Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 42 are related to amendment No. 3 while amendment No. 4 is an alternative. I, therefore, propose that amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 , 8 and 42 be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 34 and in page 6, lines 1 and 2, to delete ", but does not include the rearing of fish for stocking or restocking purposes only".
The original intention was to exclude hatcheries engaged in the culture of fish for the purposes of stocking and restocking of inland fisheries, lakes and waterways for angling purposes. As it stands, the section could also be construed as applying to shellfish hatcheries, which is not the intention.
It has also been represented to me that the rearing of aquatic species, whether the end product is used directly for human consumption or for restocking alone, when fish may end up in the food chain in any event, should be treated in the same way. It is important that the regulatory and control provisions of the Bill apply in equal measure to all land based fish culture enterprises and that the licensing process, including rights of appeal, should be identical.
In technical terms, the processes of rearing finfish for food or for restocking are the same. Both require the use of water, feed and therapeutants to maintain fish health, and the potential effects on the environment require equally rigorous assessment and monitoring. For these reasons, the exemption proposed and all other consequential references are deleted.
All hatchery installations involved in the culture of fish will fall to be dealt with under the same licensing and regulatory process. Apart from the inclusion of aquatic plant culture, the definition of aquaculture in the Fisheries Act, 1980, remains unchanged.
Hitherto, hatcheries did not need aquaculture licences. Will hatcheries now have to apply for licences under this legislation?
At present hatcheries require a section 15 licence under existing legislation. It is now proposed that they will all be brought under the same legislative provision and will require a licence under this legislation. Existing hatcheries which hold permits under section 15 will become licensed under this Bill, so it will not be necessary for them to apply again for a licence.
The amendment is reasonable. Those operating around the great lakes of the west are in favour of hatcheries, such as those used for restocking purposes. However, they are concerned that the widening of the licence provision will allow for the opening of other hatcheries for commercial purposes on the lakes. There would be serious resistance to this.
I agree with the Deputy that hatcheries which hold permits for stocking and restocking purposes do an excellent job. They will become licensed under this legislation. Questions arise when new hatcheries are to be established. Under the exemptions provided in the Bill, those seeking to start new hatcheries will not have to apply for a licence.
Sometimes a hatchery can ostensibly be started for restocking purposes and will later become a hatchery for commercial fish farming purposes. To avoid any overlap of that kind, it is important that all hatcheries are brought under the same licensing regime. They must apply for a licence under this legislation, be subject to the same rigorous assessment which is provided for in the Bill and be included under the appeals mechanism which is also provided for. Freshwater hatcheries will require planning permission.
It is a good idea to treat all hatcheries in the same way and to ensure that they apply for licences. Is there any other provision in the Bill to allow for a differentiation when an application is made for hatcheries for the purposes of stocking and restocking on the one hand and for hatcheries for the production of young fish for the aquaculture industry on the other? If one is permitted on a lake it will be very difficult to refuse the other on scientific grounds.
A fresh water hatchery will require a licence under this legislation. It will also require planning permission. When an application is made for a hatchery its purpose will have to be stated. The Bill provides for the setting down of licensing conditions which can include the control of the output of the hatchery, its size, the volume of activity undertaken, the way it is undertaken, etc. That will distinguish between hatcheries for restocking purposes only and hatcheries on a larger scale.
In relation to hatcheries, will it be possible under the Bill to rear fish in freshwater for restocking or commercial purposes? If the answer is yes, would it not be more sensible to require all such hatcheries to be located on land where water would be taken from a freshwater source and discharged back into the river or lake? This would ensure the quality of the discharged water and the possible effluent could be controlled and that the water returning to the river or lake is clean. What is the Minister's view on this matter?
Hatcheries are permitted in fresh water under existing legislation. The development of technology in relation to commercial hatcheries tends towards the location of hatcheries on land and the use of a water recirculation system. If an application is made for a hatchery in fresh water, a number of criteria must be met, such as the conduct of an environmental impact study which must address issues relating to water quality, etc. Section 61 of the Bill sets down the criteria which must be taken into account by the licensing authority and the appeals board in making a decision on a licence application. The considerations that must be taken into account include the impact on water quality and the ecology of the area and the general environmental impact. Applications for hatcheries in fresh water must meet those criteria. The direction of commercial hatcheries is towards location on land.
The previous amendment related to control areas. There are no hatches or cages on Lough Mask at present and there never will be. That water system supplies a substantial part of south Mayo and north Galway. Will the Minister consider including a provision on Report Stage for a total prohibition on applications in relation to Lough Mask and the Lough Corrib system? For the last number of years angling clubs have been fighting a battle on all fronts in relation to planning permission applications for various types of developments. They must meet the cost of these actions from their meagre resources although their primary purpose is to attract anglers to the area.
The clubs can challenge environmental impact studies or applications for planning permission but they would not have the resources to take on some of the new and perhaps foreign operations which will come to this country. The Bill provides an appropriate opportunity to place a blanket prohibition on applications in relation to certain lakes. This would signal that these lakes are no go areas in terms of the further development of the industry, a move we support. However, some lakes are of singular importance to the supply of quality water.
Regardless of technological changes or land based operations, mistakes can occur. For example, there is no conclusive scientific evidence on the cause of sea lice. While the best possible controls will be put in place, it would be serious if mistakes occurred which led to a deterioration of water quality. Once cages are put in place, irrespective of controls, it would take considerable time to remove them because of the challenges which would be placed in the Department's path. Officials would say it caused pollution in the first place. Does the Minister have an open mind on the possibility of certain blanket exclusions?
Before exclusions are considered, it is important to examine the requirements which must be met before an activity is permitted in fresh water. A number of separate permissions must be sought. The first is a licence under this legislation and the second separate requirement is that planning permission must be secured. The permission of the owner, where that arises, must also be obtained.
Who owns Lough Corrib?
I intended to ask the Deputy that later. He has tabled an amendment proposing that the State legislate in that regard. This raises interesting questions and I look forward to the Deputy's comments. Since he put down the amendment, I assume he has the answer.
The requirement in the Bill is that certain high criteria must be met before a licence is granted. These include the impact on water quality and the ecology of the area and the overall environmental impact. The requirement for the conduct of an environmental impact study will address those matters in any event and that applies to all salmonoid breeding installations upstream of drinking water intakes, all salmonoid breeding installations which consist of cage rearing in lakes and other freshwater salmonoid breeding installations which exceed certain limits. Even if there was not an exemption, the criteria which must be met before an aquaculture activity, such as a hatchery, could be placed in fresh water, are very high.
The issue of Lough Corrib was raised on Second Stage, although I accept the same points arise regarding the other great western lakes. I gave a categorical assurance on Second Stage that there would be no commercial fish farming on the western lakes. The way to address this issue is in the context of section 62 which permits the making of regulations and policy directives based on certain criteria. I accept the case in relation to the western lakes but I would go further than that by saying the same issues may arise with other waters. The way to deal with it is by setting down policy criteria in relation to particular freshwater systems of a certain status and where there is a rationale behind the exclusion of commercial fish farming in those waters. Clearly, the western lakes would be included in that.
These issues are crucial if all sides are to support this legislation. The Minister of State said that under section 62 he could set down directives but the section refers to general directives. The problem — perhaps I misunderstand this — is that the Minister "may from time to time issue such general directives as to policy in relation to aquaculture". I understand that if one is in the finfish farming business, one must rear very small fish in fresh water and, therefore, must pass EIS tests and the other hurdles the Minister of State has placed in their way, which are fair.
There are areas where communities accept and reject this activity. Although it may be an exaggeration to say that on lakes Corrib, Mask and Carra and on that system, which is probably the largest in the country, there is no acceptance of such activity being carried out on it or on any of the tributaries feeding into it because it would be seen as too big a resource to put at risk.
If, by using the safe criteria, it is safe on a particular lake or river, how can we say it is not permitted on another lake or river or land feeding into that lake or river? That is a question which many people living close to those lakes will ask. There is no power in the Bill to designate areas where this activity cannot take place even if it was safe and acceptable. It is similar to meat and bonemeal which would probably have passed EIS tests ten years ago. What is safe today may not be safe tomorrow. There is a worry that science cannot keep up with problems that arise and that it tends to deal with problems post factum rather than anticipate them, which we know from recent events.
The worry is that we need a system where everything is licensed, but there must be a system which does not treat every area in the same way. Sooner or later, there will be a need for designation, either positive or negative. Dealing with this on purely scientific grounds means that if it is safe in one place, it is safe in another place using the same objective criteria. If there were a number of applications for the rearing of small fish for the restocking of cages on the Corrib or if somebody proved it was scientifically safe to put cages on the Corrib, I would not like to be the Minister facing the anger of the people.
I would have thought section 62 covers the points made by the Deputy.
I would like to refer to our experiences in relation to the mining controversies. My county was totally opposed to the extraction of gold and mining, despite evidence of commercial quantities. In addition to widespread public support, all members of Mayo County Council, after visiting operational and non-operational mines, resolved that no mining would take place and incorporated that into a county development plan. The then Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy — I respect his reasons for doing so — reminded our county that there was a policy directive to encourage, support and expand, if necessary, the mining industry. We noted the Minister's policy directive but we felt that, as a statutory authority, we could independently come to our final decisions.
The High Court, however, found we were obliged to practically implement the Minister's policy directive and little control or power was left in the hands of the 31 county councillors. How does the Minister of State determine policy? In his recent press releases, which I fully support, the Minister of State is very supportive of the further expansion of this industry. One could glean from them that it is the policy of the Department to expand the aquaculture industry. I accept the Minister of State's assurances that he feels section 62 is the appropriate one in which to indicate a general directive on policy as regards the great western lakes.
I would encourage the Minister of State to make such a policy directive sooner rather than later and to impose a total prohibition in the systems about which we have been talking — the western lakes — and to give it statutory effect by going further than a directive because Ministers and circumstances change. The Minister of State may say that if circumstances change, it may be wise to have such a cage or a hatchery because of technological changes. However, I still believe we should give it statutory effect. If that time comes, there will be opportunities for amending legislation. Policy directives by their very nature are flexible instruments, unlike a total prohibition which would be given the force of law. The Minister of State's successor may be supportive of such development in the west, but we do not want this type of development. We would like something stronger than a policy directive.
Since I was mentioned by my colleague, I must respond by saying that in referring to mining in County Mayo he did not refer to the directive I made as Minister that there should be no mining on Croagh Patrick.
I overlooked that.
That is the way to proceed. I would be delighted if the Minister of State indicated that under section 62 he intended to issue a directive that no commercial fish rearing ponds would be permitted to be located on any of the great western lakes to which he has referred. If he made a categorical statement in that regard it would eliminate much of the fear which exists among freshwater anglers, environmentalists, the local community living around these lakes and interested people who wish to see these lakes preserved as excellent quality wild fisheries and in which the Department is investing a substantial sum to help them develop. Would it be possible for the Minister of State to make that statement? Any categorical assurance he gives will not have standing in law unless there is a statutory instrument under which it will be implemented.
I was asked about this by people interested in preserving the Corrib from such activity and the only conclusion one could come to, and the only advice one could give these people, having heard the Minister of State's Second Stage speech, was that there is no provision in the Bill to so exclude. I accept that under section 62 he could write a directive and I would take him at his word if he said he intended to do so once this Bill was passed into law. It would draw much of the heat from the concerns of a wide community in the west and of anglers who go there from all over the world.
We will let the Minister reply and then we must try to make progress as we have spent a lot of time on this group of amendments.
I appreciate that, Chairman. Some of the issues we are dealing with will probably anticipate and possibly shorten the debate on some of the other amendments.
I stated on Second Stage that there will be no commercial fish farming on the great western lakes. I give a categorical assurance that it is my intention to make a policy directive under section 62 to exclude the western lakes from commercial aquaculture. This will not just say there will be no commercial fish farming on the western lakes. It will be wider than that but will include them. The western lakes are the largest of the 12 remaining wild brown trout fisheries in this country. Only 13 major wild brown trout lake fisheries are now left in Europe and 12 are in Ireland, the western lakes being one of them. We have a responsibility, both nationally and on a European level, to protect these fisheries. The policy provision I envisage being made under section 62 would exclude commercial fish farming on the wild brown trout fisheries. It might also be possible in other circumstances to exclude other fisheries. It is better there is a rationale for what is done than saying the western lakes are excluded only for someone else to ask why Lough Sheelin or somewhere else was not excluded. There must be a rationale and a policy basis for the directives given under section 62.
In practice, the commercial rearing of smolts, with which we are concerned, is moving onto land and is now being conducted in operations with recirculation systems, etc. The rearing of smolts in fresh water is becoming outdated. I understand and identify with the concerns expressed about the possibility of a licence being given at some stage for a commercial smolt trading operation on one of the western lakes, for example; it would be very difficult and nearly impossible to get it under the terms of the Bill, even if no exemption were made.
To put it beyond doubt I propose, under section 62, to make a policy directive which will include the great western lakes but which will not necessarily be confined to them.
I thank the Minister of State for that assurance and I accept it. I expect that, if and when this Bill is passed, the Minister of State will honour the commitment he has made. Would it not also be possible under section 62 to issue a directive that all smolt rearing would take place in land based facilities rather than in fresh water? The County Galway development plan provides that no such fish rearing shall take place in waters from which a public water supply is extracted. I am not sure if the draft plan includes such a provision. It satisfied people that the Corrib and other sources of public water supply were protected from this activity. If these operations were land based, there would not be the same worry. Lough Inagh is not a source of any major water supply and a modern development has been built there on land. That is the way for the future. Is the Minister considering that kind of directive under section 62?
We are reaching the stage of having a Second Stage debate on amendments. I have given considerable leeway on this.
This is a very important issue with significant repercussions.
That is why I have allowed more than the normal period of time for this amendment. I understand the Deputy's interest as I have an interest in that locality since I hold the record for catching the largest fish in Lough Mask of any Oireachtas Member. It is on display in Toormakeady and cost me £252.
I must hold the record for being the inhabitant living the longest in the area without ever having gone fishing on the lake, so I have no vested interest. While the policy directive covering the 12 wild brown trout lakes which the Minister of State has given is greatly reassuring, can I take it that it would also exclude land based smolt rearing which allows effluent, treated as it may be, to flow into those 12 designated waters? Nothing less would be acceptable to the local people. I cannot see why other waters cannot be used rather than those 12 wild brown trout fisheries. Can I take it that land based operations which allow effluent back into those systems will also be excluded?
Deputy Molloy asked whether a policy directive could be made confining all smolt rearing to land based installations. Such a directive could be made under section 62. However, it will not be necessary because that is the direction in which the activity is moving. The criteria in the Bill for the granting of a licence for activity in fresh water are so exacting that the activity will inevitably be forced onto land. Second, as Deputy Molloy stated, conditions in county development plans governing the issue of planning permissions required for such activity will have a similar effect.
The issue raised by Deputy Ó Cuív is more one for planning law. The more this activity moves onto land, the more it becomes a matter for the planning authorities. There is a requirement for effluent discharge licences and for filtration systems, etc. The planning authorities govern much of the activity on land, the same as they would for any other type of operation on land.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, lines 29 to 31, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) In Part II—
(a) ‘oyster bed licence' means an oyster bed licence within the meaning of Part XIV of the Principal Act; and
(b) ‘oyster fishery order' means an oyster fishery order within the meaning of part XIV of the Principal Act as in force immediately before the commencement of section 5, and includes an oyster fishery order applying to mussels, mussel beds and mussel fisheries by virtue of section 282 of the Principal Act as then in force.".
Oyster bed licences and oyster fishery orders granted before the commencement of the 1980 Fisheries Act remain extant. This amendment simply makes explicit that rights, under mussel fishery orders or mussel bed licences, which were granted before 1980 and which are extant will continue to be recognised. Section 282 of the Fisheries Consolidation Act, 1959, provides that the provisions applicable to oysters, oyster beds and oyster fisheries shall apply to mussels, mussel beds and mussel fisheries.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.