it. This is a follow-through on that commitment.
I thank the Minister of State for his report. It makes good economic sense to increase the licence fee in line with the yearly inflation figure.
On the inland fisheries review, in the light of the fact that the report was commissioned two years ago and has been in the Minister of State's office since February, why has it not been published before now? He said restructuring was required but did not say why and in what areas it was needed.
It is recommended that the scientific unit of the CFB should be moved to the Marine Institute. It appears the research unit within the CFB was very effective and doing an extraordinary job. As it was acknowledged to be a huge success, why is the Minister of State making this provision in the light of the fact that the Marine Institute deals mainly with aquaculture and coastal development?
On the advisory boards and decentralisation, some of the inland fisheries boards have been very effective. Does the fact that advisory boards are being set up run contrary to the decentralisation policy? There is much uncertainty among staff in this regard. As the Minister of State is talking about a two year period, where will senior executives be located and what role will they play? What will he say to staff who may be uncertain about the future? Where will all these key staff who have done a good job be located?
I am pleased the Minister of State has been given additional funding this year. However, the funding provided in recent years has been at the minimum level.
Given that direct responsibility is being taken from it, the Department's role will focus on conservation. Will the Minister of State consider leaving the scientific unit within the Department rather than transferring it to the Marine Institute which has a different agenda?
I note that the fee for additional eel nets has been increased by 10 cent. Other than that, the licence fee changes appear reasonable.
The Minister of State made an effort to secure fundamental changes in the administration of inland fisheries. It is a pity, however, we did not have a chance to engage in a full-scale Dáil debate on the matter.
I have a copy of a press release from Mr. Michael Callaghan issued following a meeting held in Waterford with representatives of all the regional fisheries boards, in which serious concern was expressed at the then reported proposals for the abolition of the boards which were responsible for the protection, development and management of inland fisheries. It goes on to state proposals to disperse board functions among various agencies would undermine the holistic approach widely regarded as being essential for successful conservation and management of the inland fisheries resource. The boards were concerned that if there was just one national inland fisheries authority, there would be a need for local input in the maintenance of water quality, in particular. The point was made that the various boards would be better able to pay localised attention to the matter. They felt, therefore, that the report should have been rejected. I have since spoken to representatives of the national angling council, trout fishermen and so on. They raised two major aspects, to which Deputy Perry alluded. They said the proposal ran counter to that on decentralisation. If we are decentralising Departments and trying to provide for more and more local control, and if we follow the Farrell Grant Sparks report to the letter, are we now reversing that process in respect of inland fisheries? There are interesting proposals on licensing made in the report on access to fisheries and the termination of the fisheries effort given the need to protect stocks and so on.
Many would have great concerns about the abolition of the regional fisheries boards and the subsuming of their functions into the national inland fisheries authority. There are opinions for and against this policy but many have grave concerns about the matter. Consultation is necessary in this regard. The first report on inland fisheries was the famous INDECON report on wild salmon. It was a fine piece of work produced by the Central Fisheries Board which first alerted me to the crisis in the management of wild salmon and drift net fishing. I am concerned that this issue will now be dealt with by the Marine Institute. While we are allowing the existing boards to continue for one year, the issue demands a Dáil debate in which one could debate what would happen in the future in this regard. It demands huge consultation and a meeting of all interested parties. The Minister of State has said the senior officials now in place will lead the discussion, which is fair enough. However, a full debate is necessary if we are to get the structure right.
On the alteration of duties, there is not much to be said on the issue. The Minister of State is correct that there was discontent a few years ago when there was a significant increase in the licence fee. In fairness, the Government has since honoured its commitment and only increased the licence fee in line with the consumer price index, with which we must be happy.
The substantive issue we are debating is that of the regional fisheries boards. I do not have a problem with this proposal. While there are difficulties with the boards, they do not all operate as one in that they tend to interpret matters differently. The argument made on decentralisation is valid. It should be written into legislation where the new national inland fisheries authority will be located. We could all make a case to have it located in our own constituencies. However, I understand a commitment was made to locate it in Carrick-on-Shannon. It is about time that commitment was honoured. Perhaps it is a matter that could be enshrined in the legislation when published.
I wonder how the new system will operate in regard to bailiffs. I presume they will report to the new national inland fisheries authority. Will it be remote from the various regions or how is it envisaged it will work? Will the current penalties and sanctions remain the same under the new regime? Will they include the administrative sanctions provided for in the case of inland fisheries?
Where do inland fisheries end and marine fisheries begin? How close to the shore does the remit of inland fisheries run?
I thank members for the broad welcome for the reasonable increase of 2.1% in licence fees, for which we have the consumer price index to thank. We did not decide on the issue. There is also an increase in the Estimate for the regional and central fisheries boards, plus the additional €61,000.
I welcome Deputy Perry's proposal for a full debate on the report in the House. We occasionally debate reports and this one would attract a lot of interest. If the Whips can arrange it, I will be delighted to take part.
Deputy Perry also asked about the delay in publishing the report. I had a copy of the draft report for some time but as other Departments also have an interest in this matter such as the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Arts, Sports and Tourism and Finance, I circulated a copy to them. As soon as I had received their observations, I sent the report to the Government.
We did not take the report and its recommendations entirely on board. Two recommendations are particularly important to the fisheries boards: the recommendation on water quality which is vitally important at local level and will remain the responsibility of the regional boards, although they will have to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the recommendation that angling tourism should be a matter for the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. There is an important source of energy to be harnessed at local level and it is necessary for the regional boards to work with the Department and Fáilte Ireland. It makes little sense for Fáilte Ireland to have offices all over the world if the regional boards do not co-operate with it and promote angling tourism. It is still, however, a matter for the boards.
The merging of the Marine Institute and the Central Fisheries Board is a useful step forward. We have a state-of-the-art Marine Institute headquarters in Galway and will work closely with it. That will be beneficial, particularly on the salmon issue. If the headquarters was based in Dublin, it would not be decentralised. This is centralisation in the regions. Senator Kenneally mentioned the Government decision to transfer the Central Fisheries Board to Carrick-on-Shannon. I would like to see this happen quickly. The inland fisheries authority should also be located there.
As of now, the position on staffing has not changed. The officials of the Department met the chief executives today to discuss any issues they wanted to raise. When I briefed the CEOs and chairpersons a few weeks ago, I was conscious of the fact that employees would be anxious to secure their futures. There will be full consultation with all of the boards' staff on the second stage of reform. There might be changes arising from a recommendation to reduce the number of regional boards to five, in line with the river basin districts, but that will be a matter for full consultation at a later stage. We will reappoint the consultants to advise us on this issue and will be patient to ensure they consult as widely as possible with everyone involved, particularly staff.
Bailiffs already in place or who are brought in at peak season will continue their work. This makes sense as they have local expertise. They will report to the regional CEOs and the fines levied will be those currently in place, subject to any increases that might be introduced in the future.
Immediately the new legislation is in place, the advisory boards will be established. Assuming the new legislation is in place on 1 July 2006, the elected members of the regional boards will automatically become members of the advisory boards and it will then be a matter of holding elections along the same lines as in the past. That process will provide for the much needed continuity.
Ownership of fisheries will be transferred from the State to local interests but there is no detail on the formation of this management structure or its operation. This is a major issue but the report has not expanded on how it might happen. When will the new executive be up and running?
As soon as the legislation is in place.
When can we expect the Bill?
The officials and advisers are working on a model which is not too elaborate. I made a commitment that the legislation would be in place early next year with a view to having it enacted and the new body up and running as soon as possible. Until then, we will continue as we are.
Will the Minister of State send me a note on how this State asset will be transferred?
While we will have a framework, we will not have the detail until full consultation has taken place. This development will be welcomed by local anglers and clubs which have contributed so much.
Does the Minister of State intend to hold public consultations with the boards or will he use a nominated list? Will the manner in which this State asset is operated be discussed publicly? This is a major issue.
It will be open to full consultation and totally transparent.
Will it be similar to the introduction of the sea-fisheries Bill?
No.
Will a regulatory impact analysis be conducted?
I am aware of the strong views on that issue.
I will hold the Minister of State to his commitment to full consultation.
I thank the Minister of State for attending. The clerk has circulated a draft report. Is it agreed to include a commencement time of 2.20 p.m.? Agreed. Is it agreed to include a conclusion time of 2.50 p.m.? Agreed. Is it agreed to record that Deputies O'Flynn, Perry, Broughan and Fitzpatrick and Senator Kenneally contributed to the debate? Agreed. Is the report agreed? Agreed.