I move amendment No. 8:
In page 8, subsection (1), lines 10 and 11, to delete "a fish culture licence under section 15 of the Principal Act,".
SECTION 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I want to comment on the section which states that if a person is convicted of an offence they shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200 or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £1,000. Considering that our fishing industry is quite big, the fines are not very big and are only once off.
These are fines which apply every day that the offence is committed so we are talking about fines of up to £1,000 per day for the commission of an offence under the legislation. This section makes it illegal for somebody to engage in aquaculture except under licence. There are other provisions in the Bill which would make it very unwise indeed for somebody who does not hold a licence to engage in aquaculture. Apart from being fined up to £1,000 per day under this section, section 11 states that if one starts an aquacultural activity without having obtained a licence, one will be prohibited from ever applying for a licence. Under a later section if, for example, the issue relates to the breach of a condition, the Minister has the power to revoke the licence. There are very strict penalties imposed on people who do not adhere to the provisions of this Bill.
I hope the passing of the Bill will be expeditious. Does the Minister have any plans to give publicity in local newspapers and so forth to these provisions? They are obviously worthy of widespread publication so that the public would be aware of the Bill's central features. There are many young people who might like to become involved in a small way in oyster or mussel cultivation. The Minister might say people should already know it is necessary to have licences but I think there should be a publicity drive as some of the penalties are quire draconian. As is often the case with the psyche of the Irish people, they may apply for a licence parallel to becoming engaged in an activity on the understanding that their engagement in the activity will assist or expedite a formal application.
I am anxious that the provisions of the Bill would be as widely publicised as possible. In particular, I am anxious that the penalties regime provided for in the legislation is highlighted. There is a very clear message in this legislation and it is that a new licensing system is being set up with an appeals mechanism and with time limits for the processing of licence applications. Anybody who wishes to engage in aquaculture must apply for a licence under that system. If somebody engages in aquaculture without applying for a licence, they are liable to fines of up to £1,000 per day for each day they engage in the aquacultural activity. The situation to which Deputy Hughes referred where somebody takes a chance, starts something and then, if caught, applies to be regularised, will not be permissible under this legislation. If somebody engages in aquaculture without a licence they will be prohibited from applying for the licence.
Most people who are contemplating engaging in aquaculture are unlikely to proceed without making the usual inquiries with BIM whose officers are available to give advice. In Gaeltacht areas, people can make inquiries to Údarás na Gaeltachta and can obtain advice from them or from the Department of the Marine. As far as possible, we would be anxious to ensure that the message is clearly understood that we are providing a new licensing regime which, although a fair one, must be complied with.
Question put and agreed to.