Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I will address the questions raised as accurately as possible. If I miss any, Senators should feel free to interrupt me to seek clarity.

I will first respond to Senator Ó Domhnaill, who comes from a constituency that has an enormous interest in fishing. In fact, the economic survival of many of the communities he represents is dependent on fishing and the development of the port infrastructure that is already in place. My Department intends to be ambitious in exploiting the opportunities that exist in Killybegs, in particular, in Greencastle in the other Donegal constituency and in all the small coastal ports in Donegal.

With regard to the Senator's question about developing the six fishery harbour centres that the Department both owns and controls, I look forward to coming to the Seanad on 20 July when we can talk in more detail about what we are doing with those harbours. The development plan for Killybegs is being developed by stakeholders in Killybegs working with BIM, my Department and Letterkenny Institute of Technology to ensure that we are sweating the assets there to the maximum possible effect in terms of getting stimulus into Killybegs and the wider economy by using the infrastructure in which previous Governments have invested significant amounts of money. Although this Government might not have huge resources to spend - it will have some - it can do a great deal in policy terms to exploit the potential that exists in fishing ports such as Killybegs, Dingle, Castletownbere, Rossaveal and so forth on the east and west coasts.

Many people ask questions about aquaculture licences. I will put the problem on the record. We have not issued an aquaculture licence to anybody for two years. Many existing aquaculture operators are essentially operating outside of licence. That situation is unsustainable. The European Commission brought a case to court, and won, in respect of the way Ireland has approached the issue of licensing aquaculture activity, be it shellfish or fin fish farming. We are in the process of correcting that position, and we are quite a long way down that road. As a result, the European Commission is not fining Ireland. However, at any point in time it could choose to ask the court to impose fines for our approach towards aquaculture in the past, which was not acceptable under EU law.

We are being required by the European Commission to put a gold plated system in place for aquaculture licensing. Practically every harbour on the island has been designated a special area of conservation. There are one or two exceptions, such as Bantry Bay, but the majority of the bays that are appropriate for the expansion of aquaculture are special areas of conservation. This means that in order to give a licence for existing activity, in some cases, and certainly for expansion for new activity, and there are 520 applications for aquaculture licences, we are required to go through a process that also involves the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has a heritage element as well, environmental impact statements and environmental impact assessments of the harbours concerned. That is before we even go through the process of applying for a new activity.

There is a process to be followed, which is incredibly frustrating, arduous and expensive, in assessing all these bays and harbours before we can even entertain the application for an aquaculture licence. We are going through that process now. We are targeting each of the priority harbours and there will be decisions by the end of the year. Certainly there will be three bays by the end of the year which will have the facility to accommodate aquaculture licences. However, in the context of all the bays we need to assess, clearly it is not acceptable that we will be doing this for the next four or five years before we deal with all of them. I am working with my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, who is responsible for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, to ensure we are doing everything possible to get decisions and assessments made as quickly as possible and in a way that is consistent with satisfying the Commission in terms of the standards it is imposing on Ireland.

Unfortunately, while we are dealing with this frustration, we are seeing aquaculture industries developing and expanding in other European countries even though, in many ways, we have better natural resources to exploit that potential in a sustainable way. I take the point made by Senator O'Keeffe. This is not about just pressing ahead to make money and create jobs; it must be done in a way that is sympathetic to our environment and the other demands on our marine environment and harbours. Ireland has a very precious resource. We have responsibility for more than 2 million acres of water. A total of 17% of Europe's seas are Ireland's responsibility so we have to manage that, particularly our foreshore resource, in a careful way but also in a way that exploits potential.

Last year, we produced 12,000 tonnes of farmed salmon. This is a hugely valuable commodity. If we were producing three times that amount, we could sell it without difficulty because there is a demand for it. Last year, Scotland produced 150,000 tonnes of farmed salmon. Norway produces over 1 million tonnes of farmed salmon and within the next five years that figure will rise to 2 million tonnes. I do not recall which Senator made the point about our responsibility to feed the world but, at present, Europe imports 70% of the fish it consumes. We cannot resolve that problem by increasing our domestic catch of wild fish because stocks will not sustain that. The only way we can deal with it is by expanding aquaculture, and doing it in a way that is clever and suits Ireland's natural resources.

That is why we are looking, for example, at moving some aquaculture activity a little offshore, maybe into the lee of islands in certain places. I have asked the Marine Institute to look at appropriate sites where that type of development could be facilitated. Moving activity offshore would also get it out of bays and avoid the sort of objections we saw, for example, in Dunmanus Bay.

Much is happening in the aquaculture area. That is why I am protective of keeping the decision making capacity on aquaculture in my Department. We are developing a team with significant expertise in aquaculture, aquaculture licensing and the foreshore issues that go with that. There is extraordinary potential to exploit, in a responsible and sustainable way, the natural resource we have around our coastline for the expansion and development of aquaculture. We want the kind of synergies between licensing and foreshore that will be involved in doing that to stay in my Department. I want to push that agenda. I will talk to Senators further when I come to the House on 20 July.

This is why we are not simply transferring all foreshore functions to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. That would have been the easiest thing to do, in terms of legal certainty and clearly outlining who has responsibility for what. I have insisted, for good reason, on keeping the foreshore issues concerned with aquaculture, fish processing, the fishery harbours and the fishing industry, for which I have political responsibility, within my Department. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government supports this course of action.

I hope this gives Senators a flavour of our frustrations regarding aquaculture licences, renewing existing licences and putting a proper and credible system in place that will avoid EU prosecution and fines and can allow an industry to expand and grow in the not too distant future, as opposed to five or six years time.

I welcome what Senator Michael Comiskey said about the offshore potential for renewables. It is now very clear that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and not my Department, has responsibility for the foreshore in that area, and rightly so. Most of the big offshore energy projects that will develop and emerge in Ireland will involve a planning element as well as a foreshore element. It makes sense for the same team to deal with both. Senator Colm Burke is right in what he says about the time constraint for the planning process but not for the foreshore process. This obliges a project that needs planning permission and a foreshore licence to be treated in a totally disjointed manner, from a time point of view. It is very difficult to finance such a development when one is dealing with two entirely different systems. We need to create synergies between planning applications and foreshore applications so that we can streamline matters while maintaining a rigorous process that will ensure that the type of development being proposed is appropriate for the environment, the foreshore and the land based activity. It makes sense for one Department to deal with all areas outside the fishing sector.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe is right to advise caution in pressing ahead with the sole focus on job creation and economic stimulus. Environmental concern should not be lost in the frustration with aquaculture licensing and in the rush to build offshore energy apparatus that can provide, some time in the future, self-sufficient energy generation on this island.

Senator David Cullinane's primary concern seems to be about the motivation behind the legislation. I think I have answered that question. We are trying to bring clarity and certainty so that when someone from abroad, or from home, wants to spend money developing a wind or wave energy or offshore aquaculture project and employ people in Ireland, the process of investing in Ireland is easily understood and does not cost an absolute fortune or take years to get through. We have seen many examples that are driving investment out of the country. The Bill goes a small way towards addressing that. It provides clarity that has been absent in the past.

I have outlined the lines of demarcation. They are straightforward. Aquaculture and fisheries and the foreshore that relates to those activities stay with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Everything else goes to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. This has nothing to do with geography. It is about the activity being proposed and the foreshore that applies to it. This determines which Department deals with which application.

Senator Colm Burke raised the issue of setting timeframes for foreshore licences. I take his point and we will look at it. It is quite a good suggestion but it is not dealt with in this Bill. We may be able to do what he suggests by ministerial order, without primary legislation. I will have to check that.

I can relate to Senator Denis O'Donovan's stories from west Cork. I know the pieces of infrastructure he refers to, and I am glad they have been built. I have tied up at some of the piers he mentioned. With regard to Dunmanus Bay, we are going to have to face down the arguments and balance traditional interests in and outside bays and harbours with new developments that may emerge in aquaculture and fish farming. We must consider both views and I will have to make a judgment call, whether in Dunmanus Bay, Bantry Bay or elsewhere. The Bill will provide a system that allows everyone to have their say and to put the facts and opinions on the table that can be the basis for a responsible and sustainable decision by me and my Department. That is what I hope the Bill will add to the process.

Senator Cáit Keane described herself as an urban Senator who comes originally from Clifden. Farmers often say to me they are surprised I became Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because I come from a largely urban constituency. Many people living in urban Ireland have their roots in coastal or rural communities and understand very well how they work. I will come back to Senator Keane on the fracking issue rather than go into it in detail now. Any substantial offshore activity requires an appropriate licensing and supervision process. Fracking would be no exception.

Senator Rónán Mullen, rightly, asked for clarity as to why we are doing this the way we are doing it. There is much transferring of functions in Government at present. My Department is no exception. For example, I have taken responsibility for marine leisure because I am trying to bring all marine activities under one roof. I can do that without primary legislation. I can transfer functions and the Cabinet can agree to such transfers under existing legislation. Likewise, Departments are being set up from scratch and others are amalgamating and merging. Those transfers can happen without new primary legislation. This is a little different. Existing legislation defines who is responsible for what, and we cannot disregard that. Legislation dating back to 2009 specifically defines, or attempts to define, who is responsible for what with regard to foreshore applications. In order to bring further clarity to the matter primary legislation is required. Given that we are working from existing legislation rather than simply transferring ministerial responsibility that is not defined in law, primary legislation is required.

That is the legal advice we have and it makes sense.

In response to Senator Cummins, many people working on the boards of port companies over the past 20 years will understand the frustration surrounding foreshores, which have been a nightmare. I am interested in trying to fix this not in blaming anybody for that. We are trying to streamline the decision-making process relating to foreshore licences in order that it will be clear for the people who want to use that system to develop a project, whether that is in the ports of Cork or Waterford, an aquaculture site off the west cost or a wind energy farm on the Arklow Banks. We want clear guidelines and legislation regarding who is responsible for what in order that we can then put pressure on the appropriate people to get the job done as efficiently as possible. That is what this short, technical Bill is about.