The Bill must be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 which involve the imposition of a charge on the people.
Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 2000 [ Seanad ] : Report and Final Stages.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 6, after "1997," to insert "TO CONFIRM FEES PAYABLE TO THE MINISTER FOR THE MARINE AND NATU RAL RESOURCES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN FISH CULTURE AND AQUACULTURE LICENCES".
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are intended to safeguard licence fees imposed administratively. I record my appreciation to the Select Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine which dealt with the Bill and the major amendments thereto on 24 October. The House is now completing its consideration of the Bill. Amendment No. 1 extends the long title of the Bill which conveniently describes the Bill's scope. This amendment is necessary to accommodate the addition of a substantive new section 14 to the Bill through amendment No. 2 to safeguard certain licence fees.
The office of the Attorney General has advised that express statutory provision, as proposed, is the only way to remove doubt about the validity of licence fees imposed administratively, that is, otherwise than by way of regulations provided for in section 15 of the Fisheries Consolidation Act, 1959 for fish culture licences or section 54 of the Fisheries Act, 1980 for aquaculture licences. Both sections 15 and 54 have been repealed by sections 5 and 4, respectively, of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997. In accordance with the licence fee rates determined administratively in 1987, more than £1.5 million in fees has been collected in respect of the licences concerned with a further £600,000 due for payment during the remainder of the currency of the licences concerned.
Licence fees at the rates determined administratively in 1987 were agreed to by the licensees and, therefore, where the licences in question have some time to run before they expire, those rates will apply for the remainder of the licence period. The proposed statutory provision copperfastens that fees position. There is no doubt about the validity of any of the fees imposed under the Foreshore Acts in respect of foreshore licences granted for aquaculture purposes on State-owned foreshore. Those Acts do not require making regulations to impose licence fees.
The Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997 made comprehensive new provision for aquaculture licensing and replaced all previous aquaculture licensing legislation. It also expressly provided for the imposition of licence fees by ministerial regulation and such regulations were made in 1998. Those regulations provided for increased rates of licence fees in respect of the licences granted under that Act or earlier licences renewed under that Act. The regulations also provided for a new fee to be charged for applications to renew licences granted, in addition to a new fee to be charged for applications for licences or reviews of licences to take account of increased administrative costs.
I understand what this proposal involves. My understanding is that fees for aquaculture licences were determined adminis tratively and had nothing to do with ministerial orders. Obviously, the Minister's legal people felt the constitutionality of this approach could be questioned and tested in the court. This was clearly not identified prior to the introduction of the wide-ranging 1997 Act. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this Bill will not result in current licence holders paying less or more in licence fees or not paying any licence fees at all.
There will not be any change in the licence fees. These fees were imposed administratively in 1987 and were not statutorily underpinned. We are merely seeking to give statutory effect to this administrative procedure and this will not impact on the level of fees, method of collection or any other matter.
I regret I was not present for the Minister's opening remarks but I understand he is merely correcting an anomaly in the statute. If that is the case, the Labour Party supports the proposal.
The Office of the Attorney General advised that the proposed express statutory provision is the only way to remove any doubt about the validity of the licence fees imposed administratively and these amendments are designed to facilitate that.
Is there a reason for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources to believe that anybody will test this in court, bearing in mind the administrative system that was used heretofore?
There was some concern regarding the validity of the fees imposed administratively. It was felt that it would be more appropriate to enshrine it in legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following new section:
"14.–(1) In section 15 (repealed by section 5 of the Act of 1997) of the principal Act–
(a) in subsection (1) (as amended by section 63(a) of the Act of 1980) reference to the prescribed fee shall be construed as reference to a fee determined by the Minister, and
(b) in subsection (6)(a) (inserted by section 63(b) of the Act of 1980) reference to prescribe shall be construed as reference to determine,
in respect of any fee payable under that section in relation to fish culture licences granted under section 15 of the principal Act before the repeal of that Section.
(2) In section 54 (repealed by section 4 of the Act of 1997) of the Act of 1980–
(a) in subsection (9)(a), reference to the prescribed fee shall be construed as reference to a fee determined by the Minister, and
(b) in subsection (9)(b), reference to prescribe shall be construed as reference to determine,
in respect of any fee payable under that section in relation to aquaculture licences granted under section 54 of the Act of 1980 before the repeal of that section.
(3) Any fees payable to the Minister, in respect of fish culture licences under section 15 of the Principal Act and aquaculture licences under section 54 of the Act of 1980 before the repeal of those sections, are confirmed.
(4) In this section–
‘Act of 1980' means Fisheries Act, 1980;
‘Principal Act' means Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959.".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Before we conclude, I would like to raise a further matter. The Bill started as a relatively small Bill, but it has been added to as needs have arisen. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like the Minister to state that one of the primary elements of the Bill is that it is retrospective. I would like the Minister to say, as the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, has done on a number of occasions during this Bill's passage through the House, that unsuccessful applicants will be told the reasons their applications for licences were rejected. The Minister should state that this right will be retrospective.
I confirm that applicants will be informed of the reasons for the decisions of the appeals board, just as An Bord Pleanála informs appellants of its reasons for its decisions. The right to this information will be retrospective. It is important to note that almost all licence applications are the subject of increased and improved developments and that many licence holders are applying for new licences.
Question put and agreed to.
As the Bill is considered by Article of 20.2.2º of the Constitution to be a Bill initiated in the Dáil, it will be sent to the Seanad.