Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997

Vol. 478 No. 4

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1996 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 10, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(c) require applicants to give notice of the application by the erection or fixing of a site notice which shall be easily visible and legible by persons using the nearest public road,".

The Minister of State referred to amendment No. 7 in his reply to an earlier amendment and proffered a number of reasons for not accepting it. Given that he stated the procedures for the allocation of aquaculture licences would be based on the general system applied under the terms of the An Bord Pleanála legislation, I thought it would be appropriate that a similar requirement to that which applies in respect of applications for planning permission should apply to aquaculture licences.

I note the Minister of State's argument against this proposal but I recall tabling a similar amendment in the 1970s when the An Bord Pleanála legislation was debated in the House. That amendment was rejected by the then Minister for the Environment, as were subsequent amendments to other legislation dealing with planning. However, in recent times, it has become usual to see notices covered with strong plastic for protection against the elements placed in prominent positions on sites and in fields to inform local people that there is an intention to undertake developments. Members of the public are thereby given the opportunity to inspect plans relating to such developments, make comments and raise objections if they so desire. People are now provided with more adequate notification than was previously given by way of public notices in newspapers.The new system has proven very effective.

A number of years ago, a previous Minister for the Environment rejected an amendment which dealt with planning matters and which was similar to that under discussion. However, the relevant legislation was subsequently amended. Even though the Minister of State may choose to reject amendment No. 7, it may become law in the future. Why not accept it now as a reasonable proposition?

Aquaculture developments, because of their nature, will be located on the more remote parts of the coastline to which it is difficult to gain access. People living in such areas do not always have access to newspapers. There should be a requirement that a notice must be erected on roads approaching the shoreline from where a development will be serviced, given that there is usually a point from where goods, feed, equipment, etc., are transported to the location at sea and where support facilities, such as sheds for storing meal and maintaining equipment and spares, are situated. It would be reasonable to require interested parties to erect a notice similar to a planning application notice in locations where it is proposed to construct buildings to service possible aquaculture developments so that people could be alerted. These developments will be situated in remote areas and every effort should be made to inform local people of their planned construction. Amendment No. 7 would be a good way to achieve this.

While I am sympathetic to having the widest possible public notice procedures, including road signage, at the nearest point to proposed developments, there are practical difficulties in applying such a provision to all applicants.

The circumstances relating to aquaculture licensing differ from those which apply to planning applications. It would be problematic to erect a notice on property not belonging to the applicant. This would be unlike planning applications where the applicant would most likely be the owner of or have a beneficial interest in the sites proposed for development. Furthermore, access to sites is often gained at a distance from the operation. In such cases, signage at the access point would not be helpful to residences which overlook the development site but which are situated some distance from that access point. In short, there are too many potential difficulties in attempting to enshrine the minutiae of these procedures in primary legislation.

On the points raised by Deputy Molloy, acceptance of his amendment would require the erection of a notice visible to and legible by persons using the nearest public road which, in the case of aquaculture operations at sea, would pose obvious practical difficulties. For example, an aquaculture development, say, in Killary Harbour, where the nearest public road may be on the Galway side of the harbour might have implications for the Mayo side. Therefore, placing the public notice on the Galway side of the harbour may not have any practical relevance or benefit those living on the other side.

Deputy Molloy referred to the circumstances which would arise in the case of land-based aquaculture development, which would include any development in fresh-water. In respect of a fresh-water development there is a requirement to apply for planning permission and the planning application would be notified by the erection of a sign.

I am prepared to make provision for reforms of public signage under the application regulations in instances where it is considered appropriate or desirable, but there are circumstances in which practical difficulties would be encountered, when it would be unwise to enshrine in primary legislation a requirement that, in all circumstances, a sign must be erected on the nearest public road which may not relate to the location or the visual impact of the development. The best way to overcome any such difficulty would be to make appropriate provision in the application regulations.

I thank the Minister for his reasonable approach. I can foresee the practical difficulties that might arise in some cases, to which he alluded, but accept his intention in regard to the regulations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 13, line 38, to delete "of applications".

This is a technical amendment to improve the wording of the provision.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 14, line 27, after "each of" to insert "the".

This is another technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 18, lines 25 and 26, to delete "and shall include the Chairperson or one of the members appointed pursuant to section 23 (3) (a)".

On Committee Stage some Members requested that I review the provision relating to the composition of a quorum in the case of the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. My objective in tabling this amendment was to assuage any concerns, perceived or otherwise, about the impartiality of the board in terms of its composition or deliberations.It is vital that the board commands the confidence of all interests and that there be no ground for any interest to have even a perception that the balance of representation and quorum arrangements for meetings are in any way biased.

I thank the Minister for acceding to our strong arguments on Committee Stage, that there would be perceived to be a clear bias if the chairperson or the member representing the aquaculture industry had to be present for the purposes of establishing a quorum. The removal of those words from the section removes any such remote possibility of bias. It is important that that be done and I thank the Minister for having taken this action.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 23, between lines 11 and 12 to insert the following:

"(4) The Board shall each year publish a full annual report detailing decisions made and summarising monitoring, conducting as well as any other matters of relevance.".

I thought I had accommodated Deputy Molloy's concerns on this matter on Committee Stage by inserting a new subsection. As the section stood, the provision for annual reports mirrored a similar provision in legislation generally. However, in my amendment which was accepted on Committee Stage I included a provision that the annual report should include details of appeals heard by the board in the year under review.

I accept the Minister's explanation and withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 30, to delete lines 34 and 35 and substitute the following:

"(8) The Board may, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, make submissions or recommendations to the Minister on any matter relating to its functions or to licensing (including trial licensing) policy.".

The object of this amendment is to give the appeals board a statutory role to make submissions or recommendations on licensing policy in addition to any matter relating to its functions. I have referred specifically to "trial licensing" in the light of concerns expressed by Members on that subject. The mechanism provided here leaves it open to the appeals board to act on its own initiative or for the Minister to take the initiative.

I have deliberately strengthened this provision to give the appeals board a statutory role in licensing policy, particularly in regard to trial licences. I can place on record my assurance that not only will the letter but the spirit of the law be applied here. It is not intended, nor will it be the case, that the trial licence mechanism will be used as a measure to circumvent full licensing requirements.Permissions for trials always will be temporary with no guarantee that the trial development can move to permanent licensing.

As in the case of all other aquaculture developments, the full requirements of the new licensing process, including appeals mechanisms and provisions for judicial review, will apply in full should a trial licensee wish to proceed to permanent licensing.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 15 is in the name of Deputy Molloy. I note that amendment No. 18 is related and that amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are consequential and suggest all four be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 32, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"60. —All documents relating to the decision of the Aquaculture Licence Appeals Board shall be made available to the public within three days of any decision, including Inspector's Reports and Board Directions.".

On Committee Stage I indicated to Deputies Molloy and Ó Cuív that I would reflect further on the provisions governing availability of information. While there was no intention in the Bill to restrict such availability, I have decided to broaden this section so that regulations will specifically provide access to information relating to appeals.

I draw the attention of the House to section 10 (3) (g) which makes similar provisions in relation to regulations governing the availability of application documentation.

I accept the Minister's amendment which adequately meets the point and withdraw mine.

I too accept what has been done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 32, line 22, to delete "and".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 32, line 25, to delete "Directive." and substitute "Directive, and".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 32, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"(d) the availability for inspection of documents or extracts from documents relating to appeals, the period of such availability, and the purchase of copies of or extracts from such documents.".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We come to amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 20 is related. I suggest we take amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 32, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"(c) and the provisions of the relevant County Development Plan in regard to designations and infrastructure of the adjacent foreshore,".

Deputy Molloy tabled an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure the status of an area under the relevant county development plan is taken into account when an application for an aquaculture licence is being considered. I have tabled amendment No. 20 to address the issue. While there is no question but that the decisions on licence applications would have to take account of the status of an area under county development plans as is the case, I have tabled the amendment to explicitly highlight this requirement. I am advised my form of the amendment which meets the same objective is technically the more correct one.

I bow to superior draftsmanship and I thank the Minister. The Minister's amendments were not available to me when I resubmitted these amendments. This will explain some of the duplication involved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 32, line 38, after "if any," to insert "(including the provisions of any development plan, within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 as amended)".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 35, to delete lines 1 to 10, and substitute the following:

"67. —(1) Section 12 (other than subsection (2) (b) of the Foreshore Act, 1933, shall, with the necessary modifications, extend and apply to and in relation to—

(a) structures, articles or equipment used or capable of being used for aquaculture which, before or after the commencement of this section, have been erected or placed in position without lawful authority on foreshore belonging to the State, and

(b) any such structure, article or equipment erected or placed in position on such foreshore for a purpose authorised by or in accordance with a condition of a licence or other permission under this Act, where its operation for that purpose has ceased to be so authorised.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 35, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"(d) is satisfied that control of disease on the site has been inadequate.".

Revocation of a licence is a last resort. Matters pertaining to disease control can be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with section 71 of the Bill. Therefore, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 37, line 21, to delete "two months" and substitute "three months".

I undertook on Committee Stage to look again at the provision which sets a two months time limit for the making of applications to the courts for a judicial review. While a limit of two months reflects the provisions of environmental and planning law I am willing to extend the limit to three months to meet Deputies' concerns.

I acknowledge that and thank the Minister for tabling this amendment to meet the point.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 38, to delete lines 9 to 34.

Section 74 makes provision for the orderly consideration of licence applications already in hand. I do not accept that applications not fully processed on commencement of the new licensing and regulatory regime should have to go back to square one. It is proposed that they will be deemed to be applications and subject to licensing and appeal under the new legislation. To require licence applicants to start all over again would be unfair and unnecessary given that the licences will be issued under the terms of the new legislation and will be subject to appeal.

It is not my desire or intention to go back over debates we had on Committee Stage on a point such as this where the matter was well debated. The points I made then are still valid. By tabling the amendment on Report Stage I was hoping the Minister would have had time to reflect and possibly agree to make some alteration to accommodate the point I made. In reply to a question, the Minister informed us there were 800 applications for aquaculture licences which had not been determined. They are in the Department and on the passing of this Bill all those applications will be considered to be applications and will be processed accordingly. The difficulty arose when I asked the Minister whether any of those 800 cases had already commenced operations and the Minister said some had.

People are operating aquaculture enterprises without a licence and the Minister is going to accept them under the provisions of this Bill. In my view many of those are in contravention of section 11 which provides that any application for a licence for an enterprise that has already commenced operations shall not be a valid application.The Minister has not made reference to that point which we made continously on Committee Stage. It is still a valid point and perhaps some provision could be made to accommodate the difficulty but the procedures of the new legislation should apply.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 39, line 5, to delete "restriction" and substitute "repeal".

This is a technical amendment, consequential on an amendment agreed on Committee Stage which repealed section 15 of the Fisheries Act, 1959.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 39, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(3) The holder of licences specified under subsection (1) (a), (b) or (c) shall be obliged to apply within a specified period of time, for a licence under section 10 of this Act subject also to sections 11 to 16, inclusive, of this Act.".

It is unreasonable to expect existing and in most cases possibly long-standing licence holders to have to apply again for a licence. Deputy Molloy's amendment would require existing licence holders to make fresh applications for licences. Section 75 will place responsibilities on existing licenses to comply with the new aquaculture regulatory regime and is perfectly reasonable. Therefore, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

The same point arises here in that people who did not have a licence and who commenced operations will be legalised. Is that the correct interpretation?

That interpretation is not correct. The people to whom this section applies are licence holders. Anybody else who does not hold a licence will have to apply and have a licence application processed so that a licence may be issued. There is no question of automatic validation of unlicensed aquaculture operations. This section applies solely to existing licences. They will roll over and become licences under the terms of the Bill, including the regulatory regime provided for in it.

The Minister said licences will be subject to regulations, etc. All new licences will have fixed maximum terms. Will licences previously issued in perpetuo be limited to the maximum time period for which a licence can now be issued or will they remain as they are?

The Bill provides for the duration of the licence to be the duration for which it had been issued. The maximum period for which a licence may be issued under it is 20 years. The vast majority of licences which have been issued are for periods considerably less that that. The norm has been ten years.

If they were issued for 30 or 50 years or indefinitely, do they remain valid?

Yes, but such licences are few and far between.

The legal position is tricky. As was pointed out on Committee Stage, legal opinion has been offered which states that arising from the Supreme Court judgment in the Ballyvaughan case, those who were granted licences for aquaculture activities in sea water did not hold valid licences because under section 15 of the principal Act licences could only be granted for such activities in freshwater. We discussed this at great length and the Minister has maintained his position.I tabled the amendment again because I thought in the intervening period the Minister of State might add to points made on Committee Stage. He offered to examine them and has proved on a number of occasions to be reasonable and co-operative in regard to views expressed by Opposition spokespersons.

I do not want to put people out of business who consider they were operating legitimately with licences issued to them under section 15 but provision could be made for an interim period to enable them to operate while reapplying to have their licences renewed under this Bill so that they would be brought into line with everybody else. Officials in the Department did not have the authority under the principal Act to grant licences for aquaculture activities in sea waters as determined by the Supreme Court. The Minister of State's view is that the only licences struck down are the cases specifically brought before the Supreme Court. However, it decided on a principle and if this is extended to all others who benefited from the same licensing procedures under section 15, their licences must also be struck down as they were illegally granted.

The Minister of State has taken a different view and it puzzles me how he can justify that in law. Has he anything to add?

The position is clear. Aquaculture operations that currently hold licences will remain valid under the Bill. That is normal practice when new legislation is introduced. The licences will then be subject to the terms of the Bill and will remain valid for the remaining life of the licence. Any licence which has been struck down by the courts will not become a licence under the Bill and operations which are not licensed will not be automatically licensed under it. Any person who does not have a licence has to apply for one and follow the normal procedures.

The Minister of State said a licence that is not valid because the courts struck it down remains invalid, and a licence validly issued before the Bill will remain valid. If persons operating illegally do not apply for a licence before the Bill is enacted, they will be precluded from applying. Is that correct?

I prefer to stick to the explanation I gave. I am not sure where Deputy Ó Cuív's logic leads.

Did I understand the Minister of State correctly?

Any licence which has been struck down by the courts does not become a licence under the Bill. I can only deal with situations which have been dealt with by the courts.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 29.

In page 39, line 44, to delete "registrar" and substitute "register".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 40, to delete lines 22 and 23.

We dealt with this amendment on Committee Stage also. It is proposed to retain this section but not to commence it without reference to the proposals of the salmon management task force and further consideration of the views of the fisheries boards and the aquaculture industry.There is a balance to be struck between the need to control the sale of wild salmon in the interest of conservation and the need to ensure unnecessarily bureaucratic procedures are not placed on dealers handling farmed salmon.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 40, line 32, to delete "additional" and substitute "addition".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

In regard to section 81, there is concern that the inspectorate provided for in the Bill will come under the umbrella of the Department.There is a view that those who will be charged with the responsibility of carrying out inspections and enforcing the provisions of the Bill should be independent of the Minister in the exercise of their functions. The independence of An Bord Pleanála is one of the major principles which has helped to win public support for the planning process.

Section 81 states that a person employed by the Marine Institute may be appointed as an authorised officer for any of the purposes for which an officer of the Minister may be appointed as an authorised officer under the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1995, as amended by this Bill. He or she will have extensive powers. In addition to any other powers he or she may have under the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1995, as amended by this Bill, he or she will have the power to enter any place or waters the subject of an aquaculture licence or trial licence on or in which he or she believes, on reasonable grounds, aquaculture is being or has been carried on, or any building or structure used in connection with such place, waters or aquaculture to ensure the terms of the licence are being properly adhered to. Will the Minister of State indicate that that person will be independent of the Department and the Minister in the exercise of his or her functions and powers and seen to be so by those involved on both sides of the industry?I am not questioning the integrity of the officials who will be charged with the responsibility of carrying out these duties.

The Deputy has raised two questions, one being the establishment of an independent inspectorate. Because of the range of conditions which may be attached to an aquaculture licence a range of officers of the Department or its agencies will be involved in inspecting aquaculture operations. For example, engineering staff of the Department will inspect structures placed on the foreshore while officers of the Marine Institute, specifically those attached to the Fisheries Research Centre, will be involved in issues relating to disease and fish husbandry.

As I mentioned on Committee Stage, fisheries boards will retain their existing functions under the Fisheries Acts. Those functions will not be diminished by this Bill. They have certain functions in relation to the aquaculture industry.

As Deputy Molloy may be aware, the Fisheries Research Centre was part of the Department of the Marine until the beginning of last year when it was transferred to the Marine Institute. Its officers will be responsible for monitoring many aspects of this legislation. As they are employed by the Marine Institute, it is necessary to make special provision to make it clear that they will have these powers.

The Marine Institute is a separate body with its own board and reporting structures. It is not under the day to day direction of the Minister. I am satisfied that its officers will be seen to be independent in the monitoring and supervision of the aquaculture industry and the licensing regime. Experience shows — this view is shared by all concerned in the aquaculture industry — that officers of the fisheries boards, the Marine Institute and the Department have discharged their supervisory functions with integrity. This has not been questioned in any way.

Under one of the amendments agreed to today, the licence appeals board will have a wider remit in relation to licensing policy generally. It will be able to examine particular matters and make recommendations. All sides of the House are satisfied with its composition. We have ensured that the appeals system and the mechanism for the supervision, overseeing, monitoring and inspection of the industry will be seen to be independent.

I express my sincere appreciation and thanks to Members who have contributed to the passage of this Bill. It is a major legislative landmark in fisheries legislation which will modernise and streamline licensing and regulation of the aquaculture industry in line with best practice in the planning and environmental spheres. My objective has been to ensure an effective, secure and fully transparent licensing process which has full regard for all interests. The Bill will be regarded in future years as a watershed in the development of the aquaculture industry.

The debate in the House has been very useful in considering the various and sometimes divergent views of interested parties and represents an important part of the analysis of the respective needs of the aquaculture industry and other users of our marine and freshwater resources. I have no doubt that the Bill has been improved as a result. I have been able to address satisfactorily many of the concerns expressed by Deputies as well as by individuals and groups who made representations to me. I thank all those outside the House who took the trouble to examine the Bill and propose improvements, many of which I have been able to accommodate.

The framework that has now emerged for future aquaculture licensing sets out clearly the checks and balances at work in the system. The rights of applicants, licensees, objectors and appellants are clearly delineated in the interests of making the licensing system and its processes open and accessible.

I thank Members who contributed to the debate, particularly the Opposition spokespersons, and the officers of the Department of the Marine involved in the preparation of this Bill who engaged in an extensive consultative process with the various interests involved in the industry and those associated with it to produce what I believe is fine legislation.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuiochas a ghlacadh leis an Aire agus leis na hoifigigh a bhí taobh leis nuair a bhí na nithe seo á phlé againn sa Bhille. Níl aon dabht ach go bhfuil athrú mór ar an mBille anois seachas an Bille a tháinig os comhair an Tí nuair a foilsíodh é ar dtús. Táim ag glacadh buíochais leis an Aire mar gur éist sé linn sa Dáil agus gur éist sé leis na grúpaí a tháinig chuige ón taobh amuigh a raibh imní mór orthu faoi rudaí a bhí sa Bhille ar dtús.

Tá athrú bunúsach déanta ag an Aire ar an mBille agus ó mo thaobh féin de agus ar son mo pháirtí ba mhaith liom anois fáiltiú roimh an Bhille. Tá súil agam go n-oibreoidh sé go maith. Tá sé fíor-riachtanach go mbeadh rialacha cinnte leagtha síos a chaithfeadh tionscal na bhfeirmeacha éisc cloí leo mar tá an tionscal chomh tábhachtach sin agus d'fhéadfadh sé fás chomh mór sin. Tá na mílte daoine ag obair sa tionscal ach d'fhéadfadh i bhfad níos mó daoine fostaíocht a fháil ann. Tá mé cinnte go bhfeicfidh siad sa Bhille seo seans don tionscal dul chun cinn a dhéanamh le tacaíocht ó gach taobh. Tá súil agam go gcuirfidh sé deireadh leis an aighneas a bhí ann go dtí seo agus leis an imní agus leis an amhras a bhí ar lucht na slat éisc de bharr truailliú agus de bharr a tharla do white trout mar a ghlaotar orthu agus an dainséar a bhí ann go gcuirfí deireadh leis an iasc sin.

Cé nach raibh cruthúnas cruinn ann riamh cheap daoine go raibh ceangal idir an meath a tháinig ar an iasc sin agus na feirmeacha eisc.

Arís ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil mé buíoch den Aire as ucht na hathraithe a rinne sé ar an mBille agus glacaim comhgháirdeas leis as a bheith chomh sásta éisteacht linn sa Teach. Tá mé cinnte go mbeidh tacaíocht gach páirtí taobh thiar den Bhille agus den tionscal atá rialaithe faoin mBille. Tá súil agam nach mbeidh aon easaontas nó aighneas ar an gceist seo amach anseo. Má bhíonn ar a laghad tá córas ceart dleathúil leaghta síos anois gur féidir na hargóinti a phlé ann. Tá mé sásta go mbeidh an Bord a cheapfar faoin mBille seo neamhspleach ach braitheann sin ar na daoine a cheapfar mar bhaill den bhord. Tá súil agam nach dtiocfaidh an pholaitíocht chun tosaigh nuair a bheidh an roghnú sin á dhéanamh.

Ba mhaith liom féin tacú leis an mhéid atá ráite ag an Teachta Ó Maoildhia. Sílim go bhfuil job an-mhaith déanta ag an Aire agus ag na hoifigigh. Tá áthas orm gur éistíodh leis na pointí a rinneadh. Tá fhios agam go raibh dearcadh oscailte ag an Aire agus is dóigh liom go gcuirfidh sé go mór leis an mBille.

An rud go raibh súil agamsa leis nuair a cuireadh an Bille os comhair an Tí ná go mbeadh glacadh ag an bpobal i gcoitinne leis an gcóras a leagfaí amach sa Bhille le breithiúnas a thabhairt ar iarratais ar cheadúnais. Is dóigh liom ón méid a chloisim go nglacann an dá thaobh den tionscal — iad siúd atá in amhras faoi fheilméaracht éisc agus go mór-mhór faoi fheilméaracht bradán agus freisin an dream atá go mór ar a shon — is dóigh liom go nglacann siad leis anois go bhfuil córas éifeachtach cothrom curtha i bhfeidhm le breithiúnas a thabhairt ar na hiarratais. Tá sé fíorthábhachtach go mbeadh muinín i gcoitinne ag an bpobal ann agus sílim go mbeidh.

Tá roinnt rudaí áirithe a chuir an tAire siar le tabhairt isteach i bhfoirm rialacháin agus beimid ag tnúth go mór leis na rialacháin sin. Tá geallúinti tugtha aige maidir leis na locha móra san iarthar. Beimid ag súil le hiad a fheiceáil. Ó thaobh daoine a bheith ar an eolas faoi na hiarratais atá curtha isteach, tá súil agam go gcuirfear córas i bhfeidhm taobh istigh den Roinn go mbeidh daoine in ann a bheith ar liosta ag an Roinn agus go gcuirfear ar an eolas iad faoi na hiarratais ar fad a chuirtear isteach. Ceann de na rudaí go gcaithfimid a sheachaint ná go mbeadh daoine ag rá ar ball linn go gcuirfidís in aghaidh iarratais ach fios a bheith acu go raibh an t-iarr- atas déanta. Ar ndóigh dhiúltaigh an tAire do leasú inniu maidir le fógra ar bhóthar poiblí. Tá mé cinnte go dtiocfaidh sé suas le foirmle eile a dhéanfaidh cinnte de go mbeidh fhios ag an bpobal go bhfuil na hiarratais ar fáil.

I thank the Minister of State for the great effort he put into this Bill which is good and balanced. Members of the public who have been concerned about this issue, the lack of transparency in the licensing system and the lack of an appeals system will be happy with the fair and equitable system being put in place for determining the grant of aquaculture licences. While much of the debate has concentrated on fin fish farming, we should not forget the huge potential in shellfish farming, which is also covered by the Bill.

I look forward to the expeditious implementation of the promised regulations. We have had a good debate and I appreciate the consideration given by the Minister to the points made by us on the various Stages.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share