This meeting has been convened for the purposes of the consideration of the lnland Fisheries Bill 2009 which was referred to the select committee by order of the Dáil on 2 February. On behalf of members, I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and his officials. I invite the Minister of State to make some opening remarks.
Inland Fisheries Bill 2009: Committee Stage.
I was not aware the committee wanted me to make some opening remarks. This is an important moment for inland fisheries. We are anxious to consolidate the level of activity and move to one central board. We are, therefore, removing all of the regional fisheries boards and reorganising the fisheries resource around the river basin districts. This, essentially, is a restructuring Bill.
I am prepared to accept a number of Opposition amendments which are both positive and welcome, including those suggesting the inclusion of provisions relating to the protection of whistleblowers, to allow by-laws made by the Minister to be circulated electronically and to allow the Minister to appoint to the board on a temporary basis a person to represent employee interests, pending the outcome of an election to elect an employee director. There are a number of other technical amendments tabled by Opposition Deputies which I am also prepared to accept. We are, therefore, open to improving and changing the Bill. I thank members in advance for their co-operation.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, subsection (3)(b), line 28, to delete “by order” and substitute “subsequent to approval by Dáil Éireann”.
I tabled this amendment to get the view of the Minister of State and the Department on the issue. The new authority, Inland Fisheries Ireland, will have responsibility for inland waterways, including rivers, harbour mouths and so on. There is a reference to a figure of 12 nautical miles offshore which in this section the Minister states he can change should he want to do so. I would like to get the view of the Minister of State on the capacity of the new body to deal with sea angling which is covered by the 12 nautical miles offshore rule. It is an aspect which is not well managed and policed. If the Minister was to change the size of the zone of responsibility, it would be a substantial decision and subject to approval by the Dáil. That is why I tabled the amendment which is not one I will push to a vote. I understand the 12 nautical miles offshore rule is in place to cover sea angling, the use of inshore nets and so on. If it is to be changed, the Dáil should have a say. It should not be done via a ministerial regulation. That is the basis of the amendment.
The section to which the Deputy refers is a restatement of the provisions contained in the Fisheries Act 1980. It ensures that Inland Fisheries Ireland will maintain the same operational jurisdiction as the existing central and regional fisheries boards, which at present extends to the 12 mile limit of Ireland's territorial seas.
Section 7(3)(b) provides that the Minister may, by order, amend the reference to the 12 mile limit if necessary. The Deputy proposes that such an amendment should be subsequent to the approval of Dáil Éireann. I have discussed the matter with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and I am advised in the first instance that an amendment to the reference to the 12 mile limit must be by way of a ministerial order. I am further advised that any order made under this section should be subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The legislative mechanism for achieving this is by making provision for the order to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and allowing a 21 day period for either House to pass a resolution annulling that order. Accordingly, while I am unable to accept the amendment as drafted, I propose to bring forward an appropriate amendment to this section on Report Stage to ensure any order will be made subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
We are taking on board the Deputy's principal point, that there should be strong Oireachtas involvement where the situation arises for something as radical as changing the limit.
That is helpful. The current wording states that the Minister "may", it does not state through what mechanism.
It is a fair point.
There was a failing in the way in which the regional fisheries boards overlooked the management, monitoring and promotion of sea angling. Nearly all of the resources were concentrated on inland waterways and river catchment areas. It is an area that the new Inland Fisheries Ireland must place an emphasis upon and allocate resources to so we can exploit the opportunity offered by sea angling tourism to its full potential. It is a potentially huge industry. That is another reason I tabled the amendment; it is an area of responsibility for the new body where there should be improved management.
I agree. One of the more difficult areas has been the tendency of local authorities in coastal areas to designate areas as closed to anglers because of swimmers and so on. Inland Fisheries Ireland must get a grip on this because it is not acceptable that someone could be prevented from angling in two very similar places.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 36, after "protection" to insert ", management".
This is to improve the wording of section 7(1), where it states "the principle function of Inland Fisheries Ireland is the protection and conservation of the inland fishery resource." I want to add the word "management", so that its function is the protection, management and conservation of inland fishery resources. It improves the wording of the section.
We want to include the marketing function. The 1999 amending Act amended the 1980 Act and made angling and marketing promotion a central function of the Central Fisheries Board. Likewise, the same Act amended section 11 of the 1980 Act for angling and promotional marketing. In the Inland Fisheries Ireland Bill, however, marketing and promotion are watered down and there is no mention at all of marketing in section 7.
Also, in section 7(8), an inference can be made that IFI could focus on protection and conservation of wildlife with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Fish are a natural resource and can bring income into the State and it is important to recognise that.
My officials were somewhat sceptical initially about the Deputies' efforts in this direction. I have made it clear through the liaison with the chief executives of the old boards that the marketing element is not being watered down. I have taken on board the Deputies' views because we do not want a lessening of their role in marketing. Overarching international marketing will be conducted by the tourism bodies in conjunction with IFI. Resources still remain for IFI to promote particular rivers and areas. I completely agree with that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, subsection (2)(a), line 41, after “management,” to insert “marketing,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 12, subsection (3)(k), line 50, after “agencies” to insert “and sectoral interests”.
It is appropriate that Deputy Sherlock has just mentioned the importance of marketing. Section 7(3)(k) mentions marketing activities, which is welcome, although perhaps the function is not strong enough in the Bill as a whole. This subsection states that IFI shall support angling promotion and marketing activities and co-operate with the relevant State agencies in developing international promotion and marketing strategies and activities in game, coarse and sea tourism angling. That is welcome.
The proposal is to add that IFI would co-operate with relevant State agencies and sectoral interests. It is important that IFI works actively with the private sector as well. In marine tourism and game, coarse and sea angling tourism, it is primarily the private sector that drives this area. IFI should work with those sectoral interests. Whether the term "sectoral interests" is the most appropriate to get across the point I am making is up to the Minister of State but it is a useful addition to the section.
I fully agree. We would accept insertion of the words "relevant sectoral interests" and I will table an appropriate amendment on Report Stage. It is important because we do not want a body to sit in Dublin that does not have contact with the vital sectoral interests involved in this area. It looks restrictive in the current form without the reference to relevant interests. I emphasise the relevant nature because we do not want to include "sectoral interests" in general, because that would allow almost everyone to be included and to take part in discussions that are far removed from their core activities.
Perhaps we could include "sectoral interests as deemed relevant by IFI". The IFI could then choose who is relevant rather than people claiming to be relevant.
That is what could happen these days, with lobbyists employed to get groups inserted into the work.
It is just to get the private sector in there because that will be the main driver for the industry.
We will take on board those comments and incorporate something along those lines on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 13, subsection (4), line 5, after "Minister" to insert the following:
", after consultation with the Oireachtas Joint Committee, in order to ensure a broadly based representation of relevant stakeholders in advising on policy to be pursued by IFI with regional sub-fora".
The Bill states that IFI shall establish and manage a forum. We wish to strengthen the wording, with "after consultation with the Oireachtas Joint Committee". It broadens the remit and fleshes out the provisions on the forum and ensures the Oireachtas will be consulted. It could be argued that there is no real provision for regional input by stakeholders. There could be a massive void when the fisheries boards cease to exist. That is the basis of the amendment.
The purpose of this subsection is to oblige Inland Fisheries Ireland to establish and manage a national inland fisheries forum, the composition and terms of reference of which will be subject to the agreement of the Minister. This is seen as a means of formalising stakeholders' input into policy formulation and will act as a conduit to provide advice and inform policy deliberation on the conservation, protection, management and marketing of all species of inland fisheries.
Deputies McManus, Coveney and Sherlock seek to have the terms of reference of this forum subject to consultation with the relevant joint Oireachtas committee. The establishment and management of this forum is primarily an operational matter for Inland Fisheries Ireland. Given the Department's corporate governance role over this body, the legislation makes provision for the terms of reference to be subject to the agreement of the Minister. It is not appropriate for the joint committee to be consulted on the terms of reference. The agreement of the Minister should be sufficient to ensure that the terms of reference of the forum are fit for purpose. Any additional consultation requirements could unnecessarily delay or jeopardise the establishment of the forum.
There is nothing to prevent the joint committee making a submission to the Department or Inland Fisheries Ireland on the operation of the forum. I assure the members that any submission received will be given due consideration.
The amendment tabled by Deputy McManus and moved by Deputy Sherlock describes the purpose of the forum. I accept that the provision, as drafted, can be expanded and I intend to consult the Parliamentary Counsel with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment at Report Stage that will set out the purpose of the forum. The amendment tabled by Deputy McManus refers to regional sub-fora. Obviously the workings of the forum will primarily be a matter for Inland Fisheries Ireland but I expect the forum will be managed on a regional basis.
Regional input is vital to the operation of a forum. I strongly believe that country-wide input will be critical to the successful operation of the forum. Accordingly, I do not intend to accept the amendments tabled by Deputies Coveney and McManus but I will bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report Stage to set out the purpose of the national inland fisheries forum.
I do not wish to be confrontational on this. While I recognise the spirit of the amendment tabled by Deputy Sherlock, I believe the matter is a management function for Inland Fisheries Ireland to produce the terms of reference, subject to my approval. If the members have very strong ideas on how the terms of reference should operate and on how the forum should work, I will be very open to suggestions. My innate sense of how it should work is that it will be established by Inland Fisheries Ireland, subject to my approval and on the basis of whatever submissions Deputies feel appropriate, and operate on a rotational basis in the regions. While it will technically be a single forum of a national character, it could have regional sub-fora that would accommodate the regional dimension to the work in the inland fisheries sector. We are flexible in this regard.
There should be a strong regional dimension to the forum. It should not just be a game of restricted numbers. One of the dangers of creating a national forum is that there would be a restricted number of people on such a forum. A national forum should be truly regional and allow for strong regional membership because there is diversity of interest in the area, not only on the part of the different types of anglers involved but also the different types of interest groups. We should try to maximise their input on the forum while at the same time having the forum move around the country in a formal sense. It should not meet in Dublin all the time but should move through the regions and host meetings there so people will learn from what is happening in each region. I hope that satisfies the Deputies.
In light of the Minister of State's response, I will be happy to examine this again on Report Stage. I will withdraw my amendment.
I do not want to offer false hope on the issue of sub-fora. We are not providing for them in a structured way. That would set a dangerous precedent and open one to the allegation that one is restarting the old regional bodies, with all their boards. We do not want to over-bureaucratise the structure. The sub-fora that come into existence should, by definition, be informal and led by the district managers.
It is a question of recognising the role of the various stakeholders in the regions and finding some formula for them to have a voice. This is the primary aim of the amendment.
I am anxious to ensure that what the Minister of State has just said will be reflected in the text of the legislation. We have discussed this matter informally previously. Most lobbying on the Bill was by regional interests. They say we are putting in place a centralised system and ask if they will have any say. We need to ensure we meet the concerns that arise, which are very different in different parts of the country depending on the resources and topography, be it in the south west, north west or along the Irish Sea. Sectoral interests and those of different types of anglers and fishermen must be represented properly.
I asked for consultation with the Oireachtas committee so someone other than the Minister would have an input into ensuring sufficient importance would be attached to determining the make-up of the forum rather than to its purpose alone.
Yes.
There is such a broad church in inland fisheries and it comprises people who are not really very connected to one another. I refer to a small commercial net man or a bed and breakfast business running an angling service. We need to ensure the legislation is worded so it will assure people that the membership of the forum will take into account the broad spectrum of interests across the angling and fishing fields. If such wording is included, I will be happy for no further role to be given to the Oireachtas committee and for the Minister of State to deal with the issue. However, it is not good enough for the Minister of State to say how he envisages the legislation working because the reality is that he might not be a Minister of State in the Department this time next week, never mind in two years.
I thank the Deputy for his support.
The next Minister of State may not share his view on how the forum should work.
The Deputy should take it easy.
The legislation should require Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Minister to ensure the forum will be properly representative of the industry, from both regional and sectoral perspectives. I know this is what the Minister of State wants to achieve.
Would it be helpful to come up with the terms of reference before Report Stage?
It is more a question of the construct.
I will produce the terms of reference before Report Stage and share them with the Deputies.
Yes.
I will set out in the legislation how the forum should work, in so far as that is possible. I do not want to specify who should be on the forum for the reason stated by Deputy Coveney, namely, that there is such diversity of interest in each region. Interests in one river basin or region may not be replicated in an adjacent one.
The wording should reflect the fact that there is a broad spectrum of interests that need to be represented.
That is right. The forum should be broadly representative of the entire industry.
Exactly. If such wording existed——
We will try to produce wording to reflect that. It is not an excessive demand at all. We will also produce the terms of reference for the Deputy and they can act as a guide for the Deputy regarding what we are trying to do.
Fine.
In constructing the framework for this forum, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Various sectoral representative groups are in place, including the Shellfish Growers Association and the game angling clubs in every county. The Minister of State could tap into those representative groups. An important point I raised on the debate on Second Stage is that we need to examine the cross-Border dimension. From a parochial point of view, I always emphasise the work of the Loughs Agency, but it has a remit into our country in terms of management of tributary rivers and the same position applies in Carlingford. Representative groups are in place on the voluntary side. There are game angling clubs and tourism representative bodies. As Deputy Coveney said, we must take cognisance of the private sector as it is the sector that is driving the industry of game angling. There is a regional dimension to this.
It is interesting that Deputy McHugh should mention the Loughs Agency. It has an advisory forum that advises it and involves the various interest groups. We are considering that advisory forum as a model for the forum we are establishing because it works quite well. The Loughs Agency has a forum which breaks into focus groups or particular interest groups in regard to a river basin. The Deputy is correct that we can learn a great deal from that agency.
The Minister of State is trying to do the impossible because he is trying to marry all the various interest groups, having regard to all the tensions and associated tensions that pertain at regional level, and bring all that together at a national level. If the Minister of State could come to us with a frame of reference, that would be important and I would welcome that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 13, subsection (7)(a), line 25, after “2006)” to insert the following:
", other than research similar or analogous to research in relation to sea fish being carried on by the Central Board immediately before the establishment day".
The subsection in question provides that inland fisheries may carry out research and experimental work necessary for the performance of its functions but with the proviso that Inland Fisheries Ireland should not be able to carry out such work in regard to any species of sea fish within the meaning of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. The 2006 Act defines sea fish as including anadromous and catadromous species and all crustaceans and molluscs found in the sea. Given that salmon are classified as an anadromous species — I apologise for my pronunciation, I am bit tongue tied on the pronunciation of that species — and eels are classified at catadromous species, the Bill, as drafted, will preclude Inland Fisheries Ireland from carrying out research on those species. This was not the intention of the legislation.
Subsection 7(a) is based on the existing functions of the Central Fisheries Board, as provided for in section 8(5) of the Fisheries Act 1980, as inserted by the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1999. While it was always the intention that the provisions of this Bill would mirror the provisions in the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1999, in the course of the drafting process the wording which is the subject of this proposed amendment was unintentionally omitted from the Bill. The proposed amendment ensures that Inland Fisheries Ireland will be able to continue the important research work currently undertaken by the Central Fisheries Board in regard to certain species of sea fish, including those that I have already mentioned, albeit rather badly. I hope the amendment will be accepted.
I wish to ask a question about this — I will not go into the terminology used.
Will the Deputy cause me to be tongue tied again?
I will ask about eels.
"Eels" are easy to pronounce.
Does this amendment provide for dealing with eels at sea and that there will be no research on them? There has already been considerable political controversy over eels in our rivers and the banning of eel fishing, which was a controversial decision because some people made the case that quotas should have been put in place rather than an outright ban. Does IFI have the capacity to monitor and research eel populations in our inland waterways or does this measure relate to fish and eels at sea?
The short answer to that question is that we can do both. The intention of this Bill is that we will be able to research both because they are migratory and we would have occasion to research them.
The wording of the amendment is "other than research similar or analogous to research in relation to sea fish". What is IFI not being allowed research?
Sea species, effectively.
Fine. Therefore, it can research anything that swims up our rivers.
That is a good description. The Deputy probably thinks he will be swapping places with me soon, as he seems to know what he is talking about.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 13, subsection (7)(b), line 29, after “relevant” to insert the following:
"and make the results of all research publicly available".
It is important that the result of work being carried out by IFI, particularly in co-operation and in co-ordination with the Marine Institute and other agencies, is made publicly available. What I mean by that proposal is to provide in the legislation that IFI would be required to either put the results of such research on a website, into a public library or wherever. Such research results will nearly always be made available electronically. Even though the Marine Institute has an interesting website and much of its research is available on it, I would like it to be provided in legislation that a public body such as the IFI would make the results of its research publicly available so that people who are interested in monitoring these matters will have access to the information that the new State body is producing.
This subsection concerns the function of Inland Fisheries Ireland to carry out research or experimental work considered necessary for the performance of its functions. Most of the work undertaken by the Central Fisheries Board in regard to the EU water framework directive and habitats directive and the eels regulations requires reports, which are published on a annual basis. Furthermore, research summaries have been published by the Central Fisheries Board on its website annually in recent years. I see no reason this would change with the move to the new structure.
In general terms, research undertaken by scientists is peer reviewed and published. This is part of its validation and is, as I understand, standard practice for this type of work. I sound a word of caution to the Deputy in terms of incorporating a blanket rule for publication in that there may be some instance where it may not be appropriate or necessary to publish the results of research where, for instance, it would expose vulnerable fish populations, where analysis is partial or misleading or where blanket publication of such research would not be appropriate other than to account for it in the annual report of the agency, as is currently done by the Central Fisheries Board. There are circumstances where it may not be helpful or positive to release the results of research precisely because it would be partial and, in that sense, it could be misleading or misrepresented in one fashion or another. That is the caveat or concern we would have about a rule that all research should be published. Protecting vulnerable fish populations is also an issue in circumstances where research indicated there was a concentration of fish in a certain area. I am plucking this scenario out of the air. I am not particularly expert in this area, but if one was to expose a particular population of fish to potential poachers or people who particularly wanted to overfish a stretch of river, lake or water resource, making the findings of research public might only assist the manufacturers, so to speak, as opposed to what would be in the public good in terms of preservation and conservation of fish stocks. I do not want to overstate that, though.
I understand the point the Minister is making. The point I was making was that this is a public body, financed by the taxpayer and it needs to be seen to be transparent in all its work. When it undertakes research particularly into fish populations, fish stocks and the state of those fish stocks, it is not acceptable for it to pick and choose what it wants the public to see and, in doing so, to perhaps drive its own agenda around building up fish stocks in a way that would be unfair to anglers or commercial fishermen. The problem with not publishing everything is that one raises suspicions in the industry that IFI is only showing us what it wants us to see.
I fully accept that. Where research is relied on by the fisheries body to defend a particular conservation move, it should always be published and made available to the public. I share Deputy Coveney's concern that a public body would rely on research without making it available for all to see. Obviously, not all research is perfect. As we saw with the ESRI, for instance, in regard to environmental matters, sometimes research can be deeply flawed so it is important to share it with the public. In other words, it should be contestable from an expert point of view.
I have no particular problem with the principle of what Deputy Coveney said that the new body should publish as much as possible of its research evidence and only not publish it in situations in which it believes vulnerable fish populations might be jeopardised by so doing. There would want to be a very strong public interest reason for a body, such as IFI, not to publish research given what was said earlier that there is a shared responsibility among many interest groups to protect and conserve the resource. They are positive groups. Anglers are a positive influence in terms of fish conservation.
In support of the amendment, I take the view that if what we are talking about here is a natural resource, then we need to hold the research up to public scrutiny. If that means it is contested, so be it. That is the nature of research, whether social or scientific. Research should be contestable and held up to public scrutiny. I support the amendment on that basis.
It is open to us to look at the idea of making as much as possible available before Report Stage. Does Deputy Coveney want to leave discretion with the body in terms of public interest or what is his sense there?
Generally, research is used as a reason to introduce new management or conservation measures.
That is right and I share that——
I am a big believer in trusting the science here rather than the gut feeling of fishermen.
The same here.
Having said that, the flip side of the coin should be that if the science shows there is an abundance of fish stock for whatever reason — for example, conservation measures have worked — we should also see those results. However, I believe there would be a tendency in IFI to only publish results that are driving the conservation and management agenda rather than publishing results that would encourage more fishing. I would like to see positive news going out internationally that Irish rivers are improving in terms of stocking rates to try to attract people here. It should be used as a marketing tool.
I cannot envisage a situation where research was so sensitive that it could not be published. I am happy to be shown to be wrong on that if that is the case. In this area, in particular, fishermen, anglers and scientists are always suspicious of one another or there is loose talk that we have a Minister with an agenda who is more interested in conservation than allowing a fishing industry to flourish. That type of loose talk would be added to by not publishing all the research. That is my concern. If the Minister of State could look at it——
I am very keen and I very much take on board Deputy Coveney's arguments. We need to be careful with the wording here. I am worried about it being almost a requirement that IFI publish everything in its possession immediately. If there was a way to specify that research data would be made available on a timely basis or——
Perhaps it could state: "make the results of research available electronically within six months", or something like that. I would not have an issue with the timing.
It could state: "within six months of the completion of the research".
Exactly.
Is the Deputy's point that information be shared with the public where research is complete rather than in parts on a timely and appropriate basis?
Yes. If research has misleading results, we do not want to mislead the industry.
That is right. I agree with that.
People are mature enough to deal with that.
Will the Deputy give us the time to work on the precise wording he has used?
I will withdraw the amendment.
I like the wording Deputy Coveney has used that completed research be made available in a six month period.
There is precedent for six months or three months.
Six months is fine with me. I have no particular issue with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 13, subsection (12), line 50, after "in" to insert "activities relating to".
A concern I had when I read this subsection was that it was a little strange. It states that the Minister may if he or she thinks fit authorise IFI to engage in the processing and marketing of such species of fish as are specified in the authorisation. I do not believe it will be the role of IFI to get involved in processing of fish. It is not a fish processor. Perhaps it will be involved in marketing but I do not believe it will be directly involved, that is, the people doing the marketing. That is why I propose the wording "activities relating to". If the Minister of State accepts my amendment, this subsection would read that the Minister may if he or she thinks fits authorise IFI to engage in activities relating to the processing and marketing of such species.
What sort of activities does Deputy Coveney have in mind? That is a curiosity on our part.
An example would be if it needs to give assistance to a marketing campaign by providing research or back-up. If through BIM, the Government decides to engage in a very proactive marketing campaign for Irish fish, IFI would be part of that marketing campaign in terms of enhancing it, providing research for it and so on. Likewise, if Fáilte Ireland decided it wanted to get involved in an intense marketing campaign for river angling and sea angling, IFI could support that process with back-up information and so on which it would have available to it. I do not believe anyone would envisage IFI going to Britain, the Continent and the US embarking on a marketing campaign to bring fishermen here.
Oddly enough, that is one of the duties it performs at the moment within the context of the existing regional boards. They have conducted that kind of work, go to angling fairs and so on.
Fine.
Marketing here is twofold. Overarching marketing is done by the tourism authorities which is, by its nature, rather broader in its reach and it appeals to a broader set of people. However, there are magazines and fairs which only——
My concern was not really about the marketing. What the Minister of State said about that is true. I have spoken to people who have been at angling fairs in France, in particular. My concern was more about the processing of, I presume, fish. I did not envisage IFI as a body that would get involved in fish processing. However, it may be a body that would engage in activities relating to processing — in other words, it would help to encourage the processing industry or provide advice to it or to the Minister on how best to support a processing industry. That is why I propose to insert the words "activities relating to" processing and marketing.
I accept the amendment. I am not trying to curtail debate or anything but——-
Does the Minister of State understand from where I am coming?
I do. To be clear, IFI has the power to operate and do processing as well.
Does it?
That was carried through from the 1980 Act. IFI is allowed to have that capability because it operates a hatchery in its own right.
A hatchery is different to a fish processing plant.
Yes, but the fish from the hatchery can be processed.
My understanding of processing is that it involves managing the commercial catching of fish and then processing and preparing them for sale.
It is not envisaged that IFI would be involved in commercial processing. In a technical sense, however, it could process fish from the hatchery.
There is a touch of ambiguity in the provision and I merely wished to improve the wording. If the amendment is being accepted, that is great.
We are happy with the wording in the amendment and will incorporate it in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 14, subsection (1)(a), line 42, after “District” to insert “(including the Neagh Bann River Basin District)”.
As the committee will be aware, the Bill requires Inland Fisheries Ireland to manage and report its business on the basis of the river basin districts. This was agreed on the basis that it will enable the adoption of an integrated ecosystem approach that will be fully co-ordinated with the structures already in place for the implementation of the EU water framework directive. While six of the river basin districts lie predominantly within the State, a small area of the Neagh Bann river basin district also lies within the State. It was always the intention that the area in question would be managed by Inland Fisheries Ireland, alongside the Eastern river basin district, for the purposes of the performance of its functions.
Having consulted the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, it has been agreed that, in the interest of clarity, reference to the Neagh Bann river basin district should be included in the Bill. It is a technical measure designed to take account of the fact that parts of the river basin in question are located in the two jurisdictions on the island.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 15, lines 6 to 21, to delete subsections (2) and (3).
This amendment relates to the deletion of section 9(2) and (3). I am uncomfortable with the idea that the Minister may decide, by order, that IFI will manage and report its business in a totally different way. Under the section, as it stands, IFI could be asked by the Minister to ignore the eastern, western, south-eastern, south-western, north-western and Shannon River basin districts and manage everything on a centralised basis. I am trying to obtain an indication with regard to what is intended in this section. Why would the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources want to take the course of action to which I refer? Perhaps I am reading the section incorrectly.
No, the Deputy is not really reading it incorrectly. We are trying to provide ourselves with the flexibility to change the arrangements and move away from the river basin district model. In other words, if an issue arose which might be more appropriately managed on another basis, we would be in position to take action in that regard. An order would obviously have to be laid before the Houses to facilitate such action.
My concern is that we are changing a regional fisheries board structure into a centralised model which will operate on a regional basis which will be founded upon the river basin districts. That is the one aspect of the legislation which provides people in the regions with some reassurance that their basin districts, as they will now be known, will be managed on a regional basis by IFI. Under this section, there is an opportunity for the Minister of the day, should he or she so desire, to turn the entire system on its head. All that would be required would be for the Oireachtas to approve such a move within 21 sitting days. As the Government has a majority in the Oireachtas in any event, that would be somewhat irrelevant.
I was surprised when I first read the section because it provides the Minister of the day with the capacity to entirely alter the effect of the legislation by means of a ministerial order. There would be no onus on him or her to introduce amending legislation. I am somewhat uncomfortable with that. If a Minister wants to change the new structures we are putting in place — which are based on river basin districts — then he or she should be obliged to introduce amending legislation, particularly as any such change would be substantial in nature.
The Minister is being given power to throw out the legislation before us. If the Minister of the day wishes to do so at some point in the future, that is fair enough. However, he or she should be required to introduce amending legislation and should not be in a position to do so through the issuing of a ministerial order.
The only reason I would not be inclined to do so would be in circumstances where it might be necessary to make minor changes to the river district basins that are specified. It might, for example, prove more efficient, from an operational point of view, to make such minor changes or to split the districts and create sub-districts. The Shannon, because of its length, is a good example in this regard. In the future we might wish to split the latter into upper and lower river basin districts for the purposes of management and we would be obliged, if section 9(2) and (3) were removed from this Bill, to introduce primary legislation to achieve this objective.
I do not envisage that this will happen in the near future. However, if the resources became available we might want to split the Shannon into two parts for the purposes of management and we would be able to do this under section 9(2) and (3) and would not be obliged to introduce amending legislation. I can understand that the Deputy might be concerned if it were our intention to amalgamate the seven river basin districts into one, three, or two larger entities. It would be dangerous if the Minister of the day, with a wave of his or her hand, could centralise the entire system.
What the Minister of State is saying is not really reflected in the wording used in the section. Section 9(2) states "The Minister may, following consultation with IFI and such other bodies as he or she deems appropriate, specify by order alternative means by which IFI shall manage and report its business". In other words, the legislation allows IFI, on the basis of a ministerial order, to put in place an entirely new management structure. If the section were to state that the Minister, in consultation with IFI, retains the power to merge, abolish or expand individual river basin districts as he or she sees fit in the future, I would have no difficulty with it. That would be a good step.
At some point we may decide that the south-eastern and south-western river basin districts should be merged. I do not believe that is the position at present but if the case were made in the future, there would be merit in being able to change the river basin districts and the way in which they are structured by means of ministerial order. I would not have a difficulty with that. However, allowing the Minister of the day to change the way in which IFI shall manage this entire sector will give him or her enormous power, should he or she so desire, to instruct that organisation to change its management structures entirely. The wording will make the Minister somewhat all-powerful. If it might prove of assistance, I can bring forward a more exacting amendment for Report Stage.
I will be interested in such an amendment. Section 9(1) specifies the river basins as being the basis for the establishment of IFI. If the Deputy is of the view that the integrity of river basins should be the basis or principle upon which the resource is managed, then perhaps he might table an amendment to that effect.
One can change all of that. Section 9(1) states:
From the establishment day, for the purposes of performing the functions assigned to it under this Act, IFI shall manage and report its business on the basis of that part of the following river basin districts . . .
That is the basis for IFI's management.
Yes, it is and I am perfectly happy with it. The section, however, continues that the Minister can, by order, change that basis.
Yes.
The Minister has the capacity to turn all of the section's provisions on their head and dispose of them. If, in a year's time, it were decided the river basin district model was not working, then a new model could be implemented by ministerial order. There is no need for amending legislation or for the Minister to consult the committee as the Government has a majority.
While I am anxious to retain the power, would it be better if some element of prior consultation with the committee were included if there were any proposed changes by ministerial order to the integral river-basin model?
That would help.
I agree it would be invidious if some Minister in the future were able to tear up the whole rulebook.
I am concerned if a future Government were broke and had the equivalent of a McCarthy report to make savings, it could decide to manage the inland fisheries centrally for cost-saving reasons and do away with the river-basin model. I am uncomfortable that the Minister has the capacity to do so by ministerial order without having to explain how the new structures would work, the justification for the decision and other matters involved.
To marry my concerns with the Deputy's, I believe a Minister should be able not to have to introduce legislation for minor changes but that a Dáil committee would be the default forum for a consultative procedure.
That would have the same net effect as having to introduce amending legislation as that would have to go to committee. I would be less concerned if it read, "the Minister may, following consultation with IFI, the appropriate Oireachtas committee and such other bodies . . ."
Does the Deputy want the Minister to publish such a ministerial order and then make it available to the committee or consult it before presenting it?
It would be appropriate, if such a radical change were to be made, that there would be an opportunity for an input from an Oireachtas committee.
Would this also include an input from interest groups?
Yes, but that is already provided for.
I agree with including the participation of the Oireachtas. We will open up the wording on that section for Report Stage.
The provision states the Minister may "specify by order alternative means". That wording is too vague. It would be helpful if there were a more qualitative interpretation of what it means on Report Stage.
I admit the wording is slightly confusing. To clarify, the term "alternative means" refers to how IFI shall manage and report its business.
Is this the new face of Government that it accepts all our amendments?
The reason is they are sensible enough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 16, subsection (1)(e), line 10, after “nomination” to insert the following:
"being 1 representative of anglers and 1 representative of the commercial sector".
Section 12(1) states:
IFI shall consist of 9 members appointed by the Minister of whom—
(a) one shall be appointed by the Minister as Chairperson,
(b) in accordance with subsection (3), 3 shall be appointed by the Minister,
(c) one shall be appointed on the nomination of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
(d) one shall be appointed on the nomination of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs,
(e) 2 shall be appointed on the Minister’s own nomination, and
This is top heavy with ministerial appointments. This amendment would ensure both anglers and the commercial sector are represented on the board. It would also ensure against cronyism and that relevant people from the industry would be appointed.
I support this amendment. There are concerns in the industry as to the make-up of the IFI board and that there will be sufficient numbers of anglers and commercial fishermen on it to balance each other's arguments. The Minister would set a good precedent if he appointed both representatives. There is an opportunity for the Oireachtas committee to make recommendations on the various ministerial appointments to the board. The committee can balance its composition, providing a safety valve.
I would also prefer if the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism could make an appointment to the board rather than the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs under section 12(1)(d). Sport and tourism should be central elements to angling policy. If the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government can make an appointment, why should the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs make an appointment too? They both have an overlapping interest from an environmental and heritage point. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State would consider that possibility before Report Stage, but I support my colleague’s amendment as well in relation to paragraph (e).
I am halfway there with Deputy Coveney on the specific Ministry involved and the argument that tourism would be more relevant, but the instruction is for the board and IFI itself to be the strong executive liaison with the tourism promotional side. I do not necessarily believe that incorporating the Ministry for tourism into the nominating process will be helpful at this stage. I have written to the Ministers asking them for nominations and I am about to announce an interim board comprising the three nominees I would elect. I want an interim board of three to act as a transition to the new body since I am quite anxious, given the speed at which this is moving and the imminent deadline for the vesting of this body, that there should be some degree of continuity from the old to the new.
The particular issue I am concerned with, and I have been consistent in this regard, is that I want people serving on this board who are almost dual qualified and expert-driven and who possess strong financial accounting, business or marketing skills. It is not going to be a board for everyone in the audience, to paraphrase Gay Byrne, and will not be representative in character. The chief focal point for representation is the forum. I do not see the nine-member board as being representative of the various interests, whether commercial, angling or otherwise, and it would be almost invidious if a representative characteristic were to be imported into a board such as this. Clearly, there will be someone with a strong interest in angling among the three members I have the right to appoint. I will not be appointing people who have no interest in angling, which perhaps addresses the issue raised by Deputy Sherlock about cronyism, pals, friends or whatever other phrases are used to do with State appointments.
I am very anxious that the people on the board should have a clear, demonstrable interest in angling and the water resource, but mainly that they should not be there as representatives of one particular interest group or other in the angling water scene. My main concern is that a serving board member should have an interest and also an expertise, whether financial, business, legal or otherwise. We want a constructive board that has the ability to run, direct and task the chief executive of IFI and not one that necessarily will be enormously interested in angling, its commercial side or otherwise, while not having the necessary expertise and skills to be able to patrol the executives, give them instructions, read financial statements and reports, and, in overall governance terms, run the board as a proper entity.
Having looked at a number of State boards over the years, I believe we have tended to ask people to serve who were political appointees and who were not particularly skilful at dealing with financial reports or commercial issues. That has been one of the failings of that approach. That is why I am concerned with dual tasking the people to be appointed to the board in this case. They will have a clear interest in angling or the water resource while at the same time possessing actual expertise that can add value to the board. In that sense I am not accepting the Deputy's amendment but I hope what I have said is somewhat more reassuring.
I would never accuse the Minister of State of cronyism or appointing one of his pals. I accept the assurances he has given in that context and withdraw the amendment.
I thank the Deputy for withdrawing the amendment. The only interesting point is that if the wider Oireachtas assisted appointments, it would be an interesting process as well. I appeal to Deputies if they are nominating candidates for such appointments to think about that aspect, namely, that we want people who are dual qualified, not just a person who is the most popular angler in the region, so that he or she has to be accommodated. It would be preferable to have people with strong skills in their occupational life who would add to the board. It is not simply a question of having partisan anglers of one type or another.
The Minister's appointees will reflect this, one presumes.
Absolutely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 16, subsection (3)(b), line 24, after “persons” to insert “proposed to be”.
Under the Bill as it stands, the Oireachtas committee only suggests three names. All the other board members are notified to the committee after they are appointed, and this is a fait accompli, in effect. We suggest that all the members be notified to the committee in advance, so that it may nominate three and comment on the rest.
This addresses the idea that there should not be complete and utter ministerial control of appointments and that the Oireachtas committee should be given a real say in terms of how the board is constituted, thus recognising the validity of the committee in making an appointment to the board. Again, this probably addresses a similar theme to the previous amendment.
Apropos of what the Deputy has said, I am not inclined to accept either of the amendments in this area. However, I shall be appointing, as Minister of State, the three interim nominees at my disposal. By way of compromise I suggest to the Deputy that I would instruct them, as soon as practicable after they are appointed, to appear before the committee to explain how they view the work in terms of the transition arrangements. In other words, they will be transitional in that they will not be fully appointed until the board is vested and the legislation has been passed. It might be helpful for them to be informed that they will have to appear before the committee in the interim stage to discuss matters. If the committee has issues it wishes to examine about their qualifications or otherwise, this can be done. When I am appointing an interim group for the transition period, I expect the committee would have the opportunity to speak to them directly.
I am surprised the Minister of State will not accept my amendment No. 14. It is not aimed at undermining the process or weakening the power of the Minister or anything. If the Minister of State is serious about coming to the committee with his appointments and wants it to provide three names which will appropriately balance the board, having seen the appointments he has made and heard the reasons for appointing them, he should deal with any matters the Oireachtas joint committee considers relevant. In other words, lines 25 and 26 read much better if "Minister" is replaced with "Joint Oireachtas Committee" so that if our Chair, having consulted with the committee, decides we need some information or guidance from the Minister of State, he or she may provide it as opposed to any such other matters the Minister of State considers relevant to the process.
We certainly can ask for consideration, information, advice or support from the Minister of State. However that subsection would make more sense were it to say, the Minister in respect of an appointment under subsection such and such shall provide a statement to the Oireachtas joint committee indicating the relevant experience and expertise of the person or persons appointed by the Minister – fair enough — and such matters as the Oireachtas joint committee considers relevant. In other words, if we need more help from the Minister of State in getting our appointments right, which is what the process is about, this should be forthcoming, rather than he or she making the judgment call on what the committee needs to make the right choice. Does the Minister of State know what I am saying?
I do.
The Bill states that the Minister will provide a statement to this committee and deal with any other matters he or she believes to be relevant, but the committee comprises the people who have to ask the questions to ensure we get our appointments right. This does not weaken the Minister of State's position or strengthen our position. It just gives us the capacity to ask him to deal with other matters that we consider relevant before we make proposals to him. He does not even have to accept our proposals or our proposed names. These proposals come from section 12(1)(b), and the Minister of State makes the appointment anyway. We are only helping the process by giving him the names.
I do not want to make a big deal about this, but I would have thought it made more sense for the Oireachtas committee to ask the Minister of State what we need to know, rather than him telling us what we need to know.
I am not reading this the same way as the Deputy.
Section 12(3)(b) states that the Minister, ”in respect of an appointment under subsection (1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) shall provide a statement to the Joint Oireachtas Committee indicating the relevant experience and expertise of the person or persons appointed by the Minister, and such other matters as the Minister considers relevant”. The Minister appoints a chairman and two other people and comes before us and explains why he appointed them. The three names are proposals that I will consider, and if the Minister needs any more help, can he let me know? At the moment, the section means that the Minister will make a statement on any such other matters that he considers relevant. We are the people who have to decide what is relevant, not the Minister or the Minister of State.
These are my appointments and I must explain to the committee the expertise and skill sets I consider relevant to their appointment. I cannot tell the committee to make a certain judgment. It is not my role as a Minister of State to tell an Oireachtas how it should do its business. The committee determines the suitability and skill sets and that is an open process.
We have been through this process already with the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.
I am not familiar with that.
There were some very good aspects to that process, but there were other areas that could do with improvement. One area in which we could have improved the process was if the Minister or Minister of State came before the committee at an earlier stage to outline his reasoning for the appointments that he made to the board. We got those names before we had to add to the board. With this Bill, our decision on the appropriate people to recommend will be guided by the people already chosen by the Minister of State.
That is why I am saying I will appoint the interim board.
If the Minister of State has already nominated somebody with a deep experience in tourism, then we are not going to chose another person from the tourism industry.
That is what I am saying. I will appoint an interim board of three members and let them share whatever skill sets they have with the committee, which will then get an insight into the situation.
If the Minister of State is making a presentation to us, then he should make a statement on any matters that we consider relevant to the process. In other words, we need to be informed of the Minister of State's reasoning, rather than having him come here and tell us about other issues that he considers to be relevant.
We are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.
It is very nuanced. I am not particularly worked up about the Deputy's amendment, one way or the other. The bottom line is that I will bring three names to the committee. I will outline why I regard them as relevant and I will do this in the next couple of weeks. In fact, I will do this before the Bill is passed. The same approach for formal appointment is recommended in the Bill itself. I will state to the committee the reasons I regard my appointments to be relevant, and hopefully that will act as a kind of guidance for the committee.
We agree on that.
Ultimately, it is the committee's responsibility to determine its own nominees and their relevance. I can say that I found these people to be relevant, but the committee may have a completely different viewpoint on who is suitable and why they are suitable. I would not for a minute presume that a Dáil committee should follow in the same line of thinking as a Minister or Minister of State, because the Executive branch and the elected branch are totally separate. The committee may determine that it wants to make radically different choices to those I have made, and that is the committee's absolute prerogative.
The Minister of State does not have to accept them, so that is irrelevant. If we do that, the Minister of State will reject them. We do not make appointments to the board. We make recommendations and then the Minister of State makes the appointment.
Ultimately, if we are charging the committee to come up with three appointments, I cannot turn around and reject all of them.
The Minister of State can, if he wants to do so.
If the committee decides on a cross-party basis that it wants to put fire engine drivers on the board, and it then comes up with a list of 20 from which I have to pick, it will be very difficult for me to argue against that.
The Minister of State would somehow find the capacity.
I am using that as an easy example. If the committee decided that it only wanted anglers on the board, that my appointments were expertise-led and that there was no real angling presence, then it could appoint anglers entirely and it would be difficult for me to reject them all.
I believe it is an improvement on the Broadcasting Act 2009, whereby we had the right to nominate people to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the RTE board. We were obliged under that Act to nominate people under certain headings. Under this Bill, we will see the Minister of State's nominees first, so we will recognise which areas are not being looked after, and we will state our nominees to those areas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 16, subsection (3)(b), line 26, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Joint Oireachtas Committee”.
I still think my wording is a slight improvement on the Minister's but I understand how the wires are getting slightly crossed. I will withdraw the amendment with a view to perhaps tabling it again on Report Stage.
We will examine it to see if our wording could be amended. The matter would benefit from closer scrutiny.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 16, subsection (5)(a), line 45, after “agriculture” to insert “or riparian land ownership”.
I propose to take amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, together. These amendments concern the criteria under which potential appointees to the board of Inland Fisheries Ireland must have had experience of shoal capacity. Following discussions with the regional fisheries boards and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, it was considered that the criteria heading "riparian ownership of fisheries" could be too restrictive. In law, "riparian" generally refers to land adjoining a river. Riparian ownership of fisheries could therefore be interpreted to only include ownership of such land and fisheries. It is therefore proposed that in the interests of clarity and in order to ensure that those with experience and knowledge of the ownership of fisheries, including rated occupiers, are not precluded from being eligible for appointment to the board, that a new criteria, "ownership of fisheries" be included in the Bill. Given the connection between riparian ownership and agriculture, the agriculture description is to include riparian ownership. Those amendments make some small but necessary changes to the array of criteria under which a person must have experience in order to be eligible for appointment to the board of Inland Fisheries Ireland.
In the amendment tabled by Deputy Coveney it is considered that the heading of recreational fisheries covers both sea angling and river angling. Consequently, there is no need to separate the categories. Accordingly, I urge that amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 be accepted. For the reason stated I cannot accept amendment No. 18.
I strongly disagree with the Minister of State. It is important to include the word "angling". Recreational fisheries almost trivialises what is a massive industry in terms of sea angling. Fly fishing and catching sharks off Kinsale are two entirely different industries attracting a very different type of person. For the sake of giving those sectors some recognition in the legislation, it would be preferable to include "recreational fisheries including sea and river angling". To put the term angling on that list would provide reassurance to people who are concerned that angling will not get a fair representation on the board. There cannot be any difficulty in including these two categories.
No, but it is something we can look at on Report Stage. It is not the intention in this provision to exclude anybody. Whatever one's view of the term "recreational fisheries", it surely covers both sea and river angling. However, if the Deputy considers it important, we can incorporate a reference on Report Stage which enhances the definition and ensures nobody is excluded.
The term "recreational fisheries" may be said to cover sea and river angling but it is a catch-all term in the vein of business and commercial affairs. Specific reference is made in the subsection to commercial fishing, fish processing, aquaculture, agriculture and so on, but in "recreational fisheries" we have a broad term to cover the myriad of different industries involved. Even if we just had the term "angling", that would be a recognition that this is an important element of expertise in the make-up of the board. I will not be satisfied if there is no mention of angling on this long list.
We will ask the Parliamentary Counsel to incorporate river and sea angling into the subsection. I accept that while they may come under the term "recreational fisheries", it is a rather bureaucratic way of saying what we want to say.
The term "recreational fisheries" could include the guy who goes down to Dún Laoghaire pier and casts out to catch a pollock.
The Minister of State has conceded the point. It seems the Deputy has defeated him and done him down.
Yes. I assure Deputy Coveney that I will instruct the Parliamentary Counsel to include sea and river angling in the list of areas of expertise pertaining to the appointment of persons to the IFI board.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 17, subsection (5), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(g) fisheries ownership,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 17, subsection (5), line 7, to delete paragraph (i).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 17, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:
"(10) In respect of an appointment to be made under subsection (1)(f), the Minister may, following consultation with such trade union representatives as he or she considers appropriate, appoint a person to IFI on a temporary basis, until such time as the Minister is in a position to appoint a person elected in accordance with section 13.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 21, subsection (2), line 24, to delete paragraph (b).
I tabled this amendment, which proposes the deletion of section (17)(2)(b), so that we would have an opportunity to discuss what seems to me a bizarre provision and to gain some insight into the Minister of State’s intent. The paragraph provides that one of the reasons a member of IFI may be disqualified from holding office is if she or she “makes a composition or arrangement with creditors”. I am not entirely sure of the meaning of the legal term “composition” but it is certainly the case that people make arrangements with creditors all the time for the restructuring of debts. I would not have considered that a reason to disqualify a person from serving on the board of IFI. Perhaps I am misreading the legalities.
There is nothing sinister or Orwellian in this. It is a standard and common feature of legislation dealing with the obligations of appointees to State boards. It is to cover a situation where an individual is financially compromised and could be open to undue influence.
The IFI board is likely to include people involved in the industry, including anglers and so on. The reality is that many business people are currently putting in place arrangements with their creditors to manage debt.
Since it is a standard feature of the requirements for members of many existing boards, there is noting sinister or strange in it. Perhaps more people are now making such arrangements given that we are in a recession, but the key point is that it clearly can only be invoked in a situation where it has become an issue for the board itself that a person is financially compromised.
I understand what the Minister of State is saying but that is not how the provision reads.
In practical terms, one presumably could not invoke it on the basis of a purely technical assertion that a person had made such arrangements.
It should not be the case that a board member who is also a business person feels that he or she is not in a position to make arrangements with creditors to address business difficulties. Neither should a person in that position be precluded from membership of the board.
Would the Deputy like me to seek clarification on where and how this provision operates?
I do not wish to make a big deal of it.
I agree it is a relevant question. It would be unfair if a person suitable for appointment to the board were disbarred on the basis not that he or she is compromised but that he or she is involved in the NAMA process, for example.
"Arrangement with creditors" is a very broad term in business.
If the Deputy agrees to withdraw the amendment, we will obtain a legal interpretation of this provision and a clarification of why it is required.
That is fine.
I welcome the Minister of State's approach in this matter. I support the point made by Deputy Coveney because I have no recollection of this provision in other Bills. Perhaps I do not read legislation closely enough. It seems an extraordinary obligation and it is not enough merely to say it will not arise in practice. If it is to become part of law then it must be treated seriously. I presume we are talking about not only business people but any person who has renegotiated a mortgage, for instance. There are all types of implications in the current climate.
That is right.
It could create serious problems for board members who may feel obliged to withdraw unnecessarily or in a situation where this provision is used against them. I would be very unsatisfied with the retention of this provision. I am always displeased with the notion that just because something was done before it should necessarily be done again. If we maintain that logic we will never make progress. Part of the basis of progress is that we jettison what is no longer appropriate. In this instance, when half the population is making arrangements with creditors, whether on a personal basis or for business purposes, the provision does not reflect reality.
For members' information, this provision is also part of the legislation on NAMA and the National Consumer Agency.
One could perhaps understand why it might be relevant to NAMA but, as far as I am aware, it is not part of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland legislation, for example.
NAMA is a different category.
It is exceptional.
I will be satisfied if the Minister of State will get back to me on this.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 22, subsection (1), line 1, after "Minister" to insert "with the approval of the Dáil".
This amendment reflects the standard Opposition line that there should be greater accountability to the Oireachtas. Subsection (1) sets out the circumstances in which the Minister may remove the membership of the IFI board. The Dáil is entitled to know why that is being done. It is a significant move by a Minister to remove a person from a State board. This is the reasoning behind asking the Dáil for approval for such a decision.
While I have no difficulty in consulting the committee to explain my reasons for the removal of someone, it is my obligation to so do as a member of the Executive branch. I do not particularly perceive this to be my role as a Minister and when Deputies Coveney and McManus eventually become Ministers in this House, I hope they would not wish to have had this power removed from them, thereby preventing them from acting because they were obliged to seek Dáil approval to remove someone.
I believe that point is reasonable as I am a major supporter of enabling Ministers to take decisions and get on with it. However, the issue is they must be accountable for those decisions. Perhaps this amendment was worded slightly too strongly. The Minister of State might consider a wording to the effect that a Minister would——
If the Deputy wishes to incorporate a word there——
——be obliged to provide an explanation to the relevant committee——
Yes, it would be to the effect that were I to take the step of removing board members or the entire board, I would be obliged to notify the committee of the reasons I had taken the action.
Yes, for that decision.
Yes.
Subject obviously to legal issues arising. I must ascertain whether a legal issue arises in this regard.
Will the Minister of State table such an amendment on Report Stage?
Yes, I will incorporate a phrase to the effect that the relevant Dáil committee will be notified formally of the reasons.
On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 22, 33, 41, 42, 44 to 49, inclusive, 51 to 53, inclusive, and 56 to 67, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 22, subsection (7), line 47, to delete "persons" and substitute "person".
These amendments have been drafted following consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and are required to correct drafting and technical errors in the Bill. They do not represent a change in policy in respect of the sections affected and I thank Deputy McManus for drawing my attention to the technical amendment required to section 61. Accordingly, I propose these amendments be accepted.
Amendment No. 42 in my name is only a technical amendment. It is to keep the Minister of State on his toes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 19 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 29, lines 35 to 38, to delete subsection (9).
I do not expect the Minister of State to accept this amendment because Ministers never do. However, I still wish to raise the issue because the view that a chief executive should have no room to manoeuvre seems highly limited. Chief executives tend to be bright people with integrity who demonstrate professionalism in their jobs. Consequently, it seems extraordinary that they must be gagged in this manner to the point of being unable to express an opinion on the merits of any governmental or ministerial policy or on the merits of its objectives. Members lose out as a consequence of such gagging because the use of a chief executive officer's judgment to advise a committee is of benefit to all. Regrettably, I presume the Minister of State will proceed to rule out this amendment. However, I wish to make the point that I do not agree with treating chief executives like children.
In respect of governance, the purpose is not to treat them like children but rather as part of a State-funded operation. Ultimately, I am a firm believer in the proposition that those who do not agree with the aims and objectives or who have serious policy issues with the organisation for which they work, be it governmental or otherwise, have the great sanction of resigning and leaving the organisation. This is the finest way in which chief executives can express their dissent from Government policy in respect of their remit. In this instance, the chief executive will be required to work with the Minister and with inland fisheries Ireland, IFI, which will be a State body. I believe sufficient flexibility has been provided to enable a member of IFI to brief and to be involved in discussions with Opposition spokespersons. Such a person will be able to engage in discussions in which he or she may express his or her own concerns, as an operator of a State body, to members of the Opposition, Members of the Dáil or county council members regarding particular issues on which he or she considers the Government may not be listening to them. Such board members might enjoin committee members to become involved to bring matters to the attention of the Government. I have no difficulty with activity of this nature on the part of a chief executive. However, when it shifts into public commentary——
They cannot do that.
All members live in the real world and know this happens.
The point is that the message still should get out from time to time when it is sufficiently important. This is not about scenarios in which a fundamental disagreement has taken place, which constitutes a clash. This pertains to the contribution chief executives can bring to a policy debate because their unique position affords tremendous expertise and knowledge. I refer to the shutting down of the possibility of having a rounded and informed input that would contribute constructively, whereby a chief executive could note that while certain measures were being taken, more could be done or whatever. A phrase like that probably would be disallowed under this section of the Bill. Does this provision extend to body language? Quite often, body language informs better than anything else.
The point being made is that no one has a difficulty with chief executives being required to work in a manner that is consistent with Government policy because that is the Minister's job. Ministers are elected to put in place policy, correct or otherwise. They have a mandate to so do and they employ chief executives to implement it. I have no difficulty with this proposition and were one to begin to undermine this ministerial power, one would be undermining the essence of Government. However, that differs from stating that a chief executive should not question or express an opinion on the merits of any Government policy. Surely, chief executives should be allowed to express an opinion that a measure may or may not be working but that as it is Government policy, it is his or her job to implement it.
This pertains to chief executives of public bodies who already are in a fairly privileged position as matters stand. They have direct access to Ministers and to the governmental machinery.
It is not about their privilege.
They are part of that machinery.
It is quite the opposite. It is about the ability of people like members of this committee to ask a question of them in the expectation of receiving an honest answer. Chief executives should be able to state that while some flaws exist, their job is to implement Government policy and that they will do so. However, members' capacity to put together alternative policies that make sense and which the Government might consider or accept is hampered by not allowing such chief executives even to express an opinion.
I will not consider it because it is akin to people who pretend to be members of a parliamentary party but who consistently have views that fundamentally and completely are at odds with it. Ultimately, such a dichotomy is pointed to and contradictions and controversies flow therefrom. If one is part of an organisation, in this case a governmental structure or apparatus, one is obliged to work within it. In a sense, a chief executive who has a problem in getting a Minister to understand that he or she has a serious issue has failed as a chief executive because he or she has failed to persuade the main shareholder. The same holds true in respect of private industry, in that a chief executive who fails to convince his or her board or investors of the merit of his or her changes has failed and should resign. Moreover, it is not open to a chief executive operating in the private sector, where I worked for many years, to invoke or mobilise party political or media opinion against the policies of his or her own board. In the private sector, chief executives are obliged to work with their boards and shareholders. At times, I may have been partial to the removal of a chief executive in a private sector company who believed he could do this.
That begs the question of why it must be put into law.
We are discussing public business and the public good would require that a chief executive not be allowed to act in a fashion that effectively disrupts public business——
We are not discussing disrupting.
——by continuing to express opinions about his or her area in such a way that contradicts the wishes of the Government of the time. It is a serious issue and not one that should be taken lightly.
How stands the amendment?
I will withdraw it with a view to reintroducing it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29 agreed to.
Sections 30 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Amendments Nos. 24 to 28, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 32, subsection (1)(c), line 39, to delete “an” and substitute “a consultant or”.
These are drafting amendments that are required to ensure sections 35 and 36 are consistent with section 34 which makes provisions in respect of the engagement of consultants and advisers by Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI. Sections 35 and 36 deal with the standards of integrity and unauthorised disclosure of confidential information and, as currently drafted, apply to persons engaged by IFI as advisers. This amendment ensures the provisions of sections 35 and 36 apply to consultants or advisers engaged by IFI under section 24. Accordingly, I move that this amendment be accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 33, subsection (3)(c), line 8, after “as” to insert “consultants or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 33, subsection (6), line 19, to delete "an" and substitute "a consultant or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 33, subsection (8), line 26, to delete "an" and substitute "a consultant or".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 36.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 33, subsection (1)(c), line 40, to delete “an” and substitute “a consultant or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 34, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) Reference to this section is inserted in Part I of the Third Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act 1997.".
Will the Minister of State include this amendment? As a safeguard, it is appropriate to provide in the Bill for extension of the Freedom of Information Act to the new body. Reference to this section should be inserted in the Third Schedule to the Act so that it will not prevent the disclosure of information under that Act. It is important the Act be available for use in this context in the public interest. My legal advice is that it needs to be specified in this legislation.
Part 10 of Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for an amendment to the Third Schedule of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 to include reference to section 36 of the Bill. As the Bill provides for an appropriate amendment to the Act, I am advised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel that it is not necessary to include the amendment proposed by Deputy McManus. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.
Is the Minister of State saying that the provision is fully covered?
Yes.
I will withdraw my amendment, but I want to check. My legal advice is slightly different from the Minister of State's.
In deference to the Deputy's legal advice, people of great ability are available to her. If they find anything substantive, we will revert to her.
We will send the Minister of State a note.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, and 68 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 34, before section 37, to insert the following new section:
37.—(1) Where a person communicates his or her opinion, whether in writing or otherwise, to a member of the Garda Síochána or a member of IFI that—
(a) an offence under this Act or any other enactment has been or is being committed,
(b) any provision of this Act or any other enactment or rule of law has been or is being contravened, or
(c) there has been other serious wrongdoing in relation to IFI,
then, unless the person acts in bad faith, he or she shall not be regarded as having committed any breach of duty towards any other person, and no person shall have a cause of action against the first-mentioned person in respect of that communication.
(2) Where a person communicates his or her opinion, whether in writing or otherwise, to the Minister that a direction given by the Minister under this Act has been or is being contravened then, unless the person acts in bad faith, he or she shall not be regarded as having committed any breach of duty towards any other person, and no person shall have a cause of action against the first-mentioned person in respect of that communication.
(3) This section applies to a communication—
(a) that would, but for this section, constitute a breach of duty by the person who made it, or
(b) in respect of which, another person would, but for this section, have a cause of action against the person who made it.”.
These amendments make a statutory provision for the protection of whistleblowers in the Bill. In this day and age, it is important to have such provisions set out on a statutory basis. Wrongdoing can occur in any organisation and it is important that individuals believe they can report such instances without being penalised. Stringent penalties apply where a person falsely reports wrongdoing in an organisation. These are designed to deter individuals from making vexatious allegations. The proposed provisions are based on precedents contained in existing statutes and have been included following discussions with staff representatives. I move that these amendments be accepted.
I agree with these amendments. It is good to put whistleblower protection in place in legislation. The management of a considerably valuable fish resource is an area that needs whistleblowers. If people know that something is going on that should not be, they should be able to give information to the Garda, IFI, the Minister's office or whoever they choose. They need protection.
While I agree with what the Minister of State is doing in this respect, my one reservation is that it is not good practice to introduce a large new section into the Bill by amendment on Committee Stage. To be perfectly honest, I have only skimmed through these amendments. They make sense but I have not given them the type of scrutiny I would have given the rest of the Bill. We did not have them for a long time as we only got them when we got the list of amendments. Whereas I am supportive of the amendments, it is difficult for Opposition spokespeople to scrutinise legislation as we should on Committee Stage when new sections are being introduced to the Bill, even when those sections are worthwhile. We will now need to examine them in the same way as we would have examined the rest of the Bill for Report Stage, but we will only have a short opportunity on Report Stage to make persuasive arguments to the Minister of State if we are to chop and change and improve the sections. I am supportive of the legislation but the procedure puts us at a disadvantage in terms of giving the amendments the scrutiny required.
I support the amendments. We all do because the issue of whistleblowers has often been raised by my party in terms of a Bill that we published. However, I am curious as to Government policy on whistleblowers. As far as I recollect, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, made a point in respect of health, where whistleblowers constitute a significant issue, that coming legislation would include this provision. Rather than having a whistleblowers Bill, the provision would be embedded in legislation as a matter of course where relevant. This is my understanding of Government policy. As such, why is it being inserted on Committee Stage instead of being included in the Bill as presented to the House initially?
In our haste to produce the Bill——
That is not an answer.
Let me finish.
One cannot give that as an answer. What is Government policy? Is it policy to include whistleblower protection, where appropriate, in legislation?
I am not acquainted with the policy, but I can find out. We are embedding the protection in this legislation. It did not appear in Schedule 1 of the published Bill because we wanted to consult the staff. Having done so, we have introduced the amendments which will effectively embed the whistleblower element in the legislation. I would need to check with the relevant Department regarding the whistleblower issue to determine the approach of Government policy. I can try to get the Deputy a note. I agree with her that——
It might be appropriate to ask the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
With all due respect, when we are dealing with legislation that will govern our behaviour as citizens, it is not right to hold back fundamental parts of a Bill back because the Government is not ready and must consult internally. Deputy Coveney has made this same point. I have no problem with consultation, but the Bill should not have been published until that consultation was done. Neither should the consultation have delayed the Bill unduly. We have pages of amendments that I have not read because they have only recently appeared. This is not the way we should be providing oversight of legislation. It is a feature of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources that we find amendments on Committee Stage are longer than the original Bill.
We have the most amazing Bill that has changed its name three times because matters keep moving. It is a case of legislating on the hoof, which is not the professional way to do this. I do not mean any disrespect to the civil servants.
Is Deputy McManus referring to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources?
Yes.
It is a small Department, one of the smallest in terms of staff. If the approach can be characterised as on the hoof, it may be reflective of the fact that it is a tiny Department.
It is a very good Department and the people working in it are excellent. I have no problem with that. The Minister of State is responsible for legislation. Having been around for a few years, a feature in the legislative process that is new to me is that large chunks of legislation are appearing on Committee Stage. The most extraordinary example concerns another section of the Department, relating to premium rate services. That is not directly the responsibility of the Minister of State. It is a feature that is not appropriate in terms of how we provide oversight. The Opposition is part of this process and we simply cannot take part if amendments are chucked in on Committee Stage.
Would it be helpful if we provide a detailed note to Deputy McManus setting out how it arose and why? We will make inquiries on the broader Government issue. I am sorry I cannot be more informative. It seems the Government policy is to embed it and it was executed in this manner in this case.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
31. In page 34, before section 37, to insert the following new section:
38.—(1) IFI shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for—
(a) making a complaint to a member of the Garda Síochána or a member of IFI that a provision of this Act, or any enactment or other rule of law, has been or is being contravened,
(b) making a complaint to the Minister that a direction given by him or her under this Act has been or is being contravened,
(c) making a complaint to a member of IFI that there has been serious wrongdoing in relation to IFI,
(d) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act or any other enactment, or
(e) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
(2) Schedule 4* shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) If the penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee (within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007), relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under Schedule 4* of this Act and under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007.
(4) In this section—
"employee" means a member of staff of IFI; "penalisation" means any act or omission by IFI or a person acting on behalf of IFI that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—
(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,
(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,
(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,
(d) imposition or administration of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and
(e) coercion or intimidation.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 34, before section 37, to insert the following new section:
39.—(1) A person who states to a member of the Garda Síochána or a member of IFI that—
(a) an offence under this Act or any other enactment has been or is being committed,
(b) a provision of this Act, a provision of any other enactment or any rule of law has been or is being contravened, or
(c) there has been serious wrongdoing by any person in relation to IFI, knowing the statement to be false commits an offence.
(2) A person convicted of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 37 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 46.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 38, subsection (2), line 43, to delete "to".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 39, subsection (5), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
" "consultation" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1 of the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006;".
The purpose of this amendment is to include a definition of consultation for the purposes of section 46 of the Bill, which provides protection for employees transferring from the existing boards to Inland Fisheries Ireland. The definition is provided in the interests of clarity on all sides. If and when consideration is given to changing the terms and conditions of employees, consultation in this context will be defined with reference to the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006. This has been agreed with the staff representatives.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 47 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 54.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 43, lines 35 to 37, to delete subsection (5).
Section 54 concerns the power of the Minister to make by-laws and is essentially a restatement of section 9 of the Fisheries Consolidation Act 1959, as amended by subsequent fisheries legislation. This amendment proposes to delete section 54(5) — a restatement of section 9(3) of the 1959 Act — which provides that no by-law shall be made which is repugnant to any law in force in the State or which would tend to injure the effective working power of any mill or factory. It is proposed to remove this provision on foot of discussions with the fisheries boards and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. While such provision would have been relevant when drafted in 1959, in current times one must be cognisant of existing environmental legislation introduced since the enactment of the original Act. Instruments such as the EU water framework directive, the habitats directive, and eels regulation, demonstrate that protection of the environment is of paramount importance. The retention of this provision would be against the spirit of current national, EU and international environmental policy. In some cases a factory could be the polluter and the defender against the environmentalist and this provision would serve to protect the polluter. The provision is archaic and not in keeping with current norms.
The Minister of State might have saved himself a great deal of trouble if he had not put it in. It is a classic example of how we keep doing things just because they were done before.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 43, subsection (6)(b)(ii), line 47, to delete “(if any)”.
I seek the deletion of the words in brackets regarding the website. It would be a pity if we leave the option open whether the IFI should have a website. There is no doubt the web has created an extension of democracy to an extraordinary degree. Increasingly, people use the web to ensure they have access to information. I urge the Minister of State to have a principle that where we are here setting up a body like this, a website is part of what it does rather than suggesting there should be a website if there is some money lying around. This is an essential part of communication for reference, for archive, for information and for insight. It also serves to promote the IFI and the website is a useful tool in that regard. Leaving it as an optional extra is minimising the impact of this kind of communication, which should be part and parcel of any public body.
This amendment permits the publication of any by-law made under section 54 of the Bill on the website of the IFI. Deputy McManus seeks to have the term "if any" removed from the provision. I have consulted the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and I am advised this provision should not be amended. The inclusion of the term "if any" offers protection to Inland Fisheries Ireland in case of any unforeseen difficulties with the webpage. In any event, publication is provided for in the traditional media. Accordingly, I cannot accept the proposed amendment.
To finesse that point, although it is desirable it is not compulsory for bodies to have website. From my engagement at constituency level, I know the websites of public organisations often have information that is not the full story on their websites. That is one of the weaknesses of the web in this regard. In order to make a website digestible or attractive, the criteria on the website do not match the policy of the body. I have noticed this in respect of local authorities. There must be some flexibility.
I do not argue that point but we are talking about the publication of hard information such as by-laws. My amendment suggests they must be published on the website whereas the inclusion of the words "if any" put it into a different category of the possibility of there being a website.
It considers the possibility that there may not be a website.
One could say the same thing about publishing a hard copy. If there is no printer or no facility to send materials to be published, public bodies do not have to publish a hard copy. There is an onus on public bodies to publish information. All I am asking is that the onus extends to a website so that it is not seen as an optional extra.
As the Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology I would like public bodies to adopt the latest and most efficient technology such as websites. One cannot make it compulsory.
Why not?
There may be documents of such complexity and length that it is more appropriate that they be referred to on a website but not to be available.
I have no problem with that. I suggest having the conduit of a website on which the Minister of State would be required to publish by-laws. Even if he put nothing else on it except the by-laws which is highly unlikely, it would still be a requirement.
I will contact the Parliamentary Counsel about the issue as that is the person who has made the big fuss about——
Who is the Parliamentary Counsel?
He or she must be there somewhere. I will see if I can find him or her in the next——
Is it a parliamentary draftsman?
Is it the Attorney General?
The Parliamentary Counsel is in the Office of the Attorney General and advises on legislation.
Therefore, it is the parliamentary draftsman in the Attorney General's office.
Yes. He or she scrutinises legislation. If the Deputy wants, I can get her a note on why the provision is needed.
No, I do not want a note because the Minister of State has told me the reason. It is that I do not like what he is telling me——
I know.
——and I ask him to examine the matter. I will perhaps reintroduce the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 37 to 40, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 44, subsection (7), line 2, to delete "deposited" and substitute the following:
"forwarded, in such manner as the Minister decides, to".
The subsection concerned sets out the circulation procedures in respect of by-laws made under section 54 of the Bill and is a restatement of section 11(1)(c) of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959. At present, by-laws are circulated to the appropriate county registrars, courts and Garda stations by post. The amendments proposed will allow the Department to circulate them in such a manner as the Minister may decide which can include by electronic means or post. Given the large circulation of by-laws, it would be preferable to send them electronically, where possible. Accordingly, I ask that this amendment be accepted. I acknowledge that there seems to be a slight contradiction between my approach to this and the previous matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 44, subsection (7)(a), line 3, to delete “with”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 44, subsection (7)(b), line 5, to delete “with”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 44, subsection (7)(c), line 7, to delete “in”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
Section 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 46, subsection (4)(c)(i), line 40, to delete “for” and substitute “of the”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 56, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 57 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 61.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 51, subsection (1)(a), line 36, to delete “S.I.” and substitute “S.R. & O.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 62 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 65.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 54, subsection (1), line 51, after "Finance" to insert "and the approval of Dáil Éireann".
As I read through this section, I was a little uncomfortable with giving the Minister the power to sell fisheries rights or businesses or fisheries that might have been transferred from the "commissioners", as it is termed and which I understand means the Board of Public Works, to the IFI. The section appears to state that if the Minister wants to privatise some fisheries rights——
Sell them.
——he can do so.
We can also purchase them. It is not always about the sale of rights.
I am not necessarily anti-privatisation but if such a decision is to be made, it brings us back to the argument of whether we should seek the approval of Dáil Éireann or ask the Minister to consult the relevant Oireachtas committee. Selling State assets involves large strategic decisions and should involve some consultation with the appropriate committee or require the approval of the Dáil. We may well be in a situation where the State must start raising money by selling assets deemed to be non-strategic. I have already proposed that we should be doing so in the energy sector. If we decide to do so in the fisheries or any other sector, a Minister needs to be able to make a coherent and persuasive case before the Dáil or an Oireachtas committee prior to so doing. There needs to be a check on a ministerial decision, rather than just getting the consent of the Minister for Finance who may know nothing about fishing but just wants money. I withdrew a previous amendment on the back of an assurance from the Minister of State that he would table an amendment to consult the appropriate Oireachtas committee. If he takes the same approach in this instance, I will happily withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I will press it.
This is not an ordinance that applies to other Ministers with regard to disposal; it is a standard feature that the Minister for Finance is consulted. However, sanctioning a sale or disposal is an Executive power. It is clear that selling large fisheries belonging to the State would have enormous policy implications; therefore, it is fair to give a Minister flexibility in this regard. On the purchasing of assets, from time to time certain owners who may not be Irish and who may have their antecedents in our colonial past want to dispose of their fisheries. Placing a requirement that he or she consult the Dáil before executing a significant purchase would restrict the Minister in his or her actions.
We agreed——
My late father, when he held this brief, had the opportunity to purchase the fisheries up to the bridge in Galway on the Corrib. That required flexibility and speed of action——
We agreed a wording earlier.
——to bring those waters——
I remember being involved in a fish-in.
——back into national ownership.
We agreed a formula of words to allow a Minister to act quickly and make a decision but requiring him or her to justify that action before an Oireachtas committee.
A phrase such as, "having made the decision to explain or notify and give reasonable notification".
Yes, something like that.
We can incorporate it where a disposal is significant or substantial.
Yes, or above a certain value.
I would not specify values. I do not prefer vagueness but the phrase "significant or substantial" has its own meaning, whereas——
Does it? What is significant or substantial? Is it €500,000 or €5 million?
That is a matter to be determined.
That is the problem.
As Deputy McManus stated, if values are specified in legislation, it rapidly becomes——
The Minister of State knows from where I am coming.
Absolutely.
If he can accommodate it, that would be——
We will accommodate a system of notification where major disposals are to be executed and outline the reasons for them.
Notification to the appropriate committee.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 65 agreed to.
Sections 66 to 69, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 70.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 61, subsection (2)(a), line 7, to delete “maintained by IFI”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 70, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 71.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 62, subsection (3), line 34, to delete "(10)” and substitute “(11)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 71, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 72 to 73 agreed to.
SECTION 74.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 65, column 3, lines 14 and 15, to delete "under this section, to" and substitute "under that section,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 66, column 3, line 6, to delete "this" and substitute "that".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 66, column 3, line 17, to delete "the" and substitute "that".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 66, column 3, line 27, to delete "this" and substitute "that".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 74, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 75 and 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 69, subsection (3), line 25, to delete "In prosecuting for an offence under this Act" and substitute the following:
"In a prosecution for an offence referred to in subsection (1)”.
This is a technical amendment which is required to correct a drafting error in section 77(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 77, as amended, agreed to.
Section 78 agreed to.
SECTION 79.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 70, subsection (3), line 36, to delete "or" and substitute "and".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 79, as amended, agreed to.
Section 80 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 1.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 71, column 3, to delete lines 6 to 8 and substitute the following:
"Sections 9, 11(2)(a), 90 and 160(6) (inserted by section 20 of the Act of 1994).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 71, column 3, line 16, to delete "to" and substitute "and".
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 72, column 3, line 26, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) substitute “within a fishery district” for “within its fisheries region”, and”.
This amendment concerns an amendment to section 55 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, which makes provision for the striking of rates on fisheries. At present, rates are struck in respect of fisheries in each fisheries region. Different rates can be struck in different regions. Given that the fisheries regions will no longer exist on the establishment of Inland Fisheries Ireland, it is necessary to bring forward this amendment to allow Inland Fisheries Ireland to strike rates within its fisheries districts. This will facilitate the striking of different rates in different districts, where appropriate, thereby maintaining the status quo.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 75, column 2, line 2, to delete "amended" and substitute "inserted".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 75, column 2, line 5, after "Section 158" to insert "(inserted by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 75, column 3, lines 5 and 6, to delete "(amended by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 75, column 2, line 14, after "Section 159" to insert "(inserted by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 75, column 3, lines 14 and 15, to delete "(amended by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 75, column 3, lines 17 and 18, to delete "(amended by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 75, column 3, lines 23 and 24, to delete "(amended by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 75, column 2, line 26, after "Section 160" to insert "(inserted by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 75, column 3, lines 26 and 27, to delete "(amended by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 75, column 3, lines 30 and 31, to delete "(amended by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 75, column 2, line 33, after "Section 161" to insert "(inserted by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 75, column 3, lines 33 and 34, to delete "(amended by section 20 of the Act of 1994)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 81, column 3, to delete lines 31 to 33 and substitute the following:
"(a) In paragraph 1(2) of the Irish text substitute “Iascach Intíre Éireann” for “An Príomh-Bhord Iascaigh agus Boird Iascaigh Réigiúnacha”.
(b) In paragraph 1(2) of the English text substitute “Inland Fisheries Ireland” for “Central and Regional Fisheries Boards”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
NEW SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 89, before Schedule 4, to insert the following new Schedule:
SCHEDULE 4
Complaints to rights commissioner.
1. (1) An employee or any trade union of which the employee is a member, with the consent of the employee, may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that IFI has contravened s ection 38*(1) in relation to the employee.
(2) Where a complaint under subparagraph (1) is made, the rights commissioner shall—
(a) give the parties an opportunity to be heard by the commissioner and to present to the commissioner any evidence relevant to the complaint,
(b) give a decision in writing in relation to the complaint, and
(c) communicate the decision to the parties.
(3) A decision of a rights commissioner under subparagraph (2) shall do one or more of the following:
(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
(b) require IFI to take a specified course of action,
(c) require IFI to pay the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.
(4) A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this paragraph if it is presented to him or her after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.
(5) Notwithstanding subparagraph (4), a rights commissioner may entertain a complaint under this paragraph presented to him or her after the expiration of the period referred to in subparagraph (4) (but not later than 12 months after such expiration) if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint within that period was due to reasonable cause.
(6) A complaint shall be presented by giving notice of it in writing to a rights commissioner and the notice shall contain such particulars and be in such form as may be specified from time to time by the Minister.
(7) A copy of a notice under subparagraph (6) shall be given to the other party concerned by the rights commissioner concerned.
(8) Proceedings under this paragraph before a rights commissioner shall be conducted otherwise than in public.
(9) A rights commissioner shall furnish the Labour Court with a copy of each decision given by the commissioner under subparagraph (2).
Appeal from decision of rights commissioner.
2. (1) A party concerned may appeal to the Labour Court from a decision of a rights commissioner under paragraph 1 and, if the party does so, the Labour Court shall—
(a) give the parties an opportunity to be heard by it and to present to it any evidence relevant to the appeal,
(b) make a determination in writing in relation to the appeal affirming, varying or setting aside the decision, and
(c) communicate the determination to the parties.
(2) An appeal under this paragraph shall be initiated by the party concerned, giving, within 6 weeks (or such greater period as the Labour Court may determine in the particular circumstances) from the date on which the decision to which it relates was communicated to the party, a notice in writing to the Labour Court containing such particulars as are determined by the Labour Court under subparagraph (4) and stating the intention of the party concerned to appeal against the decision.
(3) A copy of a notice under subparagraph (2) shall be given by the Labour Court to any other party concerned as soon as practicable after the receipt of the notice by the Labour Court.
(4) The following matters, and the procedures to be followed in relation to them, shall be determined by the Labour Court, namely:
(a) the procedure in relation to all matters concerning the initiation and the hearing by the Labour Court of appeals under this paragraph;
(b) the times and places of hearings of such appeals;
(c) the representation of the parties to such appeals;
(d) the publication and notification of determinations of the Labour Court;
(e) the particulars to be contained in a notice under subparagraph (2); and
(f) any matters consequential on, or incidental to, the foregoing matters.
(5) The Minister may, at the request of the Labour Court, refer a question of law arising in proceedings before it under this paragraph to the High Court for its determination and the determination of the High Court shall be final and conclusive.
(6) A party to proceedings before the Labour Court under this paragraph may appeal to the High Court from a determination of the Labour Court on a point of law and the determination of the High Court shall be final and conclusive.
(7) Section 39(17) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 applies in relation to proceedings before the Labour Court under this Part as it applies to matters referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal under that section with—
(a) references to the Labour Court to be read as references to the Tribunal,
(b) paragraph (d) to be read as if “registered” was omitted, and
(c) reference to a fine not exceeding £150 in paragraph (e) to be read as reference to a fine not exceeding €5,000.
Paragraphs 1 and 2: supplemental provisions.
3. (1) Where a decision of a rights commissioner in relation to a complaint under this Schedule has not been carried out by IFI in accordance with its terms, the time for bringing an appeal against the decision has expired and no such appeal has been brought, the employee concerned may bring the complaint before the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall, without hearing IFI or any evidence (other than in relation to the matters aforesaid), make a determination to the like effect as the decision.
(2) The bringing of a complaint before the Labour Court under subparagraph (1) shall be effected by giving to the Labour Court a written notice containing such particulars (if any) as may be determined by the Labour Court.
(3) The Labour Court shall publish, in a manner it considers appropriate, particulars of any determination made by it under subparagraph (4)(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of paragraph 2 (not being a determination as respects a particular appeal under that paragraph) and subparagraph (2).
Enforcement of determinations of Labour Court.
4. (1) If IFI fails to carry out in accordance with its terms a determination of the Labour Court in relation to a complaint under paragraph 1 within 6 weeks from the date on which the determination is communicated to the parties, the Circuit Court shall, on application to it in that behalf by—
(a) the employee concerned, or
(b) with the consent of the employee, any trade union of which the employee is a member,
without hearing IFI or any evidence (other than in relation to the matters aforesaid), make an order directing IFI to carry out the determination in accordance with its terms.
(2) The reference in subparagraph (1) to a determination of the Labour Court is a reference to a determination in relation to which, at the expiration of the time for bringing an appeal against it, no such appeal has been brought or, if such an appeal has been brought it has been abandoned and the references to the date on which the determination is communicated to the parties shall, in a case where such an appeal is abandoned, be construed as references to the date of such abandonment.
(3) In an order under this paragraph providing for the payment of compensation, the Circuit Court may, if in all the circumstances it considers it appropriate to do so, direct IFI to pay to the employee concerned interest on the compensation at the rate referred to in section 22 of the Courts Act 1981, in respect of the whole or any part of the period beginning 6 weeks after the date on which the determination of the Labour Court is communicated to the parties and ending on the date of the order.
(4) An application under this paragraph shall be made to the Circuit Court sitting in the Circuit in which is situated the place of work (within the meaning of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005) at which the employee is normally employed by IFI.".
Amendment agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Before the Minister of State comes in, have we approved amendment No. 68?
Yes, that was the new Schedule. It has already been discussed with amendment No. 30.
My apologies. It is just that we had not commented on it. I would make the same point — that this is a whole new section that I have not quite got my head around. It puts in place a complaints and rights commissioner, as well as dealing with enforcement orders from the Labour Court and things like that. I will come back on Report Stage if we have concerns about it. I had not realised that amendment No. 68 had been taken with amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive.
I thank all the members of the select committee for their sensible contributions and improvements to the Bill. I look forward to Report Stage. I thank the Opposition members for the speed with which they have dealt with this legislation. If they require any issues of clarification before then, I will try to provide that through my officials. I appreciate members' co-operation on this matter.
I thank the Minister and his officials for genuinely taking on board and trying to accommodate the concerns we have expressed. It is not unusual for this Department, but many of my colleagues have a frustrating time on Committee Stage. There are many examples of that but to be fair to the Minister of State, he is trying to accommodate us where he can.
I thank the Minister of State, too. I apologise to the Chairman that I was not able to be here for most of the debate. It is refreshing that the Minister of State has an open approach, which is much appreciated. As we have all this additional material in the legislation, can we take it that there will not be any more surprises on Report Stage?
There will not be. It is there now and we just want to drive it ahead. I hope in the next week or so to appoint the interim board to liaise on that. It would be positive for the committee to see the quality and calibre of the people involved. It would be of help to the committee in choosing its own nominees.
I am intrigued to know whether Deputy McManus caught anything on her fishing trip. She did not enlighten us.
No, but I gave a great speech.
She would make a great fisherman.
Now that I think of it, we caught a salmon, but it is a long time ago.
Where was that?
In Galway city, on the Corrib.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their presence here today.
Bill reported with amendments.