I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 20, after "person" to insert "other than in fresh water".
This section deals with issuing trial licences. This amendment seeks to exclude fresh water from the trial licence provision so that the section, as amended, will ensure that no trial licences would be granted in fresh water, such as rivers, lakes or inland waterways.
This section is contentious because there is a misunderstanding about the trial licence. People who want to invest in aquaculture projects must obtain the best seed money possible from lending institutions. While I have no difficulty with the broad thrust of the amendment, it could send out a wrong signal in terms of how the Bill regulates and encourages development in the aquaculture area, which is being hampered by the lack of legislative provisions over the past number of years. A large number of applications are pending in the Department. Will the people who want to get involved in this area be able to get financial support for such development if the conditions are too restrictive? Will those who want to get the best seed money for the advancement of these projects be hampered by the total exclusion of fresh water as a basis for growing these species?
That will not arise. The provision for granting trial licences is not a new concept. In other legislation a section 14 permit is a form of trial licence which can be granted for scientific research purposes. Section 9 limits the circumstances in which trials may be conducted. It puts a finite period of time on the length a trial licence may last and it makes it explicit that it is for scientific research purposes only and not renewable.
In practice a trial licence arises at sea. If somebody, for example, wants to do mussel farming, they may have to try out a number of locations to see where mussels will grow best. The same is true for oysters and shellfish. It may also arise in the case of a new species — for example, there is a new turbot farm in Cape Clear — where one must try out the system so see if it will work. I do not envisage this situation arising in the case of fresh water. Even if it does, it will require planning permission.
For reasons of clarity and because concerns have been expressed, I have decided to make it explicitly clear that trial licences will not be granted in fresh water. We are talking about sea water where it will be necessary to try out certain operations in a limited way for a defined period of time and, if they work, it will be open to the operator to apply for a licence. It will not become a back door method for getting a licence. A typical operation would be if a co-operative in Aranmore proposed to engage in mussel farming and it wanted to put out a couple of mussel lines to see how well they would grow. It would not make sense if it had to go through the entire licensing process to carry out research. The purpose of the trial licence is to allow that to happen and to draw a distinction between that and commercial operations. I am making it explicitly clear that it will not arise in fresh water.
The Minister said it is not renewable. He also mentioned the Cape Clear trial which, I understand, lasted six or seven years. We are talking about 18 months to two years for salmon to grow. I do not understand how a successful trial can be conducted, negotiations with lending institutions can take place and a young educated person who is anxious to develop the project can be attracted into this area in a limited trial period which is unnatural in the context of the time needed for juveniles to grow, etc. Are we at one on this or are we pointing the finger in the wrong direction in terms of the length a trial period should be to help the industry? Are we making it impossible for someone to become involved in this type of development? No lending institution will listen to people unless they have a good trial period and the necessary experience. Am I misunderstanding what is involved here?
There is some misunderstanding. We are probably jumping ahead to the next amendment which deals with the length of time a trial should last. I propose we make a distinction between salmon, which I propose should be for a one year period, and other species including shellfish, which I propose should be for a three year period. It is specific and permits the period of time to which Deputy Smith refers. If a trial needs to go beyond three years, irrespective of the species, there is the option of applying for a licence for the operation in the normal way. With regard to underpinning the industry, the new legislation will provide a clear basis for licensing, time limits within which licence decisions are to be made and a realistic duration for licences. That should assist the industry in securing the necessary finance and help new entrants to the industry.
We must be clear about the reason for trial licences. They are intended to deal solely with trials, the necessary advance testing of sites and advance research which may be required before an operation is undertaken. It is not desirable that trial research activity should be unlicensed, it must be brought under the licensing framework. At the same time, it would be unrealistic and unreasonable to expect somebody who wants to put out a mussel line to see how well it will grow, to go through the same licensing procedures as would be required if applying for a licence for a fin fish farm producing up to 1,000 tonnes of fish. That is why the trial licence procedure is introduced. Trial licences are for trials for research purposes. They are circumscribed and not renewable. I propose adjusting the periods of time for which they can be available to take account of the biological requirements of different species.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 14a are alternatives to amendment No. 13. I propose that amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 14a be discussed together. If amendment No. 13 is agreed to, amendments Nos. 14 and 14a cannot be moved but Members may speak to each of the amendments. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, subsection (1), to delete lines 27 and 28 and substitute the following:
"for such period—
(i) in the case of salmon, not exceeding one year, and
(ii) in all other cases, not exceeding 3 years,
and subject to such conditions, which may include or relate to all or any of the matters specified in section 7(3), as the Minister thinks fit and specifies in the licence.".
In the case of shellfish farming, where the biological cycle can be up to three years from input to harvest, a two year timeframe for a trial licence would be insufficient. With the exception of salmon farming. I propose that trial licences can be granted for a period not exceeding three years. This does not go as far as Deputy Smith proposes, but does cater better for shellfish growers' trials. In the case of salmon farming and freshwater developments, it has been represented to me that trial licences should be strictly circumscribed and not used to install commercial scale operations prior to applying for full licensing.
The restrictions proposed on trial licences for salmon farming in the sea will facilitate control so that what is involved is a genuine trial for purposes such as research and development. With a maximum trial licence period of 12 months and strict quantitative restrictions on the extent of the trial in terms of the stock inputs and standing stock on site, concerns that trial licences could be used to set up commercial scale operations surreptitiously have been addressed. The amendments I have proposed strike a reasonable balance.
Section 14 of the Fisheries Act provided for scientific trials. I have attempted to address the concerns of Deputy Molloy and others on the trials provision by excluding trials in freshwater and by restricting salmon farming trials to one year. With regard to Deputy Smith's amendments, an appeal process for a trial licence is not warranted because of the limited scope and duration of such licences and their non-renewable nature. If appeals were allowable it would call into question the concept of a trial licence.
I have no problem with the trial licences for shellfish farming. A natural cycle is required to carry out trials. In view of the time that might be required for people to start up the trial and to get the licence, I would not have difficulty with a five year trial licence for shellfish farming.
A number of issues require clarification with regard to the salmon licence. There are many existing licensed sites for salmon on which experiments could be carried out. People fear that what is involved in these licences is a trial of sites rather than salmon farming trials. In other words, the licence would be issued to try out the site. They fear that, as there would be no notification, a cage could be installed on a site and when it was queried they would be told it is for a one year trial under a licence granted by the Minister.
Why would one need a special trial licence for salmon since these trials could be carried out by commercial operators on existing licensed sites? If they are trials of sites, the sites could be a major bone of contention if somebody uses a trial licence to experiment with salmon fish farming in a sensitive area. There is no warning or procedure to be followed apart from applying to the Minister for a trial licence. There will be a problem with this provision.
I recognise the changes proposed by the Minister of State as an attempt to move towards the objective of my amendments. He referred earlier to "mad" licences being issued. When drafting legislation we must examine all the possibilities and if something is not provided for in legislation it will be possible.
Why is there a necessity for trial licences? If a trial licence is granted by the Minister, the applicant does not have to comply with the terms of this legislation. It is an arbitrary decision on the part of the Minister to grant the licence. Presumably, it is granted for a certain area designated on a map. One can imagine a mad situation where a person, having located the cages within the defined area on the map for the 12 months permitted by the trial licence, applying for another trial licence for an adjoining site which is not in the same area before the end of that year. The Minister could also grant that trial licence. There could be a sequence of trial licences issued for sites adjacent to each other but which are not in the same area.
As Deputy Ó Cuív said, a cage could appear overnight on ministerial trial for one year at a popular beach or scenic area at which large numbers of tourists and local people gather. There is no procedure whereby a person can appeal against that decision and the people of the area would have to tolerate that under the Bill. If it was for only one year, one might say that a year is not a long time and it will pass, but the trial area could be moved just a couple of yards further up the bay and it could continue moving around the bay for a period of ten years. Surreptitiously, there could be fish cages in a bay in perpetuity being moved a couple of yards every year. The Minister might call it a mad situation but the Bill seems to permit that possibility. In view of the sensitivities of local communities and tourism interests to the location of fish cages, this Bill should not provide a way whereby the elaborate licensing procedures can be circumvented. I am sure the Minister sees my point.
I must refer to the purpose of the trial licences, which is to carry out trials. We had already decided to exclude trials in fresh water. The case was made that we needed to differentiate between different species in relation to the length for which a trial can be granted, and that is what I propose to do here. I do not propose to go as far as Deputy Smith suggests, to five years. If a trial must be conducted for even a period of five years, it is not unreasonable that the applicant would apply for a licence in the normal way.
This provision is confined to genuine trials. I have already given some examples of the type of situation where it will arise, most will be on the shellfish side where there is much innovative work, experimentation and site testing and where the growth in the aquaculture sector is taking place.
Much of the fin fish husbandry and culture issues are already well known. The degree of experimentation and research on the fin fish side is now fairly limited. The type of situations on the finfish side where a trial might arise would be in the case of fallowing, for example, where it would be necessary to identify sites suitable for fallowing, which is regarded as an environmentally sound way of developing finfish farming.
A second situation which might arise in the case of the fin fish farming of salmon. for example, would be from technological developments in relation to the type of cages used. Much work is being done on cages which are capable of being located further out at sea. It might be the case that a fin fish farmer might want to try out a particular type of cage further out at sea for a period and that would be on a trial basis.
It is worth recalling that trials licences are not renewable. What Deputy Molloy describes would clearly fall into the renewable situation. One could not possibly justify having a cage in my area one year and in Deputy Molloy's area another year and argue that they constituted two separate trials.
It is permissible under that.
No. It is not, because effectively that would be a renewal.
It would be in a different map area.
We must allow for some degree of prudent judgment on the part of the licensing authority in these situations.
To take the Minister's analogy of the experimentation with types of cages and placing them further out to sea, it seems that, while the Minister, as the officeholder, has an absolute discretion as to whether he will grant a trial licence, he ties his hands at the same time by the extent of the period for which the trial licence can be given. Any promoter would have to make a submission to the Minister in respect of the nature of the trial and one can only presume that we are now talking about trials of which no official in the Department has heard to date in the sense that this legislation will be tried and tested for at least the next 20 years. I hope we will see trials, which we cannot envisage or contemplate at present, taking place as the industry develops and resources and expertise become more freely available to people who are getting involved in the industry and as experimentation which is being carried out abroad can be replicated here. Anybody who is making an application to the Minister should be able to state the nature, extent, scope and duration of the trial licence.
In respect of salmon, it is extremely foolish of the Minister to restrict his hand at this stage to one year. To deal with the cage as opposed to the species for the sake of argument, the Minister might find that, where a trial licence was granted in a fine mild winter to test weathering, strength and durability, an operator would not be in a position to make a case for the cage because the necessary conditions did not prevail that particular winter and, because it was a salmon cage, he or she would be prohibited from ever applying to the Minister for a trial licence in the same position or 100 yards away. I do not necessarily agree with Deputy Molloy's point but I understand what he meant.
The Minister should leave the matter to the bona fides of the officeholder following the advice of officials at the particular time and with the knowledge available when the application is made. If the application is made by the promoter, the section should make no reference to the trial period but the period of the trial should be left to the discretion of the Minister based on the application in respect of a species of fish or a piece of equipment. I can see validity in both the Minister's argument and those which are being put to him. I take the Minister's point about shellfish, but it would be extremely foolish to restrict salmon trials to a period of one year. There will be situations where it could be necessary for such trial periods to be longer than that and no officeholder will circumvent this legislation by issuing licences for six, seven or eight years. That would not be possible politically in this day and age.
I want to distinguish between my amendment and that of the Minister. Where I talked about five years, I also talked about including an appeal system. I am happy with the amendment of the Minister of State in terms of shellfish but I dispute our current position in regard to research. We are on the stepping stone of where research in many of these fields can ultimately lead us and it has to be supported. The Minister of State or the Minister, Deputy Barrett, have said little or nothing about this matter over the past six months. We have to make further investment in the sea.
Some people believe that everybody involved in angling or inland fishing are always 100 per cent right and that there is something wrong with those involved in aquaculture. It is not a practical proposition for people investing in aquaculture projects, particularly trials, unless they are provided with the information which will enable them to make a bigger investment and apply for a licence. The Minister will want this to happen and it is what I am asking for. In some cases, it would be renewable if the circumstances justified that. There is scope for flexibility whether it is in the primary legislation, or by regulation under section 62. We should have clear signposts if we want people to make the investment under a tight regulatory regime. If we are interested in the development of the operational programme and intend to compete in this area with our counterparts, we must send out a positive message to investors.
Before they make the investment, a number will be obliged to have trials and they should be of sufficient duration to enable them to obtain the information upon which a case can be built to apply for a licence. I expect the Bill to provide that. I agree with Deputy Hughes that one year will not be adequate in all salmon trials. It does not allow for an adequate growing cycle. We will fund research to find that out and need space to do so if we are serious about the industry. If we want to make the legislation so restrictive and safe that nothing will happen, it should state that.
Is the Minister of State satisfied that young aquacultural entrepreneurs keen on its development can obtain financial backing from banking institutions for a one year salmon trial? Is he happy that a three year period will be sufficient for backing from financial institutions for shellfish trials? It might be cutting it very tight.
Under this section, an individual will apply to the Minister for a licence. There is no notification or appeal process. It states that one can have trial fallowing sites, etc. That would send shivers up many people's backs and cause distrust although the purpose of the Bill is to create trust. There should be a notification process, a simplified application for a trial licence as opposed to a full licence, an appeal mechanism and an issuance of licences for up to five years which would be renewable, if necessary. I would make it slightly harder to get one but, having got one, I would make a great deal more use of it than the very restrictive licence the Minister proposes.
The limiting of time does not address the issue. The biggest issue of contention is the development appearing in a bay. An individual will ask who put the cage there because they did not see a notice for it. They will then be told it is there for a trial, which will cause great dismay and concern. Many experiments will not conclude within one or three years. The proposal does not suit either side. It is too short for those who want to invest and conduct trials and on the other hand it is not a transparent enough process for those whose main concern is transparency. Will the Minister examine this issue again and consider making an alternative proposal that would on one hand secure investment and, on the other, ensure the process retained the transparency required to maintain the trust of local communities in this process and get away from this fear that on a quixotic basis a Minister can grant a trial without notice to locals? Otherwise, distrust will be created.
I will reply to the full range of possibilities — Deputy Molloy's view that there should not be trial licences and Deputies Smith and Hughes who suggest trial licences of five years and possibly longer. The 1962 Act which replaced section 14 of the 1959 Act provided that "nothing in this Act or in any Instrument made thereunder shall prohibit anything done by the Minister or a person previously authorised in writing by the Minister in that behalf for the purposes of artificial propagation of fish for some scientific purpose or for the improvement or development of any fishery." The existing legislation provides for scientific permits without any time limits or attached conditions. It is an open provision.
I am attempting to define permits or licences which are granted for trials or for scientific purposes and to provide a means of such a licence being issued which does not require the applicant to submit an application for a major commercial operation every time. Based on the representations which I received on this section, I have attempted to circumscribe it even further by excluding freshwater from it and drawing the distinction between salmon and shellfish operations by trying to relate the time to the requirements of the species.
The type of issues raised by Deputies Molloy and Ó Cuív could be addressed by way of regulation. I have no great difficulty with having a consultative process to avoid the type of situation which Deputy Ó Cuív described where the first that anybody would hear of a trial licence would be when the cage appeared in the bay or there was a rumpus about somebody placing oyster seed. Before Report Stage I am open to considering a process of consultation with the fishery board, the local authority and so on which would deal with such situations.
I agree with Deputy Smith about the need for long-term commitment to research projects. The Marine Institute is already engaged in a long-term commitment to research. It is perfectly reasonable for the promoter of a long-term research project to apply for a licence in the normal way. I do not think the same requirement should apply every time somebody wants to test an area to see if mussels or oyster seed will grow there, which is why a more simplified procedure is being provided to deal with that situation.
Neither do I think it will cut across someone securing finance. This will mainly arise in the shellfish area where there is not a huge capital investment involved, apart from the seed, and where it is possible for graduates of universities and regional technical colleges or people working in research bodies such as Taighde Mara to engage in commercial operations. The trial licence will allow them to do that. Salmon farming is substantially different because it requires much heavier capital investment and, by and large, is not engaged in by new graduates. This measure will, if anything, enhance access to finance because it makes clear the distinction between carrying out trials and doing a limited amount of research and, if the site is suitable, applying in the normal way for a licence.
What I am proposing strikes the best balance between, on one hand, the need for research, development and trials and, on the other, having a straightforward system in which a licence must be applied for to cover a project of longer duration, even if it is a research project. As I said earlier, the concerns about notification, consultation and the possibility of the site being moved 100 metres can be dealt with by regulation. I am happy to reflect on the points which have been made between now and Report Stage to see how I might address that.
We have only reached section 9 and if we continue on this we will still be sitting here at Christmas.
It will save us years of frustration if we get it right now. Will the Minister of State consider writing into the Bill the question of public notification? One can consult all the bodies but they are not normally the people who get uptight about these issues, which can become very localised.
That question has already been dealt with.
Will he consider putting it in the Bill?
We are going down the road of speculation and hypothetical situations. This is not what the amendment is about. The Minister of State has already answered that question.
Will the Minister of State consider putting public notification into the Bill? It is in the rest of the Bill for all the other licences.
We have had some arguments here in the past and some tense moments. I thought, Chairman, you were showing a little impatience with us but I assure you we are here to do as good a job as we can. We are close to a division here on some fundamental questions.
The Minister of State indicated he will take account of some of the points made between now and Report Stage. I ask him to have a fundamental look at this provision before Report Stage. We have gone very far on Second and Committee Stages without divisions. I would like to be able to support as much positive action as I can but I have some fundamental problems in relation to how this will be interpreted. I want to speed up the proceedings for you, Chairman, rather than having divisions.
I am always prepared to have as much patience as is necessary but I do not believe in hypothetical discussions when we are dealing with amendments. I thought the Minister of State had answered the questions.
Are you accusing me of making hypothetical statements?
I am not. I am saying we were getting into the realm of repetition and hypothetical situations. I want to complete this section before the break. We will not finish it by 5.30 p.m. at the rate we are going. I do not want to leave a section uncompleted.
If the issue is to avoid a division, I am not sure how I can help in that sense. Deputy Molloy's position is so fundamentally different from that of Deputy Smith that it seems likely one of them will call a division sooner or later. I thought I had attempted to address the issue of trial licences in a reasonable way. A number of issues were raised in the course of the discussion about public notification, consultation and, as Deputy Molloy said, the issue of trial licences being moved from one site to another, which I undertook to look at between now and Report Stage to see how they can best be addressed. I do not know if that meets everybody's position but it is the best I can do.
I have made the point that what Deputies have asked for is being looked at.
That is a fairly loose interpretation.
There is no prior notification, consultation process or appeal process for trial licences. Will the Minister look at this and introduce amendments on Report Stage?
I will reflect on matters between now and Report Stage. However, I do not know if what I propose then will meet the requirements of both sides of the Opposition. Reasonable suggestions have been made which I am prepared to consider. I cannot go beyond that at this stage.
I thank the Minister of State for his amendments and recognise that they move in the direction of the views expressed by some Deputies on Second Stage. The provision regarding removal from fresh water is a major change and reducing the trial for salmon farms to one year is appropriate. I am satisfied if he is prepared to look at the other aspects between now and Report Stage.
