Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997

SECTION 68.

I move amendment No. a38a

In page 34, subsection (1)(b), line 14, to delete "fishery" and substitute "operation".

The use of the phrase "aquaculture fishery" appearing in the Fisheries Act, 1980, is perhaps unclear. A more appropriate phrase is "aquaculture operation". This term is used in section 9(1)(a) of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 38a:

In page 34, subsection (1), between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

"(d) is satisfied that control of disease on the site has been inadequate.".

This is an important section which gives the Minister power to revoke or amend an aquaculture licence. He may do so in circumstances set out in the section. Another circumstance which should be added is that he should be: "satisfied that control of disease on the site has been inadequate." The Minister of State may be able to say if that is adequately covered elsewhere. If not, this circumstance should be included in the section.

It is adequately covered. The section provides that a licence may be revoked if the Minister is satisfied there has been a breach of a condition specified in the licence. To put it beyond doubt that control of disease was covered in the conditions, we agreed to an amendment to that effect. It is covered and it is not necessary to duplicate it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 34, after line 47, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) Any expenses incurred by the Minister under this section shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.".

It is necessary to provide a statutory basis for compensation payments and to ensure that the Oireachtas has a say in the provision of such moneys. This amendment provides for that.

This bring us back to the public interest. Is that the only case where compensation may be paid?

When we discussed the length of time for a licence yesterday, the Minister of State argued there was no great concern about the length of time because the Minister has power to revoke a licence. I argued that if there were certain scientific developments in the aquaculture industry, the Minister could amend the conditions of the licence and require holders to comply with higher standards even if they had a licence for a period of 20 years. This is the relevant section. Can the Minister of State offer greater assurance about the ability of the Minister to require fundamental changes in the conditions under which a licence is issued? This question could arise in a number of instances, but if there were improvements in the aquaculture industry which would be beneficial from the environmental or scientific point of view, the licence should be so amended. I am worried about whether a licence could be altered fundamentally in that way during its lifetime, particularly if there is a threat that the Minister must pay compensation. The Minister of the day might be reluctant to amend an existing licence for fear of having to pay such compensation.

I thought we had dealt with this matter.

This is the section to which the Minister of State was allowed to refer prematurely yesterday. We were dealing with an earlier section, not section 68.

Changes in technology or improvements in the science of fish husbandry can be dealt with in a number of ways. First, it can be dealt with in the licence by anticipating the changes that might take place and by providing for them by way of conditions. Second, the Bill provides that regulations may be made relating to changes in technology and fish husbandry which might take place over time. Third, the Minister has power to issue policy directives on how aquaculture is conducted.

This section relates to when a licence may be revoked or amended. It provides for the revocation of a licence where the licence holder has been in breach of any condition specified in the licence or where the Minister is satisfied that the aquaculture operation to which the licence relates is not being properly maintained. In those circumstances the licence may be revoked without compensation. This imposes a considerable degree of discipline on the aquaculture operation.

Compensation arises when the licence is revoked if the Minister considers it in the public interest to do so. What is the public interest? Let us suppose there are aquaculture operations in a bay and, as a matter of public policy, a port was developing or extending its operations into that area or the development of a major leisure facility in the area, for which that section of the bay was to be used, was necessary. If it were necessary to revoke the licence of the aquaculture operation for such developments, it is reasonable that compensation would be payable. However, if the licence is revoked because the licence holder does not comply with the conditions or is not managing the operation satisfactorily compensation would not be payable.

I presume no compensation would be payable in cases where the conditions of a licence are amended to take account of new conditions relating to, for example, new technology which does not impose a cost burden or inhibit the licensee. In other words, the licensee would only be compensated for any loss he would sustain.

Compensation is only payable for loss and there is a method to determine the compensation by arbitration if there is a dispute about it.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 68, as amended, agreed to.
Section 69 agreed to.
Top
Share