I understand that the Foyle fisheries area is a joint venture between the North and South. Why does the Bill not apply to that area?
Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1996: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Foyle fisheries area is governed by the Foyle Fisheries Commission which was established in 1952 by legislation in both the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland jurisdictions. It is a joint body. At present the Foyle Fisheries Commission does not have responsibility for aquaculture in the Foyle fisheries area. We are currently preparing, with our counterparts in Northern Ireland, new legislation covering the Foyle area which will permit the Foyle Fisheries Commission to be responsible for aquaculture development in the Lough Foyle area. That legislation, which I hope to introduce in the new year, will deal with that aspect.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8, inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Section 9 deals with trial licences, which are very awkward to administer. What size of development would be allowed to have a trial licence? Could somebody apply for a trial licence for 100 per cent of their cages or whatever, or will only a minimal amount be allowed? They might have to remove the development after two years.
The purpose of the trial licence is to allow an applicant to test out a site or to carry out certain experimental work in relation to a particular development. For obvious reasons such activity would, by its nature, be limited. The intention is to set down by way of condition in any trial licence issued the limitations on such a licence. A trial licence is only issuable on a one-off basis and is not renewable. If someone applied for a trial licence to grow oysters in a particular area and then, after a successful trial, wanted to proceed with a full scale development, a licence would have to be applied for in the normal way under this legislation.
Would the applicant have to submit his or her full scale plan in the original application for a trial licence?
When someone wishes to engage in an aquaculture development it is usually necessary to try out different sites for their suitability. This is particularly the case with shellfish development because some species grow better in some parts of bays than others. It would normally be sufficient in a trial licence application to set out the general intention of the applicant with regard to the development and the type of trials proposed. If a full scale development is intended, the applicant is required under this legislation to make a full application for an aquaculture licence, setting out in that application the full details of the development. That is then subject to the appeals process provided for in the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I do not know the rules and regulations, but would the developer have to make a planning application to his or her local authority before applying for a licence?
If the development involves any land use it is necessary for the developer to apply to the planning authority for planning permission in the normal way. That would be a matter for the planning authorities.
Must the applicant have planning permission before he seeks a licence? Can he be granted a licence and then seek planning permission?
It can be done either way. For example, an applicant could seek planning permission from a local authority for the physical development associated with the work which could not proceed without an aquaculture licence and a foreshore licence if that is also required from the Department of the Marine. It can also be done the other way round. If an applicant seeks an aquaculture licence and a foreshore licence initially, the issue of such licences is obviously subject to planning permission being granted by the local authority for physical works carried out on land.
The Minister has raised another aspect. It was stated that the time limit would be four months. However, the Minister and I are aware that an application for a foreshore licence can be a slow process. Will the foreshore licence be granted within four months? Will all the applications for licences be processed together?
As the Senator is aware, the fish culture and foreshore aspects are two separate processes. The intention is that both applications would be progressed simultaneously. The legislation does not require that the foreshore licence be decided at the same time, but I draw the Senator's attention to section 82 which states:
The Minister, in considering an application for a lease or a licence under the Foreshore Acts, 1933 and 1992, which is sought in connection with the carrying on of aquaculture pursuant to an aquaculture licence, shall not consider matters of which the licensing authority, in considering an application for an aquaculture licence is, under section 61 of this Act, required to take into account.
This provision will avoid duplication in the consideration of the foreshore licence application.
The section deals with licence applications. I may be straying a little from the areas dealt with by the Department of the Marine but if onshore installations are involved in the application, they must be considered by the local county council. It is the council's function to deal with such matters, but could the applications for planning permission for the onshore facility and the aquaculture licence be dealt with together? It is important to speed up the process and ensure the two are progressed simultaneously. Can proper liaison methods between the Department of the Marine and local authorities be created?
There are two different areas of responsibility involved in this matter. Responsibility for land use and planning decisions under the planning Acts rests with local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. This is set down in legislation. If one is applying for a feed house, a store or a boat house associated with an aquaculture development or for a domestic dwelling, the application is made in the usual way to the local authority.
I understand Senator Calnan's point that there should not be a prolongation of the application process. If a person wishes to start an aquaculture development, they should not be strung out by having to apply for an aquaculture licence and then planning permission, which could involve a long time in terms of the application going from one authority to the other. The fact that the aquaculture and planning processes, in terms of the rules set down for time limits, etc., are now similar should cause both to run simultaneously.
I expect that a person who wishes to start an aquaculture development will apply to the licensing authority for an aquaculture licence and to the planning authority for the buildings. The two can run concurrently and the time limits, including the appeals processes, are very similar. The types of procedures which apply under this legislation are similar to the planning procedures. In practice, the Department liaises closely with local authorities if applications contain fish culture and planning aspects. I envisage that this will continue in the future and that the Department's and the local authority's engineers and planners will co-operate closely on applications.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Section 12(3) states:
The licensing authority shall, as soon as practicable after determining an application, advise the applicant in writing of its decision and require the applicant to publish a notice of the decision in such form and manner as the licensing authority indicates.
Would it be possible to include a provision that all interested parties should be notified?
The purpose of section 12(3) is to require the applicant to publish a notice of the decision in a formal manner. While there is a requirement on the applicant to publish a notice of intent to apply, there has been some criticism that there is not at present any formal method by which the public is notified when a decision is made. The subsection places an obligation on the applicant to publish a notice in a form prescribed, which will probably be similar to the earlier notification system, to notify the public that a decision has been made.
The current practice is that the interested parties, particularly the statutory bodies, including the fisheries boards, are notified when a decision is made. It is intended that this practice will continue. I am prepared to consider Senator Burke's point before the Bill is dealt with in the other House and whether it is necessary to include a specific amendment in that regard or if it can be done by way of regulation. I agree with Senator Burke that it is desirable and necessary that bodies, such as the fisheries boards, should be notified when a decision is made. In practice, they will know about it in any event because they are and will be part of the process.
My query is similar to Senator Burke's. The onus is placed on the applicant to publish the fact that he or his company has secured a licence. That is slightly vague. Section 12(3) states that the licensing authority shall: "advise the applicant in writing of its decision and require the applicant to publish a notice of the decision". We need to strength this provision, although I have not tabled an amendment. Will an applicant be required to publish a notice in a newspaper? If it was a normal planning application, the applicant would be required to put a notice in a newspaper stating that he is applying to the Department of the Marine for permission so the public would be made aware of the application. That gives people who wish to object or to make a submission the opportunity to do so. It is hard to understand why the applicant is required "to publish a notice of the decision in such form and manner as the licensing authority indicates." Should we not indicate where a person should be required to publish a notice, for example, in a local or a provincial newspaper?
At present when an applicant applies for a licence, he or she is required to advertise it in a newspaper and in a Garda station. A concern which has been brought to my attention is that when a decision is made, there is no formal process by which there is public notification of it being made. For example, a decision was made earlier this year to grant a temporary licence for following purposes to a fish farm in Mannin Bay, County Galway. The application had been in the process for a number of years and objections had been made to it two or three years before the eventual decision was taken. Some of the objectors made the point that the time lapse between when they made the objection and the decision was made was so great that they had concluded the issue was dead and nobody told them when the decision was made.
This section provides for a process where there will be a requirement to publish a notice of the decision in a form to be set down by regulation. They will probably have to follow the same path taken in relation to the application. If there is a time lapse, which might arise if there is a protracted appeals process, the decision will be notified to the public so people cannot say they were not told when it was made. It is intended that the applicant will be required to place that notice.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
For how long will a licence last? When a person applies for a licence for a particular development, will it be infinite or will it be reviewed after so many years? Will a person have to apply to renew the licence?
The maximum duration of a licence which can be issued under this Bill will generally be 20 years. Section 19 provides for the renewal of the licence when it expires.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister said the duration of a licence is 20 years, but section 15 states it is perpetual. The 20 year period is too long and a licence should only be granted for a maximum of five to ten years.
Section 15 provides for a maximum period for the life of a licence, which in general will be 20 years. It will be open to the licensing authority to grant a licence of a shorter duration if it believes it is warranted. It is reasonable that the industry should have some security because as technology develops, the level of investment required for aquaculture development, in particular the fin fish side, is considerable. It is necessary to allow a reasonable period so that somebody considering investing in aquaculture will know they will have a licence for a reasonable period and that it will not expire after investing heavily in the industry.
The Minister said the section provides for flexibility on the part of the licensing authority and that there is no set time. It is open to the applicant to apply for an open-ended licence.
The licensing authority or, ultimately the appeals board to which a licence might be appealed, will set down the period for which a licence will last. An applicant or a third party objector could, for example, appeal to the appeals board with regard to the duration of the licence if they considered it necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
This section is similar to section 7 (2) which states: "A licence may be granted notwithstanding the existence of any public right to fish in any waters to which the licence relates". Would this not infringe on the right of the public to fish? Should there not be provision in the Bill for full public consultation?
There is provision in the Bill for public consultation and among the matters which must be considered are the rights of other users of the water, including the fishing rights of other users in that area. When an aquaculture licence is granted for oysters or bottom culture mussels or some such species and the applicant invests considerably in feed, sets down the seed and has to wait a number of years for it to mature before it can be harvested, one must protect the rights of that applicant against people who suddenly claim to have a public right over that area of foreshore. There have been such incidents. An aquaculture development might start in an area where nobody can recall any fishing activity having taken place or a public right to fish ever having been declared and, as soon as there is seed in the ground and oysters in the sand, somebody might claim to have a public right over the area.
Under the legislation, if there are public rights to fish or there are alternative uses of the water, they can be set out by way of objection at the time the application is made. They can be taken into account by the licensing authority and they can be the subject of appeal to the aquaculture licence appeals board. The Bill requires that such concerns be taken into account. However, when the licence is granted this provision will prevent such claims being pursued to the detriment of the operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
Who determines the extent of the boundaries in the case of, for example, salmon cages? Is there a distance that boats must maintain from markers and boundaries? How will the boundaries be delimited and who is responsible for maintaining them? If somebody ignores the markers, who prosecutes them?
The boundaries are set out in the application. An applicant for a licence is required to submit a map showing where the operation is to be carried out and describing the operation. There are also certain requirements with regard to the quality and scale of the map. From time to time the location of the operation might interfere with or be close to a navigational channel or another operation. There are two ways of dealing with such cases. The attention of the applicant will be drawn to the difficulty and he or she will be given the opportunity to amend the map and relocate the site of the operation. The second way of dealing with the problem is by applying conditions to the licence.
The conditions will officially set down where the operation must take place. Nobody will be entitled to farm for fish outside an area which has been mapped and for which a licence has been granted. Should anybody do so they can be prosecuted under section 65 which provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions will be entitled to prosecute a person who breaches any of the conditions in the licence, including where the operation should take place.
How will a boatman know he is trespassing on somebody's stretch of water or is inside the boundaries of an operation? How will he know he is in a place where he should not be? Will there be a marker whereby somebody who sails into an area of water will know they have broken the law and entered a place they had no right to enter? The Minister of State referred to a person harvesting fish outside the area stated in the licence. How will outsiders know they are in that area? Will buoys or markers be located there and, for safety reasons, will lights or radar deflectors be there at night to indicate they are close to a prohibited area?
The conditions in the licence will set out how the licence holder should mark the area. The licence holder might be obliged to place buoys or beacons to ensure the area is visible and safe. There are probably three types of operation at issue. One is a fin fish operation which will take place in cages. The cages will be marked and visible to other users of the sea. The second type of operation is rope culture for the cultivation of mussels; the practice has been to mark the area with similar coloured buoys in the same bay. The third operation is a bottom culture activity which does not involve a structure in the water, other than on the seabed, so normal boating activity does not interfere with it.
Have safeguards been put in the Bill to prevent people who may get involved in aquaculture and have a land base restricting the use of beaches? This has happened in the past in West Cork. People who acquired land near the sea wired off parts of beaches as private property, knowing that the area between high and low watermark is the property of the Department of the Marine and is open to the public in general. Someone could start off a land based and a sea based activity and the connecting area could be wired or walled off.
Do the restrictions in this section apply to authorised officials of the fisheries boards?
Are all of the places where licences are to be granted designated for aquaculture, or is every place open for such designation? If cages, which are fairly permanent, are designated for aquaculture, is there an onus on somebody to ensure they are marked on navigational charts? I am Chairman of the Dingle Harbour Commissioners and we continuously give messages to Valentia radio saying, for example, that a light in Dingle Harbour is not operational. As soon as the light is fixed, everything is back to normal. There are times when a buoy may break loose. There is an onus on us under the legislation to advise shipping that may be coming into Dingle Harbour that this is happening. All the marker buoys are marked on the chart. A yacht came into Ballydavid Harbour last year and sheltered on the western part of it where it was close enough to an anchor. How will they know if they come back this year that there are no objects or cages there, unless they are marked on a chart or they are so advised?
To answer Senator Burke's question, section 20 prevents trespass, damage or interference with a fish farming operation. Unfortunately there was an example in the west earlier this year where fish cages were damaged and the fish released. Section 20 is not intended to prevent or interfere with the rights of officers of fisheries boards or the Department as regards inspection and the carrying out of their statutory functions which are set down in the Fisheries Act, 1980. I will double-check and consult legal opinion that the powers the fisheries boards have in relation to the carrying out of their normal functions in this area will not be interfered with by this section. I assure the Senator the purpose of this section is to deal with illegal interference with fish farming operations and not with the carrying out of the duties of fisheries boards officers.
As regards the question of markings, section 71 enables the Minister to make regulations which will set out various requirements which will have to be met by licence holders. They will include the way in which the operation is to be marked. I do not have a direct answer for Senator Fitzgerald on the question of marking on navigational charts. I will make some inquiries with our marine survey office and establish to what extent the concerns the Senator has raised can be accommodated.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Will this section affect the existing licence vetting committee? Is it possible that the Minister or any future Minister may grant licences without reference to any vetting committee? How will the appeals board be accommodated?
The position at the moment is that an application for an aquaculture licence goes to the aquaculture licence vetting committee, which is made up mainly of technical experts drawn from the fisheries boards, the Marine Institute and the Department. They examine the application and make a recommendation to the Minister as to whether a licence should be granted. Unless there is an appeal to that decision through the courts, that is the end of the process.
Under the new procedure the aquaculture licence vetting committee will continue to function. Applications will be processed through that committee and a decision made on whether a licence should be given, and with what conditions. When that decision is made, there will be a period of one month within which either the applicant or a third party can appeal to the aquaculture licence appeals board, which is being established in a form which is quite similar to the Bord Pleanála model. This provides an appeals mechanism which does not exist currently. It is also one which is generally familiar to the public.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."
The Bill is a little hard on Members of the Oireachtas. Surely this section should only apply on election to Seanad Éireann or Dáil Éireann rather than on nomination, because a person "nominated as a candidate for election" might not be elected. It is only a small point in section (24)(4)(b) but it is heavy-handed.
I understand this is the practice applying at present to appointment of members to An Bord Pleanála.
Once they accept nomination?
Yes. In this area considerable emphasis has been placed by the public on the need for independence, including independence from the political process. I accept that for other boards and bodies the requirement might be rather severe. However, in a case like this where members of the board will exercise a quasi-judicial function — perhaps in cases which are a matter of controversy where the person proposes to stand for election — it is in the interest of the public and possibly of the individual concerned that this requirement would apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 25 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
This section, in providing for the structure of the board, stipulates that a quorum will include the chairperson and a member appointed under section 23(3)(a) by the Minister of the day. The Minister has spoken about having a balance of individuals and organisations in the Bill; does he not agree that the quorum should also include someone appointed under section 23(3)(b) with knowledge or experience of matters relating to environment protection and wild fisheries?
The quorum will be three members, comprising the chairperson and two others. One of those two will be drawn from the category with knowledge and experience of the aquaculture industry, therefore, by definition the other must be drawn from either section 23(3)(b), having knowledge or experience of matters relating to environmental protection or wild fisheries, or section 23(3)(c), having knowledge of planning, industrial or community development. We have not provided that one person appointed under each subsection should be present but if one is from subparagraph (a) the other must be from either (b) or (c)
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 30 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
This section should be considered in the context of comments on section 22. Where will the vetting committee, if it still exists, fit into this and who will determine the most suitable consultants and their independence? I presume the Minister of the day will have a say in that. Will consultants to fish farmers and others be excluded from consideration for appointment?
This relates to an earlier observation of Senator Fitzgerald. It will not be a full time board because the volume of work it will do would not justify that. The board will convene from time to time to decide matters and it will be serviced by a secretariat. Some of the matters which the aquaculture licence appeals board will be asked to address will be complex, relating perhaps to environmental impact statements, impact on water quality and points raised earlier on navigational matters. It is reasonable that the board would have the power to engage, as it sees fit, consultants or experts to advise it on those matters. It will be a matter for the board, which will be an independent body, to decide who it should engage and it would be quite inappropriate if the Minister or any of those directly interested in the licensing process were to influence that. If an issue arises as to the impact on water quality, for example, it may be necessary for the aquaculture licence appeals board to engage consultants or specialists to advise on it. This section gives the board the freedom to do that and as an independent board it will engage those people independently.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 36 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Question proposed: "That section 43 stand part of the Bill."
Will notice of appeals be sent to all interested parties?
The interested parties in this case would be the applicant and third party objectors.
The appeals process is independent of the Minister. The purpose of the section is to put the Minister on notice that an appeal has been made and to require him to make available to the appeals board the information it will require in addressing the appeal, such as maps, environmental impact studies, etc. The question of notifying interested parties is provided for in section 44(1), which provides that the board shall, as soon as practicable after receiving notice of appeal, give a copy to each other party to the appeal
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 44 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 61.
Question proposed: "That section 61 stand part of the Bill."
The protection of wild fisheries should be a major point in this section and should be stressed very strongly.
I agree with Senator Burke. The protection of wild fisheries should be and is taken account of in this section. Section 61(e) will require the licensing authority to take account of the likely ecological effects of the aquaculture or proposed aquaculture on wild fisheries.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 62 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Question proposed: "That section 65 stand part of the Bill."
Section 65 (3) states that an action for an offence under this Act shall be prosecuted at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Should the regional fisheries boards or the central fisheries board have a role to play here? Perhaps the fisheries boards should be the body to police and prosecute infringements.
The fisheries boards may, from time to time, be involved in prosecutions, the production of evidence and so on in relation to aquaculture development. I am sure Senator Burke is aware that the prosecution process is an independent one and our advice is that the prosecution function should be exercised independently through the Director of Public Prosecutions. There might be a case where a fisheries board, in the exercise of its statutory functions in relation to the protection of wild fisheries, objected to the grant of a licence. A conflict of interest could be claimed in such a situation where the same fisheries board was unable to pursue prosecutions in that case. In other cases the fisheries board itself might be engaged in aquaculture. The Central Fisheries Board operates hatcheries which are aquaculture developments and which are licensable under this legislation. It would clearly not be appropriate that the prosecuting authority would be the same fisheries board against which the prosecution might have to be taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 66 agreed to.
SECTION 67.
Question proposed: "That section 67 stand part of the Bill."
Unless I have missed a provision to this effect in the Bill, the Minister could consider a new section here. This section is for the removal of unlawful aquacultural structures. I have seen equipment and ruined factories and even old boats abandoned. It could very easily happen in years to come that somebody involved in aquaculture might go out of business and abandon whatever structures were erected. If it is not already covered in the Bill the Minister should consider inserting a provision which would put the onus on such people to remove any structures that are no longer used.
This Bill deals only with aquaculture and aquaculture structures. As I understand it, the point which Senator Fitzgerald makes is dealt with or is capable of being dealt with under legislation dealing with salvage and wreck.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 68 to 74, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 75.
Question proposed: "That section 75 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for the automatic transfer of existing licences under previous legislation without any need for an application or a vetting process under the new Act. Should provision be made for an assessment of the licence or how the operator managed his business in the past? Does this provision include all licences which have been granted but which have never been acted on or commenced?
Section 75 is to provide for an orderly continuation of the existing operations and jobs in aquaculture. When this Bill comes into operation the question will arise as to the status of existing licences. Section 75 continues the validity of existing licences under the new Act. If, for example, a person received an aquaculture licence last year for a period of ten years, of which nine years have yet to run, it would be unreasonable to suggest that he or she would have to apply again under this legislation. This enables the licence to continue for the remainder of its life. The existing licences have already been the subject of a public consultation process under the existing legislation. Senator Burke also raised the question of the lapsing of licences which have not been taken up. Section 69 provides for a licence to lapse or be withdrawn. Where aquaculture in respect of which a licence has been granted has not commenced within two years after the date on which the licence was granted, the licence shall cease to have effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77.
Question proposed: "That section 77 stand part of the Bill."
This brings a smile to my face. We will have to get a fish dog. How can one recapture the stock? They are fish and deep in water. It is almost impossible to recapture thousands of fish that have escaped from cages. Maybe it would be different in an enclosed area but the Minister of State will have to get a special licence for a "fish-dog" to round them up. The Minister of State need not answer. He may have to spend his holidays in the west of Ireland rounding up fish.
The ones that got away.
It gives a new meaning to grazing the long acre. There is a problem, as Senator Fitzgerald will be aware, of fish stock escaping from fish farms. I share the considerable concern about this which has been expressed by the operators, in particular with regard to the finned fish, relating to taking the greatest possible care to ensure that there is no escape from a fish farm.
The purpose of section 77 is to reinforce the obligation on a fish farm operator to ensure that the farm is properly secured and that there are no escapes. There are obviously some circumstances in which it is easier to recapture stock than in others. If stock went up a river, for example, it would be easier. It depends also on how quickly the escape was detected. The primary purpose of this section is to reinforce the obligation on operators of fish farms to ensure escapes are prevented and quick and effective action is taken immediately after an escape to deal with the damage.
There is a chance that if they are fed at a certain time that they might come back to the cage at feeding time and be caught.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 78 to 82, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, your officers and the Members of the House for their co-operation in the speedy passage of this Bill through the Seanad. I appreciate the constructive approach taken by Members on this legislation. It was not contentious and there has been agreement across the House on the need for new legislation on aquaculture and the need for an approach to its development which is balanced between the need to develop the industry and protect fisheries and the environment. Sometimes those two objectives come into conflict and I thank Members for acknowledging that the Bill strikes that balance.
In particular I refer to the contribution made by Senator Burke. He indicated on Second Stage that he was raising concerns raised with him by the fisheries boards. I indicated then that I was surprised those concerns were not raised directly with me since the publication of the Bill. However, I reassure him that the Bill expressly provides for the protection of wild fish stocks and ensures that the development of aquaculture is in harmony with the requirement to protect and conserve our wild fish stocks and fisheries. The last point raised by Senator Fitzgerald on escapes is very much in that domain.
In Senator Burke's contribution I detected a concern that some of the roles or functions of the fishery boards in relation to their involvement with the aquaculture licensing process and monitoring of aquaculture activity were to be diluted. I assure him there is no such intention in the Bill. Before the debate in the Dáil, I will proofread the Bill to ensure that if any section unwittingly casts doubt on the role of the fishery boards or compromises them in carrying out their statutory functions I will deal with it in the Dáil.
Again I thank the House and also my departmental officials for their preparation of the legislation.
At the outset I told the Minister of State that I was satisfied with the Bill, having checked it out with various groups. I also checked with our Front Bench spokesman on fisheries and he reassured me, although he might table some amendments to the Bill or ask questions about it. Generally, it is a huge improvement on what was in place. As the Minister of State said, sections on speeding up the process of granting licences have been tightened. It is good legislation. The last time the Minister of State was here, he and I made history by banning nuclear power; history might have been made again today as this may have been the first Bill passed while the Cathaoirleach was in the Chair. I thank the Minister.
I thank the Minister of State for bringing forward this legislation. Its successful passage is a tribute to him and his Department. That it was welcomed reflects the effort made.
I add my voice to those of the other two speakers in thanking the Minister and his officials for the way they have handled the Bill and got it through the House. It will be for the good of aquaculture and rural and peripheral areas such as west Cork will benefit.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Next Wednesday at 2.30 p.m.