Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

When I was preparing for this debate I came across an old briefing from the Department outlining the timeframe for the legislation. It set out that the heads of the Bill would be finalised by 2 November 2008. After consultation, the Bill was to be drafted by April 2009. It was to be enacted and commenced by July and vesting day for the new company was to be 1 August 2009. That is telling in terms of how we have veered off the estimated timeframe.

Yet again, we had the farcical situation whereby as a result of the delay an order had to be made to postpone the elections to the regional fisheries boards. That is the fifth time for that to happen. In 2005, the then Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, made an order. In 2006, the then Minister of State, Deputy Browne, made an order. In 2007, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, made an order. In 2008, it was the then Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power. Now we are being asked to go around the roundabout again.

One could argue that I am labouring the point, but it is important to remember that this is set against a background of severe economic recession. The context in which we are debating the Bill is one where we have got to see restructuring and rationalisation of the plethora of State agencies that have mushroomed during the years of plenty. If it is going to take this long to do, what is, relatively speaking, a straightforward task of rationalising in this area, it bodes ill for the kind of major restructuring and rationalisation that is required, both from the point of view of the efficiency of Government, but especially to ensure that we get value for money, as we simply cannot afford to keep going the way we are.

I wish to underline the unacceptably slow pace of the process. I would like to know exactly why it has taken so long. Perhaps the Minister would address that simple question. In 2005, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, voted against the postponement when he was in Opposition. He said ensuring that we keep in office the same elected people was a poor start to the process - the process being the making of the new Bill – and on that basis he was opposing the motion. By 2006, he was getting even more impatient. He described the postponement as a shocking indictment of the Government's inability to prioritise the environment and wild fish stocks. He went as far as to call it a cowardly act. By 2007, he was in Government and signed the order without a whimper. It would be salutary to know how it has taken so long to get from A to B, particularly when the process essentially had all-party support and even had the blessing of an bord snip nua.

The restructuring of the fisheries boards is a necessary step to ensure that the inland fisheries sector reaches its full potential. It is vital that we harness and encourage local expert knowledge, while at the same time providing a coherent overall strategy to help the sector thrive. We all recognise that there are threats to the sector, and the Minister has outlined them. The Bill aims to establish a single national inland fisheries board to replace the existing structures. It will be called inland fisheries Ireland, IFI. It is proposed the new authority will have strengthened powers in terms of development and implementation of national policy. Overall, that is sensible. The Bill also recommends the elimination of the national salmon commission and the eight fisheries co-operative societies.

Our freshwater systems comprise 2% of the area of the State. I am not sure what the percentage has been over the past week but we must be conscious of the fact that we now have a new landscape in terms of flooding, potential flooding and the frequency of flooding. That must be reflected in all policy we make. I recall that when a flood protection scheme for my constituency was being designed, the regional fisheries board was immensely helpful in ensuring that the needs of fishing and angling were taken into account in the design of that project. That type of relationship will be far more evident in the future as we adapt to climate change. I note that under section 80 the IFI would be protected, in effect, from liability for any flooding caused by a structure it owns. It might be a very small thing and it might never arise, but we should scrutinise that section. We cannot presume that the old ways will continue in the new scenario we now face and of which we have had a little experience in recent weeks. There will obviously be a role for the IFI in the development of a national adaptation plan to deal with the flooding.

The consolidation and better use of resources proposed in the Bill is welcome. There must be more efficiencies in the sector and a more streamlined approach. That would be good for both the sector and the Government. Mr. Colm McCarthy's report pointed out that €30 million of the expenditure on the programme for inland fisheries relates to the central and seven regional fisheries boards. The merger of these fisheries boards into a single national authority with regional operations was announced in the budget of October 2008 but, as has been said, it was in gestation long before that. It has been estimated that approximately €300,000 per annum would be saved by reduced board membership. However, it is important to find out the likely costs of the transitional arrangements and how they might negate the savings. There is nothing about it in the Bill; it simply states that there will not be any additional costs.

This raises the question of how to ensure that we are more streamlined in our approach to agencies such as these. The Minister referred to the embargo. I can understand it and do not have a great problem with it. However, there are dangers in using the very clumsy instrument of natural wastage within this structure, in local authorities or in other bodies through people taking early retirement and so forth, in terms of ensuring that we get the right people into the right posts. That is my concern. One can already see at local authority level really good people taking early retirement, particularly ahead of the budget. They are afraid of what might be in the budget. Their jobs are being spread among other people, which might make sense but it is a pretty arbitrary way to manage human resources within these organisations.

The high number of board members has been raised. There are representatives among the board members who have an important role to play and we must recognise that. I do not argue with the fact that the nature of the boards has become unwieldy and the current structures require restructuring. The Farrell Grant Sparks review made it clear that comprehensive restructuring was required. Work has been done since 2004 on how that restructuring should be designed, and now the Bill has been produced. It provides that the existing boards are to be replaced by a single national inland fisheries authority. That is good from the point of view of both conservation and development. There will be nine people on the board and they will mainly be ministerial appointees. Three members are to be appointed following consultation with the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

Deputy Simon Coveney eloquently made a point about the experiences we have had. I was spokesperson on health when the HSE was being established. At the time, I described my concern that we were replacing one monster with another. Frankly, that is what we got, the old structure of the health boards overlaid by the new structure of the HSE. It is quite dysfunctional and has been a great disappointment to people. Most importantly, it has denied local people the type of representation they had at health board level. Even the experts who were brought in to advise on the restructuring pointed out that there had to be a voice for local people. The Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, simply disregarded that call. In an area involving angling and fisheries local knowledge is of major significance and importance. It is a pity the arrangements that will be made for an advisory forum are not set out in the Bill. The legislation is a little vague on the matter and we must acknowledge, in some statutory way beyond what is in the Bill, the importance of local accountability and knowledge.

With regard to the system for making appointments, the Bill states that the appointees must have experience of or shown capacity in one or more of the areas of agriculture, aquaculture, business and commercial affairs, commercial fishing, environmental biodiversity matters, fish processing, legal or regulatory affairs, matters pertaining to disability, repairing and ownership of fisheries, recreational fisheries, regional development and tourism. The same type of specific provision is contained in the Broadcasting Act. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, does not do what the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, did when making his appointments to the new broadcasting authority. Essentially, he appointed people who had been on the old authority to the new one. However, in my view he did not comply with the law. The law is very specific that the appointees of the Minister must comply with the requirements of the Act.

Due to the elaborate process in which the committee is engaged, we wrote to the Minister asking him what boxes were ticked by his appointees. He either would not or could not tell us. I suspect he could not because they did not tick any. However, he fudged his answer, which puts the committee in a difficult position. When the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, or other Ministers make their appointments they should put an effort into making sure they comply with the law. For law-makers that should be a self-evident requirement, yet in the case of the broadcasting legislation it did not happen. That is a lesson that must be learned.

A number of anglers and organisations have expressed concern that local knowledge, information and accountability might be lost. What about the role of the anglers and will they be represented on the board? The Bill does not seem to preclude angling interests from having a representative, but we must examine this concern.

Concerns have also been expressed about the forum. It is important, in that its job is to advise and assist Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, in all technical and scientific matters. However, people are concerned about its nature in terms of regional representation and accountability. According to the Minister of State, he will develop the terms of reference. I hope he will do so in an open manner. Anglers view themselves as conservators and protectors of local resources.

I welcome the proposed standing scientific committee, but there must be a guarantee of engagement with the sector's practitioners. Grant aid poses an issue, as the co-operative development societies will be gone and the new development groups will be administered by the authority. People are concerned that there will be no grants and that funding will not be there when they look for it.

I wish to raise two minor points, the first being the hoary old chestnut of the CEO, when appearing before a committee, not commenting on Government policy. This provision is framed in the Bill as though it were an edict from God, but that is not the case. Rather, it has been inserted to protect the Government. From time to time, a CEO may need to advise the Oireachtas that a Government policy made in good faith has not worked and must be addressed as a matter of importance of which the Oireachtas needs to be aware. However, CEOs cannot do this because of the muzzling effect of all legislation on board CEOs.

See this speech in context