Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this part of the meeting is to engage with Ms Imelda Reynolds, chairman designate of the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. I welcome her and look forward to hearing her presentation.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Reynolds to make her opening comments.

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before it. As members probably know, my background is in the legal profession. I have been a practising solicitor for 27 years. I have outlined my professional and academic experience in the document which has been submitted to the committee and which, I hope, has been circulated. I will be happy to answer questions members have on it.

In addition to having been a legal practitioner, I was an elected council member of Dublin Chamber of Commerce for ten years, from 2003. I was president of the chamber in 2011. During the ten years I served for a term on the board of Chambers Ireland. I have been a member of the governing body of Dublin Institute of Technology, DIT, since 2008. I chair its audit committee and have done so since 2010. I have been a board member of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority since 2012. I am a member of the planning sub-committee of that board and I am also a member of the regulation of practice committee of the Law Society of Ireland. My mix of legal and commercial skills and expertise, allied with my managerial experience from my law practice and my governance experience, will assist me in discharging the duties of chairman of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board.

Before commenting on the role of chairman designate, I wish to make two observations. First, in my career to date I have never had any conflict of interest in the area of aquaculture. This will allow me to be independent and impartial, which will be imperative in carrying out my role. Obviously, I have had to do a lot of reading to brief myself. I have reviewed the Act that serves as the basis on which the board operates and the annual reports of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board from 2009. I have had the benefit of a comprehensive briefing from the Department's fisheries division. I have reviewed the marine plan, Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth, 2012. I have had the opportunity to read the very comprehensive report of the Joint Sub-committee on Fisheries, Report on Promoting Sustainable Rural Coastal and Island Communities, published earlier this year. I found it very helpful, particularly its analysis of the aquaculture industry, both in Ireland and elsewhere in the European Union. I noted with some interest the sub-committee's recommendations concerning the existing licensing regime.

My second observation is that the role of chairman of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board is prescribed by section 26 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997. Perhaps I am more constrained in my remit than other chairmen designate who may appear before the committee. The chairman's role, as outlined in section 26, is to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board. My vision for the role of chairman which I was asked to outline is to fulfil this statutory obligation to the best of my ability, bringing my legal, managerial and governance skills to bear on it for the benefit of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board. I hope to do so with the benefit of the board, the members of which have a range of skills, particularly in the area of aquaculture licensing.

I am acutely conscious that the function of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board is to provide an independent authority for the determination of appeals against decisions of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine on aquaculture licence applications. Therefore, in fulfilling the role of chairman, my objective is to maintain its independence and impartiality at all times.

There is a statutory responsibility on the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board under section 56 of the 1997 Act to ensure appeals are dealt with and determined expeditiously and that all steps are taken to avoid unnecessary delays. I look forward to chairing a board that will make logical, coherent and rational decisions in an efficient way in accordance with the requirements of the 1997 Act.

I am aware that the difficulties caused by the 2007 European Court of Justice judgment against Ireland, as a consequence of the Natura 2000 directive, have meant Ireland has lagged behind its competitors in its development of aquaculture as an industry. Therefore, there has been little activity with the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board in recent years. There may well be some pent-up demand in the short term as the Minister sets about granting licences.

With regard to my strategy for realising the vision or meeting the statutory obligations imposed on the chairman of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board, I plan, in the first instance to meet the personnel in the section, to be briefed on the work in hand for the board and then to meet the board as soon as possible with a view to making progress. In that regard, the secretary of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board was in touch with me yesterday with a view to organising an early meeting. There is a board meeting scheduled for next Tuesday at 9 a.m. I hope the meeting will take place and that I will be briefed in advance. Obviously, work is starting immediately.

In appearing before the committee I have been asked to address the challenges and priorities I have identified in taking on the role. It is difficult to do so without having met the board or the secretariat. However, I noted the concern expressed by the Joint Sub-committee on Fisheries about whether sufficient resources were being deployed to process existing aquaculture applications. I do not know whether that is a reference to resources within the Department in processing initial applications or whether it extends to appeals. A priority on my appointment will be to review the resources of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board and consider whether they are sufficient to enable the efficient processing of aquaculture licences.

It is clear that Ireland has a tremendous opportunity to develop a competitive and sustainable aquaculture industry, providing long-term employment and high quality seafood. The sub-committee noted that this could take place only if there was full compliance with all relevant legislation and if a sound regulatory system was implemented that had the confidence of both the public in general and the European Commission. An effective and efficient licensing appeals process is an important part of this. With the committee's approval, I very much look forward to playing a role in realising what will be a very exciting opportunity for the country as a whole.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Reynolds.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to engage with Ms Reynolds, chairperson designate of the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. I thank her for her presentation. I know that she is new in the role, but her CV is certainly formidable. In her presentation she has outlined the determination she will bring to the role. During the years questions have been raised about the process involved in issuing aquaculture licences. Am I correct in understanding Ms Reynolds's role as chairperson will more or less be to oversee the appeals process rather than the processing of initial applications?

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

Yes, absolutely. Under the 1997 Act, there is a complete separation between the Minister who makes the decision and a party to a licence. A party to a licence or a third party can appeal the decision. The Act sets out processes whereby an appeal has to be lodged within one month of a decision being made. If an appeal is made, the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board notifies the Minister and timelines are prescribed in the legislation in that regard. The Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board is an independent authority and reviews the decisions of the Department. It has three options in this regard: it can affirm the decision made and reject the appeal; it can vary the decision, or impose other conditions. To all intents and purposes, it seems from what I have read about the legislation that it is effectively a re-hearing.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, absolutely.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will bank the questions asked and ask Ms Reynolds to answer them together.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The committee has heard from both sides on a number of potential aquaculture licences which, in their own right, could be contentious in certain areas. There is no question but that aquaculture provides the country with potential. The awarding of licences is a matter for the Department, while the independent appeals process is hugely important for both sides. Will Ms Reynolds indicate the current number of appeals before the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board? What is the average time taken to process an appeal? Does the board have a view on whether the time taken to process appeals should be shortened? Perhaps Ms Reynolds is of the view that the current period is sufficient.
Does the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board have sufficient resources to meet demands vis-à-visthe Department's and BIM's objective role in promoting salmon farms and increasing their production? If there is to be increased production, there will as a consequence be an increased number of licensing applications. Are the resources available to the board sufficient to meet future demand?
As I understand it, Ms Reynolds will fulfil the role of chairperson the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board for four years. She has outlined some of her objectives, but what are her main ones in the next four years? I wish her well in her role which brings both challenges and opportunities. She brings a lot to the table and has a strong legal background which I am sure will be called upon occasionally. I thank her for appearing before the committee which I hope will have an opportunity to engage with her annually during her tenure as chairperson. In that way, we will be able to review the board's findings. It will take her time to find her feet in the new role. She has a good board with which to work and I know some of its members.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also congratulate Ms Reynolds on her appointment and wish her well in performing her future tasks.

There has been one very contentious salmon farm licence application regarding its scale and size, as well as the dangers of escapes and the effects of lice on organic natural salmon. I would like to know more about the criteria used in the appeals process. Is it similar to the planning process? Will it be incumbent on Ms Reynolds and the board to meet communities affected by aquacultural projects? Are there planning guidelines regarding the effects of aquaculture on natural species? If there is wholesale opposition to a project being located in a particular area, will this have any bearing on the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board's decision-making? If possible, I would like to be furnished with the guidelines under which the board has to work and which form its opinions. I assume the appeals process affects both those in opposition and those who have been refused such that they have the option of having an application re-examined.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Reynolds for attending. As the questions were being developed, I thought it might be appropriate for her to come back in six months when she would have had time to become involved in the work of the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. At that stage, the questions might be easier for her to answer.

Out of general interest, I wonder what made Ms Reynolds apply for the role. Looking at the decisions of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board, in 2012, for example, 100% of the appeals were granted, although two were deferred to the following year. Does Ms Reynolds think this is appropriate? What level of decisions does she expect to be queried?

Looking at the annual reports, it is difficult to see where any appeal has been decided within the four-month statutory period. That information is not easily accessible within the annual reports. Does Ms Reynolds have any information on how many appeals are decided on within the four-month period?

One of the contentious aspects with An Bord Pleanála, with which we are all familiar, is the amount of times the board overrules inspectors' reports, decisions or recommendations. I know that in the case of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board a technical inspector will review the application and the appeal and then make a recommendation. What is Ms Reynolds's view on the board accepting or rejecting technical reports from inspectors?

How does Ms Reynolds see the role of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board in balancing the concerns of community groups about the environment and the appropriateness of applications? How does she see the board's role in balancing national plans for harvesting our ocean wealth?

The question on resources would be better dealt with at a later date when Ms Reynolds has had a chance to look at what is actually required.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is right.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the chairperson designate for attending. The attendance at committee of chairpersons designate is a new initiative introduced by the Government and represents an appropriate way for the person to set out his or her stall and for the committee to get a sense of his or her priorities.

Ms Reynolds mentioned in her presentation not having had any involvement in aquaculture before. She comes to it very much with no agenda, bias or connections, which is very important where a person is dealing with appeals in any area. Does she feel she has something to learn about the aquaculture industry given that she comes from a more legal background? While her legal background is important for dealing with an appeals mechanism, I would be interested to hear what she has to say about how the aquaculture system works. Also, what does she hope to achieve by the end of her tenure?

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish Ms Reynolds the best of luck and thank her for attending today. Some of the other questioners have touched on this. Ms Reynolds said the appeals board was totally neutral. How many appeals will come before the board every year? Where a licence is granted, a third party can appeal. A person who is unhappy having failed to obtain a licence may appeal. Deputy Pringle hit on a relevant matter. When the Minister makes a decision, he will have the resources of the Department behind him, including experts to give him advice. What resources will the board have to bring in expert advice to deal with certain appeals? I do not know what the expertise the board has on the aquaculture industry.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question which has to do with the occasion on which Ms Reynolds returns to the committee in a year's time. Under the Act, ALAB abides by the rules governing the decision-making process. However, if trends are noticed, ALAB can make recommendations in its annual report and identify resource issues which are interfering with the expeditious determination of appeals or other matters. Ms Reynolds might comment on that.

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

I will start at the beginning with Senator Ó Domhnaill's questions. When I was briefed in January, the number of appeals before ALAB was three. The Senator asked about the average time to determine an appeal, but I do not know the answer. Deputy Heydon mentioned the four-month period outlined in the legislation. While I have heard that it takes longer than that, I do not know what the average period is. The Senator asked if there was a view within ALAB as to whether it was possible to reduce the time for appeals. I do not know if there is a view in ALAB, but I have formed the view in listening to briefings and reading relevant documentation that I do not know why it takes so long. It is one of the things I will look at. I realise that appeals can be quite technical and there may be valid reasons why they take some time to determine. When one looks at the Act, one sees that it prescribes four months, but it is not a formal or mandatory period. The legislation requires ALAB to use its best endeavours to complete reviews within that time. Once an appeal is lodged, notification must be issued to third parties and the Minister, and such parties have a month to respond. That compresses the time ALAB has to consider the appeal. That is why I placed a caveat on my remarks. I have a significant amount to learn about the detail of the process. However, I note that there are time limits indicated within the legislation for notifications to take place.

The resources available represent a concern. It does not sound, with three appeals, as if there is a lot on, but they are likely to be clunky ones. I understand the resources include one higher executive officer who acts as secretary and provides administrative services to the board. It is a reduction compared with the resources that were there heretofore, although the reduction was in the context of a reduced number of appeals. It is one of the matters to which I will give early consideration. I refer to the point the chairman made at the end and note the provision in the legislation. While the board is not concerned with policy, it is open to the board to make suggestions as to how the process can be improved. Indeed, the Minister may inquire as to such suggestions also. It is also open to the board to make recommendations to the Minister on the process. To refer to my vision for fulfilling the role, I note that it would be difficult for a chairperson to be in a position in which he or she wanted to meet the statutory obligations but was constrained by the resources. I am not saying that will be an issue, but if it is, it will be a matter of concern. If so, I will seek to address it with the Department.

I was asked if the resources were sufficient to meet the demand. The answer is "I do not know". The increased number of licensing applications will not necessarily translate into appeals. I read somewhere that in the last year 139 licences were granted by the Minister from 600 applications. That there are three appeals gives one the sense that there is not necessarily a huge level of appeals of ministerial decisions. That could change and, as such, it is something one would need to keep under review.

I clarify that my role under the legislation is for five years, not four, unless there has been a change of which I am unaware. My main objective is to bring my experience to bear on the role. I like doing things efficiently and do not like being distracted from the task in hand. At the same time, it is important to give the job due consideration and the time and application it needs. That is the approach I will take. I would be very happy to come back before the committee. One matter in my mind is that the independent nature of ALAB means it is clearly inappropriate to refer to individual cases. Therefore, anything before the committee would be about the process and its effectiveness. I would welcome the opportunity to come back to the committee, particularly if there are challenges, and the committee is in a position to support any recommendations from the board.

Deputy Ferris mentioned some contentious applications. I do not know and, as I said, I do not think it is appropriate to talk about individual cases. Deputy Ferris raises an interesting question about whether there are guidelines. I do not know the answer to that question. I have not yet had a briefing with the Department or the secretary of the board. That is something I will ask about.

The criteria are laid out in the Act. There is no scope for the board to go outside the Act. It is not incumbent on the board to meet local authorities. Under the legislation, the board has the option to hold an oral hearing. I recollect that it cannot be compelled to do so. It can subpoena witnesses and call people to attend before it.

In response to the Deputy's question as to whether any consideration is given to wholesale opposition in communities, I do not know the answer to that. It comes back to the criteria that are taken into account. The board is constrained by the Act. It can take into account the matters identified in the legislation and nothing else. The criteria under which the Minister makes the decision are the same as those under which the appeal takes place. I hope the Deputy appreciates that I must get my head around that, but I do not believe that is one of the heads specifically. I do not know whether it comes in under something else.

I note that the Deputy would like to be provided with guidelines if they exist. I can confirm that the appeals process works both ways. One can appeal if one has been granted a licence under conditions that one is not happy with, or if one has been refused a licence. Indeed, third parties can also appeal.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a supplementary question regarding oral hearings. Ms Reynolds says the board has no obligation to hold an oral hearing.

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

I will see if I can find the-----

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That will be determined by the board.

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

It is determined by the board. I will see if I can find the specific provision.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It relates to An Bord Pleanála.

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

Section 49 of the 1997 Act states: "Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Board of its own motion or at the request of a party, shall have an absolute discretion to hold an oral hearing of an appeal under this Chapter." I suspect it can decide itself or a third party can request an oral hearing, but I would read that as the board having absolute discretion. Someone may request an oral hearing but it is at the discretion of the board whether it decides to hold it. I am not aware of whether there have been any oral hearings.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Act clarifies that.

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

In response to Deputy Pringle, I will probably be more comfortable in this chair in six months' time - or maybe not. I do not know. What made me apply for the role? I was asked if I was interested. I am interested in making a contribution to public service and the public sector. This seemed to meet my skills and I like a challenge. It is also a new area so I thought it would be interesting to come to grips with it. Those things attracted me to the role.

The Deputy asked whether I had any observations about the fact that 100% of appeals were granted in 2012 and two deferred. I do not have any view on whether that is appropriate or not. I would expect that the board gave due consideration to each appeal on its own merits. It may be a recognition of the thoroughness of the process that the Minister goes through before he grants a decision. I just do not know. I am not sure it is appropriate to apply statistics to something like this because each appeal would be considered on its merits and a decision would be made on that basis. Following on from that, the Deputy asked about the level I would expect. The answer is that I do not know. The right decision in each case is what one would hope to deliver.

I already mentioned the four-month period. This morning, I was trying to figure out from the Act when a decision would get to the board if an appeal were made. If the four months starts from the date of notification, by the time the third parties and the Minister have had their opportunity to have an input into it and if there are any technical advisers and reports to be commissioned, it could be three months before it gets to the board. It does look like a challenge to meet the four-month requirement.

The Deputy also asked about the technical reports and my view on whether the board would accept or reject them. I do not know. I understand a full-time technical adviser was allocated to the board in years past but because of the reduction in the number of appeals in the past number of years, that adviser is no longer there and technical advisers are contracted in as required. I have no great sense of how that works and how effective or efficient it is. I know that the entire Department file and reports are given to ALAB for the purposes of considering the appeal. Presumably, one has the benefit of any technical reports that are there, which would presumably include reports from parties that might object, so I would expect that a variety of reports would be available for review. If one has a variety of reports, one will probably accept some of them more than others, but I do not know how that will work in practice. That is something I really need to see once I get going on it.

The Deputy then asked how I see the board's role in the implementation of the policy document Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth. The board is constrained. It is not a policy-making body. It is an appeals board which is concerned with the processing of appeals. While I would like to think that the board would not hold up commercial enterprise, it is just a cog in the wheel. It is not the policy-making body. One would like to think, as I mentioned in my presentation, that it will add to the calibre of the licensing process as a whole and Ireland's ability to be seen to be a place in which to do business. Apart from that, I do not see it as driving any development as such.

Deputy Heydon asked about whether I feel I have a lot to learn. He probably realises from listening to me that I have a lot of learn. I suspect that if I listen back to this in 12 months' time, I will say "Oh my goodness, what was I talking about?". I have no background in the area so I have a lot to learn about the aquaculture industry. What would I like to have achieved at the end of my tenure?

For licence holders and applicants and people who might object to licences, there should be a sense that the process is fair and that it operates efficiently. That is as much as I could hope to achieve at the end of the day.

The Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board is completely neutral. Only three appeals are ongoing, although the number has been higher in previous years. Senator Pat O'Neill is correct that the Minister has access to more resources than the board, but these resources, in terms of technical reports, are sent to us for review.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What expertise does the board have available to it to deal with technical reports?

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

I will rely on the board in the analysis and evaluation of technical reports. The board is made up of a variety of individuals as prescribed in the Act which sets out the range of skills that must be represented. A number of prescribed organisations nominate individuals whom the Minister will appoint. A technical adviser is contracted to advise the board and board members include individuals who have the skills required to assist it in evaluating the technical reports that are placed before it.

On the Chairman's comments, I would be delighted to make a return visit. It is open to the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board under the legislation to make recommendations to the Minister.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Reynolds noted that the Department had 600 applications in hand, of which 193 were disposed of last year. That indicates there is a logjam and there is likely to be a substantial increase in the board's workload. Resources will probably be Ms Reynolds's primary objective when she meets departmental officials. Preparatory work probably needs to be carried out in the context of assessments of licences in the context of Natura 2000 sites. As it is hoped that process will be speeded up, it would be unfortunate if a logjam was created at the other end.

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

That is clearly a concern because I am conscious that it takes time to put resources in place. A number of processes have to be pursued within the employment control framework. We have to deploy the appropriate skills as part of these resources. I do not underestimate the challenge. I understand 139 licences were granted in 2013, but there are only three appeals before the board. Given that appeals must be lodged within one month of a decision issuing, their processing may not give rise to an increased number of appeals. Logically, it would, but the fact that there are three appeals does not suggest that will be the case.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I recall that a question arose as to whether the board had been constituted.

Ms Imelda Reynolds:

The board has been constituted. I spoke to the secretary yesterday who told me the board had last met in March. The only person not on the board at present is the chairperson. I understand the term of office of the previous chairperson expired in November, but the board appears to have been continuing its work.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be useful for Ms Reynolds to return to the committee, perhaps on foot of her first annual report, to make her observations after completing her first year. In regard to the support the committee can provide, we can identify the resources needed and perhaps examine whether the Act should be amended. Everybody would like appeals to be dealt with as quickly as possible, but if the four-month deadline is impracticable, perhaps the committee should recommend an amendment to the Act to reflect the ability of the board. Regardless of the resources it might have at its disposal, four months may be too short and a longer period, with a more definitive obligation, might be advisable. The committee might also consider the practicability of oral hearings and the way in which An Bord Pleanála decides whether to hold oral hearings. Something similar could be considered in the case of the Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board.

I thank Ms Reynolds for attending. I propose that we inform the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine that we have concluded our discussion with Ms Reynolds and that we forward a copy of the transcript of the proceedings for his information. Is that agreed? Agreed.