Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997

SECTION 19.

Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."

What procedures have to be complied with to have a licence renewed? Will the full provisions of the Bill apply in the case of a renewal?

Section 19 provides for the renewal by the licensing authority of a licence after consultation with such bodies as may be prescribed for that purpose. I envisage that such bodies will include the Central Fisheries Board, the regional fisheries boards and local authorities. I proposed an amendment earlier and it was agreed that prescribed bodies will be consulted before a licence decision is made. When a renewal application is made there will be a similar consultation process.

What rights will a body or person not prescribed by the Minister have to lodge an objection to the renewal? What rights of appeal against the Minister's decision will exist?

Any individual will have the normal right to make any comment or objection if he or she wants to exercise it. A formal consultation process is being provided in statute with prescribed bodies, in advance of the renewal of a licence. It is only proper that when a licence comes up for renewal such a process takes place so that the prescribed bodies can make their observations before a decision is made on whether the licence may be renewed.

What is the difference between the renewal application and the original application?

The renewal process will be much simpler than the initial application. One of the biggest differences will be that the initial application will be subject to appeal; the renewal would not. A consultation process is provided for in the renewal. This is similar to the discussion earlier on the duration period. If a person has a licence, for example, and complies with its conditions, he or she applies for renewal. A range of bodies is formally informed that there is an application for renewal and they have the opportunity to make observations on it following which a decision is made. It is not as exhaustive a process as the initial application. Otherwise, one would be applying again de nouveau.

Does the Minister envisage a renewal application which would involve an environmental impact statement?

Yes, an EIS could be requested.

Does the Minister envisage a first application being made by a small shellfish operation requiring an EIS which would cost more than the value of the project?

No, for two reasons. First, as I said earlier, no operation will last for thousands of years. Second, the environmental impact regulations provide for thresholds of activity beyond which environmental impact statements are required. They are not necessarily required for small operations.

My understanding is that the small operations have been working for a long time. It is not material to this Bill, it is a comment. I am not drawing any fire from west Cork today.

I am not clear what point the Deputy is making.

Do the bodies which have the right to be consulted include those which the Minister seeks to have represented on the appeal board?

We are probably anticipating the discussion on how the appeal board might be constituted. At present, when a licence application is submitted a range of bodies is consulted formally about it — the local authority, the regional fishery board, the Central Fisheries Board, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Bord Fáilte——

Those are all statutory bodies——

Yes and they have——

——but the Minister proposes to have more than statutory bodies represented on the appeals board.

I am answering the Deputy's question on section 19 by explaining that a range of bodies is consulted about a licence application. It is my intention that this range of bodies would also be consulted in the case of a renewal of an application licence. The bodies to be consulted for the renewal of a licence will be prescribed. They do not necessarily have to be confined to the present range of bodies consulted; they may vary from time to time depending on what may be deemed to be the appropriate bodies to be consulted. Again, I am open to suggestion on that point. The range of bodies to be consulted for the renewal of licences will be set down by way of regulation.

My real interest is in establishing whether bodies other than statutory bodies would be included in the list of bodies to be consulted. The Minister's amendment No. 27, which is a worthy one, refers to a number of organisations which will be represented on the appeals board, several of which are on-statutory. I ask that he add to the list of bodies to be consulted non-statutory bodies such as those which will be represented on the appeals board. Amendment No. 27 provides that:

The Minister shall prescribe . . . organisations which, in the Minister's opinion, are concerned with the conservation, development and protection of wild fisheries . . .

Those need not all be statutory bodies.

No, they do not but at this stage of the discussion I do not want to give a firm commitment that particular named organisations shall be prescribed for the purposes of this consultation exercise. I have an open mind and am disposed to the idea that the prescribed bodies would include ones which are not necessarily statutory. A range of bodies and organisations involved in the wild fisheries sector, the environmental area and the industrial sector would have views on this. I do not necessarily want an unmanageably long list of organisations but I do not have a rigid view as to what bodies might be consulted. I am happy to hear any suggestions Deputy Molloy or anyone else may make as to which bodies might be included for consultation purposes for the renewal of licences.

This matter affects our agreement to the section. I am happy with the Minister's explanation because he seems to have indicated that he would be prepared to include in the list for consultation bodies which represent people involved in conservation, development and protection of wild fisheries. If the Minister could, without naming organisations, assure us that he would include such bodies on the list to be consulted, I would have no problem. I want a balanced process of consultation. I greatly appreciate the Minister's approach since the initiation of this Bill — he has been open to suggestions and acted on them. I have no quibbles but we are teasing out the Bill and once we complete the section it will not be long before it becomes law, so it is important that we discover the exact position before we continue. Otherwise I will have to oppose the section, which I do not want to do.

The Minister has endeavoured to meet the points raised. Are you asking him to repeat what he has already said?

I think he has said it.

The principle which Deputy Molloy seeks to establish is that the list of bodies to be consulted will not necessarily be confined to statutory bodies. I do not want to go beyond that because, at this stage, I do not want to commit myself to a list of bodies to be consulted which might turn out to be unmanageable and unworkable. If we go outside statutory bodies, the bodies to be consulted cannot be confined to one interest.

I did not suggest that.

It would have to be extended to others. The making of regulations is some time away; we must enact the Bill first. In advance of making those regulation some consideration can be given to what might be the appropriate bodies which could be prescribed at this time. In ten or 15 years it may be necessary to prescribe different bodies.

I thank the Minister for indicating he would go along with what I suggested.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share