I wish to share my time with the Minister of State Deputy Byrne.
Fisheries and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank Members for agreeing to consider the Bill so soon after publication in view of the urgency of its main provisions which I will explain in detail in a few moments. My colleague, the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Byrne, will also address the House on this Stage with particular reference to aquaculture and its development. Both of us will endeavour to facilitate Members in their consideration of the Bill in the full spirit of co-operation which we hope will be reciprocated in the circumstances. The record shows the co-operative spirit and deep consensus across the House which succeeded in putting in place the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, which involved major reform of aquaculture licensing legislation which was ably sponsored by Deputy Gilmore when Minister of State.
The Bill is designed essentially to ensure that, by quickly addressing some legal doubts which have arisen in the light of court judgments since then, the 1997 Act can be operated as intended in providing the aquaculture industry and the public with a clear, transparent and balanced licensing regime. The precautionary principle permeates the entire Bill.
Such legal doubts, if not quickly addressed by legislation on the lines of this Bill, could generate a plethora of time consuming litigation which could seriously disrupt further the aquaculture licensing process and put investment and jobs at risk. That is a risk the Government is not prepared to countenance. Accordingly, it is the Government's aim through this Bill to avoid further uncertainty concerning aquaculture licensing legislation, rather than sit by and allow legal doubts to develop and fester. The 1997 Act must, as far as possible, leave no room for further protracted litigation which bedevilled aquaculture licensing for far too long in the past.
As is clear from what I have said, and from the detailed explanatory and financial memorandum published with the Bill, the particular urgency of the legislation relates to aquaculture licensing. I now propose to elaborate. It is only in the past month or so that legal doubts have been mooted with my Department by some aquaculturalists and others, as to whether the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, achieved what it set out to do in sections 74 and 75.
Section 74 of the 1997 Act was intended to carry forward, for consideration under the 1997 Act, all undecided aquaculture licence applications for marine sites made since 1980, but under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959. Some people have argued that the applications could not be regarded as proper applications in the first place as the Fisheries Act, 1980, providing for designation of marine sites for aquaculture, was the proper framework for such applications, although inoperable where marine sites were not designated under the Act.
Section 75 of the 1997 Act was intended to carry forward licences for aquaculture in marine sites granted since 1980, under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, or the Foreshore Act, 1933, for aquaculture purposes, as if they were granted under the 1997 Act. Some people have argued that those licences should not have been granted on the grounds that only the 1980 Act was available for that purpose.
The efficacy of sections 74 and 75 of the 1997 Act has been most carefully considered by my Department's legal advisers in consultation with counsel and sections 2 and 3 of the Bill have been carefully crafted to remove all such doubts. My Department's legal advisers have also recommended the replacement of section 11 of the 1997 Act to prohibit, from the date of publication of the Bill, which was 10 December 1998, persons from commencing aquaculture operations pending the grant of an aquaculture licence after due process under the Act. This section is obviously needed to protect the rights of duly licensed aquaculturalists as well as third party rights generally, and will ensure due process in relation to proposals for new aquaculture operations in accordance with the spirit of the 1997 Act. The original section 11 could not have been commenced without applying to many of the existing licence applicants of some years' standing who proceeded with aquaculture operations in the reasonable expectation of licensing without the long delays which have arisen because of litigation which culminated in the replacement of all earlier aquaculture licensing legislation by the 1997 Act.
The bringing into operation of that Act earlier this year was a complex task, requiring the making of a considerable number of statutory instruments and the due establishment of the independent Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board provided for in the Act. That has been set up and is now in operation. Apart from the section referred to, and section 13, all of the Act is now in force. The question of commencing section 13, which would specify a time limit for departmental and ministerial consideration of licence applications, will be considered as soon as we make progress in processing the very considerable number of licence applications on hands, which is about 600 in total.
While the urgency of the Bill relates to aquaculture licensing, as referred to in sections 2, 3 and 4, the Government considers that the other provisions in sections 5 and 6 should also be passed into law at an early date.
Early amendments of sections 12,13 and 14 of the Foreshore Act, 1933, are needed to protect aquaculture and the foreshore generally from unauthorised development and the deposit of harmful and other materials and so on. This is covered in section 5.
These are the first amendments to those protective sections of the 1933 Act and are needed to deter deliberate or careless actions inimical to the proper use and enjoyment of foreshore. The Government is taking a proactive, precautionary approach to ward off unacceptable interference with national resources before serious problems arise. The penalties proposed for offences are the same as those provided in the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, for unauthorised aquaculture structures and other offences under that Act.
Section 5 is without prejudice to the fundamental review of the Foreshore Acts, 1933 and 1992, which I have instructed my Department to carry out in the context of preparing new legislation for better coastal zone management, in consultation with other Departments and statutory and other organisations concerned. While I am unable at this juncture to predict the content of such new legislation, my aim is to have substantive legislative proposals for Government decision in the course of 1999.
Section 6 is required to protect from legal challenge long-standing leasing and other arrangements for fishery harbour centre property for purposes not directly related to fisheries, for example, for purposes of local, social and economic development, and to provide for flexibility in addressing current and prospective needs of local communities without interfering with the essential fisheries capacity of the fishery harbour centres. The existing legislation dating from 1968 is too restrictive for present purposes.
Section 6 is without prejudice to the fundamental review under way in my Department of the Fishery Harbour Centres Acts, 1968 to 1992, and of the funding and management arrangements for fishery harbour centres. I will announce proposals for new legal and other arrangements for fishery harbour centres as soon as the Government decides them, I hope early in 1999. Sections 1 and 7 are standard definition and interpretation provisions which require no further comment.
I trust that what I have said indicates the importance and urgency of the Bill. The Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, and I will be glad to provide further clarification or elaboration needed by Members to enable them to progress their consideration of this Bill and to assist in its early passage into law.
In commending the Fisheries and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill to the House, I am concerned to ensure that we will have aquaculture licensing arrangements which will endure and withstand legal challenge. We owe that to the aquaculture industry and the general public.
For too long, there was uncertainty about aquaculture licensing. I am committed to making the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, work as intended and, therefore, endorse the Government's proactive approach in the Bill to removing legal doubts which have emerged since that Act was passed.
Having ministerial responsibility for aquaculture licensing, I am concerned to ensure that all licence applications on hand, about 600, are duly processed as quickly as possible and will ensure that my Department keeps itself in gear to do so. We are committed to processing existing applications to a conclusion in 1999. Much progress has been made in considering applications, with 90 applications ready for formal decision as soon as this Bill becomes law. Another 30 applications are being finally assessed by my Department and its advisers, following necessary public consultation, prior to making a recommendation to me for licensing and the specific conditions to apply in each case.
The effective and efficient operation of the transparent and balanced aquaculture licensing arrangements at the heart of the 1997 Act is essential in order to allow the aquaculture industry to continue to develop as far as possible in a fully professional and responsible way. The current direct output of the industry is £58 million per year providing direct employment for more than 3,000 people. These jobs have to be safe-guarded and consolidated by aquaculture licences which withstand legal challenge. These jobs are in remote rural areas which might not otherwise be able to create employment.
The aquaculture industry has to continue to apply the highest standards possible to all aspects of fish farming. The potential for further growth of the industry is enormous and I will continue my efforts to foster that growth. Secure aquaculture licensing arrangements are essential for drawing down valuable EU and Exchequer funds for the development of aquaculture operations. I am particularly conscious of the investment requirements of aquaculturalists and of the financial pressures on them. I will ensure that licensing decisions will be made as quickly as possible to allow funding to flow to all aquaculturalists with sound business plans for the future and likely to make a significant contribution to output and job creation. However, I caution that having a licence does not necessarily entitle an operator to EU or Exchequer funds. Such funds have to be targeted at clear winners.
I recently appointed the CIRCA Group, a team of top economic consultants, to carry out a strategic study of the aquaculture industry. This study will identify the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the industry, and the threats to it. The study will also make recommendations as to how the aquaculture industry can be secured and developed, with particular emphasis on overcoming perceived constraints on competitiveness. This strategic study, after involving consultation with all key interests in the sector, will point the way forward for this industry to thrive into the new millennium.
Earlier this year I established the Aquaculture Industry Forum to improve communications between State agencies and the aquaculture industry which is largely represented by the fish farming section of the IFA. To date there have been four meetings of the forum. I attended the forum's meeting in November and am pleased to report that it is working very effectively and has already covered a wide range of issues, including fish health, safety on fish farms, environmental matters, the public image of fish farming and the operational programme for aquaculture. All those attending the forum, many of whom are engaged in aquaculture operations on a day-to-day basis, would agree that the forum has been a useful vehicle allowing the industry and State services to exchange views.
The forum has set up two expert groups to address two issues which are of concern to the industry at present, namely, the problem posed by infectious salmon anaemia, ISA, in Scotland, and the difficulties experienced in disposing of mortalities after disease outbreaks. I will continue to support the forum and attend the meetings whenever Government business permits. I will listen carefully to the views being expressed on all sides. In this way I intend to remain conscious of the needs and demands of the growing aquaculture industry.
From what I have said, Members will be in no doubt as to my energetic commitment to fostering a thriving and responsible aquaculture industry, while fully respecting the legitimate interests of the general public. The Bill contains essential precautionary measures to ensure that the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, will work as planned in the overall natural interest. I commend the Bill to the House.
I fully recognise the importance of the amendment and the necessity for its introduction in order to ensure that aquaculture licences are issued. It is regrettable that the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources did not have a consultation with Opposition spokespersons well in advance of the introduction of the legislation. I welcome the fact that the consultation eventually took place on the day preceding Second Stage.
The Fisheries (Amendment) Bill was enacted on 14 May 1997. I pay tribute to the then Minister for the Marine and Defence, Deputy Barrett, and the then Minister of State, Deputy Éamon Gilmore, who spearheaded this Bill through the Dáil. It was very comprehensive legislation. It was also hailed as very courageous at the time, and much of the consultative process to frame the legislation was between the environmental lobby and the fish farming lobby. The Minister is concerned about a legal aspect of the legislation. It was enacted in May 1997 and it has come as a surprise to all of us that in December 1998 we are focusing on its legislative impact. Aquaculture interests have been extremely concerned in the interim because, owing to the non-issuing of licences, many of them will find their financial stability suffering because the banks and lending institutions require the legitimacy of a licence to verify the bona fides of an aquaculture company. I hope this legislation will be expedited as quickly as possible because it is in the ultimate interests of the aquaculture industry.
Since the introduction of legislation both Údarás na Gaeltachta and BIM have suspended financial assistance to fish farmers. The Minister stated that section 5 of the Bill will not impact on the coastal management Bill which he hopes to introduce in 2000. I welcome the recent allocation of £4 million in the budget. I hope the relevant legislation will come through in 1999 because, given the analysis of the different projects that have applied for funding to deal with coastal erosion, much of the budget allocated for next year will be soaked up by two or three pressing projects, for example, the project in Quilty, where there is a row of houses on a road in danger of collapsing into the sea, and the Bray project. I hope that, in the next tranche of funds in 2006, we will get a realistic amount of money for coastal protection.
The Minister of State referred to ISA, a disease which has had a devastating effect on fin fish farming in Scotland. I hope that disease does not spread here. The Minister mentioned the difficulty of disposing of mortalities in fin fish farming. The aquaculture industry suffered from a bad press during the summer months because of a large loss of salmon in a fish farm in the west. The resulting publicity was not favourable to the aquaculture industry. At the time the Western Regional Fisheries Board circulated every Oireachtas Member regarding their concern about that outbreak. Many of my colleagues contacted me to find out what this was about. Incidents like that do no good for the industry. Following this outbreak it took a long time for the pathologist at the Department of the Marine to discover that the loss was probably owing to sudden death as a result of disease. I highlight this incident because it focuses on the environmental aspect, particularly of fin fish farming and aquaculture in general. That environmental aspect is extremely important. If we are to co-exist with the wider community and the environmental lobby, the importance of the environmental impact assessment must be stitched into the aquaculture Act. It is imperative that the aquaculture industry conforms with the guidelines set down.
There appears to be an ongoing battle of words between the Save our Sea Trout Campaign on behalf of wild sea trout and the fin fish farmers. Concerns have been expressed on many occasions. Some aquaculture farms run a very fair and efficient operation with the minimum of sea-lice whereas other fin fish farms have quite a high preponderance of sea-lice, thus causing concern for the wild sea trout. I know the jury is out as to whether this has an effect on wild sea trout, but there are concerns, and those concerns can be allayed only by proper, efficient management of various aquaculture locations.
The licensing system should be strong and rigid enough to ensure that aquaculture companies conform to what is set down. If the Department feels there is non-conformity which is damaging the long-term interests of the aquaculture industry, it should not be slow to close down the operation in question if it is warranted. It is for the ultimate benefit of the aquaculture industry that this should happen.
We have a golden opportunity in the context of the next allocation of Structural Funds between 2000 and 2006. Much of the debate focuses on the western counties in terms of Objective One status and enhanced funding. It is interesting to note that the landscape in those counties is dominated by aquaculture activity which provides vital jobs in those communities located in remote coastal regions where other jobs are extremely difficult to find. Given that situation, aquaculture is extremely important. We have a chance, when the next tranche of funding is given out, to maximise potential in that area. In a recent submission which we received from the Irish Farmers' Association, the section dealing with aquaculture outlines its commitment to putting private investment in place in those locations if funds are forthcoming from the European Union. This is extremely important. Given the signals coming from Europe, particularly in regard to farming, it is in the whole area of the marine that there is great potential for growth and I hope that potential is achieved.
I wish the Minister well in his talks in Brussels over the next few days. I hope we retain the quotas we have. There is talk of reductions in certain areas. I know this is an annual ritual which the Minister has to go through in December each year. In Ireland we have got the wrong end of the stick in regard to the common fisheries policy. Ever since we joined the European Economic Community in 1973 we have been fighting a losing battle. We have 16 per cent of European Union coastal waters but only 5 per cent of the catch, and our fleet is less than 3 per cent. We have been left behind, despite the tremendous potential. The massive Spanish fleets and over-fishing by other countries have denuded our fish stocks and led to conservation policies.
When the Minister goes to Brussels he is probably fighting for a total allowable catch, trying to build up to at least what we had in the previous year, but he is not gaining. We will probably have to stitch into the negotiations which are ongoing in the context of 2002 some improvements in our fish quotas and in relation to our fishing industry generally. The Minister negotiated the Common Fisheries Policy in 1992 when he was Minister for the Marine. We looked for an increase at the talks in Brussels where we were down to 11 to 1. On that basis, will we get overall approval? I often wonder about European Union policy if a landlocked country such as Austria has a vote on fishing when it has no fishing industry as such. What is the validity of it having a say on our future potential in this area?
Under section 6, the Minister referred to the five fishery harbours which are very important. I know he has plans for their development. I hope these will be expedited and that the harbours will be transferred to Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The Minister is probably anaesthetised to the many parliamentary questions looking for funding for Killybegs and Castletownbere. Development plans have been submitted for many of those harbours. A great deal of funding is required and there will probably be a mixture of private and public investment. It is important we get funding for the long-term future of those harbours.
There is a great deal which is good in this Bill. I welcome the fact that the Minister is trying to strengthen the original Bill. We will give our consent if the chairman of the committee wishes us to return early in the new year to expedite the Bill through Committee Stage. The Minister is aiming to remove the uncertainty about the allocation of licences. Aquaculture is probably a Cinderella industry within the fishing industry. However, it has assumed a great deal of importance over the years. As the Minister of State said, it is worth £58 million to the economy and supports about 3000 jobs. The industry can be strengthened further.
I have spoken to people involved in aquaculture and they are happy with recent progress, particularly now that the problem of the dumping of Norwegian salmon appears to have receded. They are getting a far better price for their farmed salmon and other products also appear to be doing well. We welcome and support the Bill.
I welcome the Bill which is long overdue. Down through the years, applications from those who wish to become involved in the aquaculture and mariculture industries have been put on the back burner by the Department. For some unknown reason, progress has been slow in granting licences to people who wish to participate in this valuable industry.
Aquaculture and mariculture will play a vital role in the economy in the years ahead. While deep sea fishing has been bedevilled with quotas etc. there still seems to be an unlimited market for our aquaculture and mariculture products throughout the world. We are blessed to have clean water for aquaculture and mariculture development. The standard of Irish fish farm produce is excellent and should be developed and expanded in the world market in the years ahead.
The infrastructure of this fast growing industry is very limited. It is very hard to operate in certain areas where landing facilities are completely inadequate to handle the amount of work generated by the industry. I would like the Minister to insist that ample funding is made available for the development of landing facilities to facilitate this fast growing industry. Bantry Bay is the Mecca of the aquaculture industry. The landing facilities in Bantry pier are completely inadequate. This is a hindrance to the development of the industry in a bay which has thrived so much in recent years. I implore the Minister to give sufficient financial support to the improvement of landing facilities in that area. We will not have a vibrant aquaculture and mariculture industry without sufficient infrastructure.
Aquaculture and mariculture will go hand in hand with other marine activities provided that proper planning and management is introduced. I have no doubt that under this Bill applications for licences will be vetted and copperfastened to ensure that no ill effects will accrue from the development of the industry in regions around the country.
How soon does the Minister think he will be able to grant aquaculture development licences to the 600 people still waiting for them? According to the Minister of State much progress has been made in considering applications, with 90 applications ready for formal decision as soon as this Bill becomes law. Another 30 applications are being finally assessed by his Department and its advisers. That figure is 120, which is only one fifth of the total amount of applications in the Minister's office.
I am not happy when I see progressive individuals trying to get started in the aquaculture and mariculture industries frustrated by the lack of attention given to their applications for licences. I know several people who have applied to the Department for licences in the past four and five years. They are still awaiting a decision. This is unfair — it prohibits the person from getting started and denies him any State aid. This procedure will have to be speeded up. I do not know why people are held to ransom and not given the go-ahead, provided they satisfy the criteria laid down by the Department, which I know they have done. That is why I am dubious about the statement made by the Minister of State that he is committed to processing all existing applications to a conclusion in 1999. I hope the Minister is committed to this as it is the main plank in the platform of this industry and it will enable people to ensure they get their rightful grants from the EU and the Department to develop this industry to its potential.
The Bill is timely and the potential for the further growth of the aquaculture industry is enormous. The quality of the product is second to none. With this in mind and this foundation on which to build I see no reason why the industry will not boom in the coming decade. It is our only hope of cashing in on a lucrative world market for our products.
I would like to know what developments have accrued from the Minister's visit to China early this year. Have markets been opened with the Chinese who are very good customers for mariculture products? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what progress he has made in this matter. There is no point in visiting China and returning saying a market will be developed. How much mariculture product has been exported to China? Have we broken into the market? There is a huge potential market in Asia for our mariculture and aquaculture products. It is most important that the Minister does not relax his efforts but accelerates them to ensure proper markets are found worldwide and that we tap into them in terms of the very lucrative products we offer.
Let us hope the Bill will copperfasten the future of this industry and give those who are anxious to develop it the opportunity they have long been denied. It is with pleasure that we accept the Bill and we look forward to its implementation and the results it will have in the promotion of the industry in the years ahead.
I pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, for the excellent work he did as a Minister of State in the previous Government in putting through the legislation which this Bill proposes to amend. I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions, but will await further consultation with other sections of the industry. I wish to express concern to the Minister at the way in which this legislation has been introduced. Members of the Opposition and Government parties have not been afforded an opportunity to consult with various interests.
During the last Government I had the pleasure of chairing quite a number of all-party committee meetings dealing with various legislation relating to the industry. We spent a substantial time in dealing with the report of the salmon task force. As Deputies Finucane and Gilmore are aware, we consulted with every section of the industry across the board. Pushing through legislation does not afford us an opportunity to do this. I understand the Minister is anxious to take all Stages of the Bill today or before the Christmas recess. I would like an explanation as to why this is necessary. Will he spell out the flaws in the original legislation and explain why the process has taken 18 months? When was it discovered that 600 applications have not been completed? How long will it take to deal with these applications if the Bill is enacted? If it took 18 months to recognise that there were flaws in the Act, will it take another 18 months to test this Bill following enactment?
The Minister, Dr. Woods, mentioned that legal advice was sought. Was this received from the Office of the Attorney General? Was the industry consulted? We did not have time to consult the industry because of the short notice of the Bill. There are many different interests in the fishing industry and it is necessary to consult with the various sectors, as we did in the case of the report of the salmon task force and other legislation brought forward by the Department.
The Minister might communicate the advice outlining the problems with the Act. Legal advice which states the legislation is defective, if such exists, should be made available, even if on a confidential basis, to Opposition spokespersons. In general terms the Bill will be welcomed by Opposition parties if the necessary explanations are given by the Minister.
When does the Minister intend completing Second Stage if not completed today? Will if be the first week in January or the end of January? I ask this in the context of allowing us time to have proper consultation with the various sections of the industry.
If we get a clear response from the Minister and a fair explanation of the reasons for rushing the Bill through, we will support it. If we do not get these explanations, we will oppose it.
I am somewhat surprised by the contribution of Deputy Bell as the Minister more than adequately spelt out the reasons this extraordinary procedure was being adopted. The Minister has indicated by his presence and the presence of the Minister of State that this is a matter of some seriousness and that they and the Department are dedicating much time, effort and personal commitment to resolving what could become, in the Minister's own words, a legal quagmire, generating a plethora of time consuming litigation which would do serious damage to the aquaculture industry. I, therefore, welcome the Bill.
It is surprising difficulties have arisen given that the primary legislation is of such recent origin. However, it is better that the Minister resolves what he sees as difficulties likely to lead to litigation before the litigation does the ultimate destruction to the industry. I was puzzled by Deputy Bell's contribution and by the circumstances which have led us to this situation.
The aquaculture industry is one on which we have issued policy statements and had discussions on and off for the best part of 15 years or longer. In 1984 it was my privilege to draft the original policy document for my party — towards a marine policy. Aquaculture at that time was regarded as very central and as a new and exciting potential. When we consider the extent of our coastal waters — Deputy Finucane touched on this — and think of the estuarial waters and the potential given the whole aquaculture environment, it is astonishing that this country has been so far behind in the development of what could be a very important industry.
The other point which has been validly made is that the more remote parts of Ireland are those which are most appropriate for the development of aquaculture. This industry should really fit in with our overall desire for better regional dispersal of employment and the proper exploitation of our natural resources and should be a clean industry. It is somewhat amazing that the legislative basis of this industry and the infrastructure and the architecture on which it is based is really only now being put in place. It is a very important industry and it is essential that we have a good, solid, firm and cohesive legislative basis for it. As the problem with the sea trout proves, there are difficulties when we try to take an artificial creation into what is a very natural environment. There is a challenge to ensure that anybody who comes into this industry operates to the very highest standards and that we have the highest standards in terms of product and the environmental and health impact of species introduced.
The complexity of the current situation was well sketched out by the Minister when he referred to the various sections of the 1997 Act. One of the things which struck me forcibly when listening to the Minister — I go back to Deputy Bell's contribution because it is also the kernel of what he said — was that we live in an extremely complex society. We have become a very litigious nation and a positive development may be held up and stymied by the willingness of people to abuse legislation brought in to create a legislative base. I instance, for example, the very welcome development in recent years as regards environmental impact statements and greater consultation. The whole process is welcome and proper but it has been subject to considerable abuse -for example, in terms of its impact on infrastructural development.
The Minister of State mentioned that he had recently appointed the CIRCA group to prepare a strategic study of the aquaculture industry. I welcome that move because we have been a little like a rudderless ship in this area. There has not been a clear cohesive statement of policy on aquaculture. We find ourselves in difficulties because there has not been such a study. In the document I produced in 1984, which is a long time ago, it was suggested that there was a need to do some scoping to work out precisely what could be done, what challenges lay ahead and what conflicts arose. I welcome the statement by the Minister of State in this regard. It is surprising that we have had the Department of the Marine for a significant number of years but have not had this type of policy statement.
The Department of the Marine was one of the great innovations in public administration in the 1980s. It was adventurous, far-sighted and very much driven by the then Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, who had an intense interest. However, it has become fashionable to vilify the man and to ignore the good things he did. One of the good things he did was to drive the idea of a Department of the Marine. It was very sad that the Department of the Marine found itself so dramatically and at an early stage of its life plunged into the controversy of the rod licences. That brings us back to the point I made about the CIRCA group and the Minister of State's initiative in appointing a strategy group. In a new industry such as this, where we will trespass on many areas to develop a cohesive industry, it is important to have a clear statement of policy.
While on the issue, the Minister knows it has always been something of a bugbear of mine that the Department of the Marine should be just that and not, as it has been, the Department of the Marine Siamese-twinned with the Department of Defence, which was described as the Department of Fish and Ships by a Minister, or the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, as it is now. There is a need for us to have a clear focus on the marine but that is a debate for a different day.
The Minister of State also mentioned the aquaculture industry forum. I was pleased when he mentioned he had attended meetings of the forum and intends to continue to do so. In the context of the SMI committee, there has been some criticism from the industry about the non-operation of the forum, so I am pleased to see it is operating. I commend the Minister and Minister of State and ask that the Minister of State be an active participant in the forum's work. It is a place where the various and sometimes potentially conflicting views would be brought together.
The Bill, although very specific, affords us the opportunity to branch and touch on one or two other areas, as Deputy Finucane did. It mentions, for example, the foreshore and, as Deputy Finucane creatively pointed out, it reminds us of erosion. The Minister does not need me to remind him of my concerns about the extraordinary situation over the past two and a half decades during which totally inadequate attention was paid to coastal erosion, particularly because of budgets.
I commend the Minister — I am pleased to be here in his presence to do so — who, in the case of Bray, has taken the most proactive role of any Minister. He dealt with the controversy there in an extremely sensitive way. He knows of my concern that the coastal protection scheme in Bray will be to the best possible standard. I know that concern is shared by the Minister, a Bray man who, as he says himself, was reared on the seafront. He has been very active in ensuring we get the best, which is consistent with environmental protection.
This raises the issue of the role of local authorities which do not always behave sensibly. I hope in the weeks and months ahead the Minister will be able to use his good offices and his well-known diplomatic skills to resolve some outstanding difficulties as regards the coastal scheme in Bray. It is a very important scheme and the Minister has put a huge amount of personal energy and prestige into it. It is essential that it is brought to finality early and in the most suitable way possible. This Minister's intervention in this matter has been exemplary, welcome and worthwhile and will produce the type of results we want to see.
Deputy Sheehan touched on the possibilities for remote areas as regards aquaculture. I challenge the Deputy that it is not only the west coast that has possibilities for aquaculture and, for example, fish tourism. The Dargle River is one of the finest sea trout streams in the country; I am being absolutely parochial because it runs across my back garden. An adventurous and extraordinary scheme is being put forward by the Dargle anglers and I will be knocking on the Minister's door in support of that scheme in the near future. I hope it will get an active and positive view from the Department and I know the Minister will certainly give them more than a fair hearing because he always has done so.
Deputy Finucane also touched on the wider issue of fish quotas which is not directly related to the Bill, although we are talking about the fisheries area. I commend the Minister on some of his recent actions regarding the fleet, but it is in a frightening state, especially the ancient vessels which comprise the inshore fleet. Fishermen are not bureaucrats, yet it has become extremely difficult to upgrade the fleet. Something must be done and I wish the Minister well in that regard in the year ahead.
Whelk fishing is a small but significant fishery. The Minister knows better than I its significance because of its importance in his constituency. Whelk fishermen made representations to me recently about the difficulties being faced by small operators in entering whelk fishing, specifically as they must buy a white fish quota to gain access. I understand this is being done to contain growth and preserve the species. However, many of the people involved are small operators and this requirement weighs heavily on them. In Britain, the quota for whelk fishing is handled in a manner which does not require the same sort of expensive treatment afforded it here.
I ask for sympathetic treatment of whelk fishermen for a number of reasons. Deputy Sheehan mentioned the Asian market which has collapsed. That market, specifically the Korean market, was the lifeblood of this small but important and significant industry. The price for whelk has fallen to one seventh of its price two years ago, yet people must still buy a white fish quota to gain access to the industry. That is an onerous requirement. There should be other ways of licensing and protecting the species. The Minister, who has exercised a good deal of ingenuity in other areas, should turn his brain to this.
One of the reasons I am concerned about the Bray seafront protection scheme is the use of large volumes of shingle from the codling bank which is not as appropriate for dealing with coastal erosion as the scheme the Minister prefers. I hope he is able to reach an accommodation to allow sense to prevail so that Bray Urban District Council will soon endorse the coastal erosion scheme which the Minister has been to the fore in promoting.
I commend the Minister and Minister of State for attending the debate. Notwithstanding the late hour in terms of the legislative year, if there is a potential lacuna in the law or an area where there will be unnecessary litigation, it is important that it is corrected and the Minister and his colleagues are to be commended for doing that today. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the legislation.
There is a general practice in the House to publish Bills two weeks before Second Stage is taken. That we are agreeing to take Second Stage today indicates the wish of the Opposition to co-operate with the Minister in the advancement of the Bill before us. However, we have an obligation as the Legislature to examine critically any legislation brought before the House, its reason, detail, content, etc. Consequently, it would be unreasonable to expect the House to deal with all Stages of the legislation in one debate. It would be unfair to, and place at a disadvantage, those outside the House, especially those with an interest in the industry, if they were denied the opportunity of passing comment on the legislation and making submissions or observations, either to the Minister or to Members, about the legislation. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about my role and work in bringing the 1997 legislation before the Oireachtas and piloting it through.
The fish farming industry, which the Bill addresses, is of increasing importance. It is worth £58 million annually, with 3,000 employed in it, many of whom live in remote locations which might otherwise have difficulty attracting industry. At a time when large companies cease operations and relocate elsewhere at ease if it is convenient for them, the development of an indigenous industry, based on natural resources and appropriate to coastal activity is very important. The success and progress made in the aquaculture industry over the years is important for the coastal communities it serves. Apart from the employment aspect and the retention of people in coastal communities it is also important in producing a source of good, nutritious food. The Minister can correct me if my figures are wrong but, at present, fish farm produce comprises about 30 per cent of fish products in Ireland. The bulk of fish product on fish counters in supermarkets, especially salmon and shellfish, is produced to a high standard on fish farms.
The development of fish farming is important for another and often forgotten reason — conservation. Stocks of wild fish are declining. The Minister is heading to the Council of Ministers meeting tomorrow where he will have to defend our case, and the issue of conservation will be high on the agenda. As population increases worldwide, the demand for fish grows and the capacity of the fishing industry globally to catch fish using sophisticated technology increases, the demand for fish can be met only by the development of fish farming. That is a point missed by those who, from an environmental perspective, criticise the fish farming industry. Growth in the industry is one way in which pressure on wild fish stocks will be reduced. The development of the salmon farming industry in Ireland has had a major impact on easing pressure on stocks of wild salmon. If we did not have a salmon farming industry for the best part of 20 years the stocks of wild salmon would be considerably reduced. The Irish fish farming industry operates to a high standard. For that reason it is imperative that environmental and hygiene standards are maintained to the highest levels and that there is transparency in the licensing process.
When Minister of State at the Department of the Marine the situation I inherited was one where the development of the industry was greatly hampered by the absence of a satisfactory licensing regime. There was considerable conflict, mistrust and much misinformation about the nature of the fish farming industry. The 1997 Act put in place a new legislative framework and a new licensing regime analogous to the planning system for developments on land. Following a period of public consultation, production of environmental impact studies and so on and an initial decision by the Minister, anybody aggrieved by that decision had the opportunity to appeal it to an aquaculture licence appeals board in the same way as one can appeal to An Bord Pleanála, if unhappy about a development on land. The Act also provides for the maintenance of high standards of environment quality and so on. It is complex legislation. The reason it attracts so much litigation is that this is a complex area. It deals not only with the licensing of aquaculture activity but also with the use of the foreshore and the allocation of portions of the foreshore to companies, individuals and co-operatives to engage in aquaculture activities.
The 1997 Act was signed into law on 14 May 1997, shortly before the 1997 general election which resulted in a change of Government. I am disappointed the aquaculture licence appeals board was not appointed and that the legislation did not come into operation until 30 June 1998 -over 12 months later. This meant the backlog in terms of the number of applications for licences lodged but not processed was causing frustration and difficulties in the industry.
I am disappointed that to date not a single licence has been issued under the 1997 Act. The Minister may make a case that because of the difficulties he saw with sections 74 and 75 it might not have been possible to issue licences to applicants whose applications were submitted prior to the commencement of the Act. There are certainly applications which would have been made after the commencement of the Act which should have been capable of being dealt with. The delay in commencing the Act has had the effect of delaying the issuing of licences to the industry, the absence of which is causing considerable difficulty. For example, one cannot obtain a BIM grant in the absence of a licence. Also one has difficulty in obtaining finance through banks in the absence of a licence.
I am somewhat puzzled as to the reason this legislation is before us. I am puzzled as to the reason it was produced so suddenly. The Smith case which I understand gave rise to the legal doubt about sections 74 and 75 was heard and the judgment handed down on 18 June. If a problem arose from that judgment I would have expected that action would have been taken before now.
Yesterday the Minister kindly arranged for a briefing for Opposition spokespersons, for which I thank him and his officials. We asked to see the legal opinion on which the Minister and the Government arrived at the conclusion that new legislation was necessary. I understand there is no written legal opinion on which the decision was made to introduce this legislation. This is highly unusual. We have many experiences of legislation being shot down in the courts and where new legislation has to be introduced to deal with it. This is the first time legislation is introduced to deal with an apparent legal problem with legislation where there is no legal opinion on which to base that case, where no challenge has been made in the courts to the sections of the legislation involved and where there is no case law on the sections involved.
The issue, as I understand it, is that section 74, which provides that applications which were submitted before the Act could continue to be dealt with as applications, is in doubt and that section 75, which provides for licences issued under the 1959 and 1980 Acts, may be in doubt. Yet the 1997 Act is explicitly clear on both those points. The 1997 Act deems applications made in advance to be applications under the 1997 Act and it deems the licences issued under the previous legislation to be licences under the 1997 Act. I am aware the issue was raised in the court about the question of public consultation but the 1997 Act explicitly provides for public consultation. For example, it provides that where consultation had not been engaged in, the licences had to be processed under the full terms of the 1997 Act. If there was a doubt about the extent to which that needed to be tightened up it could have been done by way of regulation.
I am at a loss to understand why this legislation is before us when the original legislation has not been found wanting in the courts. It was referred to in a court case, but has not been challenged in the courts. I am not aware of any challenge to it, and as I understand it, there is no formal written legal opinion on which this amending Bill is based. I am at a loss to know why this legislation is before us.
I wish to draw attention to section 6 which has nothing to do with aquaculture. Section 6 is about the fishery harbour centres. It purports to widen the rights of the Minister to allow activity to be engaged in, other than fishing activity, in the fishery harbour centres — Killybegs, Dingle, Castletownbere, Dunmore East and Howth. The Bill gives the Minister the power to have the fishery harbour centres used for "any other purpose including the provision, improvement and development of leisure or amenity facilities or for facilitating or promoting the social or economic development of the area in which the fishery harbour centre is located, which the Minister considers advantageous and appropriate in respect of the operation or development of the fishery harbour centre". It also allows him to "sell, lease, let, exchange, grant easements over, profits à prendre in respect of or permit the use of any land so vested for any of those purposes which the Minister considers appropriate.”
Today's newspapers carry reports of a row in Dunmore East regarding the development of a scheme of holiday homes near the fishery harbour. In my opinion there is potential for conflict in this area because, as the Minister stated, the 1968 Act is restrictive in terms of what can be done in a fishery harbour centre. On Committee Stage, we will be obliged to tease out the Minister's intentions regarding the provisions in section 6. There will be considerable alarm in the fishing industry and among fishermen in the five fishery ports in question at any prospect of their fishing activity, and the resources and facilities with which they are provided, being compromised or used for other short-term or attractive activities.
I am sure the Minister will not object to me voicing my concerns about the situation in Howth. Considerable concern exists regarding the state of the fishing industry on the east coast and its future. In light of the provisions in the Bill, perhaps the Minister will indicate the type of activities which will be carried out at fishery harbour centres and the use to which those centres will be put.
I will not oppose the Bill. I have expressed my doubts about the necessity for its introduction. The Minister stated that he received legal advice which we have not seen and which was not put in writing — which indicated that the legislation is necessary. I am inclined to believe these matters should be dealt with in the House rather than in the courts. The intention of sections 74 and 75 of the 1997 Act was to admit applications which were already made as valid applications for the purposes of that Act and to validate licences that were already issued. There has been a great deal of litigation in respect of aquaculture. I am not anxious that such litigation should continue because these matters should be dealt with in the House. However, those matters must be teased out during a lively and thorough Committee Stage debate.
I compliment Deputies Barrett and Gilmore who had ministerial responsibility in this area during the term of office of the previous Government. I pay particular tribute to Deputy Gilmore who was responsible for introducing the original legislation. I attended a conference in Westport recently which was also attended by the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Byrne, and great praise was given to Deputy Gilmore for the courage and commitment he displayed in bringing that legislation through the Dáil. However, people indicated their disappointment at the Government's failure to take action, for at least 12 months, in respect of the legislation introduced by the Deputy.
As the Minister and Minister of State pointed out, the fishing industry employs more than 3,000 people. However, there are those who are afraid to support the industry because the people involved in it are Irish nationals. If they were non-Irish nationals, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and various Ministers would be attending opening ceremonies and providing them with grant aid, rates remissions, etc. The people involved in the fishing industry are Irish, they are prepared to put their money where their mouths are, to employ Irish people and to take the risk of entering the industry in the first instance.
I understand there are 600 licences awaiting approval from the Department. I have only been a Member of the House for a short period and the one Department that upsets and annoys me it did so even when my party was in Government is the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. One would need a heart bypass each time one contacts that Department to obtain a reply to a question, a licence, etc., because one is transferred from one official to another without any action being taken. I hope the situation will improve in the future.
People in the fishing industry have invested a great deal of money in their businesses. When they submit applications for licences, requests for information, etc., to the Department, they are entitled to be dealt with speedily. I would like a charter of rights similar to that which applies to farmers to be introduced in respect of fishermen because their dealings with the Department can be frustrating. I compliment the Minister for dealing with a recent case about which I contacted him and which involved a foreshore licence for the cable car at Inishbiggle.
There are never any problems when developers apply for foreshore licences. The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources acts speedily in such cases, a fact which upsets me. Why can the Department not show the same initiative in respect of the operators who depend on the approval of their licences to obtain bank loans and attract investors? There are 3,000 people involved in the industry but that figure could be doubled if the outstanding licences were granted.
Given that the legislation will be passed without opposition, the Government and the Minister must ensure that the necessary resources and staff are allocated to deal with this problem. Licence applications must be dealt with quickly so that people making them are not delayed by being obliged to contact politicians or the Department. If there is a shortfall of staff in the Department, it should be rectified. Those with responsibilities in this area, regardless of the Department in which they are employed, should be answerable to the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources and they must also be provided with adequate resources.
Mr. Richie Flynn from the IFA is present in the Visitors' Gallery. His organisation is involved in the fishing industry and I compliment it on its recent conference in Westport. The IFA made a wise choice in selecting Westport to host that conference because the town was able to cater for its needs in terms of hotel accommodation, etc. Many people in the west are involved in the fishing industry and they are good and honest employers and they work hard. They have gone through a difficult period but they are now getting their act together. They are hoping the industry will go from strength to strength because many people who would otherwise have been working in New York, London or elsewhere will now be able to work in Achill, Clare Island, Westport, etc. I hope the resources will be put in place to deal quickly with the backlog of licences. Many people are waiting for those licences to obtain approval for bank loans and to attract investors to their companies.
Deputy Roche referred to coastal erosion. There is a major problem in the west. The Minister will attend a conference in Brussels in the coming days to discuss quotas and other matters related to the fishing industry. I hope he will put forward a strong case for Irish fishermen because they endured a difficult period in recent years.
The problem of coastal erosion should also be discussed. If it is not dealt with, areas in Achill, Belmullet and Clare Island will be washed away. The problem is getting worse and nothing is being done. A miserly sum was allocated last year. The problem will not go away.
The west should be included in the application to Brussels for Objective One status which I hope will be accepted. This would be of assistance to the industry and help to attract investment.
I understand BIM may be given responsibility for harbours. It could not do a worse job than the Department. There are many harbours where fishermen cannot land their catch at certain times of the year because of weather or tidal conditions. Our fishermen have been let down, although the grant aid announced recently by the Minister to upgrade the fleet is welcome. This has been sought for many years.
I hope the Minister will be successful in the negotiations in Brussels this week on quotas and that we will not have to wait a further 12 months for licences to be issued. Many have invested and want to invest in the industry but they have to obey the law and abide by EU regulations. Whatever action has to be taken to assist them should be taken by the Minister.
I welcome the Bill. Anything that speeds up the process of issuing licences has to be welcomed. I have one reservation, however, which is shared by Deputy Gilmore. There are dangers attached to rushing legislation. I understand there has been consultation with Opposition spokespersons on marine affairs. I hope there has also been consultation with the industry. A number of years ago prior to the Christmas recess legislation dealing with rod licences was rushed through. We are all aware of the difficulties this caused.
It is unbelievable that there are 600 applications on hand in the Department, many for ten years or more. The Bill amends the 1997 Act introduced by Deputy Gilmore when Minister of State. He grasped the nettle and his efforts were much appreciated. He dealt with other fisheries matters also. He took the courageous step of implementing the recommendation made by various committees and reports that the use of monofilament nets be legalised in salmon fisheries. There has been peace and tranquillity in that sector since.
Traditional or deep-sea fishing has reached its full potential. Fishermen are subject to quotas and EU regulations. It is difficult to envisage further development. I hope the Minister will be successful in the negotiations on quotas in Brussels this week but we are never surprised when they are reduced. This has a knock-on effect on economic activity, employment and income in coastal communities in the west.
The aquaculture sector, however, has huge potential. One of the great advantages is that employment is created by native entrepreneurs. The people of Donegal are aware of the importance of providing support for home industry based on natural resources, given the events of last week when a huge multinational pulled out leaving 800 employees without jobs and a further 800 by this time next year.
The aquaculture sector plays an important part in the economy of Donegal. One of the largest producers of farmed salmon is based in Fanad in Lough Swilly. The jobs of the young people employed are ensured.
The 1997 Act was progressive. It introduced transparency to the issuing of licences. No one knew what the yardstick was. This was unacceptable and a source of much frustration. Under the Act a final decision has to be made within two or three months. If an applicant is unsuccessful, a reason has to be given which may be appealed. It is disappointing, therefore, that after a year and a half no licences have been issued.
I am glad the IFA is playing an active part in fish farming. It has organised seminars to identify the possibilities. We still lag behind many of our neighbours. I believe Scotland is far more advanced than we are, and Norway is even more advanced. We have been slow in coming to grips with the possibilities of this industry. If even some of the 600 licence applications are granted there will be enormous economic development in the west and around the coast. I understand 3,000 are already employed with a total income of between £58 and £60 million. The sooner these licences are issued the better because we have much ground to make up.
Infrastructural development must take place in parallel with the issuing of licences to underpin the deep sea fishing and aquaculture industries. Harbours must be improved. I know plans exist for the improvement of Burtonport, Greencastle and other smaller harbours in County Donegal. Aquaculture is often carried on in small coves and inlets rather than in bigger or more prominent harbours. It is important that proper access and safe landing facilities are provided in these smaller locations. In my area there are many inlets in the Rosses, Gweedore and Cloughaneely where mussel and other shellfish farming is carried out. Piers and other necessary infrastructure must be provided in these places to allow safe access in all weather.
We must engage in the promotion and marketing of fish. We see what can be done with proper marketing. The Donegal Catch brand is well known throughout the country and abroad and is an example of good promotion and marketing.
Coastal erosion can have a significant effect on the development of aquaculture and is a problem in many parts of the country, including County Donegal. I am disappointed that only £3.74 million is being made available to address this problem in the coming year. That amount would be insufficient to address the problem of coastal erosion in County Donegal, not to speak of the entire coast.
Mention has been made of the recent issuing of 31 licences for the white fish fleet. These are very welcome and will help the development of that sector of our fishing industry. However, I was disappointed that a number of young applicants who have trained in the fishing school in Greencastle, received their skipper's tickets and have some experience, were not favourably considered. If the fishing industry is to have a future, young people who are willing to work and keen to make the investment must be encouraged to enter it. While I welcome the issuing of the 31 licences, I am disappointed that so many young applicants were not successful.
I welcome the Bill. I hope it is enacted and that the logjam in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources is released and the licences issued as soon as possible. If they are, we will see the benefits of investment by Údarás na Gaeltachta and others to bring employment to the west where it is so badly needed.
I am puzzled that a Bill which has not been challenged in the courts is now being amended. I assume there is good reason for doing so. The Foreshore Act, 1933, the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 and the Fisheries Act, 1980 are mentioned. Licences have been issued on the basis of the 1959 and 1980 Acts and there is doubt as to their legality. It is important that the matter is cleared up. From time to time legislation can be flawed. Some legal people feel the Landlord and Tenant Act, passed five or six years ago after many months of debate, is flawed and that, under it, a person who lives in rented accommodation for more than three months acquires squatters rights. That is an appalling state of affairs, but I see no effort being made to amend it. This is simply one example of legislation which is inaccurate and inappropriate. None of us disagrees with what the Minister is doing in introducing this Bill. If an error needs to be rectified, let us do so. The debate affords us an opportunity to refer to some elements of the development of aquaculture which need attention.
I have noticed in two locations in my constituency in recent years that people have proceeded with projects without an aquaculture licence. By doing so they have created a number of problems in the locality. Will the Minister make it clear that if people proceed with an activity for which they do not have a licence, they will be disqualified from receiving a licence for the venture in question for ever more? I hope the Minister will pay attention to that type of situation. It is a form of intimidation when a person fills a beach with trestles and seed as though he owned the beach and had a licence for his activity. One of the locations I refer to is the very scenic area known as Woodstown strand. Deputy Byrne can see it when he gets up every morning.
It is a beautiful county. I am very envious of where the Deputy lives.
It is a beautiful county, but what is happening there is a serious contravention of the law. People have proceeded with an activity for which they have no licence. There has been damage to the attractive beach, local people have been disturbed and people have taken the law into their own hands. One might accept these inconveniences because jobs have been provided. However, while the area where trestles have been laid is exposed at low tide, at high tide it is the feeding ground for a number of species of flat fish such as plaice, flounders and others. The area was trawled by local fishermen until the trestles were laid down. These are metal objects a few feet long and a couple of feet wide. One cannot trawl in an area where there are hundreds of them. Until they were laid, a number of local fishermen trawled that fishing ground. Generations of their families before them trawled it. Suddenly they find their right to earn a living is destroyed and the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources has done nothing about it. I would like the Minister to comment on that type of situation. If any of us breaks the law, whether while driving on the road or in an infinite number of other ways, we will be quickly called to account, but when people did it in this manner, nothing was done about it.
There was a similar incursion on the beach at Abbeyside in Dungarvan six or seven years ago when a group thought they could proceed to lay metal trestles on the beach without a licence or reference to anybody. There was uproar. When they applied for planning permission, it was refused. The objections were so numerous and vociferous that it was only a matter of time before it was refused. One of the darker sides of the acquaculture industry is that some people proceed to do work without any licence. While I wish the best of luck to those who proceeded to work with a licence, we do not want people to ride roughshod over other people's rights.
While the aquaculture industry is primarily confined to the west, areas on the south coast have made tremendous progress in recent years. I refer specifically to the Ring Gaeltacht situated five or six miles outside Dungarvan where a large oyster industry has been built up. Dozens of people are gainfully employed in it and it has been a wonderful boom for the area. Having regard to small projects like that, bigger projects on the west coast and the deep inlets in west Cork, Kerry, Galway, Mayo and Donegal, there is tremendous potential for development, but it is important that it should be in an orderly manner.
The 1933 Foreshore Act, referred to in the Minister's statement, is most interesting legislation. The responsibility of the various Departments and Ministers for the foreshore is complex. It is difficult to establish where the rights of a landowner start and end. The definition of a high water mark, an average full tide, leads to many disputes and much uncertainty. There is a need for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the Department which is most involved in this area, to ascertain from people exactly where ownership starts and ends. Jurisdiction for the foreshore lies with the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. The area below the foreshore, the area below low water level, used to be the responsibility of the former Department of Transport and Power, but it is difficult to ascertain which Department that is today. It may be the Office of Public Works. The matter of responsibility for the area below low water level is one of concern. I do not know if the Minister can give a clear definition of the various departmental responsibilities for the different areas. The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources comes into the equation somewhat further out. Three Departments have responsibility for beaches and the foreshore, but the delineation of those responsibilities is not at all clear. There is a fourth component, the owner of the adjacent land. There are four interested bodies. There is usually an appendix at the end of a Bill which gives a definition of where various responsibilities for areas lie. I would have liked such a definition to be included in this Bill. I have never seen that in print. I do not know if the Minister or anyone else has, but I am sure somebody has. I do not know if any Member in this House can tell me where responsibilities for these areas lie.
There was an interesting case today in the paper — I mean the Cork Examiner.
It is The Examiner. It does not like to be referred to as the Cork Examiner.
In my day The Guardian was the Manchester Guardian, but it went upmarket and became The Guardian. The paper is still the Cork Examiner to me and my generation.
It will not be happy to be referred to as that.
It is seeking to attract a bigger market.
It is. It is going after the sleaze market, the tabloid press. A paper need not be a small size to be a tabloid. When a paper excludes the Dáil debates and keeps referring to sex cases, it merits the title of a tabloid. Sleaze, sex, violence and other related matters apparently sell papers. Papers carry out research studies on this and that is what they have come up with.
In today's Cork Examiner it is reported that Youghal Urban Council questioned the ownership of the river bed of the River Blackwater. Those fishing rights belong to the Duke of Devonshire, one of whose residences is Lismore Castle. They were probably given by a king or queen three, four or five centuries ago. Much as we may not like it many such fishing rights exist around the country and with our membership of the EU it will be probably more difficult than ever to extinguish those type of fishing rights. The question raised by members of the Youghal Urban Council was who owns the river bed of the River Blackwater as distinct from the fishing rights and the fish that swim in the river and in the estuary. I would like the Minister to read the report of the discussion that took place at a meeting of Youghal Urban Council and to ask his officials to inquire into the ownership of that river bed. Fishing rights may not necessarily mean ownership of solid surface underneath. It raises an interesting point of law and people are entitled to an answer to that question.
I do not apologise for raising these questions. I have raised some highly technical questions concerning the three Departments and their responsibilities in regard to the foreshore and the ownership of the river bed. This is a grey area and these matters are inconclusive. The Duke of Devonshire may own the fish swimming in the River Blackwater but may not own the river bed. Who knows what the ramifications or implications of such a finding would be. It would be interesting to investigate this matter.
Section 6 refers to fishery harbours and the multiple use of such harbours. They are not used only for fishing but, as the Minister said in his statement, for social purposes. The yacht club springs to mind. This has serious implications because we have many nice harbours and fine fishing fleets.
The tourism and leisure industry is growing rapidly and many people are wealthy enough to own sizeable yachts and motorboats. There is great competition for space in those harbours, whether it is Kilmore Quay, Rosslare, Dunmore East or Kinsale. I agree with the Minister's statement that the social element should be considered. However, many of these harbours are not capable of looking after the needs of competing interests.
I repeatedly tabled parliamentary questions on the need to expand Dunmore East harbour. It is one of four designated harbours — the others are Killybegs, Castletownbere and Howth — which provide a livelihood and leisure activities for several hundred people. However, they are not capable of coping with both demands. The Minister should instigate a new programme of harbour development, such as that initiated by one of his predecessors 30 to 35 years ago which extended and improved those four harbours.
Howth is a great harbour but time has caught up with it; it is no longer big enough. There is a marina and plenty of fishing boats but additional employment could be created if the proper infrastructure was in place. Killybegs is a leading port and a shining beacon for our fishing industry. However, it cannot cope with competing interests, although they may not be as great as those on the east or south coasts, which are densely populated and affluent, where Irish, British and international leisure craft congregate in huge numbers.
We need a programme to extend our existing harbours. Dunmore East is a classic example of the need for such an extension. People will soon be at each other's throats because there is no room in these harbours to cater for competing needs. We are not opposed to the Bill which gives us an opportunity to discuss fisheries and related matters. I ask the Minister to consider the points I have raised.
I commend the Minister for introducing this legislation. The industry was in a tenuous position in that the legal doubts about the licensing procedures for aquaculture were not removed. This legislation will have an impact on people's livelihoods in areas such as Inver in County Donegal, where the aquaculture industry employs a large number of people. Some people in the community and the fisheries boards were concerned about this development, but the aquaculture and fin fish industries have been good to my local area. They have created jobs which would not otherwise have existed as the demise of inshore fishing meant that fishermen had nothing to do. I hope the Minister will be able to deal speedily with the applications sent to his Department.
We are dealing with an industry in its infancy but we have learned from the many problems it has faced, particularly in the Nordic countries. There is still room for expansion within the existing parameters. Young people should have access to the development of the shellfish or fin fish industry. I hope the industry supports those who have taken initiatives to develop small shellfish or fin fish farms and that it looks at the way our fish is marketed. Unfortunately, the demise of our inshore fishing left many rural communities with little hope, but this industry has given them new impetus, energy and enthusiasm.
I commend the Minister for appointing a strategic group to examine the industry. I look forward to its recommendations on its development and on securing jobs. I hope the Minister examines competition in the marketing of our finished product. Concerns have been expressed by the industry about access by non-European countries to the EU market and price reductions which have given an unfair advantage to those selling fish, particularly salmon. I hope we look at how we promote our products and that we will be able to compete in a more favourable way with non-EU countries in particular. I hope the strategic group makes constructive points about developing the industry.
We must strike a balance between environmental issues and what is right for rural communities in terms of the development of the aquaculture industry. A number of rural communities rely on tourism and they feel their concerns should be taken into consideration when designating areas for fish farming in particular. That balance has been struck through the transparent application process which means people are now aware of what fish farming entails. I hope the industry continues to co-operate with communities and local authorities.
I am also glad to see that the industry forum has been a tremendous success. I would hope that such communications between the agencies and the industry will continue because we cannot go on ad infinitum without due regard to all of those who are involved in the industry, be it the Minister and his Department, the processors, the fish farmers, the local authorities and the State agencies. This industry is worth a great deal of money to the Exchequer — in the region of £58 million — and there are 3,000 or 4,000 people employed directly or indirectly. It is not just that this involves revenue to the Exchequer but the fact that the industry has provided employment in areas where it would not otherwise be available.
I listened to what some Members of the Opposition said with regard to the foreshore and the development of harbours. As it is the first time we have had any discussions on the marine, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and Minister of State for their commitment to the development of Killybegs harbour. A week has not passed since I was first elected to this House that I have not annoyed a Minister and the Department about the development of the harbour at Killybegs. I am delighted that the Minister and Minister of State have had the opportunity to come to Killybegs on a number of occasions to meet the industry and to look at the huge potential there. I am delighted that the Minister has obtained funding for the development of the harbour area, which will be of tremendous benefit to our fishermen. I hope it will encourage other types of investment in enterprise such as oil exploration, exports and leisure. I thank the Minister for that commitment. I hope we will be able to work in tandem with all of those involved in the development of the harbour as the premier port in County Donegal. I must not forget that the Minister also has given great support to Burtonport, the other large harbour area in my constituency.
The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources has not had the national support which it deserved. We are a maritime nation, surrounded by water. Unfortunately, the Minister did not get enough money for coastal protection. As I said once in the Dáil, I hope we do not find a situation some day where Athlone will be on the sea.
There should be greater support for the Minister's Department because he is talking about a potential which has not really been tapped. He has provided employment to areas where it would never have been available otherwise. My constituency is reliant on the fishing industry, be it the small fishermen or the large processing industry in Killybegs and Burtonport. Support is necessary for the development of my constituency and that view is echoed all around the coast.
I am delighted the Minister has introduced this legislation. I hope it will pass speedily through this House and the Seanad, and the Minister will find himself in a situation whereby he will be able to make decisions early. It is difficult for the industry when it finds that there is a legal quagmire and their licence applications have not been regulated properly. I hope that once and for all there will be no legal doubts with regard to the granting of licences to the aquacultural industry. I look forward to the huge development potential of this industry. I will support the industry in my constituency and nationally because there can be a balance between the environmental issues which have been raised on a number of occasions and the employment issues. I commend the Minister and the Minister of State on the Bill.
I thank the Deputies who spoke for their support for the Bill. While I congratulated Deputy Gilmore for his work on the Act, I also pay tribute to the contribution of the then Minister, Deputy Barrett. There were quite a few contributions to the wide-ranging debate. In some ways Deputy Coughlan summarised it at the end when she said that there is huge potential for aquaculture.
The legal advice available to the Department states that there is a legal doubt, about which we can all argue. My officials are aware of and recognise the doubt. They know the situation as they worked with it for years. One approach would be to debate how to nail down that doubt. The simplest course is to introduce legislation which puts the intention of the Government in the 1997 Act beyond any doubt. That is all I want to do. I would rather do it now and have done with it. We could go on discussing that doubt; indeed, now we are taking that discussion into next year. I am sorry that is happening. I would have preferred to have dealt with it now.
There has been criticism that I would like to see the various sections agreed. The sections are designed only to remove doubt and to back up the existing legislation and to make sure there will be no more delays.
A member of the Opposition pointed out how litigious people have become. On the enactment of every piece of legislation there are a half dozen barristers wanting for particular reasons to root around for loopholes. That results in a delay in development. There has been far too much delay in development in this area to date. I am asking the House to go along with me in putting the matter beyond doubt.
Deputy Finucane hoped the committee would meet early in the new year before the end of January, when the House resumes. I will meet tomorrow, next week or the following week. I will meet at midnight, 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. That is the way I do my work. I would meet any time. If the meeting is to be on Christmas Eve or the following day, I will attend because there are people waiting to have this doubt removed.
There are people waiting to start their developments. I know that as soon as the Bill is enacted a certain number of licences — the Minister of State mentioned 90 — can be issued immediately. We can all complain about the 600 licence applications which must be assessed but they are all undergoing a thorough and rigorous assessment. That is what the House would want because that is what was laid down in the Act. Some 90 of those licences are ready to be issued. If after they are issued somebody wants to appeal them, then they can do so because we have installed the appeals system.
As soon as the party Whips of the committee are prepared to proceed the Minister of State and I will be ready.
Deputy Finucane raised the question of the extent of consultation.
The Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine is meeting this afternoon at 4 p.m. It intends only to review its strategy for the year. I have just discussed the matter with Deputy Gilmore and I do not know how Deputy Bell feels about it, but if the Minister wants to take Committee Stage this afternoon and if the chairman of the committee agrees to take it, I am sure we would be in agreement.
If that is agreed, I would be happy to do that. I thank the Deputy.
That is a generous gesture.
I appreciate what Deputies are saying. When there is something we can do and I cannot see any difficulty in it, I would be happy to move on it. The Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, and Deputy Finucane mentioned the 90 licences. I looked at some of these licences and they are in some of the key areas. The largest number are in Donegal and Cork, where Deputies have been speaking about the importance of providing jobs. Approximately 100 jobs are dependent on these licences in Donegal. This only takes 83 of the 90 licences into account. Additional licences which come on stream will lead to further job creation.
Deputy Finucane also raised the issue of conforming with EIS requirements and so on. This discussion shows that I wish to be clear about this issue. There is a substantial framework. The 1997 Act is a good and comprehensive Act. Many people do not understand how comprehensive it is and what it does. In one way it slows matters as one has to go through all the procedures. However, it also offers an appeals system so people can feel confident that a balanced system exists. The House or the Government do not want anything other than a balanced system. Once the system is functioning people will see that it works.
There was criticism of the time taken to produce this Bill. However, a large number of statutory instruments had to be prepared. Deputies, particularly former Ministers or Ministers of State, will know that this involves a good deal of time and work. That work has been done by the Department in the interim period.
Deputy Finucane mentioned the EU Council which is a tough Council. The reason for this is that there are conservation issues and fishing and over-fishing are constant problems. The Commission has tabled hard-line proposals on fish stock levels, including cuts of up to 40 per cent in many of the whitefish stocks critical to Ireland. The Commission has also proposed a reduction of almost 15 per cent in the Celtic Sea herring fishery which is a key stock for Ireland. This will give some idea of what we are up against.
We have our own scientific data, we have done a great deal of homework and we will fight a tough case. We will tell the Council that it must strike the right balance between biological and economic concerns, by ensuring the future of stocks while at the same time providing genuinely viable opportunities for fishermen in 1999. It will continue to be difficult and I thank Opposition Deputies for wishing me well in these discussions over the next two nights. In fairness to Europe, we have managed to maintain fish stocks and we want to keep fishermen in business.
Deputy Sheehan stressed the urgency of this issue which is important in his area. He also expressed concern about inadequate landing facilities. There will be £3 million in the Estimates, some of which I will be able to use to improve landing facilities. This will be a special allocation.
I hope the Minister will not spend it all in Kerry.
Not at all. It will enable us to carry out a great deal of work around the coast which will not be too expensive. The licences will be completed as soon as possible. Those that are ready can be issued almost instantly.
Deputy Bell was concerned about consultation with the industry. There has been consultation with the industry. It feels the best way forward is to put this issue beyond doubt as it could raise difficulties further down the road and we do not want that to occur. The industry is very supportive and would like to see these measures go through as quickly as possible. An IFA representative has put a great deal of time into this and can see a great opportunity for development in this area.
Deputy Roche spoke about the importance of solid legislation. He was also correct about the litigious society. He raised the issue of whelks on the east coast. I am familiar with this issue as many Howth fishermen fish for whelks on the east coast and I will bear the Deputy's comments in mind.
Deputy Gilmore comprehensively covered the Bill, the developments which have taken place and the importance of the aquaculture sector. The Deputy must appreciate that it is better to dispel any doubts which exist and that is what I wish to do. He also raised concerns about the fishery harbours, including Howth. Many of the things we have been doing could now be in doubt. For example, Howth Sea Angling Club has a facility in Howth and there is doubt about its position. Scouting Ireland has a facility on the pier in Howth and people with disabilities must also be catered for.
In the strictest interpretation of the legislation as it stands, I would not be entitled to lease facilities to such organisations. The Howth Yacht Club is involved and there is an ESB substation. Dublin Corporation has sewage pipes in the area and is given various rights of way. These issues are now being brought into question, including the facilities provided by Fingal County Council in conjunction with the Department. I am sensitive about the harbour and the importance of maintaining the fishery harbour. The fishery harbour in Howth is separated from the rest of the harbour so it is clearly designated. However, this would be a problem in other areas.
Deputy Deasy raised the issue of developing harbours. He is conscious of this issue because of Dunmore East. This is an overall problem and it is up to us to come up with proposals for the development of harbours. It is to the credit of successive Governments that harbour developments are taking place.
I welcome the relevant, searching and thorough comments of Deputies. It is clear that all sides wish to see the aquaculture industry developed in a sensible and balanced way and to see these matters put beyond doubt. A suggestion has been made that we move to Committee Stage this afternoon and I will follow that suggestion.
I put that forward as a suggestion but it depends on the Chairman of the committee.
I appreciate that and take it that Deputy Bell will go along with that suggestion.
Question put and agreed to.