In commending the Fisheries and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill, 1998, to Members for approval, I am particularly concerned to ensure that we will have aquaculture licensing arrangements which will endure and withstand legal challenge. We owe that to the aquaculture industry and the public.
For far too long, there was uncertainty about aquaculture licensing. I am committed to making the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, work as intended and, therefore, endorse the Minister's and the Government's proactive approach in the Bill to removing legal doubts which have emerged since that Act was passed by these Houses. Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill address those doubts.
I propose to deal with the Bill first in detail before proceeding to wider policy and strategic issues relating to aquaculture generally. The particular urgency of the Bill relates to aquaculture licensing, as I shall now explain in some detail. It was only in the past month or so that some legal doubts began to be mooted with my Department, by some aquaculturalists and others, as to whether the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, did, in fact, achieve what it set out to do in sections 74 and 75.
Section 74 of the 1997 Act was intended to carry forward for consideration under the 1997 Act all undecided aquaculture licence applications for marine sites made since 1980, but made under the 1959 Fisheries (Consolidation) Act. Some people have argued that the applications could not be regarded as proper applications in the first place, as the 1980 Fisheries Act, providing for designation of marine sites for aquaculture, was the proper framework for such applications, although inoperable where marine sites were not designated under the Act.
Section 75 of the 1997 Act was intended to carry forward licences for aquaculture in marine sites granted since 1980, under the 1959 Fisheries (Consolidation) Act or the 1933 Foreshore Act for aquaculture purposes, as if they were granted under the 1997 Act. Some people have argued that those licences should not have been granted at all on the grounds that only the 1980 Act was available for that purpose.
The efficacy of sections 74 and 75 of the 1997 Act has been most carefully considered by my Department's legal advisers in consultation with counsel, and sections 2 and 3 of the Bill have been carefully crafted to remove all such doubts.
My Department's legal advisers have also recommended the replacement of section 11 of the 1997 Act, so as to prohibit from the date of publication of the Bill, which was 10 December 1998, persons from commencing aquaculture operations pending the grant of an aquaculture licence after due process under the Act. This section is obviously needed to protect the rights of duly licensed aquaculturalists, as well as third party rights generally, and will ensure due process in relation to proposals for new aquaculture operations, fully in accordance with the spirit of the 1997 Act. The original section 11 could not have been commenced without applying to many of the existing licence applicants of some years standing, who proceeded with aquaculture operations in the reasonable expectation of licensing without the long delays which have arisen because of litigation which culminated in the replacement of all earlier aquaculture licensing legislation by the 1997 Act.
While the particular urgency of the Bill relates to aquaculture licensing — sections 2, 3 and 4 refer — the Government considers that the other provisions of the Bill — sections 5 and 6 — should also be put into law at an early date.
Early amendments of sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Foreshore Act, 1933, are needed to protect aquaculture and the foreshore generally from unauthorised development and the deposit of harmful and other materials and so on. Section 5 of the Bill refers.
Those are the first amendments to those protective sections of the 1933 Act and are needed to deter deliberate or careless actions prejudicing the proper use and enjoyment of foreshore. Here, again, the Government is taking a proactive precautionary approach so as to ward off unacceptable interference with national resources before serious problems arise. The penalties proposed for offences are the same as those provided in the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, for unauthorised aquaculture structures and other offences under that Act.
Section 5 of the Bill is without prejudice to the fundamental review of the Foreshore Acts, 1933 and 1992, which the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, has instructed our Department to carry out in the context of preparing new legislation for better coastal zone management. This involves consultation with the other Departments and statutory and other organisations concerned. While it is not possible at this juncture to predict the content of such new legislation, the aim is to have substantive legislative proposals for Government decision in the course of 1999.
Section 6 is required to protect from legal challenge long standing leasing and other arrangements for fishery harbour centre property for purposes not directly related to fisheries — for example, for purposes of local social and economic development — and to provide for flexibility in addressing current and prospective needs of local communities, without interfering with the essential fisheries capacity of the fishery harbour centres. The existing legislation dating from 1968 is too restrictive for present purposes.
Section 6 is without prejudice to the fundamental review now under way in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources of the funding and management arrangements for fishery harbour centres under their existing 1968 to 1992 Acts. Proposals for new legal and other arrangements for fishery harbour centres will be announced by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, as soon as the Government decides them, which it is hoped will be early in 1999.
Sections 1 and 7 of the Bill are standard definitional and interpretation provisions which require no further comment. Having ministerial responsibility for aquaculture licensing I am directing my Department to make an all out effort to ensure that all licence applications on hand, approximately 600, are duly processed as quickly as possible. We are committed to processing all existing applications to a conclusion in the course of 1999. The assessment of all applications must be thorough, as the 1997 Act rightly requires. Much progress has been made to date in considering applications, with 90 applications ready for formal decision as soon as this Bill becomes law. Another 30 applications are being finally assessed by my Department and its advisers, following necessary public consultation, prior to making a recommendation to me for licensing and the specific conditions to apply in each case.
All going well, decisions on 120 applications will have been made and publicly announced by the end of next month. A further 100 applications have already been subjected to preliminary assessment to identify any gaps to be filled before they could be meaningfully considered by the public in the essential consultation process required by that Act. I should add that many applications may have to be refused because of unsuitability or non-availability of sites, due to navigational, proper husbandry or heritage protection reasons, which will only become apparent at the public consultation phase.
The current value of the aquaculture industry, in terms of direct output, is £58 million per year and direct employment of over 3,000 people. This has to be safeguarded and consolidated by aquaculture licences which withstand legal challenge. The aquaculture industry has to continue to apply the highest standards possible to all aspects of fish farming.
The potential for further growth of the industry is enormous, and I will continue my efforts to foster that growth. Aquaculture can provide worthwhile new jobs in many rural areas with few other opportunities. Secure aquaculture licensing arrangements are essential for drawing down valuable EU and Exchequer financed funds for the development of aquaculture operations. I am especially conscious of the investment requirements of aquaculturalists and of the financial pressures on them. I will ensure that licensing decisions will be made as quickly as possible to allow funding to flow to all aquaculturalists with sound business plans for the future and likely to make a significant contribution to output and job creation. I must, however, caution that having a licence does not necessarily entitle an operator to EU or Exchequer funds. Such funds have to be targeted at commercially viable projects.
I recently appointed the Circa Group, a team of top level economic consultants to undertake a strategic study of the aquaculture industry. The study will identify the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the industry, and the threats to it. It will make recommendations as to how the industry in Ireland shall be secured and developed with particular emphasis on overcoming perceived constraints on competitiveness. I believe the study, after involving consultation with all of the key interests in the sector, will point the way forward for this industry to thrive into the new millennium.
Earlier this year I established the aquaculture industry forum to improve existing communications between the State agencies and the aquaculture industry, which is now largely represented by the fish farming section of the IFA. To date, there have been four meetings of the forum. I attended its first and last meeting in November and I am pleased to report that it is working effectively and has already covered a wide range of issues, including fish health, safety on fish farms, environmental matters, the public image of fish fanning and the operational programme for aquaculture.
I believe that all those attending the forum, many of them engaged in aquaculture operations on a day-to-day basis, would agree that the forum has been a useful vehicle for the industry and State services to exchange views. The forum has established two expert groups to address two issues of concern to the industry at present — the problem posed by infectious salmon anaemia, ISA — in Scotland and the difficulties being experienced in disposing of mortalities after disease outbreaks.
I will continue to support the forum and attend the meetings whenever Government business permits and to listen carefully to the views being expressed on all sides. In this way, I intend to remain alive to the needs and demands of the growing aquaculture industry and to ensure that appropriate controls apply to aquaculture operations.
From what I have said, Members will be in no doubt about my energetic commitment to fostering a thriving and responsible aquaculture industry while fully respecting the legitimate interests of the public. The Bill contains essential precautionary measures to ensure that the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, will work as planned in the overall national interest. I, therefore, commend it to the House.
