Does the Minister make the decision on all existing licences under current legislation? The Minister of State is proposing to delegate to an established civil servant the right to make decisions in relation to licence applications. There is a huge number of applications on hand. One would envisage the Minister making the decision on the major applications. What is the position under the current legislation? Was the decision taken by the Minister in all cases heretofore?
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
The decision on existing licences was taken by the Minister in all cases of which I am aware. An aquaculture vetting committee examines the licence application and makes a recommendation to the Minister. The Minister then makes the decision. Section 21 is providing that the Minister may delegate the function to a named officer of the Minister.
What is the purpose of this? Licences are controversial and a certain amount of fear has been expressed that this is just a way of preventing people from making strong representations to the Minister who can now shrug his shoulders and say he has delegated the relevant powers. Concerns have been expressed to me, which perhaps the Minister of State can allay, that the purpose of this section is to ensure there will be no ultimate accountability.
Any person expressing such fears is wrong because the Minister would have power left. The provision in section 21 is only an enabling provision. It also provides that the functions may continue to be exercised by the Minister. In other words, if, for example, a degree of political accountability was required on the decision on a particularly controversial application, it would be open to the Minister to make that decision, notwithstanding the fact that the power may have been delegated to a named officer.
It is an enabling provision whereby the licensing decision may or may not be delegated to a named officer. A number of functions of the Minister are set out in the Bill in relation to the making of regulations, policy directions and so on. Therefore, clearly defined policy and regulatory roles for the Minister are set down in the legislation.
The question then arises, does it follow that the Minister must make the decision in every case, including, for example, small shellfish operations? Frankly, I do not think that should necessarily be the case. I see no reason those functions cannot be delegated. At the same time, the section allows for the licensing function to be exercised by the Minister. If, for example, a major, controversial application was made, it would not be open to the Minister to say he was washing his hands of the matter as he had delegated responsibility for it. He may continue to exercise these functions under the provision. I envisage decisions on uncontroversial applications being made by designated officers.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 1 to 27 and amendment No. 27 are related and are to be taken together by agreement. If amendment No. 27 is accepted, section 23 is to be deleted.
I have a question about the interface between the original decision and the setting up of the appeals board.
To what section does this apply?
Perhaps it is a section that is not there.
I am not having debate on a section that is not there.
It is a relevant matter.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:
"93.—(1) The Board shall consist of a Chairperson and six other members.
(2) The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Government.
(3) The Minister shall prescribe not less than two organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are representative of each of following classes of organisation:
(a) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the promotion of the development of aquaculture or are representative of persons carrying on the business of developing aquaculture;
(b) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the conservation, development and protection of wild fisheries;
(c) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are representative of persons whose professions or occupations relate to physical planning and development;
(d) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are representative of persons concerned with the protection and preservation of the environment and amenities;
(e) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the promotion of general economic development; and
(f) organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the promotion of community development.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), the Minister shall appoint as members of the Board from amongst those persons nominated by each of the classes of organisations prescribed under subsection (3) one member to represent each class of organisation, or in default of such nominations after the Minister has given each a reasonable opportunity to do so, then from among such persons as the Minister thinks fit.
(5) Where because of the illness of the Chairperson or of any other member, or for any other reason, a sufficient number of members of the Board is not available to enable the Board to perform its functions effectively, the Minister may appoint a person who, in the Minister's opinion, has the appropriate knowledge or experience in matters relevant to the functions of the Board to act as a member of the Board in place of an absent member during the absence.
(6) An organisation prescribed under subsection (3) shall, whenever so requested by the Minister, select such number of candidates (not being less than two) as the Minister may specify for appointment as members of the Board and shall inform the Minister of the names of the candidates selected and of the reasons why, in the opinion of the organisation, they are suitable for such appointment.
(7) Subject to subsection (5) and except in the case of a re-appointment under section 24(1)(b), the Minister shall not appoint a person to be a member unless the person was amongst those selected pursuant to a request under subsection (6) in relation to that appointment, but
(a) if all of the appropriate organisations refuse or fail to select any candidate, or
(b) if the Minister decides not to appoint as a member any of the candidates selected by such organisations,
pursuant to a particular request under subsection (6), then either
(i) the Minister shall appoint as a member a person who was amongst those selected by such an organisation pursuant to a previous request (if any) under that subsection in relation to that appointment, or
(ii) the Minister shall make a further such request and shall appoint as a member a person who was amongst those selected pursuant to that request made in relation to the appointment.
(8) Where a request is made under subsection (6) or (7)(ii), failure or refusal by the organisation of whom the request is made to select the number of candidates specified in the request shall not preclude the appointment as a member of a person who was selected in relation to that appointment either by the organisation or by any other organisation.".
We are now dealing with the composition of the appeals board which was discussed in detail on Second Stage. Since that debate I have received a large number of submissions and representations in relation to the membership of the appeals board as proposed in the Bill as presented.
Concerns have been expressed about the balance of the board's composition in terms of those with an aquaculture background as opposed to those with a knowledge of angling, fishery and environmental matters. The Minister has power to appoint persons to the board without reference to any nominations from relevant bodies or organisations. It is essential that the appeals board commands the confidence of all sides and that its integrity be reflected in both its composition and the selection and nomination procedures for its membership. This amendment addresses the issues of balance and fair selection procedures by adopting the model of An Bord Pleanála closely. I propose to extend board membership to seven to provide that six individual interests will be represented, to provide for a system of nominations by appropriate organisations and to provide that the chairperson will be appointed by the Government rather than by a Minister. I hope this proposal finds favour with the committee and results in the appointment of an appeals board that will command general confidence.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27:
In subsection (3), line 1, to delete "two" and substitute "three".
I thank the Minister of State for his amendment. I spoke strongly on Second Stage about my fears for the board as originally proposed. It was then a biased board which would not have won the trust of the community interested in these matters. I also pointed out that the Minister of State had spoken of An Bord Pleanála procedures being implemented through this Bill; one of the principal features of the legislation establishing An Bord Pleanála is the method of appointment of its members. That is done through the nominating bodies method. I am pleased the Minister of State has accepted those points and put down this amendment.
The amendment changes the Bill and people's fears about it. It should go a long way towards winning the trust of those who have been suspicious of the development of the aquaculture industry. Those fears have been based on both fact and fiction but the community is still divided on this issue. This Bill should be a vehicle for building trust between all sides on this matter and the industry should be able to develop with the full support of all who are interested in fisheries, which has not been the call to date. I hope that, when the Minister of State makes appointments to the board, he recognises two groups in this industry: one is involved commercially and the other on a voluntary recreational angling basis. Both have a sincere interest in fisheries and should be adequately represented. They would not necessarily have been represented in the previous proposal, which was heavily biased. I commend the Minister for this.
I have put down an amendment that asks the Minister, when he is prescribing the organisations from which the nominations will be taken, that under the various headings of (a) to (f), he would name three organisations rather than two. It is not a fundamental point but it might help create wider acceptance for the Bill. If a wider group were being considered for appointment, people would feel more involved and more confident.
I hope this board will operate in the manner stated here. I recall debating the harbours legislation with the Minister of State, when major changes were proposed to give a more commercial mandate to the harbour authorities. A new horizon was opening for them which was largely based on how people were to be appointed to those authorities. Now the Minister of State has made his appointments under that legislation it is clear he has not met the criteria laid down in debate. We have seen the Dublin Chamber of Commerce's comments on the composition of——
We are not rehashing the Harbours Bill. The Deputy should stick to the amendment.
I am referring to relevant matters. We accept what the Minister of State says on trust and if he does not implement the commitments he has given during debates, we are entitled to be apprehensive and to refer to that later. However, the change is welcome and I hope it is fulfilled in the spirit in which we sought it.
Could the Minister of State indicate his position in relation to Deputy Molloy's amendment?
Deputy Molloy said it was neither critical nor fundamental. We are talking about the minimum number of organisations which can be prescribed under each heading. I have proposed two because that is the minimum provided for in the composition of An Bord Pleanála. In practice, under each heading there are more than two and I would envisage there being more than two in practice. I would prefer to leave it at two for the sake of consistency with An Bord Pleanála legislation, if Deputy Molloy would be prepared to accept that.
The section is to be welcomed as it deals with many of the concerns voiced. However, there are still a number of small but important matters outstanding.
In the amendment section 23(3)(a) states: "organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the promotion of the development of aquaculture or are representative of persons carrying on the business of developing aquaculture;". In the debate on this Bill everyone is concentrating on aquaculture. although the Minister has shown he is aware of the other side of the business — fin fish farming and shellfish farming, which have huge industry potential. Only one nominee will represent the two bodies on the board. No matter how many organisations are designated, only one representative will be on the board. The reality is that a representative of the fin fish section will be on the board and the other organisations will feel aggrieved if they were not represented.
Paragraph (f) states: "organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the promotion of community development." This board is unlike An Bord Pleanála which covers the Twenty-Six Counties because fish farming tends to be concentrated in certain areas which do not necessarily have much in common with each other and there would be fewer national organisations. Which national organisations would people in Connemara feel would represent their community development on a national level? The Minister of State might name some but I wonder if people concerned would accept them. This is a serious problem, especially if membership of the board is limited to two. Some 50 per cent of fish farms are in Gaeltacht regions and Gaeltacht organisations, which would not be seen as national organisations, could be representative of community interests in this case.
Will the Minister explain how he intends dealing with the two issues I raised? I recognise the merits of the section, understand that not everyone can be on the board and that there must be limitations if it is to be workable. The issues raised are intrinsic to confidence in the board. Shellfish farming is important, especially for sustainable fish farming. The community interest element is also vital and I raised this issue before. It is vital to have someone representing community interests but it must be someone the community in question sees as being representative of their interests.
On the appeals board there is nothing in the Bill which states that, in making an appeal, a person can have access to all the documentation concerning the original decision and that stymies their ability to make an appeal.
I welcome the support for the amendment. As regards which type of aquaculture will have a nominee on the appeals board, a number of bodies represent the different types of activity, such as the Irish Shellfish Association, the shellfish committee of the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Salmon Growers Association and there is an umbrella body, the Irish Aquaculture Association. There are also statutory bodies, such as BIM and Údarás na Gaeltachta, which are involved in development. A nominee representative of those bodies might emerge and we must wait and see what happens. Other organisations may evolve over time which may be designated.
On the issue of community development which Deputy Ó Cuív raised, I am inclined to share his view that organisations concerned with community development do not exclusively have to be national. I would be disposed to allowing into this process local or regional organisations or a combination or amalgam of them. It is something which must be examined in greater depth before bodies are designated. While I appreciate a significant amount of aquaculture activity is in Gaeltacht areas, it is not confined to those areas. Most maritime counties have some form of aquaculture activity. It will be necessary to consider which bodies to select for designation. There is a precedent. There will inevitably be some overlap with the bodies designated for An Bord Pleanála purposes but it will have to be tailored to suit aquaculture needs.
An Bord Pleanála is a national body but this issue is regional. I mentioned the Gaeltacht because it is a region. Is the Minister of State saying that, if there were an organisation such as comhairle na gcomhairle pobal i gConnamara or comhairle na gcomhairle pobal i gCiarraí, he would allow them make a nomination? Because of the regional nature of this issue, will the Minister of State examine regional as opposed to national organisations? An Bord Pleanála is a national body covering national issues across the Twenty-Six Counties. In this case, the Minister of State seems to be saying he would be disposed to examining the prospect of giving nominations to regional as well as national bodies. It was in that context I mentioned the Gaeltacht.
I want to distinguish the principle from the practicalities and specifics. The principle to which I am agreeable is not confining the range of organisations representing community development to be considered to national organisations. I do not want to start commenting on or to be drawn into comment on individual organisations at this stage. I am surprised Deputy Ó Cuív should have difficulty identifying the organisations which speak for the community. I thought that, coming from his area, there would be no difficulty identifying who speaks for the community but it seems political thinking is changing, even in north Connemara.
Confederations of community councils exist and I was a co-opted manager of one for a long time. However, they do not exist everywhere as there is no need for them in many places.
The Minister of State has given an explanation. Has Deputy Molloy anything further to add?
I would be happier if the Minister of State accepted it. He does not seem to have any great difficulty with it. The only reason given was that it was in the Bord Pleanála legislation. However, they went further than two and I want to ensure this Bill provides for more than two. Why not include it in this legislation by saying not fewer than three organisations?
I am anxious to have consistency with the Bord Pleanála model. We should adhere to that model except where there are good reasons to depart from it. We should keep differences to a minimum.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27 put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 27 agreed to.
Section 23 deleted.
Sections 24 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.