Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before proceeding, I would be obliged if, in accordance with Standing Orders, the Acting Chairman would direct the Clerk of the Dáil to make the following changes to the text of the Bill:

In page 12 of the Bill that the definition of the term "Joint Oireachtas Committee" be moved so that it falls within alphabetical order within the other definitions.

This is a technical drafting error and does not affect the interpretation of the Bill. I hope the Acting Chairman will be able to direct the Clerk in that regard.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Agreed.

Amendments Nos. 1, 24, 26 and 33 to 39, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 12, line 9, to delete "2009" and substitute "2010".

These are technical amendments resulting from further work undertaken by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and address technical drafting matters. They do not represent a change in policy in the sections affected.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 13, line 28, to delete "by order" and substitute "subsequent to approval by Dáil Éireann".

It is unusual to have two different Ministers taking Committee and Report Stages of the same Bill, although I presume both Ministers have a good understanding of it. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, took Committee Stage and we had some very useful discussions at that stage. He accepted some of our amendments and the spirit of others. I have not experienced the practice of Ministers swapping around between Committee and Report Stages. However, they are both in the same Department.

I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 2 on the basis that the Minister is trying to facilitate the spirit of my amendment in his amendment No. 3. As we have spent considerable time on the Order of Business this morning, I will be helpful in trying to speed things up so that we can get through as many amendments as we can.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy wish to speak to amendment No. 3 as we are taking both together?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My amendment is pretty self-explanatory and amendment No. 3 deals with the spirit of the amendment. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 13, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"(4) (a) An order made under subsection (3) shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after it is made.

(b) Either House of the Oireachtas may, within 21 sitting days after the day on which an order was laid before it in accordance with paragraph (a), pass a resolution annulling the order.

(c) The annulment under paragraph (b) of an order takes effect immediately on the passing of the resolution concerned, but does not affect anything that was done under the order before the passing of the resolution.".

In response to Deputy Coveney, obviously I am familiar with the legislation. The Minister of State was obliged to attend the launch of the innovation task force, particularly owing to the absence of the Tánaiste. That explains the changing of the order of Ministers here.

The section to which the amendment refers is a restatement of the provisions contained in the Fisheries Act 1980 and ensures that Inland Fisheries Ireland maintains the same operational jurisdiction as the existing central and regional fisheries boards, which at present extend to the 12-mile limit - 12 nautical miles representing the outer limit of Ireland's territorial seas. Subsection 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.

Having discussed the matter with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, I am advised in the first instance that an amendment to the reference to the 12-mile limit must be done 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 both Houses of the Oireachtas and to allow a 21-day period for either House to pass a resolution annulling the order.

While I am unable to accept Deputy Coveney's amendment, the Deputy has indicated that my amendment alleviates his concerns.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 5 is an alternative to amendment No. 4, therefore, amendments Nos. 4 and 5 will be discussed together.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 15, line 2, after "agencies" to insert the following:

"and such sectoral interests as IFI considers relevant".

The amendment I propose follows on from the Committee Stage discussion of this section. As I indicated on Committee Stage, there is a practical difficulty with the amendment proposed by Deputy Coveney in that the term "sectoral interests" is open-ended and could cause difficulties for Inland Fisheries Ireland when operating under this section. Accordingly, as suggested by Deputy Coveney on Committee Stage, I propose that the amendment would read "and such sectoral interests as IFI considers relevant". I ask that the amendment be accepted and for the reasons stated, I cannot accept amendment No. 5.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My amendment No. 5 is in regard to the responsibilities of the new IFI in supporting angling promotion and marketing activities, which I believe the Minister recognises. It requires it to co-operate with relevant State agencies and, as I proposed, other sectoral interests. In other words, the private sector here is hugely important to the promotion, marketing and development of this industry. I accept that the Minister has taken on board the point made on Committee Stage and on that basis and to be helpful I will not move my amendment No. 5 to allow acceptance of his amendment No. 4.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 6 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and are alternatives to amendment No. 6 and to each other. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, together. If amendment No. 6 is accepted, amendments Nos. 7 and 8 cannot be moved.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 15, to delete lines 6 to 8 and substitute the following:

"(4) (a) IFI shall establish and manage a forum ("national inland fisheries forum") to facilitate stakeholder input into policy formulation. This forum shall consist of broad representation across such stakeholders of the inland fisheries sector as IFI considers relevant.

(b) The terms of reference, including membership, of the forum established under subsection 4(a) will be set by IFI with the agreement of the Minister.".

The Deputies will recall that the amendments tabled by Deputies Coveney and McManus were discussed in detail on Committee Stage and that in the course of that debate an undertaking was given to review the subsection and bring forward a more detailed provision on Report Stage. The purpose of this subsection is to oblige Inland Fisheries Ireland to establish and manage a national inland fisheries forum, the terms of reference of which will be subject to the agreement of the Minister.

The amendment I propose seeks to clarify the role of the national inland fisheries forum without restricting the ability of Inland Fisheries Ireland to manage and operate the forum. This forum is seen as a means of formalising stakeholder input into policy formulations and will act as a conduit to provide advice and inform policy deliberation on the conservation, protection and management of all species of inland fisheries.

Deputies Coveney and McManus seek to have the terms of reference for 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 or necessary for the Oireachtas joint committee to be part of that process. 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 would unnecessarily delay or complicate the establishment of the forum.

There is nothing to prevent the Oireachtas joint committee making a submission to the Department or to Inland Fisheries Ireland on the operation of the forum and I assure the House that any submission received will be given due consideration.

The amendment tabled by Deputy McManus also refers to regional sub-fora. As has been maintained previously, the workings of the forum will be primarily a matter for Inland Fisheries Ireland and do not require to be enshrined in legislation. I would expect, however, that this forum would be managed on a regional basis. It is clearly in the nature of inland fisheries that regional as well as sectoral input is vital in the operation of such a forum. A country-wide input is critical to the successful operation of the forum.

The Deputies will recall that an undertaking was also given to make a copy of the draft terms of reference for the forum informally available to members of the committee to illustrate how it is envisaged that the forum will operate. For the reasons I have set out, I cannot accept the amendments tabled by Deputies Coveney and McManus and ask that amendment No. 6 be accepted.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is unusual for the senior Minister to come in to deal with this legislation when the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, had been dealing with it. The Minister is welcome, and what I said is not a criticism, but it would have been appropriate if the Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan, had been here because I want to acknowledge in the Visitors Gallery the presence of Mr. Edward Power, who was secretary of the Federation of Salmon Anglers in 1980 when the Minister of State's father introduced the legislation at that time. It would have been nice if the young Minister, Deputy Lenihan could have been here to participate in this debate.

I appreciate some progress has been made on these amendments. I regret that the idea of the regional sub-fora has not been adopted as policy and written into the legislation but it is also a matter of regret that the Oireachtas joint committee, the Oireachtas itself, does not have at least the position of being consulted on this area of the Bill.

The Minister should not exaggerate the way things are done and that we should be reassured. The way things are done led to a fiasco regarding the setting up of the Broadcasting Authority and the consequent budget that was drawn up. An unaccountable system was put in place. We know where the money is coming from but we still do not know to where it goes.

Having an oversight or at least a consultative role for an Oireachtas committee is a useful safeguard but it also provides accountability. I know and appreciate that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has shown a certain progressiveness in terms of the role of the committee in recommending appointments to various boards. Obviously, the Minister is going as far as he intends to go and therefore there is no point in me pressing my amendment but it is a pity he would not accept the two principles in my amendment that I believe would make for better legislation.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What the Minister is attempting to do in this amendment does not address the points Deputy McManus is making in her amendment No. 7 and that I am trying to make in my amendment No. 8. We propose that the Oireachtas joint committee will have a say on the make-up of the board of the IFI but that we will have no say in the make-up of the inland fisheries forum, which is where most of the stakeholders and interested parties involved in the inland fisheries will have their say.

Deputy McManus is not seeking much in her amendment No. 7. She proposes that the Minister would be required to consult the Oireachtas committee. She does not propose that the Oireachtas committee will make the decision but that before the Minister approves the make-up of a stakeholders forum he would consult the Oireachtas committee to get views to help him ensure that the approved stakeholders forum is balanced and that it represents the interests of all of the relevant parties.

When we have gone to the trouble of trying to ensure there is Oireachtas input in the choosing of board members, it is not consistent to then make the case that it would be too complex a structure or may delay the process to simply consult the Oireachtas joint committee on the forum. I welcome the wording that "This forum shall consist of broad representation across such stakeholders of the inland fisheries sector as IFI considers relevant" but there is not any safeguard or opportunity for members of the all-party Oireachtas committee to give an input or raise concerns. While my amendment is somewhat more limited, it is more directly to the point and would have the net effect Deputy McManus is trying to achieve in her amendment. They make better law than what the Minister proposes.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The real power of the committee is in the ability to appoint and recommend for appointment members of the board. We then have to let it get on with its work. It would not be wise to bring it in on a legislative basis to consult on this type of work, which the board then has to do. The committee can make its views known and make a submission; it has done so on numerous issues on which it has commissioned reports and has done its work in that way. Nothing is stopping the committee from making its views known. If we legislated for the committee to take on some of the work, we would undermine some of the boards we are putting in place. I do not agree with the Deputies opposite but I am happy we are tabling an amendment which reflects some of their views on the Committee Stage debate on the nature of the forum.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and will be discussed together.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 15, line 35, after "relevant" to insert the following: "and make the results of all research publicly available". This amendment concerns research which is being done. It is an issue about which the Minister cares because he makes decisions, in this area at least, on the basis of the scientific information available to him on the management of fish stocks and so on. That is appropriate. I made the case on Committee Stage that if research is done on, for example, a stock take or the success or otherwise of a stock management programme or some form of stock promotion programme on rivers, lakes or whatever, it should be made available to the public. Amendment No. 10 tabled by the Minister, which attempts to deal with the issues I am raising, states:

"(c) IFI shall, unless it considers that it is not in the public interest to do so, make the results of any research carried out in accordance with subsection 7(a) available

I would like some examples from the Minister of cases in which it would not be in the public interest for IFI to publish the results of its research. I do not want information that requires us to shut down fisheries on rivers to be used on the one hand, while on the other we do not use information that suggests we should encourage more fishing on a river because of re-stocking success. In other words, I do not want any agendas, in terms of how we use the scientific research available to us. I want complete transparency. When research is done, it should become publically available as a matter of course. I do not see how that information could or would be abused by IFI or anybody else. Surely research done and paid for through the public purse should be made publically available to all interested parties. I am open to persuasion on this matter but I do not understand why the Minister is being cautious regarding whether IFI should have the powers to determine that it may not be in the public interest for it to release the results of research it has done on the waterways for which it is responsible.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to speak on amendments Nos. 9 and 10. The subsection in question concerns the functions of IFI to carry out research or experimental work considered necessary for the performance of its functions. As indicated on Committee Stage, most of the work undertaken by central fisheries boards on initiatives under the European Union water frameworks directive, the habitats directive and other regulations requires reports which are published on an annual basis. Furthermore, research summaries have been published annually by the Central Fisheries Board on its website in recent years. I see no reason for this practice to change with the move to the new structures. In fact, I encourage as much open publication of information as possible.

However, the arguments made by Deputy Coveney during the debate on Committee Stage have been taken on board. While I cannot impose a blanket rule on publication, I am willing to make provision for the publication of the results of research. One must be cognisant of the fact that there may be some instances, which is the reason there is different wording, where it may not be appropriate or necessary to public the results of research, for example, instances where doing so would expose vulnerable fish populations or where analysis may be partial or misleading. An example could be publication of research which showed an approach to a weir or another point on a river which has a huge blockage in which fish are backing up and a large population exists. It would be very useful information for poachers to then go in and take them out. Instances like that exist, where in is not in the public interest to have information in the public domain as it might lead to the stock being wiped out in a short period.

Accordingly, I propose to make provisions in the Bill whereby the results of research undertaken are published within six months after they have been fully completed, with the proviso that IFI shall not publish results if it is not in the public interest to do so. I hope the Deputy will find the amendment satisfactory and understand that the public interest is the only reason some information is not being provided.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is amendment No. 9 agreed to?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For the Minister's sake, I hope it is not. I tabled amendment No. 9 and I will withdraw it.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was done yesterday.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I could have made life difficult if I accepted it quickly. I withdraw it on the basis of what the Minister has said.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We shall go back to the Clerk.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 15, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"(c) IFI shall, unless it considers that it is not in the public interest to do so, make the results of any research carried out in accordance with subsection 7(a) available, within 6 months after it has been fully completed.".

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 17, to delete lines 12 to 27.

I understand the Minister is trying to deal with an issue I raised on Committee Stage in amendment No. 11. On that basis, I will not prolong the discussion.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will speak on amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive. While the legislation provides that IFI must report and manage its business on the basis of the river basin districts, one must be cognisant that policy in this area is ever evolving. As a consequence, there may be a time when it is not appropriate for the new body to manage its operations precisely on this basis. Based on discussions with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, subsections (2) and (3) were included to allow the Minister to amend this arrangement, by order. Either House of the Oireachtas can annul an order made under this section within 21 days of it being laid before it.

If we removed this provision, which was originally suggested by Deputy Coveney, the only way the reporting and management arrangements could be amended in the future would be by means of new primary legislation. This could be unnecessarily cumbersome if a minor adjustment for operational reasons was required. It is an important provision and one which needs to be retained in legislation. However, I have taken Deputy Coveney's comments on Committee Stage on board and I propose an amendment to provide that the Oireachtas Joint Committee shall be consulted before such an order is made.

Amendment No. 13 is a technical drafting amendment which has been suggested by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. For the reasons outlined, I understand Deputy Coveney is happy to withdraw his amendment but I ask that amendments Nos. 12 and 13 be accepted.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was caught off guard on amendment No. 11, although I stand over what I said about the Minister partially addressing the issue. I am concerned that under this section the Minister has the power to change radically by ministerial order the way in which inland fisheries are managed. All we are doing in this Bill by way of setting up a new inland fisheries management structure and creating six river basin districts can be set aside by the Minister under this section if he chooses to do so for any reason. My concern was that this power should not be in legislation without there being some form of check on the process. That is why the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, recognised on Committee Stage that if a decision of the magnitude I describe were to be made, thereby ditching the rest of this Bill, the Minister would at least be required to consult the joint committee beforehand. That is the background to the amendments.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad there is clarity on that.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 17, line 12, after "IFI" to insert ", the Joint Oireachtas Committee".

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 17, line 16, to delete "shall" and substitute "does".

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From the very outset of our consideration of this legislation, I had a real sense that we did not want boards that would rule anyone in or out. One of the difficulties we had with the outgoing boards concerned the representative nature of some of them. While the individuals thereon did very useful and honourable public service in all the cases of which I am aware, the boards' interests were not served well by having people appointed thereto on a representative basis.

From the outset, it has been maintained that the board of Inland Fisheries Ireland should be small and should contain a strong focus relevant to its business and to the general issue of good corporate governance, but which would not be representative per se. This is of particular importance given the significant annual budget for which the new body will be responsible. The Bill provides that potential appointees to the board must have had experience of or have shown capacity in one or more of a number of areas, including recreational fisheries, commercial fisheries and ownership of fisheries. These competencies are no more or less important than the others listed in the Bill, such as competencies associated with business or commercial affairs, environmental or biodiversity matters, and legal or regulatory affairs, all of which are essential to the effective stewardship of a State-sponsored body. It is my intention that members appointed to the board will have among them the necessary expertise and competencies to lead Inland Fisheries Ireland to fully deliver on its potential.

It is not necessary, nor would it be fair, to restrict any potential appointees to the board to particular criteria. Aside from being appointed to the board of Inland Fisheries Ireland, representatives of the angling and commercial sectors who have a genuine interest in inland fisheries and who wish to make a legitimate contribution to the future development of the resource will have the opportunity to participate in the new inland fisheries forum. Accordingly, I cannot accept the proposed amendment.

I would imagine that the comment of the Minister of State, Conor Lenihan, on dual competency refers to the fact that one often meets people who do have dual competency. One may be a very keen angler and also a lawyer or accountant. One may have a competency in industrial relations in addition to legal affairs. We all hold dual competencies and I presume it was in that regard that the Minister of State referred to them.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related to amendment No. 15 and they are to be discussed together.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 18, line 30, after "persons" to insert "proposed to be".

While the system that is now being put in place with regard to appointments to the board is very welcome, the board on which the committee made recommendations in the past was subject to a difficulty in that the Minister makes appointments and the joint committee must determine what gaps must be filled. This has not been resolved to this day in regard to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. We propose that the Minister list the names of those individuals he proposes to appoint and that there be some connection between his doing so and the work to be done by the joint committee. The committee does not want to take over the role of the Minister because, ultimately, he has complete power in this matter. He should, therefore, not feel in any way threatened but we certainly need to learn from the experience we had. The system would be better and much more transparent and efficient if the Minister informed the committee of the individuals he proposed to appoint rather than having a fait accompli in respect of which the committee would have to determine how to proceed.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister received some recognition for being the first Minister in a very long time to try to amend the system for making State appointments, certainly in regard to the broadcasting sector. That principle is welcome. We have learned some lessons from the process, however. One lesson is that there needs to be proper interaction between the Minister who will be making the appointments and the all-party Oireachtas committee being asked to make recommendations to the Minister. The committee's job is to ensure balance on the board and that the team of representatives is appropriate in terms of its skill set, motivation and sectoral interest in the case of this legislation.

We should not forget that this is an even more complex process than that associated with making appointments to the board of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. Three Ministers will be responsible for appointing people to the board of Inland Fisheries Ireland, namely, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, who will each nominate one member; and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, who will nominate two. The Oireachtas committee will then be asked to make its recommendations, presumably on the basis of what has come through this ministerial appointments process. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 seek to ensure that the consultation process between the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the committee is a full and detailed one and that it will be the committee which makes an informed and proper choice on the basis of the information it has obtained from the Minister.

While I am on the subject, I do not understand the rationale for tasking the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs with the appointment of one member of the board. Instead, it would be far more suitable to assign this function to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. I made this case to the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, on Committee Stage, but he did not deem it possible to make the change at this stage. However, the involvement of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government surely means that all environmental and rural issues will be covered. The balance of interests in terms of the Ministers charged with powers to make appointments would be better served by having the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism rather than the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs as one of the three. However, that is an aside. The main issue is that the relationship and co-operation between the committee and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is such that the committee can be sure of having all the facts it needs in order to make an informed choice in terms of appointments to the board.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The paragraph under discussion obliges the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to provide the joint Oireachtas committee with a statement indicating the relevant experience and expertise of persons appointed to the board of Inland Fisheries Ireland on the nomination of the Minister himself, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the committee is fully informed as to the qualifications and experience of the persons appointed to the board so that it can ensure an appropriate balance of skill sets in making its nominations.

It is the intention under the legislation that the persons in question will be identified and announced at the earliest date possible so that Inland Fisheries Ireland can be established without delay. Deputy McManus's amendment No. 15 would only serve to delay these appointments to the board and, accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment. Having taken on board Deputy Coveney's remarks on Committee Stage, I am proposing to amend this section to ensure that the joint Oireachtas committee has an input into the statement to be provided by the Minister on his or her appointees. While I cannot accept Deputy Coveney's amendment No. 16, I trust he will find my amendment No. 17 satisfactory.

The arrangement for appointments to the board is complex, certainly more complex than the old fashioned process where it was for a Minister alone to make all appointments to a board. However, it is right that there should be a combination of Ministers involved because it is important that we stitch in community development and environmental assessment. We must learn the lessons of our experience in regard to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, the chief of which are the need for much greater communication from all sides so that there is clear understanding as to the reasons for appointments, as well as the need for particular skills so that we have a balanced board. The communication I am proposing here is between the Minister in this Department and the committee rather than a four-way dialogue which would also include the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs; that would be excessively complicated. It is a bilateral dialogue between the committee and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. The process in regard to the broadcasting authority has taught us valuable lessons and has been very positive. We can use some of the experience we have gained from that process for the selections in this case. I look forward to engaging with the committee in this regard.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 18, line 32, after "Minister" to insert the following:

", after consultation with the Joint Oireachtas Committee,".

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 19 is logically alternative to amendment No. 18 and both amendments may be discussed together.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 19, line 16, after "fisheries" to insert "(including river and sea angling)".

These amendments concern the list of areas in which potential appointees to the board of Inland Fisheries Ireland must have had experience or shown capacity. Having taken on board the arguments put forward by Deputy Coveney on Committee Stage, I am pleased to include river and sea angling in the specified list of criteria. I am advised by the parliamentary draftsman that the appropriate way to include reference to these two activities is by way of the amendment I am proposing. Accordingly, while I cannot accept Deputy Coveney's amendment No. 19, I trust that my amendment will address his concerns.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and in particular his Department for genuinely seeking to deal with many of the concerns we raised on Committee Stage. This is another example of that. Having said that, I would rather see the sectoral interests of sea angling and river angling - which are two very different sports - being dealt with in their own right in new subsections (m) and (n) as set out in my amendment No. 19. However, I see that I am unlikely to get my way in this because the Minister has drafted his own amendment. It is a reasonable fallback position.

However, if the Minister speaks to a person who runs a sea angling business versus somebody who is engaged in trout fishing on a river, he will see that they are entirely separate businesses, industries and sports. They are as different as tennis and squash. Among the areas of expertise already included are fish processing, commercial fisheries, fisheries ownership and legal or regulatory affairs. I was determined to ensure that angling, which is an industry with enormous potential in terms of the tourist industry, in terms of developing a domestic industry on inland waterways and in terms of sea angling, which is an area that has not been properly regulated or promoted, was included. Moreover, I wanted river and sea angling treated separately and in their own right. However, I see where the Minister is coming from and, on balance, I am willing to accept his proposal.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 23, to delete line 38.

I raised this issue on Committee Stage because it is a provision that did not sit comfortably with me from the first time I read the Bill. The Department has provided me, and presumably Deputy McManus, with a note on this issue but I remain concerned. This section sets out the circumstances in which a person may be disqualified from membership of the IFI board or an existing member shall have his or her membership rescinded. One of these circumstances is where a person "makes a composition or arrangement with creditors". My reading of this is that it would apply to anybody who makes legal arrangements to repay money they owe. For example, it would apply where a person is having difficulty meeting mortgage repayments and thus makes arrangements to move to interest-only repayments for a time or to have a repayments holiday for six or eight months while looking for a job. I would have thought this was a very unreasonable reason for disqualifying somebody from board membership.

The note from the Department does not really address the issue. The note states that the definition of an arrangement with creditors is that, without becoming bankrupt, a debtor may seek the protection of the court while he makes an arrangement with his creditors under Part V of the 1988 Act. It adds that the person asks the court to protect his property and person against the claims of his creditors until he submits an offer to his creditors. The note continues by stating the debtor would have to make a statement of affairs and so on.

If a person is in that position, should we just require the person to step down from the board, particularly given the context is the current economic climate in Ireland? I seek clarification on that. I have received partial clarification but I am not totally happy that this would be a reasonable requirement for people having to step down from a board of this type, when there are all sorts of circumstances whereby a person may find himself or herself having to put an arrangement in place with creditors on a temporary basis while getting his or her life in order. It does not necessarily mean the person is dishonest or a crook.

I would like to have the Minister's view, and I am reasonably happy to accept his recommendation, one way or the other. However, just because this was the way it was always done is not justification for doing it again in regard to conditions around board membership.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I do not want to delay the discussion, I too am concerned. I am surprised this issue has not been addressed because it was raised previously by Deputy Coveney. My concern is also due to the current climate. It is not as if there is any room for manoeuvre. According to the legislation, the person "shall" cease to hold office. Yet, as any of us who run clinics will know, there are many people, very often the self-employed, who are in difficulties. I know of a particularly sad case which is directly related to serious illness. That person is in a terribly difficult situation through no fault of his own, yet such people will be treated in this way, as if they were culpable. It astonishes me that, even though this was raised on Committee Stage, there was no genuine effort to have some kind of amelioration of a situation that is, unfortunately, arising more and more frequently.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a standard provision which applies in the case of a majority of appointees to State boards. Appointees to State organisations must be upstanding in all matters, including financial matters. If an individual is financially compromised, he or she could be open to undue influence. This provision is, therefore, designed to protect the integrity of the board.

Following the concerns voiced on Committee Stage in regard to this provision, advice was sought as to the precise meaning of this term. I am advised the phrase is a technical term which is borrowed from the bankruptcy code. It refers to an arrangement made with creditors under the Bankruptcy Act 1988 or a composition made with creditors under that Act. A note on the matter was forwarded to Deputy Coveney.

This is the provision we have included in the Broadcasting Act 2009, the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, the Consumer Protection Agency Act 2007 and the Sustainable Energy Act 2002, so it is a standard provision. I agree with the Deputies that we will have to consider the whole issue of debt, insolvency and mortgage protection. I welcome the appointment of a specific group within Government which is considering this issue and seeking to implement the very progressive measures set out in the Law Reform Commission report. The group will seek to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1988, which I consider Dickensian and ineffective in its use and which does not provide us with the flexible conditions we need at this time.

As this is a technical provision and as it all relates to the Bankruptcy Act 1988, it is for us to seek changes in that Act through the group which is coming back to Government with specific recommendations to legislate to change that Act. This will change the import of what we are doing in this House in a way we are not able to do. Following the legislative changes I expect to come out of that process, we will be much better placed to adjust the effect of these terms accordingly.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be wrong not to note that the serious venality we have witnessed in recent years was not the responsibility of people who were broke but the responsibility of those who had an awful lot of money.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not agree that this is the way we should do it because this is the way we have just done it in the broadcasting legislation and other legislation. It was not raised then but it is being raised now. The way in which we do our work is that, when issues are raised, it is the job of the Minister and his Department to try to answer them satisfactorily or else to try to solve problems, if they are genuine.

I ask the Minister to examine this issue so we can address the likelihood of somebody on a State board facing a potential arrangement with creditors. We should deal with that person in a fair manner and, if necessary, make amendments to legislation or to the conditions around board membership.

A distinction needs to be made between a composition with creditors and an arrangement with creditors. A composition with creditors, from the definition which the Department has provided to me, comes after somebody has been declared bankrupt. If somebody is bankrupt, the person should not be on a State board, which I accept. However, the arrangement with creditors comes before somebody is bankrupt, when the person is making genuine efforts, consistent with the law and through a court, to put arrangements in place whereby the person can pay their debts. Somebody who is going through that process in an honest and proper way should not be removed from a board for doing it.

It is simply an issue we have not thought of because we have not had to deal with a country which had the sheer numbers of people who are now facing decisions around issues such as arrangements with creditors. It is an issue we need to consider now.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that a person who is working to reorganise the terms of his mortgage or other debt with the lender would not be caught by this provision. I understand also that this was debated in the context of the appointment of the board in the NAMA legislation, so it has been discussed elsewhere. While I agree there is an issue, we do not have the facility or ability to amend the 1988 Act here. While that needs to be done, maintaining the technical terms means that, when that Act is subsequently amended, it will change the import and effect of this Bill. That change will come, and I believe it will meet the Deputy's concerns.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 24, line 11, after "Minister" to insert "with the approval of the Dáil".

I have just been reminded by my colleague that the time remaining to deal with the legislation is very short. Therefore, I will withdraw my amendment and accept the Minister's amendment No. 22, which does not give everything I seek but certainly goes a long way.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 24, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"(2) Where the Minister removes all the members of IFI from office in accordance with subsection (1), he or she shall, as soon as practicable, provide to the Joint Oireachtas Committee an appropriate statement indicating the circumstances of the removal of the members.".

I will deal with amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together, although I realise Deputy Coveney has withdrawn amendment No. 21. Section 18(1) provides that the Minister may in certain circumstances remove all the members of Inland Fisheries Ireland. Deputy Coveney sought to have such removal subject to the approval of the Oireachtas. The Minister is primarily responsible for the corporate governance of Inland Fisheries Ireland, including its board, and it must be open to him to decide to remove the entire board if the specified circumstances occur.

Following the Committee Stage debate on the section, however, I am prepared to include a provision whereby the Minister will provide the Joint Committee with the appropriate statement indicating the circumstances of the removal of all members of the board under this provision. I hope the Members opposite will accept amendment No. 22 on that basis.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 24 was already discussed with amendment No. 1.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 33, line 13, to delete "2009" and substitute "2010".

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 25 as it does not arise out of committee proceedings.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 25.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 45, to delete lines 11 to 17.

This amendment concerns section 54 of the Bill which sets out transitional provisions to apply for the changeover to the new structures. The Department has been advised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel that subsections (2) and (3) which deal with the preservation of rules should be deleted as they are inconsistent with the powers conferred on Inland Fisheries Ireland under existing statute. These provisions are therefore redundant and should not be included in the Bill. Accordingly, I move that amendment No. 25 be accepted.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This problem is arising more and more with the Minister's Department and the legislation that comes through. This sort of thing should have been sorted out before the Bill was published. With all due respect to the Minister, I think he really needs to take a very close look. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, has agreed there is a problem there. I do not mean any disrespect to any civil servants. It seems to me it is with the Parliamentary Counsel but I urge the Minister to sort it out so we do not have this ridiculous situation arising.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had a similar debate in the Seanad recently about changes and amendments to legislation. I made the point that the legislative process is deliberately designed to give us the ability to make amendments and to go back and check again. We deal with a large body of legislation in our Department with very limited resources. I prefer officials to come to me and say they have examined the legislation and tweaked it and improved it even on Report and later Stages.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has a duty to do that.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the benefit of our multistage system and rather than civil servants staying quiet and not trying to improve legislation, I would always prefer if they showed initiative and say they have given it further thought and made further amendments.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not the issue and I would be surprised if any civil servant actually did not come forward.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 47, line 36, to delete "or" and substitute "in it or,".

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 47, line 44, to delete "(if any)".

I note in other legislation a requirement to provide a website. When I raised this with regard to this authority, it was left as "if any", which implies that the Inland Fisheries Ireland can choose whether to have a website. I would have hoped it would be guaranteed that there would be an official website. I will withdraw the amendment.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are related to amendment No. 28 and they may be discussed together. I ask the Minister to move the recommittal of amendments.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 28 and 29.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 48, lines 10 to 14, to delete all words from and including "The judge" in line 10 down to and including "annulment." in line 14 and substitute the following:

"Any appeal does not effect the operation of the bye-law pending the outcome of the appeal.".

These amendments concern section 57 of the Bill which makes provision regarding the making of by-laws for inland fisheries. These are primarily drafting amendments required to bring clarity to the provisions in question. The second amendment is required to ensure that any appeal against a by-law does not affect the operation of the by-law pending the outcome of the appeal. It is also proposed to make provision to ensure that all existing by-laws made under section 9 of the Fisheries Consolidation Act 1959 will continue in force, notwithstanding the repeal of that section. While the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has advised that this is covered by the Interpretation Act 2005, in the interests of better regulation and clarity of the statute, it is proposed to include this provision in this Bill. I move that amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, be accepted.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 48, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(b) The judge hearing the appeal may confirm or annul the bye-law but if the bye-law is annulled, the annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything done under or in pursuance of the bye-law before its annulment.".

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 48, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"(9) Any bye-law made under section 9 (repealed by section 4) of the Principal Act which is in force immediately before the establishment day continues in force as if made under this section.".

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and may be discussed together.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will withdraw amendment No. 31 in favour of amendment No. 32.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 59, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

"(3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable, notify the Joint Oireachtas Committee of the details of any sale completed in accordance with subsection (1).".

This amendment concerns section 65 of the Bill which is a restatement of section 45 of the Fisheries Act 1980. It allows the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to sell certain fisheries, fishing rights and businesses vested in him or her. Deputy Coveney was seeking to have any such sale subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann. Such restrictions are not applied to other agencies or Ministers and I do not think it necessary, particularly as the provision is safeguarded by the required approval of the Minister for Finance. Nevertheless, having taken on board the points made during the Committee Stage debate on this section, I am proposing to include a provision whereby the Minister will notify the Oireachtas joint committee of the details of any sale completed under this section. which I trust will alleviate the Deputy's concerns. I trust that amendment No. 32 will be accepted on that basis.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 64, line 26, to delete "and".

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 81, line 24, to delete "1. (a) References to" and substitute "(1) References to".

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 81, line 26, to delete "subparagraph (b)" and to substitute "subparagraph (2)".

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 81, line 29, to delete "(b) The provisions" and substitute "(2) The

provisions".

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 81, lines 29 and 30, to delete "subparagraph (a)" and to substitute

"subparagraph (1)".

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 81, line 35, to delete "(c) References in" and substitute "(3)

References in".

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 81, line 44, to delete "2009" and substitute "2010".

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are related and may be discussed together. I ask the Minister to move that they be recommitted.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 89, to delete lines 13 to 38.

These amendments delete two parts from section 3 of the Bill which deals with consequential amendments of certain statutory instruments. I am advised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel that the regulations to which Parts V and XVI of the Schedule refer have been revoked and, therefore, there is no need to amend them. Accordingly, I move that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 be accepted.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 92, to delete lines 30 to 35.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is regrettable that the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, was not able to take Report and Final Stages because, as Deputy McManus said, it would have shown a connection from his father's time and I think that should be marked.

Like Deputy McManus, I too wish to acknowledge the presence in the Visitors Gallery of people who have spent significant amounts of time on a voluntary, non-paid basis in the protection and development of our fisheries, for community benefit and gain. I thank my officials. We have a very small Department with very limited resources which have been significantly cut back in recent years as budgetary constraints have come into play. My officials have shown outstanding public service and have done very good work in getting this Bill through the House, considering the limited resources at their disposal, and I commend and thank them.

This is a good piece of legislative work. I am glad we are able to accept amendments arising out of the Committee Stage debate as this is the appropriate way of using the legislative process to fine-tune and improve legislation. The amendments show that the attitude in our Department is progressive and positive and open to listening and, where it is possible and correct, to make amendments. I commend and thank the Deputies opposite for their work in that regard and I wish the new authority well when it is established.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Department for its co-operation on this Bill. I thank in particular the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who listened to the concerns we raised on Committee Stage. I thank the Minister who has also shown the capacity and willingness to accept ideas and concerns from the Opposition.

The inland fisheries sector, generally, is a significant resource which is not utilised or sustainably exploited to the extent that it deserves. We have a real jewel in Ireland in the form of our inland waterways and fisheries. I hope the Minister and his Department will be determined to develop this resource. It is not necessarily an untapped resource but its potential is not being maximised. The same applies to our inland sea fisheries in terms of sea angling and so on. I encourage the Department and the Minister to look on this sector as providing a significant opportunity for growth and jobs and development as well as being a sector that needs to be managed in a very responsible way with respect to fish stocks and sustainability. The interaction I have had arising from this legislation has involved the opportunities that have been untapped in this sector so I hope the Department will be ambitious for the inland waterways and can strike the balance between commercial fishing, angling and the tourism potential the sector needs.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the role of the Minister, the Minister of State and the Department for successfully working through this legislation with the Opposition. It has been fruitful. I also pay tribute to those who have displayed commitment over decades to ensure our inland waterways, both in terms of capacity as well as resources, are looked after, as well as being the subject of great enjoyment. I hope this day augurs well for the future and I hope regional voices will still be heard in these new structures.