Dáil debates
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Regional Fisheries Board (Postponement of Elections) Order 2007: Motion
6:00 pm
Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
The second issue I want to raise is the poor allocation of resources to supporting, developing and enforcing the rules and regulations on inland fisheries over the past seven or eight years. In 1999 €21.5 million was made available to the inland fisheries sector. In 2004 €20.5 million was available and in 2007 it was still less than €30 million. When one considers that we have more than 6,000 km of inland waterways, there is something wrong with the fact that we refuse to prioritise it. Unfortunately the lack of priority in this area has a real cost in fish stocks. At last we are beginning to address that and some brave decisions have been taken.
Let us examine the number of tourists who visit Ireland to fish. In 1999 173,000 people came to Ireland to fish. In 2006 it was 103,000. We have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of tourists visiting Ireland to fish, despite the fact that in almost every other sector there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of tourists coming to Ireland for activity holidays. There are real problems in this sector, and that is why we must examine how we will restructure it with a sense of urgency. It does not matter how we restructure this sector if we do not fight for the necessary allocation of resources to ensure we promote and develop the sector through marketing, fish stocks and improving the physical infrastructure that allows people to fish and enjoy themselves. Without this we will not develop this sector in a safe, sustainable way.
On the restructuring process, we are moving from a complicated management structure to a similarly complicated one. We are moving from having a central fisheries board, answerable to the Department, which advised and helped to manage seven regional fisheries boards to a centralised national inland fisheries authority. From a regional viewpoint, there will be inland fisheries advisory councils. Essentially, my fear is that we are following a similar model to the one used in the creation of the HSE, which is moving away from regional decision-making and accountability and some transparency, albeit some inefficiency as well, to a centralised management body. Our experience with the HSE in terms of trying to get answers to basic questions and in terms of accountability and transparency has not been good. On that front, we should be embracing the ideal behind decentralisation, which is to encourage local decision-making as much as is practically possible in a whole range of different areas when there is reason to allow local areas to make decisions for themselves.
There have been, and there are, flaws in the current structure and it needs to change. However, we need to ensure there is local accountability and transparency with people who understand the locality making and standing over management decisions that are taken as regards waterways, rivers and all the other matters involved in inland waterways. This is as opposed to one body that makes all the decisions from a centralised base and with people from the regions trying to influence those decisions.
Presumably the rationale behind changing the management structure is to get more efficiency into the system and to try to get decisions based on scientific knowledge that is held centrally — to ensure experience in one part of the country is shared with other regions so that there is informed decision-making on our rivers and fish stocks, etc. It seems to be the case, however, that assurances are being given under the current management structure of the Central Fisheries Board and the seven regional boards to the effect that everyone will keep his or her job and have a role. We must ask whether we are restructuring in order to ensure that the people involved in the management structures hold their jobs or to ensure there is better more efficient management of fish stocks.
There is a crazy situation within the HSE, where senior management openly admit it is trying to find jobs for members of middle management as it is required under contract to ensure everyone keeps his or her job. While I do not wish to see wholesale layoffs in this area, I want to be sure that any management changes and new structures are being put in place for the sake of fish stocks, fisheries tourism and the management of rivers, as opposed to looking after people's careers.
Perhaps the Minister might come back as regards the scientific research element of the change in structure. My understanding is that the shifts will involve the scientists who work in the regional fisheries boards going into the Marine Institute. The institute does a great deal of fantastic work, but we need to ensure that the priority and emphasis on inland fisheries, stocktaking and research remain intact rather than being dispersed within a much bigger structure, namely, the Marine Institute.
On the whole, while I have some concerns, we will not vote against the motion. However, we have some genuine reservations and I ask the Minister, on a serious basis, to ensure that a proper workable structure is in place to take over before the existing structures fall.
No comments