JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 8 Nov 2005

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We are dealing with COM (2005) 362, a proposal for a Council directive on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals, and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals; COM (2005) 328, a proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2004/465/EC on a Community financial contribution towards member states' fisheries control programmes; and COM (2005) 361, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Directive 90/544/EEC on the frequency bands designated for the co-ordinated introduction of pan-European land based public radio paging in the Community.

I welcome Dr. Beamish and his officials. There will be a short presentation which will be followed by a question and answer session. I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before the committee. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

I am accompanied by Ms Fiona Geoghegan, head of the fish health division at the Marine Institute, Ms Rebecca Minch, from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, who deals with aquaculture development and aquaculture fish health issues, and Ms Josephine Kelly, from the seafood division.

COM (2005) 362 is a proposal for a Council directive on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. The purpose of the proposal is to update, recast and consolidate the animal health rules in the trade of aquaculture products, including disease prevention and control. Its overall objective is to improve the competitiveness of the EU aquaculture producers.

Since its beginnings in the early 1970s, Irish aquaculture has grown to become an important sector in the economy. From an output value of €37.2 million and 26,500 tonnes in 1990, 2004 saw output of 61,580 tonnes with a value of €101.61 million. The farmed shellfish sector has seen continued growth in recent years, while the outlook for the farmed finfish sector, after a period of difficult market conditions, is looking increasingly positive, following the implementation of measures to protect EU markets from low price imports of farmed salmon from third countries.

In the context of a global aquaculture industry, set for continued growth to meet the ever rising demand for seafood, Ireland can capitalise on its competitive advantage as a producer of top quality, high value aquaculture products. This, coupled with moves to diversify into new species and develop new technologies, will underpin future growth in aquaculture and ensure it remains an important source of employment opportunities in our peripheral coastal communities.

The purpose of this proposal is to update, recast and consolidate the existing rules in fish and shellfish and, in so doing, to improve disease prevention and control. The current legislation is outdated and difficult to operate. The aim is to improve the competitiveness of the EU aquaculture industry, with the focus more on disease prevention rather than disease control. The proposal will repeal the existing legislation, Council Directives 91/67, 93/53 and 95/70, and replace it with one directive. It will also modernise the EU regulatory framework for aquaculture, in taking into account the broader range of aquaculture practices and species now found in the expanded EU.

There is a change in emphasis in that the proposal delegates more responsibility to member states, allowing them greater flexibility, for the prevention and control of diseases. For example, member states can choose to control diseases not listed under the directive. The proposal requires increased traceability of movements of aquaculture animals with the requirement to register movements within a member state on the TRACES system, the EU trade control and export system, used for the tracking of movements of terrestrial animals. It should be noted the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources already has administrative procedures in place for the tracking of movements which involves clearance from a fish health perspective by the Department's scientific adviser, the Marine Institute. This involves the certification of the health status of imported animals by the member state or third country of origin.

The proposal requires records be kept of the transportation of animals with data on mortality, exchanges or releases of water. The proposal requires all aquaculture production businesses to be authorised and registered. Currently the requirement is only for all mollusc farms and those finfish farms with species susceptible to disease to be registered. The proposal requires the registration of farms with non-susceptible species such as sea bream, sea bass and eel. Authorisation will be dependent on a farm showing compliance with requirements on hygiene and animal health surveillance. In Ireland, aquaculture activity is already registered by virtue of being carried out on licensed aquaculture sites. All aquaculture activity requires a licence to operate under the aquaculture legislation. The authorisation of processing plants in member states for processing of aquaculture animals which have been slaughtered for disease control purposes is also a new element in this proposal.

Industry has been consulted extensively on the drafting this proposal. This has been done by the Commission through the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers and the European Mollusc Producers Association. Irish Industry groups are affiliated to both these groups. In addition, liaison has taken place with the Irish industry through the Irish fish and shellfish health advisory committee, IFSHAC, and at the Aquaculture Forum. Both of the latter include representatives of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Marine Institute, as well as those from the industry. The industry is supportive of this proposal and is currently working with the Marine Institute and the Department to draft a code of practice for fish health, which reflects the principles contained in this proposal.

The first meeting of the working party of veterinary experts, which is dealing with this proposal in Brussels, took place in mid-September. The next meeting of this group will take place later this month, with two further meetings scheduled in December. Since the submission of the information note on this proposal to the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, the timeline for the negotiation of this proposal has become clearer. It is now anticipated that it will be adopted in the latter part of 2006, which would put transposition into 2007.

In conclusion, while there are technical issues to be clarified, there is broad agreement among member states and industry that the principles contained in this proposal are sound and represent the way ahead for the European aquaculture industry.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Beamish. Can he break down the numbers of finfish and shellfish, with particular reference to farmed salmon?

Dr. Beamish

Shellfish make up the larger part, by volume, of the aquaculture industry. In 2004 some 28,000 tonnes of bottom-cultivated, or extensively cultivated, mussels were produced. In this process seed is taken from the wild and reallocated onto the seabed in licensed aquaculture sites such as Carlingford, Wexford and various places around the coast. Some 8,700 tonnes of rope mussels were produced in 2004 in areas such as west Cork and Kerry. Production of Pacific oysters or gigas oysters amounted to 5,100 tonnes in 2004 and 390 tonnes of native edulis oysters were produced. Total shellfish production was 42,000 tonnes.

Finfish essentially comprise salmon and trout. In 2004 production of salmon amounted to 14,000 tonnes, a sharp decrease from previous years due to poor market conditions, mortalities and diseases. Sea-reared rainbow trout accounted for 282 tonnes of production in 2004 and freshwater trout produced 889 tonnes, a total of 15,000 tonnes of finfish production. There are other minor species.

Chairman

Having regard to the National Development Plan 2000-2006, are we a long way away from farmed salmon quotas and production levels?

Dr. Beamish

In the intervening period, salmon production has declined. It increased in the initial period of the NDP to approximately 24,000 tonnes by 2003 but then a number of things happened. First, production in Norway, Chile and the Faroe Islands increased dramatically. This increased the global supply of salmon to a massive extent, reduced prices and seriously affected the viability of salmon farming in Ireland. That continued in 2003, 2004 and the early part of 2005. The position has now changed because of safeguard measures introduced at EU level. The market has been much better in 2005 than in previous years.

There were problems with mortalities in Donegal Bay in 2003, which took out most production there. There were also mortalities at a number of other west coast sites in 2003 and, to a certain extent, in 2004. Pancreatic disease, which affects only the fish and does not have a consumer impact, has also been a problem. The combination of all these factors has decreased production of salmon.

The opposite has occurred with regard to shellfish. In the early part of this decade there were many difficulties affecting shellfish production, such as algal blooms. A system of warnings and monitoring, which has greatly stabilised shellfish production, was introduced. We are not harvesting shellfish in such a way that we must withdraw from the market. With advance warning, shellfish can be left in place until a time when algal blooms have passed. There has recently been a steady growth in output of shellfish year on year. The economics of the matter have also been reasonably good.

With aquaculture, we are seeing continued growth in shellfish production in recent years. Salmon production had a difficult time in late 2003 and 2004 but now appears to have turned the corner with regard to market production at least.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Dr. Beamish gave an indication, in terms of tonnage, of how the main shellfish markets of mussels, oysters and others compare to finfish. Will he provide an indication of this in monetary terms? I imagine that a tonne of oysters is worth more than a tonne of farmed salmon. With regard to the current tonnage, has the Department carried out an assessment on the potential if account is taken of all locations in Irish waters? Is there a long-term target of potential cultivation that is not currently being benefited from?

Perhaps Dr. Beamish's colleague from the Marine Institute could indicate if questions have arisen regarding the viability of salmon farming in inshore bays because of increasing water temperature from global warming? Will the viability of the industry come into question if there are further increases in ambient water temperatures and will this have long-term consequences for the development of the industry?

Dr. Beamish

I apologise but I do not have a detailed breakdown of the values. I did not bring it with me. We can, however, obtain it.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

It can be sent to us.

Dr. Beamish

With regard to the issue of targets, aquaculture plans were set out at the beginning of the national development plan. Clearly, we are coming towards the end of this period and we will carry out a review. Work has been ongoing on a new marine research and innovation strategy, which is nearing completion. This is likely to bring about some visions for the future of aquaculture. Further work will also be carried out in the context of the forthcoming European Fisheries Fund, which is due to be agreed later this year or early next year.

As part of the requirements of the European Fisheries Fund, a national strategic plan will be set out for fisheries and aquaculture. This will be done in consultation with the sectors and other stakeholders. In such a plan we will set out a plan for future ventures in these sectors, learning from what has occurred.

As to the viability of salmon farming, there are two elements, the first of which is economic viability in a situation of serious market oversupply and overproduction, the economic viability of salmon farming came into question in the past two years but the position now seems to have stabilised. The second element is environmental viability or sustainability. More is being learned on this front in terms of issues such as algal blooms. This summer, there was a large algal bloom off the west coast, which had some impact on fish. We are learning to predict these more often, which may help us in dealing with such threats and taking preventative measures.

There are issues concerning sea lice, which this committee has discussed previously, and ongoing work in terms of how the Department and the Central Fisheries Board are commencing a review group to update the sea lice management programme.

The potential of offshore aquaculture has been explored by BIM and the Marine Institute in respect of moving finfish farming offshore to where there are higher throughputs of water and fewer environmental impacts. I will refer the point of potential impacts of climate changes and temperature increases on salmon farming to Ms Geoghegan.

Ms Fiona Geoghegan

At present, we do not have sufficient evidence to say that global warming is having an impact on inshore salmon farming. There have been a number of mortalities this year, particularly in the south west, due to phytoplankton blooms but we witnessed similar types of blooms in the 1980s and 1990s. It could be said, however, that there is an indication that seawater temperatures are increasing over time. To discern a proper trend, we have set up a system whereby we have data loggers on a number of the inshore sites on the western seaboard and we have placed data buoys offshore at certain points along the coast. We hope to build a robust dataset from which we can draw conclusions on the effects of global warming in the coming years. There are indications that seawater temperatures are increasing slightly but we do not have enough scientific data to determine the truth one way or another.

Deputy Perry

There is a note regarding the appointment and funding of sea fisheries officers. How many such officers work in the Department?

Chairman

We are dealing with COM (2005) 362 at present.

Deputy Perry

Regarding farmed salmon, is it not disappointing that, in light of the fact that we are such a world brand, the national development plan projected we would have 42,000 tonnes of salmon but we are currently at 13,000 tonnes, even though there is such a worldwide demand for it? What immediate plans does the Department have for promoting farmed salmon? Considering the area's potential and the fact that Chile produces 750,000 tonnes of salmon, does the Department have any plans to grow the business?

Dr. Beamish

The situation regarding farmed salmon is as I outlined earlier, namely, there are a range of market and disease impacts on production and the planned developmental track. However, there has been continued substantial investment in aquaculture, both finfish and shellfish, and work is ongoing. BIM has been working with the Marine Institute on developing organic salmon production. The future of salmon farming in Ireland is linked to differentiation on grounds of quality as much as it is on volume in order that we will get increased value on a quality basis. A quality farmed salmon label has been developed by BIM, which it rolled out with the industry to ensure quality and minimal environmental impact. In that way we feel we can grow the value of this production.

Substantial progress has been made on processing products of the shellfish aquaculture industry. We now have companies with ready-to-eat shellfish based products in the US and main continental markets. It is considered an example in the food industry in general that relatively small-scale artisanal production of shellfish is processed up to ready-to-eat standard food products, which make their way into the top niches on European and North American food markets. That is a positive development.

Deputy Perry

What is total direct employment in the processing sector of the aquaculture industry?

Dr. Beamish

The figures available state that 1,930 people were directly employed in primary aquaculture production on a full-time or part-time basis in 2004.

Deputy Perry

I will return to the issue of the potential for salmon. How long does Dr. Beamish think it will take, based on current trends of quality and niche market, to reach the figure of 42,000 tonnes? Irish salmon should be a brand leader in the US and Europe. Is it disappointing that we do not have higher output?

Dr. Beamish

As stated, the plan was formulated at the beginning of the national development plan and projected out over the seven-year period. Work will commence on the new plan, which will be formulated on a consultative basis with the industry. The future of aquaculture is not only concerned with salmon. We discuss salmon because it was the first species to be widely commercialised. It may be that much of Ireland's potential will be found in the other species that will develop over time. Work is ongoing on cod farming in Ireland. It is an extremely young industry that will grow. It may not be the case that high volume production of salmon has the greatest long-term potential for Irish aquaculture. That will be reviewed in the context of the new strategic development plan, which must be submitted to the Commission.

Chairman

Was much money invested in this plan? I believe the figure is €35 million. Will that be fully utilised during the six-year plan?

Dr. Beamish

On aquaculture development, we have total approvals of €28.94 million in respect of 97 separate projects under the national development plan.

Chairman

Are they all aquaculture projects?

Dr. Beamish

Yes.

Chairman

Has the State invested much money in salmon farming?

Dr. Beamish

Salmon farming was one of the earliest funded elements of the aquaculture industry. We must go back many years to calculate the total invested. I do not have that figure.

Chairman

In terms of the five-year plan for the period 2001-06, and in light of falling numbers, did the State invest much money in that particular scheme?

Dr. Beamish

I do not have that breakdown with me. Falling numbers do not represent the trend throughout the entire period. In the early years of the plan we had progressive expansion in salmon production. Reduced production, caused by market and disease-related factors, occurred from 2003 through 2004 and into 2005.

Chairman

The committee would like to have that information. When we met the Chileans, they highly praised the Irish salmon brand name. They regard Irish salmon as being very well respected throughout the world. They told us they learned a lot from Ireland and Chile has now become the largest exporter of farmed salmon in the world. Can the industry be revitalised in any way in order that Irish salmon becomes a brand leader and perhaps an added value product?

Dr. Beamish

I have one figure available which shows that 85%, or €8.54 million, of the total grant aid approved for aquaculture during 2004 was approved for shellfish projects. The remainder was for finfish. I will forward the data for the total programme to the committee.

We have been working with BIM and with the Marine Institute on ways to improve the situation and the competitiveness of the salmon farming industry in Ireland. It is believed that much of the focus must be on ways of reducing some of the factors that are making it uncompetitive, such as the impact of sea life, aquatic disease. Both factors can lead to high mortality or under-performance of growing salmon and impact on the environment. A review group on the sea life situation, consisting of the Central Fisheries Board, BIM, the Marine Institute and the Department, has been established by the Minister. BIM has also been working on a new programme to improve the competitiveness of the industry and to remove factors that inhibit the competitiveness of salmon production in Ireland. Other limiting factors are labour costs and the other input costs in production. In addition, we do not have the same range of sites for development as is the case in Chile and this has implications for licensing.

Chairman

Are the same diseases problematic in every country?

Dr. Beamish

It varies from country to country. I will ask the expert to comment.

Chairman

I presume disease control is necessary in every country.

Ms Geoghegan

Every country within the Union must concur with the various directives on fish health. As regards listed diseases, Ireland's status is very good. Pancreas disease is the main disease issue in Ireland. This is a non-listed disease which is not controlled under the directive. We have significant losses in this respect but other countries have losses from other diseases. Disease is always an issue.

Chairman

Does it cost more to farm salmon in Norway than in Ireland? Has Norway a higher cost base? I hope my question is not confusing Dr. Beamish. This committee has a deep interest in fisheries. I would like to hear the answer to that question at some later stage.

What consultation was carried out with the industry to which reference was made in paragraph 4 of the presentation?

Dr. Beamish

A number of bodies have been established with the industry for discussion of a range of issues. One body is the Irish fish and shellfish health advisory committee, which includes representatives of the Department and of the Marine Institute. The Department periodically chairs a forum with the industry and with the agencies. The proposal being discussed at present was discussed previously and the industry is supportive of it.

Chairman

Was a report compiled on the consultations engaged in?

Dr. Beamish

No. We have meetings, almost on a weekly basis, with the fisheries and aquaculture industries. Formal written reports are not produced because we do not have the resources to do so. We circulate information to the industry in advance, meet, have discussions and take an assessment from the industry of its position.

Chairman

Looking at COM (2005) 362 and the implications for Ireland, it is stated that it should be noted that discussions on the directive by the working party have just begun. It is also stated, as might be expected at this stage, that clarification will be sought on a number of the areas and that responses are expected in the coming week. Ireland would be supportive of bringing EU and, consequently, national legislation on this area into line with international standards. Representatives of the Irish aquaculture industry have expressed their support for this proposal. Were there detailed responses from the industry on these matters?

Dr. Beamish

Perhaps one of my colleagues will take that question.

Chairman

My question is whether the consultations with the industry led to the concerns that have been expressed here.

Ms Geoghegan

I will take that question. The Irish fish and shellfish health advisory committee is chaired by the Marine Institute and the directive would have been discussed at all meetings of that forum, which are minuted. The concerns of industry, therefore, would have been taken on board while we were attending working group meetings. With particular regard to the background note, Article 10, which deals with animal health surveillance, and the issues involving clarifications and compensation, the latter would have emanated from industry and would have been brought by us to the Commission through the working group meeting.

Chairman

The Department's note indicates that it is seeking clarifications from the Commission on a number of points and that the Department has been requested to outline a series of concerns. What were those clarifications?

Ms Geoghegan

The background note outlines a number of clarifications required under various articles. Even though two working group meetings have been held at Council, all that has happened has been a simple read-through of the directive and the impact assessment. The position now is that each member state has been asked to send forward areas for further discussion or clarification and we expect that the next three meetings, which will be held between now and Christmas, will aim to clarify all the issues put forward by the various member states.

Chairman

Dr. Beamish heard about our trip to Chile; the whole country was talking about us. I note that none of those liberal-minded journalists who like to report what is happening overseas in terms of Members of the Oireachtas are present. While we were in Chile, we were very impressed with an Irish company, Wavemaster, which has an association with a company in Puerto Montt, regarding the design and building of cages. The question of the health of fish in Chile is seen as being paramount to the development of the industry. What is the number of fish per square metre of cage that this country is recommending?

Ms Geoghegan

Under the various codes of practice for fisheries, fish which are not organically grown should not exceed 25 kg per cubic metre. For organic fish, the figure is approximately 10 kg per cubic metre.

Deputy Perry

On the diversification to new species, what are the types of new species?

Dr. Beamish

BIM and the Marine Institute continually work on the potential for new species as it evolves internationally. Work has been carried out in respect of cod farming. This requires environmental and biological examination to determine whether the species can be developed successfully and economic consideration to determine whether it is financially viable. Much work has been done on cod and abalone.

Ms Geoghegan

Until recently, farms were producing turbot and halibut and there was also some production of sea urchins and seahorses on a very small scale.

Deputy Perry

Many aquaculture products are pitched at the export market. Few of the new aquaculture products manufactured in Ireland are to be found on the shelves of our supermarkets. Why, as an island nation, is there not more consumption of these quality aquaculture products? Some of these products are distributed through restaurants but not through supermarket chains.

Dr. Beamish

The companies that make ready-to-eat products make different ranges for various markets in order to appeal to different national tastes. They place on the Irish market products that are commercially successful here. Most supermarkets carry a range of ready-to-eat shellfish products from a variety of Irish companies.

Deputy Perry

It is very confined. The emphasis is not as great as one would expect and does not fulfil the sales potential. The central distribution networks of Musgraves, BWG and Dunnes are confined to areas of high population density but the countrywide distribution is very low. Huge potential exists. All output is geared to the export market. It is a pity the Government does not work with the companies to promote a fresh, generic product for the Irish market. Even in hotels and restaurants there is only a minimal opportunity to obtain fresh fish or shellfish.

Dr. Beamish

We will convey the Deputy's comments to BIM, which is responsible for the promotion and marketing of seafood nationally and internationally. BIM promotes Irish salmon quite extensively but the Deputy's point about the range of distribution has been made before in respect of wild fish.

Deputy Perry

Many people who come to Ireland are astonished at the restricted range of fish available in restaurants, hotels and supermarkets. I have a certain knowledge of this area. Even in top restaurants the range is limited. Fish consumption is a public health concern in respect of the obesity debate and fish is not marketed on the national airwaves at all. There is potential to grow the home aquaculture market. Ireland should be a brand leader in aquaculture. Visitors to Ireland should see that it is a fantastic country for fish. However, the latter is not the case at present.

Chairman

We will consider this issue in the new year as part of our renewed examination of aquaculture.

Deputy Perry

I am glad Dr. Beamish will convey my comments to BIM.

Chairman

The committee will issue its report, including a number of recommendations, on this regulation in due course.

We will now proceed to discuss COM (2005) 328.

Dr. Beamish

COM (2005) 328 is a proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2004/465/EC on a Community financial contribution to member states' fisheries control programmes. The proposal effectively constitutes a one-year roll-over, although there are some changes in respect of the previous decision. It relates to Union funding towards the costs member states bear for fisheries control. These types of programmes have been in place for some time. This proposal effectively brings the programme up to the point of the next funding round at European level and also accommodates the position of the newer member states that joined the Union since 2004.

In common with other member states, Ireland is legally obliged to have in place an effective system of fisheries control to implement the various conservation regulations associated with the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, and the reforms that took place in 2002. Under the EU programmes for financial support, Ireland routinely submits applications in respect of its system of fisheries control. In the past, the Council decisions provided a framework for multi-annual expenditure programmes to meet some of the costs associated with the burden of putting such a system in place. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources submits applications for financial support on behalf of its control services and those of the Department of Defence.

The Commission contribution towards member states' expenditure programmes initially included operational costs and the capital expenditure associated with the purchase of patrol vessels, aircraft, equipment and other means of control. In more recent years, however, the Commission has dropped support for operational costs from its list of eligible programme items and has placed greater emphasis on the development of new technologies for fisheries control, the exchange and management of fisheries data and co-operation on the control effort between member states. The most recent Council decisions reflect the perceived infrastructural development needs of the member states which joined the Union in 2004.

Council Decision 2004/465/EC placed particular emphasis on supporting the costs associated with implementing Council Regulation 237 of 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the CFP. The purpose of the proposal before the committee is to renew Council Decision 2004/465 for one year, with the express purpose of extending the expiry date of that Council decision to the end of 2006, at which time the new EU programme of financial support for expenditure associated with fishery control programmes will be in place. During this period, particular attention will be given to the needs of the member states which joined in 2004. The budget allocated for this financial aid programme for 2006 is €35 million.

The new elements contained in this proposal include the provision made for member states to submit their annual fisheries control programme by 31 January each year. Provision is also made to support the administrative arrangements for the joint research committee studying the implementation of new control technologies. Further provision is made for the funding of studies on control carried out at the initiative of the Commission. The budgetary provision for the financial support programme is increased by €35 million. A number of detailed amendments are proposed to reflect changes in schedules and budgetary provisions.

There has not been direct consultation with the industry regarding this specific proposal, which is, in many respects, a roll-over of earlier proposals. However, the Department generally discusses the fisheries control programme and the financial aid sought in the context of the sea fisheries liaison group, which we host on a monthly basis with the fishing industry and the agencies. We discuss a wide range of issues, including ongoing fishery control programmes, and we make every effort to reflect the opinions offered on control matters as expressed by the various fisheries sectors. In that regard, a recent effort has been made to address concerns regarding the activities of certain fishing vessels and the use of static fishing gear. Ireland submitted a programme for funding for a pilot project on the use of new technology to verify vessel monitoring systems and also for the continued purchase of specialised fishing gear measuring equipment.

It is anticipated that the proposal will be adopted before the end of 2006. There are no transposition issues arising. The Department will submit Ireland's application for financial support in January 2006.

The likely impact of this proposed Council decision is not regarded as significant. Completed applications for funding must be submitted by early next year and the Department is in contact with the Department of Defence, which is the other Department involved in fisheries control, to seek information on any capital projects for which it wishes to apply for financial support. At this stage the Department intends to submit applications for financial support to meet anticipated training and equipment needs associated with the recruitment of additional sea fishery officers and the development of information technology to support a web-based sales note management system for fisheries. The Commission recently stressed the requirement that this be put in place.

There is still ample time to incorporate additional items into the application for funding.

Chairman

There does not appear to be any long-term planning by the EU on the funding for this control. A total of 25 member states must share a small amount of money, namely, €35 million. Given that the biggest offenders are the Spanish and the fact that Ireland possesses 24% of European waters, should we get a larger amount from this sum for the measures we are trying to implement?

Dr. Beamish

Under the various regulations that have been in place from the commencement of the Common Fisheries Policy — this was recognised then — the legal responsibility for fisheries control and enforcement is firmly placed with the member state with regard to its own fleet, wherever it may be, and all fleets in its exclusive fisheries zone. That burden is substantial. As fish stocks are increasingly depleted and as the potential for over-fishing increases, the burden of implementing the various conservation measures that are put in place grows. This is true not just in the EU but in all advanced countries that are seeking to manage their fisheries resources.

The burden is not inconsequential and it is shared in Ireland through the work and funding of the Naval Service, the Air Corps and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The funding provided by the Commission over the years, while not inconsequential, is a small part of the ongoing cost of fisheries control. The funding that is available must be spread among all the coastal member states of the Union and that puts extra demands on that Community funding. The funding goes only towards additional capital items and not the operational costs of the member states.

Chairman

The committee will make several recommendations in due course and will forward a report to the Department. I thank Dr. Beamish and his colleagues for attending.

Deputy Perry

I note there are advertisements for the training of sea fishery officers. Is it connected to this proposal?

Chairman

I do not believe it is connected.

Dr. Beamish

It is somewhat connected. The Department has 38 sea fishery officer posts but not all are filled due to retirement, extended sick leave and various other personnel issues. The Department has assessed the requirements in the context of the changes that occurred in the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and the various supplementary measures that have been instituted by the Commission in the interim. There are also the standards required for fisheries control and the implementation of conservation measures. The Department took the view that it required additional personnel in order to implement the common fisheries policy and has advertised to that end. The reference in the presentation relates to some of the costs of training and equipping those additional personnel. This element will be reflected in the Department's submission for the financial support programme for 2006.

Deputy Perry

Is it correct that Ireland has three times more fishery officers than Spain?

Dr. Beamish

That cannot be based on the Department's personnel alone. Every naval officer and many gardaí are designated as sea fishery officers because they can perform that function at particular times. In a country like Spain, where there is a federal system of governance, many people are appointed at local state level. I am not sure what the exact numbers are in that case.

Deputy Broughan

In practice, what will this mean for additional resources in sea fishery protection? Is it just extra personnel or will there be capital investment in naval vessels? A recent report in the Sunday Tribune on the committee meeting on the fisheries jurisdiction Bill carried the theme that the committee, with the exception of Deputy Eamon Ryan, ganged up on civil servants. The most striking information we received that day was the report of the commodore from the Naval Service. I spoke again with him after the meeting and he claimed that he is not able to invigilate any foreign vessel in Irish waters to determine whether it is breaking the law. I found this an extraordinary admission. Will this proposal see additional personnel and capital investment for the policing of our waters and fisheries?

Dr. Beamish

This is a relatively insignificant proposal. The European Community has provided financial assistance for fisheries control measures since 1991. This is a minor proposal to roll over the decision made in 2004 to the end of the current financing round. The allocation for 2006 is €35 milliion to be shared across all member states. As it is limited to capital funding, it accounts for a small element of the national cost of fisheries control measures. In the period 2001-05 Ireland received approximately €10 million under this programme, the bulk of which went towards the cost of refitting the Air Corps Casa aircraft. In the earlier part of the programme, 1997-2002, the bulk of the funds went towards the cost of new patrol vessels for the Naval Service. The proposal will not significantly change either the funding available for fisheries control measures or the way they are carried out. Most of the burden, legally and financially, falls on member states and has always done so.

Chairman

The committee will issue its report in due course. I thank Dr. Beamish and his team for appearing before it.

Deputy Broughan

Just in case something blows up on the Order of Business, would it be useful for the committee to hold an emergency meeting on the situation at An Post in order to keep it under review? I am aware that the Chairman, like myself, has not made any public statements on the subject. A postal strike would be a disaster for the community, the company and, ultimately, the workforce.

I received a request from a small community in County Kerry and express my appreciation to the Chairman and the clerk for facilitating it. I also received a request from the community of Bagenalstown, County Carlow, where the post office is being downgraded. It is one of many but can the committee examine the issue in the context of the situation at An Post?

Chairman

We received a number of requests last week about the post office in County Carlow and decided to look at the matter when representatives of An Post returned to the committee. We last met them in January last year.

Deputy Broughan

We might know by next Monday. Although I hope we will not be, we might be in the same situation again.

Chairman

If the committee needs to keep the matter under review, it will.

Deputy Broughan

Will the Chairman consider the case of Bagenalstown?

Chairman

In January or February.

I welcome Mr. Aidan Ryan from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to discuss COM (2005) 361, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament to repeal Directive 90/544/EEC on frequency bands designated for the co-ordinated introduction of pan-European land-based public radio paging in the European Community. Before I ask Mr. Ryan to outline the proposal to us, I draw everybody's attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Aidan Ryan

COM (2005) 361 is a proposal for a directive to repeal Directive 90/544/EEC on the reservation of radio frequencies for the exclusive use of a technology called ERMES to deliver a public and private paging service. It follows from a similar approach where a range of radio frequencies was reserved across all member states to allow for the co-ordinated introduction of GSM mobile phone technology. The European Commission proposed adopting a similar approach to the introduction of international paging services, whereby directive 90/544/EEC was introduced to reserve a common set of frequencies for the exclusive use of ERMES in all member states. Prior to this initiative, paging was a service confined to individual countries, where proprietary solutions were adopted and there was no co-operation between operators to facilitate cross-border paging services. The value of the paging industry in the United States was many times greater than in the European Union where the use of paging was mainly confined to specialist applications such as emergency call-out services or use within factories and hotels, etc. It was hoped that by reserving the same frequencies in all member states and developing a common technology platform called ERMES, there would be growth in the EU paging market to levels similar to those in the United States.

At about the same time GSM mobile phone technology was becoming more popular. For the first time in the European Union such technology allowed users to roam across all member states using the same terminal equipment and telephone number as when they were at home. A little used technology at the time called short message service was also available as part of the GSM platform. This provided a means of delivering messages to mobile phone users anywhere in the European Union. The short message service effectively removed the need to carry a pager and as a consequence, the ERMES service never succeeded.

As the 1990 directive sterilised the use of frequencies reserved for the deployment of ERMES, the Commission has identified new services which could be deployed across the European Union using the ERMES frequencies. These new applications include hearing aids, social alarms for the elderly and meter readers. The harmonised use of these frequencies across the European Union would allow the same equipment to be deployed across the Single Market. It is hoped this harmonised approach will stimulate manufacturers to develop products that will have applications across the market. The new directive is a legal instrument required to remove the binding legal requirement to reserve radio frequencies for the exclusive use of ERMES technology and will allow for the deployment of innovative services across the market.

Deputy Broughan

I welcome Mr. Ryan and thank him for his presentation. Is there a danger in considering the value of radio frequencies that reserving them for lesser used devices will be less than a positive development? I understand that with the switch to digital services from analogue signals in broadcasting additional radio frequencies will be freed up. Mr. Ryan used the term "sterilised" in reference to particular frequencies, but is he happy that this part of the spectrum is being left for the specified services?

Mr. Ryan

It is the correct decision as the level of interest in paging services is not especially great. There will be a large demand for alarms and hearing devices. As the European population gets older, social alarms will be required. There is also interest among utilities across the European Union which wish to avoid the need to waste time in entering people's houses to read meters. In such cases technology could be deployed. Meters would be read automatically as a van moved down a street. It is a good opportunity and a move which will stimulate industry and benefit all of our lifestyles.

Chairman

Can any of the frequencies be used for emerging broadband technologies?

Mr. Ryan

No. We are talking about narrowband technology which has a very specific application and would be a limited resource.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Ryan for his informative document and notes. We will forward our report on COM (2005) 361 to the Department.

We will now deal with SI 320 of 2005 — Internal Market in natural gas — and SI 287 of 2005 — cross-border electricity network access. Before I ask Mr. Brennan to begin, I advise committee members that we will hear a short presentation which will be followed by a question and answer session. While members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Mr. Creany has returned. Did he enjoy his time in Australia?

Mr. John Creany

I was away for a short while. I am back in a line division in the Department.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Brennan who the committee has not seen for some time. We will meet him shortly concerning other energy matters.

Mr. Martin Brennan

I will try to be as brief as possible. While Mr. Creany has only recently taken up duty in the energy regulation division and is learning his craft, he has more knowledge of the details than I do.

I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in scrutinising statutory instruments recently introduced by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The two statutory instruments about which I will speak are technical in nature and designed to give effect to specific aspects of an EU directive and regulation under which certain obligations arise. SI 320 of 2005 relates to the transposition of certain elements of EU Directive 2003/55/EC concerning the introduction of common rules for the Internal Market in natural gas. SI 287 of 2005 concerns the introduction of regulations for cross-border electricity network access as required under EU Regulation 1228/2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

The general purpose of Directive 2003/55/EC which came into effect on 26 June 2003 is to develop the Internal Market in natural gas for the purpose of fostering competition within member states and to assist in the development of open and transparent trading arrangements across the European Union for the supply and provision of natural gas. It sets out common rules for the Internal Market in natural gas for member states of the Union. It also repeals the existing directive, Directive 98/30/EC. SI 320 forms part of the legislative process being initiated by my Department to give effect to the provisions contained within the directive. Specifically, it transposes those provisions of the directive that relate to third party access to any natural gas storage facility or any liquefied natural gas, LNG, facilities, together with setting out the means by which cross-border disputes will be resolved and the mechanism for a dispute resolution authority.

Up to the signing of the statutory instrument, the Gas Act 1976 had been amended to provide for third party access to gas pipelines. This allowed other shippers or suppliers to use the Bord Gáis Éireann, BGE, transportation system and was an essential prerequisite for the introduction of competition in the natural gas market. The directive obliged Ireland in addition to allow any third party right of access to gas storage and liquefied natural gas, LNG, facilities. Although Ireland does not have a dedicated gas storage or LNG facility, it was necessary to update section 10 of the Gas Act 1976 with the appropriate new definitions and terminology to take account of the enhanced definition in the directive.

In the case of storage facilities, the directive allows member states to choose either regulated or negotiated third party access, or both. The chosen system must be objective, transparent and non-discriminatory. In the case of regulated access, the tariffs and other terms and conditions must be published in advance. In the case of negotiated access, only the main commercial conditions must be published in advance. Other terms may then be negotiated between the storage system operator and any prospective user of the storage facility. Following consultations with the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, it was decided it would be useful to allow the option of negotiated access to storage facilities to encourage prospective storage facility operators to enter the Irish market. The statutory instrument, therefore, provides for regulated access as the preferred option with a provision for the CER to grant and revoke exemptions to allow for negotiated access to storage facilties. The CER will oversee negotiations to ensure they are objective, transparent and non-discriminatory. Prior to lunchtime today, the CER website published a consultation process in this context. I am not yet fully up to speed on the substance of this but it relates to the details of implementation of the statutory instrument.

As required by the directive, SI 320 of 2005 also updates existing legislation to provide that "in the event of a cross-border dispute, the deciding regulatory authority shall be the regulatory authority which has jurisdiction in respect of the system operator which refuses use of, or access to, the system". This arrangement has become an accepted principle in all recent EU legislation governing regulatory authorities.

The statutory instrument gives the CER the function of settling disputes between a person and a transmission, distribution or LNG system operator relating to specified matters which include the rules for capacity allocation and balancing services and terms and conditions for access to facilities, including transmission and distribution tariffs. These technical provisions are becoming the accepted norms for regulatory authorities in members states. The Minister will shortly sign into effect a statutory instrument concerning the legal unbundling of the transmission system operator and the distribution system operator within BGE. When signed, this will complete Ireland's transposition of the obligatory elements of the directive.

The purpose of SI 287 of 2005 is to give full legal effect to EC Regulation 1228/2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity. The regulation was negotiated and adopted as part of the internal energy market package which included the electricity Directive 2003/54/EC. It creates a legal framework for fair, cost-reflective, transparent and directly applicable rules for cross-border trade in electricity and is aimed at stimulating cross-border exchanges and thus competition within the Internal Market.

While the regulation took direct effect from 1 July 2004, Article 12 required member states to lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of the regulation. To this end SI 287 of 2005 provides for a penalty regime and allows the CER to prosecute offences against those persons who fail or refuse to comply with the requirements of the regulation. These penalties range from a fine of €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.

I trust that members have found my explanation of the background to both statutory instruments of interest and that I have clarified the position to their satisfaction.

Deputy Broughan

Does SI 320 of 2005 regulate storage facilities by allowing an operator, if it wishes, to negotiate with a third party, or the regulator to impose conditions? Does the first part of the statutory instrument give that choice to a gas distributor?

Mr. Brennan

It provides the framework for negotiated access under the broad supervision of the CER.

Deputy Broughan

I note that in the British market one of the issues concerns wholesale gas prices. Will this mechanism have an effect on that problem in any way? It has been suggested there may be spin-off effects for Ireland regarding the over-pricing of gas.

Mr. Brennan

I do not think there will be such a major effect. If a storage project is successful, it will facilitate the more efficient purchasing of gas because over time there will be a more balanced requirement which will tend to strengthen the price negotiating position. It would be somewhat speculative to go beyond saying that is the changing scenario against which the gas market will evolve. I would not make a more direct link with wholesale prices in the United Kingdom.

Chairman

In the view of the delegation is there a need for primary legislation to update the current legislation, given that an EU directive must be transposed?

Mr. Brennan

An energy (miscellaneous provisions) Bill is promised which the Department would like to see dealt with in the House before the end of this term. The Bill will introduce a series of provisions in the energy sector. I do not recall them fully but they include the power to give general policy directions to the CER and to line up its statutory basis.

Chairman

Is Mr. Brennan suggesting legislation should be brought before the House when the policy has not even been decided?

Mr. Brennan

I do not understand the question.

Chairman

It is very simple. The new energy policy being developed by the Minister is not ready.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister has committed to publishing an energy policy early in the new year but there are areas where there are clear requirements for new legislation which are, by and large, self-explanatory. They are not many.

Chairman

I refer to the Browne and Kennedy Supreme Court judgments.

Mr. Brennan

The Department has been contemplating a series of provisions for a number of years which are now coming together. For example, due to a technical anomaly when the ESB ESOP scheme was being initiated, the Minister for Finance has all the shares in the ESB while our Minister has none. This deprives him of representation at the AGM. This is a technical matter that needs to be corrected; the sooner, the better.

There has been a discussion about the divergent ways of regulating safety in the electricity installations business. The Department is making it clear that this is to become the function of the CER.

Chairman

Will the Department introduce the statutory instrument immediately without regard to the Browne and Kennedy Supreme Court judgments of 2003 and 2005?

Deputy Broughan

The statutory instrument refers to what is a paltry fine of €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. Are we not in the same territory as when dealing with the Fisheries Bill?

Mr. Brennan

I am not familiar with the Supreme Court judgment but can make inquiries to see if it has any bearing. The statutory instruments being discussed are based on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General and the Department does not anticipate any particular problems with them. The Department is obliged to introduce a penalty regime.

Chairman

In case Mr. Brennan is not aware, both judgments refer to his Department. I am surprised to hear an assistant secretary in the Department state he is not familiar with the results of these two cases; to be honest, I am more than surprised. Is the fine of €5,000 imposed on indictment and is it in compliance with the Browne and Kennedy Supreme Court judgments?

Mr. Brennan

I do not know the precise answer to that question but can communicate with the Chairman if that would be of assistance.

Deputy Broughan

The Chairman means to be helpful. This issue revolves around our system of justice, under which penalties are imposed through primary legislation. Is that not correct? The more egalitarian continental civil jurisdiction system, which operates in most of our European Union partners, has scope to impose administrative fines, which is not the case here. Is that not one aspect of the issue?

Chairman

I believe the Browne and Kennedy case relates to the 1972 Act. Is Mr. Brennan familiar with the case? The Supreme Court's ruling on the case impacts on all European Union legislation transposed into Irish law.

Mr. Brennan

I am not familiar with the case, nor am I a lawyer. My understanding of the law is that the 1972 Act is applicable when one is obliged to take a certain action as a consequence of an EU directive and one has no choice in the matter. If the Chairman is raising new issues arising as a result of the Supreme Court judgment, I will have to reflect on them.

Chairman

I am asking a question about the fines. Mr. Brennan wrote that the penalties are a fine of up to €5,000 or imprisonment. Are the penalties imposed on indictment and, if so, is this in compliance with the Browne and Kennedy judgments in the Supreme Court?

Mr. Brennan

I believe penalties are imposed on summary conviction, rather than on indictment.

Chairman

I propose that we leave the matter for another day. Perhaps Mr. Brennan will forward answers to our questions to the clerk when he has had an opportunity to examine the text. Is there any other business?

Deputy Broughan

The joint committee should deplore the decision to leave 13 migrant workers on an island off the coast in dreadful circumstances. I understand that the matter is being raised by a colleague in the House and will be discussed by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The committee should also ask the Minister to ensure that prosecutions will follow in this matter if breaches of marine safety law and legislation on workers rights have taken place. From descriptions of the event, it sounds like something — as was the case with a previous incident which occurred off the coast of Morecambe in north-west England — that would have taken place in another century. I ask the clerk to make known the view of the joint committee that it deplores the event and calls on the Minister to take severe action against all those responsible for this outrage.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. With regard to SI 287 of 2005, cross-border electricity network access regulations 2005, and SI 320 of 2005, Internal Market in natural gas regulations 2005, I posed a number of questions to the assistant secretary, several of which he was unable to answer. The joint committee will further scrutinise the matter when Mr. Brennan notifies the clerk that he is in a position to answer them.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.05 p.m. sine die.