Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we move to the substantive topic of the meeting, I wish to bring everyone's attention to a note on privilege. Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that could be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. If any statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, the speaker will be directed to cease their remarks and it is imperative that witnesses comply with any such direction I may make. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precinct and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in a public meeting. I will not permit any member to participate who is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, to confirm they are on the grounds of Leinster House.

The agenda is pre-legislative scrutiny of the fisheries (amendment) Bill. This is the second of two meetings on this topic. We are joined from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine by Mr. Brian Batt, head of aquaculture and foreshore management division, Ms Katie Carney and Mr. Eoin McCormack; from the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board by Dr. Shane McCarthy, Mr. Michael Mulloy and Mr. Karl Brogan; from the Marine Institute by Dr. Glenn Nolan and Dr. Francis O'Beirn; and from Bord Iascaigh Mhara by Ms Joanne Gaffney and Dr. Vera O'Donovan.

The opening statements have been forwarded to the members. I will allow each witness group five minutes to read their opening statement or they can have two minutes to give a brief synopsis of same.

We will then proceed into a question-and-answer session. I invite Mr. Batt from the Department to make his contribution.

Mr. Brian Batt:

I will summarise the opening statement. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation. I am head of the agriculture and foreshore management division. I am joined by my colleagues Katie Carney and Eoin McCormack.

To cultivate finfish, shellfish and certain marine plants, an aquaculture licence is required. A foreshore licence is also required where the application is for an area on the State foreshore. In advance of a ministerial determination on an application, all applications are considered in accordance with the provisions of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, the Foreshore Act 1933 and applicable EU legislation. The licensing process involves consultation with a wide range of scientific and technical advisers, as well as various statutory consultees, and provides for a period of public consultation.

The general scheme of the fisheries (amendment) Bill before us today is primarily focused on removing the entitlements given by section 19A(4) of the 1997 Act. It also updates aspects of the regulatory system in relation to aquaculture licensing. Section 19A(4) was inserted into the 1997 Act in 2006 to allow licensees to continue aquaculture operations after their licences have expired while the Minister makes a determination on their renewal. Following the birds case, Ireland agreed a roadmap with the Commission to put a system in place in which all aquaculture licences would be appropriately assessed. This resulted in delays to the processing of aquaculture licences. In turn, it led to a significant element of the industry traditionally relying on the existence of section 19A(4).

As all applications are now assessed in line with the habitats and birds directives, in November 2023, the then Minister decided to phase out the operation of section 19A(4). This was one of the matters that led to the closure of the birds case in December 2024. However, in 2025, the Commission reiterated that the agreement to close the birds case was based on a clear undertaking by Ireland to repeal section 19A(4).

The proposed legislation amends both the fisheries Act and the Foreshore Act, primarily removing the entitlements given by section 19A(4) and inserting the necessary transitional arrangements for this. It also contains some amendments intended to speed up the hearing of appeals by the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, ALAB, and introduces additional graduated enforcement powers. This is a necessary step in advance of realising the ambition of issuing 20-year aquaculture licences, as previously articulated by the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley.

There are a number of amendments to the Foreshore Act to align the legislation with the fisheries Act.

These updates to the 1997 Act and the Foreshore Act are necessary to ensure the legislation on aquaculture licensing is compliant with relevant EU directives. The Department welcomes today’s engagement with the committee on the general scheme. We look forward to receiving any recommendations or suggestions the committee may have.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We move now to the contribution from the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. Dr. McCarthy has five minutes.

Dr. Shane McCarthy:

For the committee’s ease, I will take my opening statement as read and provide a short summary. I thank the committee for the invitation. I am chairperson of the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. I am accompanied today by Mr. Michael Mulloy, board member of ALAB, and Mr. Karl Brogan, secretary to the board.

The Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board was established in 1998 under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997. The ALAB is a single-function body tasked with the provision of an independent service for the determination of appeals against decisions of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine on aquaculture licence applications. A person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister on an aquaculture licence application, or by the revocation or amendment of an aquaculture licence, may make an appeal to the board within one month of publication, in the case of a decision, or notification, in the case of revocation or amendment.

The primary function of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997 is to regulate and provide a legal framework for the aquaculture industry in Ireland. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendments to the Act. It is acknowledged that there is a need for the Act to be updated. It is the first significant overhaul in the past 30 years. Several areas of the draft legislation directly impact the core functionality and operational efficiency of ALAB. Therefore, the board of ALAB is extremely interested in the proposed changes and views its appearance before the committee today as an opportunity to share comments on the operation of the 1997 Act.

We have set out comments about different sections of the Bill. We have stated where amendments may be required or could be considered by the committee. One of the suggestions that we have included in our presentation is that a pre-application consultancy process could be mandated in the submitting of aquaculture licence appeal applications to the Department. It might be a beneficial approach for the applicants, who will have the necessary documentation and information to hand prior to making an application. This could be similar to the pre-application process that is done by local authorities and by the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA.

ALAB’s priority is to deliver timely, high-quality and legally robust determinations that comply with both national and European law. ALAB’s focus is to ensure public confidence through transparent, independent and strictly verifiable decision-making. We look forward to fully participating in today's discussions and any future discussions that may arise.

Dr. Glenn Nolan:

I thank the committee members for the invitation to meet them. I am the Marine Institute’s director of marine environment and food safety services. I am joined by my colleague Dr. Francis O'Beirn, section manager for aquaculture advisory services. We work in support of the statutory remit of our agency. The Marine Institute Act 1991 established the institute as the State agency responsible for undertaking, co-ordinating, promoting and assisting in marine research and development and providing services related to marine research and development that promote economic development, create employment and protect the marine environment. Our work supports the development of aquaculture and many other areas requiring marine evidence, informed by robust data and sound science.

In summary, the Marine Institute’s comments on the proposed revisions to the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997 are as follows. The Marine Institute considers that the revised legislation will not impact greatly on the licensing advisory role provided by the institute to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The stated time limit of 24 months on the determination of aquaculture licence applications may have some bearing on the Marine Institute's delivery of advisory services. This will have to be agreed with the Department in the prioritisation of reporting and resourcing.

While the Marine Institute’s resourcing of the aquaculture licensing advisory process has increased considerably in the last number of years, this resourcing is largely timebound and based primarily on European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund, EMFAF, funding streams, which are ephemeral and due to expire in 2029. The process of appropriate assessment is continually evolving. The requirements imposed by these additional factors must be closely monitored and applied to the advisory process to ensure that reporting and subsequent advice is up-to-date and fit-for-purpose. It is essential that Marine Institute maintains its capacity to deliver independent scientific advice. There would need to be a clear distinction between the existing advisory role and any regulatory roles resulting from implementation of the proposed legislative revisions. While not an entirely new role, the responsibilities of Marine Institute staff as authorised officers require clarification, specifically regarding any resulting monitoring or enforcement actions or any other responsibilities envisioned by the Department.

In the opinion of the Marine Institute, definitions attributed to environmental effects and subsequent reporting to ensure regulatory compliance may be achieved within the existing processes and structures, such as appropriate assessment advice. In addition, adherence to licence conditions may also be used to inform environmental compliance for both extensive and intensive aquaculture operations. Our written submission further elaborates on the Marine Institute’s consideration of these amendments. We are very happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Ms Joanne Gaffney:

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak on the fisheries (amendment) Bill. I am the aquaculture technical manager in Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM. I am joined by my colleague Dr. Vera O'Donovan, who manages the regional aquaculture team. BIM's role is to support, enable and develop the sector, working alongside producers and relevant authorities to address the challenges facing the sector. We are not the competent authority responsible for issuing aquaculture licences. However, with regard to licensing, BIM works with producers on compiling their applications. We generate technical and evidence-based inputs that support the competent authorities in making licence determinations.

Further, we proactively engage in national efforts to improve the aquaculture licensing system. While responsibility for licensing reform rests with Government and regulatory authorities, BIM contributes its technical expertise, sectoral insight and operational experience to support the delivery of a more efficient and responsive licensing framework.

In relation to the heads of Bill under consideration today, BIM welcomes all proposals that provide greater certainty for the aquaculture sector regarding the timeline for licence determinations. We also welcome the provisions relating to the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, ALAB, which we hope will facilitate the timely consideration of appeals while maintaining the integrity of the appeals process. We support the modernisation of monitoring and enforcement provisions, which will better align aquaculture with other farming practices. However, we note that the effective implementation of these measures will require additional resources within the Department, ALAB and the Marine Institute. We trust that these resources will be made available so that any opportunities presented by this Bill can be fully realised.

In summary, although BIM's role in relation to aquaculture licensing is enabling rather than regulatory, we look forward to engaging with the Department and the Oireachtas as the legislation arising from the heads of this Bill are developed.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is now an opportunity for members to make short statements and have questions and answers. They have seven minutes each.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all of our witnesses who have come in today. My first questions are for the Department. We were taken aback in the committee last week. This and previous committees have dealt with the fact that it just takes too long to make decisions. The length of time it takes to deal with a licence is unacceptable. It is unfair to all stakeholders, be it the objectors or the people putting the application forward. It has bedevilled our State for far too long. This was an opportunity to address that. What consultation did the Department have with the stakeholders, including ALAB and the Marine Institute, prior to drafting these provisions? By "stakeholders", I am referring to aquaculture, IFA Aquaculture, and the environmental NGOs that came before us last week.

Mr. Brian Batt:

Regarding the consultation on the Bill, I could speak to the Marine Institute and the external stakeholders. I have no role in the engagement with ALAB - that would be our marine corporate governance unit - so I might address the question outside of ALAB.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, the Department of the marine is fully aware of the huge issues in aquaculture licensing. They have been rehearsed countless times in these committees. There have been reports and recommendations. We now have this legislation, and we were told last week that there effectively was no consultation. The Department meets stakeholders, but there was no actual specific consultation on the drafting of these amendments. What consultation did the Department have that was specific to drafting these amendments to the legislation?

Mr. Brian Batt:

In relation to IFA Aquaculture, we would meet it regularly. My team and I would always----

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Specific to drafting amendments to this legislation?

Mr. Brian Batt:

I am getting to that. We meet it regularly and I always give an update on where we are progressing it. IFA Aquaculture always flagged with us that the number one priority for industry was that there could be no cliff edge for operators and that we could not repeal the 1984 provisions without having transitional arrangements. What we are proposing here is addressing industry's main concern that was raised all along with us, which is that there be no cliff edge for operators. This will not have a cliff edge.

Sustainable Water Network, SWAN, was before the committee last week. It sent a submission on licensing to the Department. The Department invited SWAN to the national stakeholder forum for the national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture,where SWAN presented on its submission to the Department and other stakeholders. There has been engagement on these draft heads - not on the specific language, but the substantive issues.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assume that Mr. Batt tuned into the committee's meeting last week.

Mr. Brian Batt:

Yes.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair, there was a welcome for some aspects of what has been drafted, but was he taken aback that the groups were just disappointed? That was the universal feedback. They were disappointed that it was a missed opportunity. It is a fair assessment to say that these amendments were seen as a missed opportunity.

Mr. Brian Batt:

I would accept that because when this process began, people expected a wider-ranging update to the legislation. What changed everything was last October at a meeting with the European Commission. I was in a meeting with it and it said that it had fully ran out of patience with us in repealing the 1984 provisions and was going back to Brussels to look at re-opening the infringement proceedings. Everything from there on became a case of anything that was not ready to go having to come out of the draft heads because we had to progress the repeal of the 1984 provisions as fast as we could. Anything that needed further work had to come out. I understand where the frustration comes from. People might have expected to see more in this. What this very much now has become is avoiding having infringement proceedings re-opened against Ireland.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is an honest answer. This is being advanced as an urgent matter to avoid infringement proceedings but I am asking Mr. Batt to pay close attention. ALAB made an excellent submission today. That is critical because it is tasked with this. While the Marine Institute said that the situation had improved in terms of resources, I am very clear that the Department, the Marine Institute and ALAB do not have the resources to run an effective and efficient application system. That is borne out by the evidence of how long it takes. We have to address that. We have to make sure that the agencies that are tasked with this are resourced adequately. Will Mr. Batt give me a sense of what the Department intends to do? The budget is coming up. Will the Department give them additional staff? Will Mr. Batt give me a sense of what the Department's plans are?

Mr. Brian Batt:

Two additional posts in the Marine Institute have been made available under EMFAF funding and the Department has also started using external ecological consultants to try to progress that, but allocation of resources within the Department is not something for which I have any responsibility.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask that Mr. Batt note my next point. Instead of stepping back to do so, he might go up in a helicopter. Our coastal communities have lost quota. Every single sector in fisheries is telling us that it is under fierce pressure and that there is no future. A young person involved in aquaculture last week gave very moving testimony about how there was no future here and how he would have to look at emigration like others. If we can get our licensing system to move more efficiently, there is an opportunity here to create jobs, but also to give the objectors certainty and clarity about the timeframes. If I compare it with the planning system on land, one knows when one applies to a local authority that it will be resourced accordingly, a decision will be made in a given timeframe and then An Coimisiún Pleanála might get involved. There is improved resourcing in forestry. Decision-making in An Coimisiún Pleanála is in a similar situation. The planning systems for land and forestry are the benchmark that we need to set for aquaculture so that all stakeholders, including objectors and developers, know where they stand. I am asking Mr. Batt to note that. This committee will draft a report with recommendations in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny but I am asking Mr. Batt to note that our absolute objective is to get the resources to the agencies so that they can get to decision-making quicker and we all know where we stand.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending. What informed the Department's decision to make the timeline for determination of licence applications 24 months? Has it considered whether this will create a potential judicial review scenario down the line?

Mr. Brian Batt:

I am sorry, Deputy, but I did not understand the second part.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding determination of licence applications, has the Department considered whether this 24-month wait will create a judicial review risk?

Mr. Brian Batt:

Anything one does in aquaculture licensing creates a judicial review risk. It is a highly litigious area, so anything being proposed here is liable to be challenged.

Regarding the 24 months, we are not processing applications within 24 months at the moment, as the committee would know.

As for where we have to get to, 24 months will be a reasonable turnaround time for having an application in and having a determination made. What we are trying to do here is line everything up in that if we have a requirement on operators to have a renewal in 24 months in advance, it gives us a head start that we currently do not have in processing that application before their licence expires. The way it is at the moment is that you could send in your renewal the day before your licence expires and we would never get to processing that licence in time. It is a start on enforcing a timeframe.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I will move on then.

The legislation provides for a period of public consultation. When do the witnesses envisage this consultation taking place and will the committee receive a copy of this report when it is completed?

Mr. Brian Batt:

I do not know what public consultation that is. There is no public consultation.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no public consultation at all.

Mr. Brian Batt:

No. The Minister made the policy decision back in 2023 to repeal section 19A(4). There was no consultation on that decision. The policy decision was made three years ago.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, that is fine.

I will go to the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. With the existing resources, does the board believe that the 26-week appeal process is achievable? Does it believe that the 24 months is too long?

Mr. Michael Mulloy:

We believe that the 26-week period is sufficient. It is all down to the preparation of the application. That is where our pre-application piece feeds into it. Delay in processing applications is often down to the quality of the material submitted by the applicants. If the Department has to go back to applicants for supplemental information, that slows down the whole process. If we had a pre-application process that ensured that the documentation that was prepared by the applicant was adequate and to a sufficient standard, we do not believe that 26 weeks is excessive. That should work within a 26-week timeframe.

The problem with the two-year timeframe is that environmental data is supplied by the applicant at that stage and if there is a two-year delay, the risk of that being outdated and no longer relevant is increased. That is where the judicial review risk comes in.

Dr. Shane McCarthy:

I wish to add one further comment in relation to the resources question. There is a split between the resources of the board and the support that the board gets. The board is perfectly capable of functioning as a board in terms of making the decisions. Where there is a resource issue for us is the administrative staff and the technical support staff to present the information. When the files come into ALAB, there is a whole job of work to be done in getting the board ready. The delay is not with the board itself; it is the resources that are needed to get them to the board. That is where the squeeze point is.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would that look like? What will we need to ramp this up and make it efficient and workable in the board's estimation?

Mr. Michael Mulloy:

It would take extra technical support and it would be a key consideration. As Mr. Batt referenced, it is a highly litigious area. The amount of i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed in the environmental assessments and environment impact reports, etc. equates to quite an intense amount of work. It is that type of technical support where there is a chronic need.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are talking about the technical aspects of this. To get someone in and up to speed, it would be a considerable amount of time.

Mr. Michael Mulloy:

There is certainly a need for a person to ramp up to the experience and skill set that are required. If there was to be a - excuse the expression - a tsunami of appeals to be dealt with, we would become quickly swamped. It is in that area. If there is to be a large number of appeals to the appeals board, that is where we would need resources.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just going to move on.

Does the Marine Institute think the proposed Bill blurs the distinction between the existing advisory role and potential regulatory role? Does it see an issue and if so, can we ensure a clear distinction between these roles so there are no blurred lines?

Dr. Glenn Nolan:

We have considered that distinction between the two roles. We are quite well set up in both areas. We have a licensing team and effectively an aquaculture team that regulates so they are two separate functions. They do not sit in the same part of the Marine Institute. We are configured in a way that allows us to achieve a degree of independence between the licensing advice we provide and subsequent regulation of the operators.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the roles are clear, there is transparency and there is no crossover.

Dr. Glenn Nolan:

These are two independent teams. None of the resourcing is shared between the teams. They are two stand-alone teams.

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their statements. We have discussed the issue of delays in the processing of aquaculture licences and the renewal of licences in this committee on numerous occasions. It is probably the issue that we have discussed the most. There are huge delays. I understand that appropriate assessments take time. Certainly in my neck of the woods and in many coastal communities, aquaculture is probably the sole income for many fishermen and they rely heavily on their business. These are very significant jobs that have been created. It is great to see young men and indeed young women developing businesses, trying to expand, creating jobs and being able to afford to build a home in rural Ireland. I live very close to Cromane and I know that delays in processing aquaculture licences are having a huge effect on those who wish to expand. I know of a number of cases where they have shovel-ready projects but cannot apply for funding because their licence is not in place. The idea of a licence taking two, five, ten, 15 or 20 years or longer to process is outrageous. There is no other word for it. It really beggars belief

What improvements, if any, have taken place since this committee was set up in early 2025? What do the witnesses believe would be a reasonable or acceptable timeframe? Can they tell me why it is taking so long to process licences because I find it difficult to get my head around it?

The manner in which this issue is being dealt with is an outrage. As I have said time and again, these delays are totally unacceptable. If you were opening a restaurant or hotel and were told that it would take five, ten, 15 or 20 years to get a licence, would you invest? I doubt it very much. You would run as fast as your two legs would carry you. This issue has reached the stage where we are getting bored from highlighting it but it is not going away. That is the reality. We need to see progress on this. We need to help our remaining coastal communities - our fishing communities to be more specific. As we all know, our fishing industry is under huge pressure.

I again want to raise a matter I raised at the previous meeting, namely salmon farms. A licence was eventually renewed in Waterville. That has caused outrage in the locality. It is very much being covered by the media in Kerry. Sea trout angling has been wiped out. Where there were over 20 boats once upon a time, you would be lucky to see one or two today. My understanding is that in this case, rules were breached. The facility in question was allowed to continue to operate and the licence was recently renewed. Will the witnesses explain why that was the case? This has had a huge knock-on effect in the hospitality sector in the context of jobs and those directly involved in angling and all of that. I find it hard to explain. Several times each day I am asked why this licence was renewed when the activity of that facility did untold damage to that part of south Kerry.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who wants to take up those questions? I am not sure if the witnesses can respond to them.

Mr. Brian Batt:

I can respond to the first question. In relation to the delays, you have to look back at the decision to clear the backlog relating to shellfish applications. That resulted in the finfish applications we have on hand being what the Deputy spoke of, namely really old applications. We are now prioritising determining finfish renewals, which we have begun to do. That was part two of the Deputy’s question. We have begun determining those older applications, because the shellfish applications we have on hand were all cleared when the backlog was cleared. Some 70% to 80% of what we have on hand in shellfish applications are less than five years old. That is not where the old applications are. They are in the finfish category. The Department has prioritised these with the Marine Institute. We have begun to make determinations on finfish applications. That is how those delays came about. They were parked previously to clear the backlog relating to shellfish applications. We now have shellfish numbers building because we are clearing older applications relating to finfish.

On the second question, I cannot comment on an individual determination by the Minister. My understanding is that the appeal period only closed yesterday, so I am not in a position to comment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anybody else wish to comment? No. Deputy Cahill may ask another short question.

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to make progress on this issue. We are not seeing progress. It is not happening. People are being deprived of the opportunity to expand their businesses and create the type of jobs that are hugely important in rural coastal communities. This Government has been in place for almost two years, and I have not seen one iota of progress in the processing of aquaculture licences despite pretty much everyone on this committee raising the matter time and again.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for attending. I do not think anybody would be satisfied about the length of time the process is taking or the backlog that obtains. Rather than dealing with the backlog and making sure the capacity is in the system, it seems that the Department is trying to throw environmental considerations out the window.

This general scheme has been developed and brought forward. The process began as a result of the EU infringement case against Ireland under the birds directive. That is why the Minister brought the general scheme forward. Under that infringement notice, Ireland was required to revoke section 19A(4), which essentially allows for these licences to continue over and over again. The purpose of this general scheme is to deal with the EU directive. Under the general scheme, the subsection will be revoked. As a result, the Department ticked that box. However, it is putting in place a clause which states that we will act as if the original clause were still in place.

The Department is pretending to the EU that we have done what it said. However, the system it is putting in place allows for licences to be issued in perpetuity. Someone can apply for a licence, go through the appropriate assessment process, get their ten-year licence and continue to reapply forever and a day. Does the Department think that is going to be acceptable to the EU? Has it had discussions with the EU in relation to this matter?

The issue with having this kind of large flaw in legislation is that you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a judicial review. All the aquaculture businesses involved will be in the same boat. It will all go through the court system and there will still not be any clarity for them. There will still be this huge backlog because the Department’s solution to the problem does not stand up to legal scrutiny and there is a real difficulty with that. Will the Department outlined the discussions it has had with the EU and the legal advice it has obtained? Will what is proposed meet the requirements that the EU has set down for us? There is also a Government commitment.

Mr. Brian Batt:

We met the European Commission last October or November. The Commission made it very clear that if Ireland does not repeal section 19A(4) as soon as possible, it will look at reopening infringement proceedings. That is why the priority is to repeal section 19A(4). The legal advice available to us is that what we are proposing would bring the licensing regime into line with the birds and habitats directives, which are what section 19A(4) was found to be non-compliant with.

In relation to the clause by means of which it would still carry on as if it had not been repealed, that is for two years. It is a sunset clause. As I said earlier, the industry's main concern was about a cliff edge whereby section 19A(4) would end on a given day and that, thereafter, everyone would have to come out of the water. This is a sunset clause that would allow section 19A(4) to remain in operation for two years on the understanding that after 24 months, no new applicants could avail of section 19A(4). It will die as the last application leaves it.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In two years’ time, this will not apply. Licences will have to go through an appropriate assessment every time.

Mr. Brian Batt:

If someone applies after two years and a day, section 19A(4) will not apply to their application because it will only be in place only for applications that come in during the 24 months after the commencement of the legislation. It is to allow us to wind down one process before we start another.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department had a meeting with the EU. The EU stated that it will reopen the infringement case if we do not repeal that section. The Department is repealing the section. However, in the next section, it is stated that 19A(4) shall apply as if it had not been repealed.

Mr. Brian Batt:

For applications that come in within 24 months.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Department discuss that with the EU? Was the EU okay with that two-year sunset clause?

Mr. Brian Batt:

We did not discuss that specific with it, but we flagged that we would need transitional arrangements.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When was the infringement notice first issued? Was it in 2009?

Mr. Brian Batt:

Yes.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much of a transition period does the Department need? That was 17 years ago.

Mr. Brian Batt:

The policy decision to repeal it was only made by the Minister in 2023, so that is when the decision was made.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From an EU perspective, it is going to be very difficult argue that we need a transition period. The EU will say that we have had 17 years for a transition period. This seems like a sort of loophole that the Department thinks it is going to get away with including. I cannot imagine that what is proposed will stand up legally. For all those aquaculture entities seeking certainty, I do not think what is proposed in the general scheme will provide it because it will get caught up in the courts again.

Mr. Brian Batt:

As a Department, we are trying to provide certainty for the more than 300 operators who rely on section 19A(4) that there will be an orderly wind-down rather than a cliff edge, which is the term the IFA used in this regard. We seek to avoid such a cliff edge in order that there will not be a situation where it is repealed one morning and every operator is out of the water the next day.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Turning to the Marine Institute, when it comes to these 300 licences that could, theoretically, go through the process again without an assessment, what environmental conditions could have changed over a ten-, 15- or 20-year period that would require an appropriate assessment, AA, or an environmental impact assessment, EIA, to be carried out? What is the risk environmentally in this regard?

Dr. Francis O'Beirn:

It depends on the nature of the activity. The ten-year licence is our current benchmark when it comes to conducting appropriate assessments. In respect of environmental harm or change, our advice is not to license areas that will result in extensive harm. There may be localised impacts and the like. One of the things we have to factor in is climate and how it will impact on the sector, and the sensitives in the area. These are all things we have to keep an eye on and be cognisant of.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From a scientific and precautionary principle – I am not talking about any specific cases – would extensions without assessments be appropriate, considering updated scientific evidence, the acceleration of climate change and temperature increases? Is it acceptable to roll over a significant number of licences that could have been in place for 15 years without having any environmental consideration applied to them?

Dr. Francis O'Beirn:

It would not be ideal. However, the two-year application timeline will allow for an assessment to be conducted in that time period before the licence expires. That is one of the goals of the current legislative-----

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What additional environmental assessments are required in that two-year period?

Dr. Francis O'Beirn:

Hopefully, a full appropriate assessment will be conducted in that time period.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the expectation that full appropriate assessments will be carried out in that two-year period?

Dr. Francis O'Beirn:

Yes, when an application comes in.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank and welcome the witnesses. I am a new member of this committee. I was not involved before this on any of the scrutiny or engagement with the witnesses. I have a couple of questions, the first of which is to Mr. Batt and the Department. Touching on Deputy Mac Lochlainn's points and Mr. Batt's comments about section 19A(4), once the Department gets through this body of work, will there be an appetite to engage on the other issues that have been raised in terms of amendments? That is my first question.

Mr. Batt spoke about foreshore and aquaculture, but I wish to be sure that there is no suggested impact on licensing for seaweed harvesting.

Mr. Brian Batt:

Repealing section 19A(4) is the priority piece of work. As I said in my opening statement, the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, sees this piece of work as being a first step in enforcement. The authorised officers provisions are a first step in getting us to the place we need to be to increase the term of an aquaculture licence to 20 years. It is for the Minister of State to tell us what our policy priorities are after this work.

With regard to the impact on wild seaweed harvesting, this will not apply in any way to it. The regulation of wild seaweed harvesting falls under the jurisdiction of the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority. Nothing we are updating here impacts on the work of MARA.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the average timeframe for getting both a new licence and renewals?

Mr. Brian Batt:

Based on an assessment we carried out on determinations made in the past five years, the time from application to determination was just under four years.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the timeframe for new licences?

Mr. Brian Batt:

That figure encompasses all determinations. I do not have a breakdown-----

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, it is four years.

Mr. Brian Batt:

For example, if a new application came in on, say, the shellfish side, it depends on when that bay is going to be appropriately assessed. We assess shellfish applications on a bay-wide basis. If we have new applications and renewals for the same bay, we assess them when we have all applications in. A new application, therefore, could come in at the right time when that bay is due for an appropriate assessment.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How often is an appropriate assessment required?

Mr. Brian Batt:

It is required for every renewal and new application. Every application has to undergo an appropriate assessment. It is not for the-----

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not the bay.

Mr. Brian Batt:

It is not the bay; it is for the applications in the bay.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

ALAB suggested 26 weeks as a more appropriate timeline. How realistic is that?

Mr. Brian Batt:

That is not a realistic timeline for us to determine an application. Our current timeframe is just under four years. As I said, with each bay, it will depend on the number of applications received, the appropriate assessment needs, whether they are screened in for an appropriate assessment and the level of public submissions received from a consultation. Some consultations could receive a small number of submissions, while others could receive thousands. Each different factor will impact on the time it takes to process a bay. There is no one-size-fits-all timeline in this regard.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What do other jurisdictions in Europe do?

Mr. Brian Batt:

There is a piece of work being done by Bord Iascaigh Mhara in examining the licensing processes around Europe to determine whether there is anything we can learn from them. There is also a bit of work being done by the Marine Institute in looking at a plan-led approach where we map areas for aquaculture in advance. These initiatives that are being done around Europe are being looked at.

Ms Joanne Gaffney:

BIM commissioned a piece of work earlier this year in which we are undertaking a review of the licensing framework in nine countries. These are countries in the EU, as well as Scotland, which previously complied with the same environmental legislation. We are looking at areas of best practice, enforcement, the types of consents required, timelines, etc. That piece of work is due to be completed before the end of this year. We hope to be in a position to publish and provide it to members, if they are interested, early next year.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does BIM have any initial thoughts?

Ms Joanne Gaffney:

We have not seen the draft reports from each member state. We are hoping to have those in our possession by the end of October. At the moment, the data collection phase of the process is being completed. There will be a quality check to ensure we have collected the same data in each member state. We hope to have a draft of that report by the end of October.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will go back to Mr. Batt. A timeline of four years is not acceptable. While I appreciate what he said regarding the bays, there must be a better way to streamline all of this. Assuming an operator is lucky and their application is submitted at the right time when an appropriate assessment is being carried out on the bay, what are the next stages?

Mr. Brian Batt:

That application to a shellfish bay would undergo screening for an appropriate assessment, which is carried out by the Marine Institute at our request. We have also started using externally contracted ecological consultants to do this work for us. Following the screening determination, it could be screened in or out. If it is screened in, it has to undergo what is called a stage 2 appropriate assessment. The Marine Institute will prepare a Natura impact statement. We have public consultation on same. That finalises the appropriate assessment report. Following that report, the Minister will make a determination on the stage 2 appropriate assessment. Then, eventually, the Minister will make a determination on the licence. If a bay was screened out of an appropriate assessment, it then skips a step for that. Regarding a finfish licence, there is the additional layer of the environmental impact assessment to add on to that as well. Across the different types of aquaculture, there are different requirements.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not in any way similar, but for any rural house one needs screening for appropriate assessment and in some cases a Natura impact statement is needed as well, which are done as part of that. They have a smaller impact and are on a different level, but they are still substantial bodies of work. From the Marine Institute's point of view, is a lot of this repetitive? Is a lot of it copy and paste? That is unfair but it is for rural planning. Is there a lot of duplication that could be streamlined?

Dr. Glenn Nolan:

There is a certain degree of duplication, but we have very good systems in place to minimise that. We stay on top of the scientific evidence as well so that we are prepared for the licence applications that come in and we are fully au fait with recent science and any implications that might have for an applicant at any particular site. We are also examining the use of things like artificial intelligence to see if we can use that to pore through some of the very detailed submissions we get. Particularly when we go to the public and statutory consultation phase, we could potentially leverage artificial intelligence to speed up the process.

One other major improvement is our interaction generally with Mr. Batt's division in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We meet very frequently, regarding both shellfish and fin fish applications, in terms of assessing where the work is at and prioritising different applications and sites. We do our very best to get through things as quickly as we possibly can.

As our opening statement suggested, these rules change over time. Additional requirements get built in to make sure the environment is protected as these assessments take place. That can add time to the process. There is also case law that can potentially impact that. It is quite a complex environment. I assure the Deputy that we work through it as quickly and efficiently as we can, and we are continually trying to minimise duplication and leverage new technologies to make the system as efficient as it can possibly be.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Nolan. We have sufficient time for a second round. Deputy Mac Lochlainn has indicated.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Batt has been frank that this legislation and these amendments are necessary to deal with European infringements. He will be aware of the urgency to address the wider issues. I do not know if he has had a chance to look at the statements from ALAB and the Irish Marine Institute in advance. Was he provided with the statements in advance?

Mr. Brian Batt:

I am aware of what is in them.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, that is helpful. How does the Department intend to address them? The Marine Institute has said that there has been an increase in resources, but it is are time-limited in terms of EMFAF funding 2029, which is a concern. ALAB clearly would needs more resources to comply. We need to have statutory timeframes. We need to have a very clear picture of what is ahead. Mr. Batt has said they are litigious but, certainly, they are very often repealed. We need to be aware that we need to have very efficient application and appeal systems - judicial reviews are another matter. I want to get a sense about that. Mr. Batt has addressed resourcing but he can make a case to the Minister. Has he checked with ALAB and gamed this out? If the Department was to do a statutory timeframe of six months, for argument's sake, what would it need in terms of staffing to comply with that timeframe? Has it asked the Marine Institute similar questions in terms of its advisory role? Has it established what it would need to have a fit-for-purpose system?

Mr. Brian Batt:

I will ask my colleague Ms Carney to answer that because, as the Deputy can appreciate, my division and ALAB have a very formal relationship. I am the head of the licensing division and ALAB is the appeals board.

I do not engage in conversations with ALAB on those matters.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Somebody from the Department will be able to answer.

Mr. Brian Batt:

Yes. I will hand over to Ms Carney.

Ms Katie Carney:

There are a number of proposed amendments to the legislation. There is an increase in board capacity which would double the board membership from seven to 14 and there are suggestions that there would be three temporary board members. There are a lot of things that could potentially need extra funding. The Department is very supportive. We have engaged with ALAB. We need a lot of further engagement it has been very clear that these changes are not enough in themselves. The chairperson of ALAB, Dr. McCarthy, stated earlier that doubling the board membership will not actually help it on a day-to-day basis. The Department accepts that. We want to engage further with the finance unit of our Department, as well as the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation if we need to and the appeals office. It is actually the appeals office that deals with the administrative and technical grades. We have made it aware of today's committee meeting and that there will more than likely be a request from ALAB for extra resourcing. We need to do more work on that. I plan to meet with representatives after this meeting to discuss in detail the fact that all requests for resourcing come under budgetary requests. We need to work together to see what we can do to help progress resourcing for ALAB. Dr. McCarthy made some very valid points. More engagement is probably needed between us and ALAB, and there is a commitment today from us. We have a very good working relationship with ALAB and we want to enhance it. If representatives say they need more resourcing we take that request very seriously, and we will do all we can to support it.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is helpful. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is the mothership, if you like. It is the head Department and it provides the resources. I do not want to draw ALAB into controversy with the Department, but it is fair to say that when we are giving these bodies responsibilities and setting tight timeframes, we need to resource them properly. I appreciate Ms Carney’s response and acknowledgement that more needs to be done. We, as a united committee, are really appealing for additional resources so we can get these timeframes tightened.

The Marine Institute has sought clarification on the environmental effects and whether the proposed requirements can be met through existing assessment arrangements. The Department can see that clarification is sought there. We can see that this is a really helpful process. The Marine Institute and ALAB have fed in points of clarification, raised some areas of concern and requested additional amendments. Is the Department going to take those concerns on board, engage with them and try to address them? Obviously, we will do a report with our own recommendations on what needs to be done.

Mr. Brian Batt:

The Marine Institute and ALAB have made some very good suggestions in their submissions. In particular, the issue relating to environmental effects, to which the Deputy referred, is one we have already come up against with the drafter assigned to draft this Bill. There will be language changes there which will address the concerns raised by the Marine Institute and ALAB, aligning it more with the habitats directive. The language in there at the moment is “an adverse effect on the environment”. It was flagged by our legal team and the drafters of the Bill that we should reconsider this language and I expect that it will be changed in the drafting process. We will look at any other suggestions like that as we draft the Bill.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Batt has pointed to the need to address the European Union's concerns, so I assume he is looking to get this legislation through in the autumn. Can I get an assurance that if he does push ahead because of the urgency of the threat from the European Union infringement, he will come back with further amendments to the legislation as soon as possible? I know that is a political decision ultimately, but is he is at least working towards that?

Mr. Brian Batt:

It is absolutely at the discretion of the Minister what we work on after this but, as I said, we were looking at other aspects when this process began, before my time here. The need to shelve them has been articulated. It is an urgent matter. It is not that we have said "No" to these; we have just said "Not today."

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be continued. That is fair enough.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ALAB representatives suggested a pre-application consultation process, similar to preplanning processes within local authorities. How do they see that working. Is it just to the Department or is it to the Marine Institute as well? Is the Marine Institute be prohibited from that sort of engagement?

Mr. Michael Mulloy:

I will speak only for ALAB. As to what the Marine Institute is entitled to do, the Deputy will have to address the institute. We can just see from appeals and from the literature that comes across to us that there are gaps in the applications that could be addressed by a more informed applicant. BIM, as Ms Gaffney pointed out, is involved in that process. It would be interesting to explore the possibility of enhancing that role to ensure a more complete documentation at application stage. There is also a lot of room for improvement in information during the operation of the licence. A reporting mechanism could be developed that would inform the renewal process when expiries arise, and that could lead to a shorter renewal process at renewal. At the moment the amendment suggests that two years prior to the expiry of the licence, the operator has to apply for renewal. We feel that is too long for the reasons we outlined as regards the difficulty of the two years for application.

In more general, broader terms, there is room for a more interactive framework for our industry to contribute data relating to the production yield of particular licensed areas. That could inform an improved renewal process. It would also ensure that existing licensed areas remain productive. That is a key point in that we have discovered in our activities that quite a significant portion of licensed area is inactive.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would BIM or the Marine Institute like to comment on that?

Dr. Vera O'Donovan:

Operators, whether they are new or existing, can, and do, come to us, but the point is that they do not have to do so. They can benefit from talking through their application, going through what is required. We do extensive work with them on what maps are required and how they describe their culture systems. We do technical work in order that they can have the right drawings and do the right thing. There is a benefit to the process from doing that, but they do not have to do it. We can tell the horse to go water but it may not come.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it BIM's belief that they should be mandated?

Dr. Vera O'Donovan:

Anything that would make the process clearer and the quality of information going in easier to assess in a timely manner, because mistakes mean delays, and anything we can do to remove that uncertainty or that need to go back and forth, would be a positive step.

Dr. Glenn Nolan:

I thank the Deputy for the question. We would be open in principle to pre-application consultation. We have it in place for other processes around other licensing decisions where people consult us in advance of submitting an application. We would be open to it, able to support it and keen to work with our colleagues in BIM, as our colleague Dr. Vera O'Donovan said, to make it as streamlined as possible in order that it could, in principle, contribute to faster licence turnaround. The quality of the applications, as Mr. Mulloy and others have said, would be better coming into the system in the first instance.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is anyone in a position to advise how many applications are being processed at the moment and how many of those are new and how many are renewals?

Mr. Brian Batt:

We have 582 applications on hand.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Department differentiate between new and renewal?

Mr. Brian Batt:

A total of 232 are new. The rest are a combination of renewals and renewal and review, both being done together at renewal time.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but it is obvious now why there is such a long delay. The Department does not have the resources to be able to process those quickly. Of course, the officials are all good public servants. I am sure every one of them would say they need resources but they are not in a position to do that. I am sure they have made known to the Department and to the Minister the necessity to provide further finances and further resources if these are going to be fast-tracked because 532 is a considerable number, remembering the multiplier. I know some of them are renewals so they are in situ, but the number of jobs that could be created in areas of the country that have a high rate of unemployment. We are not talking about TACs and quotas here; we are talking about being able to provide jobs based on this.

I like the idea of the pre-application process and I am glad the appeals board, BIM and everyone else are quite happy to assist in that, but there is no point in having that, similar to the local authority pre-application or preplanning, provided there is a statutory time limit. If the pre-application is put in now to the council, there is no statutory limit. I say to people they would want to apply for planning because there is the statutory limit of the eight weeks, whereas there is not on the others. I would just like Mr. Batt's view on that if there is to be a pre-application process.

I have another question. If people apply for planning permission and they do not tick all the boxes and supply all the information, it is deemed invalid. Is that the situation when they apply for a licence? I understood that someone - maybe it was the Department - said they have to then look for further information.

Mr. Brian Batt:

On the pre-application process, as BIM has stated, there is not a formalised pre-application process, but if somebody contacts us saying they want to get into aquaculture or want to look at setting up a business, we will advise them to contact their local BIM regional officer and our Department's engineers will meet them for a preliminary discussion. It is not that there is no pre-application help there but there is not a statutory element. Again, if it needs a legislative review or legislation to update it, I would say that this is not for now. Again, that would require us to do policy work to look into it, which would only slow down the passage of this Bill. The Department has always said that there is a pre-application process; it is just not formalised.

The Chair's other question was about returning applications if they are incomplete. Yes, we do. What will change now with this is that there is a 24-month cut-off, so if people send in an incomplete application and 24 months have passed and if they do not make this deadline, it will be refused as a renewal application. Up to now, it has been us going back and chasing the information and it comes in. The Department has not had hard cut-offs on application times up to now.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is deemed to be invalid, does that mean that the notices have to go up again, or would the original notice suffice?

Mr. Brian Batt:

Under the new proposals, if someone is late sending in their renewal application, if it is less than 24 months, we will refuse it as a renewal application. They will be able to operate for the remainder of their current licence but they will not have a renewal with us. It will be deemed to have been refused.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that happens and, side by side, if they realise that there is a 24-month rule - you either use it or lose it - can they simultaneously apply for a new licence?

Mr. Brian Batt:

They cannot apply for a new licence while they have structures in the water. If it is not a renewal, they cannot have a new application in while they are in the water with us. It will be a very important communication exercise with the operators, who will be two years plus from the commencement of this legislation, to flag this obligation to have their renewal in 24 months in advance or, if it is late in, we will not process it as a renewal application. Technically, they would then have to clear the water and make a new application.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is such a major investment that people should know that-----

Mr. Brian Batt:

Yes.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----there is sufficient time to have it in and that if they do not have it in, they use it or lose it. That is a matter for the sector.

When does ALAB strive to get decisions out, whether it is approving the Minister's recommendation or otherwise?

Mr. Michael Mulloy:

Under the legislation, the Act states we have four months to make a determination. This is a very difficult timeline to adhere to. Normally, appeals can take considerably longer than that because we have to gather information and determine that appeal de novo, as if it came to ALAB in the first instance. This is a time-consuming process. In this conversation, we also need to separate finfish from shellfish more clearly. Finfish appeals and determinations are hugely more complex than shellfish determinations. Our stats can get skewed because a finfish determination or appeal can take multiples of the time it takes to do a shellfish application. That is something the committee should be more aware of and I ask it to bear in mind that finfish are intensely time consuming and onerous. The most recent finfish determination was supported by 42 different documents, which contained 4,000 pages of information. That just gives the committee an idea of the complexity of making finfish determinations.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate it takes some time but are resources a problem there as well? I know I cannot ask ALAB about individual applications but I know of one in the north west of the country. I met some people a long time ago - I was going through my papers at the weekend - and there is still no determination. Is it a question of resources?

Mr. Michael Mulloy:

It is, but ALAB is also very risk averse because the threat of judicial review is very high. Our success with judicial reviews has been difficult because the level of detail that has to be applied to these appeals is intense. Unfortunately, that is the way this organisation works. It cannot afford to take a risk. It has to go through every assessment with a fine comb, which takes time.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does ALAB take legal advice before a final determination?

Mr. Michael Mulloy:

Absolutely. The legal team has constant input. Despite that, JRs have sometimes been conceded.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many staff does ALAB have?

Mr. Michael Mulloy:

The key staff are the technical advisers. At the moment, there are two positions in ALAB but one of those is vacant, unfortunately. Today, the business case was approved for the recruitment of a second TA. It all depends on the output. Our work is contingent on an output of determinations from the Department of agriculture. Over the last few years, that output has been low. The number of appeals coming before the board has been relatively low. Our difficulty is that if we try to predict into the future, with the size of the backlog Mr. Batt is referring to and if a proportion of those go to appeal, our output will have to increase substantially and we want to ensure we have the technical ability to deal with that increase in appeals that we anticipate.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely it is ridiculous that ALAB has to wait this long to get approval to appoint a technical adviser. You have to do a business case. That is fine if it is an additional one but this is a replacement. That smacks of delays for the sake of delays. I do not know if ALAB can comment on that.

Dr. Shane McCarthy:

In fairness, that vacancy arose relatively recently and the approval from the Department came relatively quickly. I would not share a criticism of them on that score. It is in relation to additional technical advisers that the need will come, which will be addressed very shortly. I very much take on board the commitment that it is a conversation that will now take place with the Department. I am looking forward to updating the committee on it in due course as to the progress made on it.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes the debate. I thank the witnesses from the four organisations, whether it be the Department, the ALAB, the Marine Institute or BIM, for being frank in their responses. We are much more enlightened than we were before. We may not agree with them but we have to respect the views they have presented to us. Needless to say, we will be waiting with bated breath to see how long it might take to have the new legislation enacted with a view to ensuring we do not have Europe on our backs again, but we will just have to wait and see. I think that is it. I thank the witnesses and wish them well.