Inland Fisheries

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 25 February 2014

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

Questions (440, 441)

Clare Daly

Question:

440. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he has accepted the position of the Ombudsman that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was correct in its views that Inland Fisheries Ireland’s submission prepared for the European Commission during the recent pilot investigation of salmon and sea lice contained many inaccuracies, fundamental errors, and omissions of relevant facts and misleading commentaries which would have had disastrous results for Ireland's reputation had it sent the report to the European Commission. [9709/14]

Clare Daly

Question:

441. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the reason his Department has not responded to the European Commission's request for its views on the reopening of the pilot investigation into sea lice and salmon farms for which the deadline was 15 January, 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9710/14]

Written answers

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 440 and 441 together.

The Department of Agriculture Food and Marine (DAFM) is the lead Department as regards the re-opened pilot case concerning finfish aquaculture and I am advised that DAFM sought the observations of my Department on 7 January and observations were returned ahead of the deadline of 15 January. Further observations were subsequently sought by DAFM on 3 February with date for return of 12 February and my Department responded on that date.

All observations in this matter were supported by fact-based scientific and technical research from the Departments statutory scientific advisors, Inland Fisheries Ireland. This research has been extensively peer reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals.

The matter referred to in these Questions relates to a request by a third party to the Office of the Ombudsman for redress for maladministration based on the actions of DAFM in relation to the pilot case. The Office of the Ombudsman is a statutorily independent function and it would not be appropriate to make public comment on matters it has reported on. Where someone is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Ombudsman’s consideration, this should be communicated to that Office in the first instance.