Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 18, line 16, after "nomination" to insert the following:

"being 1 representative of anglers and 1 representative of the commercial sector".

I tabled this amendment on Committee Stage because there were concerns over the make-up of the board. It is a question of different approaches, one of which involves enabling the different sectors to have a member to represent their interests and to have an input because of their unique involvement. When this was raised on Committee Stage, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, rejected that approach. I am not really sure what he meant when he talked about "dual expertise". Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Ryan, will elaborate on that.

It seems there is a lack of trust in terms of people who are directly involved, be they on the angling side or commercial side, in that it is believed that if they have a representative on the board, it will not function because of their input. That is a pity. I do not expect to win this argument.

The Minister of State's answer was interesting and there seemed to be great emphasis on having people on the board who can read financial statements and who have business acumen. That seems to be a little fashionable at present on State boards, and perhaps this says something about how State enterprises are run. That said, the natural resources sector has considerable possibilities, yet the role of those with expertise in this area is not recognised in any formal way in the board make-up, bearing in mind that, at times, the views of the commercial and angling sectors are opposed to each other. I tabled this amendment on Report Stage not in the expectation that the Minister will accept it but because a question arises as to participation in and ownership of the structure on the part of those people who have been operating in the sector for many decades.

See this speech in context