Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late but there was an agricultural event for Holstein friesians in Limerick today and I have just returned from that. We should recognise this is a document published by the Minister. We will make a submission and the Minister will then publish a final document. We are not writing the document. Whatever we do as a committee, the witnesses have to understand that while we could argue that we might not start where we are and might not finish where the Minister intends finishing but we have to try to influence the document if we feel changes need to be made. It is important in today’s discussion that we work within that framework. My guess is he is not going to totally rewrite his own document.

Several big issues have been raised. There seems to be concurrence that the licensing regime needs total reformation. In chapter 8 the document refers to progressively removing the current aquaculture licensing backlog.

Everyone who submits a licence application is entitled, within a fixed timeframe, to have it approved, approved with conditions or declined. I tabled a parliamentary question on behalf of a small fisherman who submitted an application for an oyster fishing licence in 2012. I was informed yesterday that the engineering section of the Department is still dealing with the application and no further information was provided on the timescale for finalising the process. An application to build a 50-storey office block must be processed within eight weeks. The planning authorities may ask for further information but they must give a decision within eight weeks unless the applicant extends the timeframe. The Department should be able to deal with an aquaculture licence application within a similar timeframe.

If studies have not been completed on certain bays, licences cannot be approved for the bays in question and people should be told they cannot apply for a licence until the relevant study has been completed. The idea that someone will submit a costly application and wait for years for an outcome is unsatisfactory. I accept that this is not a new problem and also occurred when my party was in government. It is time the Oireachtas addressed it.

Action 22 is to review and revise the aquaculture licensing process, including the applicable legal framework. What is the witnesses' view on removing responsibility for the initial and final decision from the Minister and leaving the Department as the promoter of aquaculture? We can debate what type of aquaculture we want but if the Department's role is to promote aquaculture, surely it should not sit in judgment on licences. One cannot promote a sector and, at the same time, make decisions on licensing applications. I am interested in hearing the views of the witnesses on having a new legal framework that would provide for time limits, keep the decision-making process at arm's length from the Department - technically it would be kept at arm's length from the Minister, but Ministers generally do what their officials recommend - and introduce new decision-making and appeals systems. Establishing a proper framework for licensing is a big issue.

The submission made by the Environmental Pillar appears to say two things. I fully agree with its call for a much greater emphasis on using native skills, meaning people who understand the sea and their coastline, rather than an approach focused on large multinational companies. It would be better to have many small operators with indigenous knowledge than a big bang solution. On the other hand, however, the submission also frequently refers to environmental impact statements and so forth. In cases involving applications for seaweed or aquaculture licences I find that if the process is not proportionate to the activity, small local operators who do not have sufficient resources to carry out the studies required tend to lose out. I am interested in finding out how a balance can be struck in this regard.

I am particularly interested in the shellfish sector. There has been a major problem in Connemara with the importation of French oysters and the spread of disease. B'fhéidir go dtabharfaidh Mr. Ó Corcora freagra ar an gceist seo mar is mó tuiscint atá aige ar an gcladach ná éinne anseo. Do we have enough native species of seaweed and shellfish on our seashores to allow us to forego the importation of species from outside the island? I understand, for example, that we have some very good and valuable native oysters and we will be in serious trouble if they become infected. This issue needs to be teased out.

I was particularly interested in the issue of lobster hatcheries. I assume these hatcheries use native seed. I was in contact with a gentleman from Achill for a long time who was trying to promote this idea. The problem was that no one would give him money because there was no significant commercial benefit to him. If his proposal had been funded, it would have had a significant benefit for fishermen who are involved in lobster fishing. This is interesting issue.

As I stated, the joint committee will make a submission on the document, rather than seeking to rewrite it. Salmon farming is a vexed issue. Agreement or willingness to allow fish farms varies from place to place along the coast. Some communities take a positive attitude to salmon farms, while others oppose them. The committee must examine the issue objectively. The document refers to 7,000 tonnes of biomass, whereas Bord Iascaigh Mhara referred to a figure of 15,000 tonnes. It was intimated to me that one cannot compare the 15,000 tonnes measured by BIM and the figure of 7,000 tonnes - because it is a biomass measurement. It is a bit like live weight and dead weight for cattle. For example, a sheep that is measured as having a certain dead weight will have been twice as heavy when measured as live weight. For this reason, the measurement we are given here would not necessarily be half the size, max, of the proposed Galway Bay fish farm. I hope I have made myself clear.

I am interested in finding out the views of the witnesses on the proposed maximum size of fish farms, allowing that they would not ban cage fish farming. How appropriate is the proposed maximum size, on which there are diverse views? On our visit to Scotland, people there were stunned to learn of the sheer size of the proposed fish farm in Galway Bay. I understand Bord Iascaigh Mhara intended to replicate this around the coast in its big bang approach.

I would appreciate responses to the issues I have raised. The purpose of meetings such as this is to allow members to get a balanced view that will help us in making a balanced submission to the Minister.