Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I wish to share time with Deputy Ferris.

The Labour Party is opposed to this order. It is shameful for a Minister to come back again seeking a further deferral. It means it will be nine years since elections were held for these regional boards and this is unacceptable. Each time the order comes back a new Minister's name is on it, along with a new date, and yet again we have a further deferral.

Reforms have been promised over this period. The reason the original deferral was proposed was for reforms to be made but this did not happen. Now the excuse is given that the budget provided for consolidation and change to come about and we are expected to believe all of this will be done and dusted by August 2009. It is extremely difficult for us to believe that this has any credibility when one considers the track record in this sorry saga.

There is an "illogic" — if there is such a term — whereby we are being asked to defer elections on the basis that elections will not be held next year. This raises questions on what we are doing here. There is an inaccuracy in the order which refers to section 15(4) but it is section 15(3) of the Fisheries Act which is relevant. I am happy for the Minister of State to make this change as a technical change.

Is a legal issue raised? I hope the Minister of State has taken legal advice because there is at least a variance between the order and the original Act. Section 15, which is the section of the Act referred to, allows for postponement. However, from the wording it appears to allow for one postponement, which was made back in 2005, but not for serial postponement which has led to a different wording on the order from that in the Fisheries Act. I am curious to know whether the Minister of State has taken legal advice. He stated this is the only way to defer elections. It might be worthwhile to know whether he has taken legal advice to see whether what he is doing is sound.

I thank the Minister of State for the information he sent us with regard to the various questions raised, in particular with regard to the audited accounts for 2007. I appreciate they have finally come through and I ask that they be published as soon as possible. When this proposal was made in 2006, the current Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources was extremely critical of the approach being adopted by the then Minister. He used sensational words and spoke about a shocking indictment and an act of cowardice. Now we are presumed to simply entertain the idea that this is fine and part of a reform process and that we should not challenge anything the Minister is doing.

We have a bad precedent in terms of reform. We have seen how the HSE came into being and what a disaster it was. I recall very clearly, because I was spokesperson for health at the time, warning the Minister that she was in danger of creating a new monster and that is exactly what happened. It was not properly prepared for or planned. I have concerns that the Minister of State is telling us that everything will be sorted by August but he cannot tell us, and I have raised this at committee meetings, what are the transitional plans for these new structures. How will regional management and accountability be maintained in these new structures? What is the redundancy package? Will there be voluntary redundancy? What are the staffing requirements for the Central Fisheries Board? What are the accommodation requirements in terms of the new arrangements and the new agency?

We need to see good robust management. We have seen yet another problem arise in terms of Government failure to deliver on an IT facility which promised a major change on how the public could access information. Government competence is at issue here as much as anything else. So far, the track record is abysmal. I am concerned that if we simply nod this through we will facilitate further incompetence in the future. Will the Minister of State consider the points made here and return with answers? He has provided some answers but other answers are required on how this change, if it is to be managed properly, will be done within the timeframe. One sure thing is that it will not be tolerated if he returns again with the same rigmarole and expects us to nod it through as he expects us to do now.

See this speech in context