Before we move to the substantive topic of the meeting, I want to bring attendees' 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. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they 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. I do not believe we have any member on Microsoft Teams. If that arises during the meeting, I will ask any member who attempts to participate on Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the precincts. If not, they will be asked to leave the meeting.

The agenda is pre-legislative scrutiny of the fisheries (amendment) Bill. This will be the first of two meetings on this topic. We are joined by eight witnesses. From the Sustainable Water Network, SWAN, we have Ms Emma Armshaw, marine and coastal policy officer; Mr. John Murphy, manager of Salmon Watch Ireland; Dr. Elaine McGoff, head of advocacy with An Taisce; and Ms Karin Dubsky, director of Coastwatch.

From the Irish Farming Association aquaculture committee, we have Ms Teresa Morrisey, policy executive; Mr. Finian O'Sullivan, chair; Ms Catherine McManus, vice chair; and Mr. Lee Hunter, committee member.

The opening statements have been forwarded to members. I will allow each witness group to read its opening statements but we will keep the time limit at five minutes, if that is okay. If the statement is a little longer I ask the witnesses to summarise it. Keep an eye on the clocks around the room to make sure you are keeping good time. We are starting about 15 minutes late and we really want to get through the discussion. We will then go to questions and answers. Each member will have seven minutes to put questions. That also includes time for the response to those questions. If time allows, we will go for a second round.

I invite Ms Armshaw from the Sustainable Water Network to read its opening statement.

SWAN sincerely appreciates the invitation to discuss the general scheme of the fisheries (amendment) Bill 2026. SWAN's 2025 aquaculture policy position includes nine legal recommendations, based on a barrister's analysis of the legislative provisions currently governing aquaculture in Ireland. Our aim is that through this pre-legislative scrutiny process, these recommendations will be added to the Bill.

Our first recommendation is for an amendment to the Fisheries Act to add a subsection stating that the purpose of the Act includes giving effect to the water framework, green strategy framework, green area planning, habitats and environmental impact assessment directives. We note that the general scheme of the Bill makes no specific mention of these environmental directives.

Section 61 should be amended to require the Minister and the aquaculture licences appeals board to have regard to, and comply with, the requirements of those environmental directives when determining a licence application or appeal. It should also require them to comply with the national marine planning framework to make a determination in relation to water status and to adopt an eco-system-based approach, the definition of which should be transposed from the Bremen Declaration.

Another key recommendation from SWAN is the repeal of section 19A(4). SWAN opposes the prolonged continuation of aquaculture operations after expiry of the original licence without a timely and effective environmental reassessment. SWAN notes that while section 19A(1) in head 7 provides for the repeal of section 19A(4), it then immediately reinstates it in section 19A(2) and section 19B. The Irish Government has been in correspondence with the European Commission for several years about the revocation of section 19A(4) and should now be in a position to provide for a genuine and rapid phase-out of this problematic provision.

In addition to the standard environmental assessments which are required under EU law, the Minister should be expressly required to consider the previous production and environmental performance of a site. Where there has been a serious or unresolved licence breach - particularly one with environmental consequences - this should be a relevant consideration in granting a renewal of the licence.

Enforcement of environmental conditions should be added as a full section and monitoring must form part of the licences. There should also be an emergency action that goes beyond issuing a notice.

SWAN has also called for reform of the process of appointing members to the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, ALAB, to ensure an equitable balance of environmental and industrial interests. We are also concerned by the proposal to remove the existing stay while the appeal period is running or an appeal is being determined. An environmental appeal must remain capable of preventing damage rather than merely determining afterwards whether an original decision was correct. Where significant effects on protected habitats and species cannot be excluded, the precautionary principle must prevail.

Further to our legal recommendations, SWAN's main recommendation on the basis of our evidence-based policy position is that open-net salmon farming must be phased out, with no further licences granted, due to its impacts on water quality and biodiversity. We look forward to constructive engagement with the committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the fisheries (amendment) Bill and ensuring Ireland's legal obligations under the EU's environmental directives are prioritised in the forthcoming changes to aquaculture legislation.

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear to day to discuss the important process of pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft general scheme of this Bill. This draft legislation is particularly significant for the Irish aquaculture sector. It proposes substantial changes to the framework governing licence renewals, the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board and the enforcement of the relationship between aquaculture and foreshore licences.

From the perspective of aquaculture producers, our central message today is straightforward: legislative reform must deliver greater transparency for aquaculture businesses and must not simply replace one form of inefficient licensing process with another. We have reservations as to whether these proposed amendments, on their own, go far enough to deliver the necessary efficient licensing process to realise the ambition to sustainably develop and advance the sector, as set out in the national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture development and the current programme for Government. These legislative amendments are intended, in the main, to deal with the long-standing matter of licences operating under section 19A(4), but do not go far enough in dealing with the necessary reforms needed to deliver an efficient, transparent and sufficiently resourced aquaculture licensing system. We need to hear more of the details on how the proposed changes will turn words into action and get the job done.

I now turn to licence renewal and business continuity. The issue of licence renewal is particularly important. There is an urgent need for a genuine effort to be made to clear the current accumulated backlog of aquaculture licence renewal determinations. The lack of progress is having a detrimental effect on attracting investment and new, younger participants into the industry. It appears that these proposed amendments will not immediately address the current backlog of in excess of 500 renewals awaiting determination.

The Bill proposes that renewal applications must be submitted at least 24 months before the expiry of an existing licence and extends the statutory period for determining applications from four to 24 months. A new section 10(1)(a) will require that the application to renew a licence is received and accepted by the Minister not less than 24 months before the existing licence expires. We accept that complex applications, particularly those involving environmental assessments, require sufficient time for proper consideration. We understand that a lead-in time of 24 months gives a good chance for the continuity of an existing licence being uninterrupted if there is no major objection during the licence renewal process. We also accept that where a licence renewal has been applied for, and the Minister and the Department are unable to determine the application within the 24-month timeframe, the Minister may extend the licence for a temporary period specified in a written extension. To do this, the Minister must be satisfied that the continued operation is unlikely to have a significant effect on or adversely affect the environment. However, it is not clear how or when the Minister would make such a determination. There is uncertainty as to what environmental threshold must be met and it also appears that no process or criteria are specified.

Aquaculture producers need clarity on this process so they can make informed decisions on investment and the future development of their businesses. A producer who has submitted a valid and timely renewal application should not face having to cease operating because of delays in the State's licensing system that are outside their control. We need more clarity on this aspect of the amendment.

With regard to environmental protection and regulatory certainty, IFA Aquaculture fully recognises the importance of environmental protection. Our sector depends on clean, vibrant and productive coastal waters. The Bill strengthens certain environmental provisions, including allowing for the revocation or amendment of licences where significant environmental effects are occurring or likely to occur. We welcome that the Bill updates environmental assessment terminology and references to EU legislation. We support the need for the aquaculture sector to operate within a robust environmental framework. However, we contend that a properly designed licensing system should protect the environment while enabling aquaculture to grow and develop as an industry, creating badly needed jobs and enterprises in rural coastal communities, but also sustainably producing food and contributing to food security in this country. We live in a world where the demand for more protein is on the up while the wild fish catch is in decline. Producing food on both land and sea is becoming more strenuous with every day that passes due to global warming. We believe that with balanced and honest communication in society, these two principles - aquaculture and the environment - can be reconciled.

We can come back to some of the remaining points in the question and answer session. I will throw the floor open to members. I remind them that they have seven minutes. I call Senator Boyle.

I thank our guests for attending.

What we are doing here is very important. I will ask the following of Mr. O'Sullivan. If I were to start out in the morning, what pre-planning would I have to do to get going? How long would it take?

Is the Senator asking how long it would take to get going with a licence?

Yes.

I think I answered that question previously. How long is a piece of string? This legislation is not dealing with the current applications for renewal that are held up for years in the system. It is hard to answer the question of how long it would take if you were to start again from scratch. If you were to put in an application now or within two years of the legislation being enacted, you would still be operating under the old system, which takes us back to where we started. I cannot answer the question. I cannot put a timeline on that.

How long is the backlog now? Is it months or years?

It is years. There were some licences issued in October or November last year.

We asked under parliamentary questions and zero licences were issued - I should say determined - to the end of last year. We are waiting years for renewals.

The Senator's previous question related to how long pre-planning takes. We do not have a pre-planning part of the process. It is one of the things we are hoping will be considered as part of the amendments. Practically all of the recommendations of the licensing review should be looked at as part of the amendments. Pre-planning was one of those. We anticipate that if there were a pre-planning part of the licensing system, it would speed up the process. You would have certainty as to what is required of you as an applicant or, in terms of your renewal, what needs to be submitted to the Department and what is for consideration. We do not have that now. What is required of you is set out in legislation, but we do not have those kinds of open and frank discussions that we would like to have at the pre-planning stage. Some applications do not have to go through the full process, for example, if a site were not suitable or something like that. You would not necessarily go forward with the process in those circumstances if there were a pre-planning stage. However, to put a timeline on how long a pre-planning part of the process would take is nearly impossible because we have no timelines for anything at the moment.

Are foreshore licences causing a big hold-up? Are they easier to manoeuvre through the process?

Foreshore licensing is not a separate part of the process but, in theory, they dovetail. When you apply for your aquaculture licence, you automatically apply for your foreshore licence. The proposed amendment in the heads of the Bill considers tightening that and ensuring there is not a situation whereby someone is issued an aquaculture licence and has to wait for his or her foreshore licence to be issued, or vice versa. That is what is proposed and it is a welcome introduction.

For companies already in existence, it is proposed that there will be a requirement to submit a renewal application 24 months prior to the expiry of the current licence. That will put companies on a level playing field. They will know that the licence is coming. It will bring an order to matters rather than somebody pulling out the paperwork a couple of months before it is due.

That is absolutely the case. The 24-month requirement is a welcome inclusion because it gives some level of a timeline. However, the proposed amendment is to increase the timeline from four months to 24 months. Every one of us in this room knows that you do not get a licence determination within four months. If it were possible for the process to be completed within those 24 months, we would welcome it, but we are not getting certainty as to how it would happen that you would absolutely be through the process and out the other side within 24 months. We need to examine that.

Aquaculture creates a lot of jobs. Are many people employed in the sector at the moment? How many more could we employ if we could get the system moving relatively fast rather than what has been the case? Everything seems to drag and drag as a reason not to give people anything.

There are about 2,000 direct jobs in the aquaculture sector nationally at the moment. It could be much more than that if we had a licensing system that was fit for purpose because people would have certainty on investment in their business and certainty for the next generation - those like Lee Hunter, who are looking to get into the business and be certain of their future. I could not put a figure on it. As we all know, in coastal communities, any industry that can provide direct jobs, as well as the ancillary services across the seafood sector that are provided beyond the direct jobs, is critical at the moment. We need to try to retain them.

In the current situation, it is difficult to make the industry attractive to young people. If we had a more dynamic industry that was moving along, we would get young people to come into the industry. Mr. Hunter has faith in the industry but he still has the same problems we are talking about with regard to renewing licences. Nonetheless, he is prepared to put in the effort and stay with the game to try to create a job for himself and his family in Donegal, where he wants to live. Coastal areas are being denuded of young people, who are moving to the urban areas. The water is on their doorstep. If there is the possibility of creating an enterprise there, they should be given the chance.

I thank both groups for coming in and for briefing us on their views on the fisheries (amendment) Bill 2026. Of course, it is important that we take into consideration the views expressed by the people in an industry or sector that has been outlined as providing 2,000 direct jobs in rural, peripheral parts of the country where there is no alternative source of employment. We should be supportive of that and not create obstacles for those involved.

It is not a question of just throwing out licences willy-nilly. Of course, all of this has to be done in a very professional way, and I think that is reflective of both groups. However, 24 months is a long time. I wonder if this is acceptable, particularly as the Department also requires a long period. Not alone that, but it was like the old An Bord Pleanála before An Coimisiún Pleanála was set up - it could still extend that time. If it is to be 48 months, it is long enough to allow people to invest in the sector.

I read that it is going to be more efficient now. Is the legislation going to be matched with additional funding to employ other officials if that is necessary to fast-track this? There is also the situation that was raised previously. If someone has a licence and has to renew it, what is a reasonable time in which to have the licence renewed? Is it ten years or 15 years? What is it? In a very short time, if someone is not observing the rules and conditions, they lose their licence. However, if it is being extended, am I right in my understanding from the last time the witnesses were before the committee that people cannot apply for funding during that interregnum? That does not make a lot of sense because it is not the fault of the applicants.

I again thank the witnesses for coming in and look forward to their responses. It is important that we work together in relation to the scrutiny.

I will pick up on a couple of those points. The 24 months mentioned by the Deputy is probably too long from our point of view. I certainly do not think it should be the target that it takes that long to deal with an application or renewal application.

We can certainly do better than that. Having said that, we do recognise that it is a complex licensing system. That is the problem. It is too complex. We are looking for further reforms than what has been proposed here in these legislative amendments. These are just amendments; they are not actually dealing with the core problem of licensing of all. They are not dealing with the reforms that have been sought for a number of years, have been recommended in numerous reports and that are committed to in the national strategic plan.

I definitely agree with the Deputy's point in that if this is to be a more efficient licensing system, more resources are needed. More resources are currently needed in the system we have at the moment. Even if we were just to look at these amendments and heads of Bill as they stand, if they were to be implemented in the morning we would definitely need more resources across the system to be able to do that. On a reasonable timeframe for a licence renewal, does the Deputy mean the timeframe it takes to renew the licence or the timeframe of the licence?

It is two questions. I asked about the timeframe for the licence and the timeframe to renew.

The timeframe for the licence that is already legislated for in the current legislation is actually 20 years but that does not happen. We get ten years of a timeframe because our monitoring and compliance system is not sufficient. What we would be seeking is that this 20-year licence be enacted across the aquaculture sector, but there needs to be a proper monitoring and compliance protocol and process that underpins that. Part of that means the legislative reform is needed that would underpin that system.

I note that the situation in the past was that the notice had to be available in Garda stations. We are past all that. Maybe in the old days there was a garda in the station all the time. Now - and this is with no disrespect to any rural Garda station - when you try to get a passport form signed the stations are not open. There should be another way. Perhaps with the co-operation of the local authorities it could be available in the local authority and if they have offices in the various municipal districts it should be in the municipal districts in which the application applies. We will raise that with the Minister. It is not rocket science but it would be pragmatic to do that. The general public should know as well. It is not just enough to put it online because not everybody is on the web.

Ms Dubsky wanted to respond to that as well.

On this last point, I totally agree. The Garda station one is no longer apt and it should be online in the same system as the local authorities have for planning, which is a very nice public system that everybody knows where you can also get an alert if something happens in your area. We would really like to see that. I totally agree. Many other points were raised to which I am sure we would also like to react.

There is a couple of seconds left before we go to the next speaker.

Very quickly, I agree with my colleagues in the IFA that we need more resources going into the decision-making bodies. If we look at the forestry licensing for which An Taisce is the prescribed body, it aims to make a decision - though it is not necessarily living up to this - in between six and nine months. If we look at the planning system, An Bord Pleanála, say, two years ago, was not in great shape. It has come on in leaps and bounds. Where there is a will there is a way. The now An Coimisiún Pleanála is making incredible complicated decisions quite quickly now and that is because the resources were put into that because it reached that critical level. I would echo that call for more resources into the decision-making bodies.

I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

This area of aquaculture licensing has bedevilled our people for a long time. I have personally participated in God knows how many sessions where we have had the Ministers and the Department of the marine, ALAB and the Marine Institute in again and again. My frustration is that the evidence today from our witnesses is that we still do not have a system that is fair, efficient, timely, open and clear to all. Obviously, we will have an opportunity to engage with the Department on this and we will probe all this through with its officials.

I want to ask both groups today, IFA Aquaculture and SWAN, what the level of consultation with their organisations has been. The legislation clearly does not strike the right balance, according to the evidence given by both groups. Before we got to this point, what consultation was there with the Department officials who drafted the legislation? Did they meet with the organisations face to face, and when?

There was zero.

They did not engage with us at all in writing, in seeking meetings. I did not know this was even in the works.

On our side, we have applied for the past 20 years for various changes in writing. They know there is a real interest. We were not asked about this.

Does the Deputy mean on these specific amendments?

On the amendments they have introduced, have they met and engaged?

Not on these specific amendments. We have engaged with the Department in general on proposed changes to the licensing system, which is entrenched in the licensing review and those recommendations.

Obviously the Department gets submissions and we would expect they would have noted them. Essentially they have just said, "here are our amendments". That is our job, in fairness, as a committee. I will make a statement and get the witnesses' sense of it. In a democracy, people have a right to object. We have a framework of laws and directives, both national and European. It is a bit like planning permission on land. The difference to me is that there is a clear timeframe. I said earlier to my colleagues that if I apply for planning permission on land, I know roughly how long it will take the local authority. If it goes to An Coimisiún Pleanála I have a fair sense it, or if I am investing as a business or whatever. It is not unreasonable for us to want whatever decision is made to be made in a timely fashion, so everybody knows where they stand. I want to get the witnesses' sense of the resourcing. My view is that the Marine Institute and the aquaculture licences appeals board, ALAB, are not adequately resourced to make decisions in a timely fashion. Is that a fair assessment? I will ask IFA Aquaculture to respond first, and then SWAN.

We were aware that section 19A(4) was to go. We had discussions with the Department officials around that. We did not have an insight into the wording or how it was going to be replaced. Let us not forget that this amendment is about section 19A(4) really. We have continuously brought it back to the aquaculture licensing review in 2017, which suggested a root-and-branch reform of the whole Act. Then we had the Kieran Mulvey report, which recommends comprehensive changes to be made as well. The reform needs to be comprehensive. That report calls for a Department of the marine that totally deals with the marine, and refers to legislative consolidation. There are a lot of statutory instruments, Acts and European directives that impact on aquaculture. Mr. Mulvey spoke about consolidation of stuff like that and engagement with the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment as well, because they have a big role to play on the marine side of things now.

We do not see the resources going into it. We have been harping on about this for a long time. Deputy Mac Lochlainn and Deputy Gallagher has been saying that two years is a long time, even now, to be looking down the line. We feel the commitment is not there for an aquaculture industry. They may find it difficult to implement the policies. We have policies but we have not got the implementation or the resources. We do not see that the Marine Institute is getting the resources or that the Department has the resources. We have Bord Iascaigh Mhara promoting the industry on one side, but at the end of the day the resources do not seem to be coming up behind to promote it. That is where the whole thing falls down. The young people see it as a dead duck industry from that point of view. There are a few allied people, like my own son and the likes of Mr. Hunter, who are interested in the industry, but how long more will that go on?

People move on. Young people cannot see any point in waiting ten or 20 years for a licence or whatever. There are some licences that long. I know that in my bay at the moment there are probably people waiting four or five years for the renewal on shellfish and stuff. The resources are not going into the industry, or into the whole area of legislative reform.

Salmon Watch Ireland was the originator of the complaint to the EU in 2020 regarding section 19 and we welcome that it is going to be repealed, with a lot of reservations. With regard to the actual people involved in looking at all of these licences, it is probably not resourced correctly. All we have to do is look at the Aquaculture Licences Appeal Board, ALAB. There is no wild fishing interest on that. Even though the legislation provides for that, there has not been a wild fish interest on it for a long time.

The Marine Institute is basically relying on old science. There is new science that demonstrates quite unequivocally the impact of sea lice on wild salmonids. Whether it is resourced adequately or whether the people who are deciding on these are relying on outdated science, we would just like to bring that to the attention of the committee.

In summary, the evidence from both witnesses is that they are not adequately resourced to make decisions in a timely fashion and the legislation creates more vagaries in that regard.

I thank the witnesses. It is disappointing that there has not been meaningful engagement, particularly as this originated from a complaint by Salmon Watch. The point here is that we will get more robust legislation if we have good environmental rigour in the Bill. I think that is important. On that point, with the additional information provided by Salmon Watch, would Mr. Murphy have a comment on the point around head 14 and the use of language such as "have regard to" rather than expressly stating "compliance with"? It needs to be strengthened with regard to language.

Absolutely. I do not know if the phrase "have regard to" is an actual legal term. There should be an amendment that it has to expressly require compliance with applicable EU environmental obligations.

Section 61 of this amendment should expressly reference the water framework directive, the marine strategy framework, the habitats directive and the environmental impact assessment directive. It should expressly require the consideration of a water body's status under the Natura 2000 conservation objectives and an ecosystem-based approach.

We think there should be a clearer statutory environmental purpose to improve the consistency and legal robustness of the decisions of the Minister and ALAB. There are decisions being made. A decision was made recently regarding the Deenish Island salmon farm in County Kerry. A bland statement that this would have no effect on the wild fisheries was issued. I would like to say that the people of Waterville would not say that the salmon farm in that vicinity is not having an effect. It is a having a detrimental effect. We are talking here about the economy. The angling tourism economy was a huge producer of income for the local business population and that has effectively vanished. There are maybe some other factors involved, but we would suggest that the salmon farming industry is really responsible for that fall-off in tourist revenue and economic activity in the area. It appears in that decision that there was no investigation, for want of a better word, to look at wild fisheries down there.

A bland statement saying this has had no effect on wild fisheries is absolutely disgraceful.

I remind witnesses in particular to be careful when referring to any enterprise in any way that might be identifiable. We are here to give evidence to committee members, not to make claims that might be disproven or contested.

I will direct my second question to Mr. Murphy. It is in relation to head 17 and the ministerial power where environmental harm occurs or is likely. I note that Salmon Watch Ireland welcomes that, but that ALAB has the power to suspend or revoke that amendment. Is that something he thinks should not be there? Does he believe that if a Minister makes a decision it should be binding and the operations should not be allowed to continue?

The operations should not be allowed to continue. One of the biggest factors in this is that there is a removal of the stay pending appeal. Under section 14 of the Fisheries Act, once an appeal is lodged and it is determined, a stay is put on the licence and the operator cannot operate until the appeal process is exhausted. That can take the ALAB situation and the High Court if necessary. It is not our NGO’s fault that it is taking an inordinate amount of time for ALAB or the High Court to make a decision on this. The stay has to stay. It is madness that if a licence is given – in fairness we cannot and it must be contrary to some EU laws - a justifiable appeal on environmental grounds must apply a stay, as it does in the original legislation. That amendment cannot go through.

I have a few more questions. In the supplementary information provided by SWAN and An Taisce, there is a reference to the “Birds Case” which was the longest-running case against an EU member state. It was against Ireland. This does not go far enough to address the concerns brought about in that case. Will Dr. McGoff elaborate on that?

I am happy to. If we look at the correspondence between Ireland and the Commission in the “Birds Case”, it categorically said it would revoke section 19A(4). There is no qualification; it states it will be revoked. What this does is not that. It revokes it in one section and then puts it back in with slight qualification. Under heads 7 and 8, it says that if you have applied for a licence prior to or within two years of the commencement of this, section 19A(4) still applies. Similarly, section 19B qualifies that if the Minister has managed to make a decision within two years, section 19A(4) still applies. They add the qualification that the Minister will make a determination about whether it will impact on the environment or not. That is incredibly problematic. We question what evidence the Minister is relying on, what data, where fair procedure is, and whether there is public participation. For the Minister to claim there will be no environmental impact, he or she would essentially have had to carry out the environmental assessments; the environmental impact assessment, EIA, if applicable, or the appropriate assessment, AA. Anything short of that is not compliant with EU law.

If, for example, there were an aquaculture operator who was refused because the Minister made an impromptu determination, that would be open to judicial review. What legally robust grounds has he relied on? Similarly, if a licence is granted to an agricultural operator, the likes of An Taisce or other environmental non-governmental organisations, ENGOs would be liable to judicially review that because what is the evidence base? There is no evidence base. It is like solving one problem and creating a whole host of others. If this goes through it is going to be a nightmare for both ENGOs and aquaculture operators. It very much muddies the waters. From our perspective, legally, this is incredibly problematic and does not comply with what we said we would do in the first case.

I, too, welcome our guests and thank them for their statements. My first question is to Ms Armshaw. Is she aware or has she heard of issues pertaining to the Killarney wastewater treatment system and its impact on the Killarney lakes?

That arose during the summer. It was in the media in Kerry. I submitted representations to the Minister, parliamentary questions, etc.

I will move on. I am glad Mr. Murphy raised the controversial salmon farm in Waterville. The renewal of the licence has already had, and will continue to have, devastating consequences on the local hospitality sector, including bed and breakfast accommodation, hotels, restaurants and so on. I know for an absolute fact that there were over 20 boats there at one stage, but there are now only one or two. You would be lucky to see one or two today. I am aware there has been a very sharp decline in wild sea trout and wild salmon and rising levels of sea lice infestation. The local community are extremely concerned because this was their bread and butter in a rural part of my county.

I will again raise the matter of aquaculture licences and the lack of progress in their processing. It is preventing small businesses from applying for grant aid. In many cases, people are waiting for two, five, ten or 20 years or longer. We all know that at this stage. The unprofessionalism in this area is totally unacceptable. Where licences have expired, their renewal is preventing the expansion of small businesses and job creation. It is yet another dagger in the heart of coastal communities that are already dying. We discuss this at every single meeting. How long more will this scandal be allowed to continue? We need a licensing system that is fit for purpose. It is currently not. Since my election to Dáil Éireann, there has been zero progress. It is an embarrassment. There is no other word for it. It is a disgrace.

Are appeals taking too long? I know they are, but that is my opinion. Should appeals be confined to those directly involved? I will touch on something that may be a little controversial. I know what is happening with regard to draft salmon licences. There are only a handful left in my constituency. There are 11 left in Cromane and three in Brandon. The State acquired the rest many years ago when it bought out licences. The numbers people are allowed to catch have been significantly reduced on an almost annual basis.

I live on a beach on the coastline and am familiar with the industry because it is not too far away from me in Cromane. It is one of the oldest fishing traditions of all. I am convinced that the seal will take more salmon any day than all of the fishermen. I have huge sympathy for what is left in this area for the simple reason that it has been people's livelihood and that of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, going down through the generations. I am supportive of these fishermen.

To whom was the question on resources directed?

My first question was an inquiry about Killarney wastewater treatment. The witnesses may not have any knowledge on that.

I have, being from the local area. The EPA has initiated a programme to expand or improve water quality in the area. The stream that it flows into is called the Folly stream and goes directly into the lake. It is in a disgraceful condition and we have that in our national park in front of tourist interests, leaving aside what it is doing to the lake and Laune - I think the Laune is rated as poor quality water. Addressing that has to be expedited, along with other issues involving aquaculture, including septic tanks and the catchment of the area. I was glad to hear that the EPA has flagged it as an issue.

Could I make a short comment?

After we hear the reply, there will be a short time then.

Deputy Cahill raised a lot of questions. One of them relates to what Deputy Mac Lochlainn said about democracy and waiting for licences for a long time. The sea is our commons. Therefore, it is the one area where we have to have exceptionally good management but we do not. We do not have any coastal zone management. We have a flaw in our system which will be repeated. The legislation states that the Minister will commence certain sections when he sees fit. Under the old law, the four-month period was not commenced. That is why there are long waits. To avoid making that mistake again, if the Minister has the power to commence a section, at least let there be an annual review of what was and was not commenced. That would be very important.

On the Deputy's view that only those who are directly affected should be open to appeal, that should absolutely not be the case. These are our commons. Coastwatch is often asked to come in because local people involved in a small application from a small area feel very awkward about potentially appealing against a neighbour. It is important that the option to be allowed to submit an appeal from elsewhere is retained.

On the Deputy's comments on sea lice and his inference regarding one particular salmon farm, I want to make him aware that there is a national sea lice monitoring programme and the data is published monthly. I suggest he has a look at that before making such comments because the data would not back up what he said.

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions and we will then have a second round. The first is for both sets of witnesses. I will put it to the IFA first. I refer to the aquaculture licensing review in 2017 and the recommendations therein. To what extent does the IFA see those recommendations reflected in this legislation? To what extent has the drafting of the legislation missed the recommendations?

To be blunt, it does not address them at all. It could be argued that it addresses them in some way in that it is legislative reform, but it is not actually reforming anything. Rather, it is dealing with a very specific problem around section 19A(4) that has been highlighted, along with some further proposals around enforcement, dovetailing the foreshore licence. The licensing review recommendations called, first and foremost, for a reform of the legislation, effectively a new Act. This is not it. These are amendments to the existing-----

Is it a missed opportunity?

Definitely. As we said in our opening statement, all of the licensing review recommendations need to be examined to determine where they may fit into any further amendments that are required because that is true legislative reform.

These amendments are not dealing with the core issue of licensing. They will not deal with the existing backlog of renewals we are waiting on, with the issues with getting appropriate assessments completed, with environmental assessments or with the further legislation or directives that have come down from the European Union over the past ten, 15 or 20 years. There is a lot of work there.

I acknowledge we have had discussions with the Department. We are looking at root-and-branch reform, while they are looking at amendments. We have had discussions with them but we are continuing to look for root-and-branch reform. Unless we have the licensing structure and system underpinning the whole thing, we will never make progress. That is progress we would all agree on.

If Ms Morrissey was starting a piece of legislation from scratch, would the recommendations from 2017 be the starting point?

Yes. Those recommendations are nearly ten years old but are still valid today.

Thank you. I put the same question to SWAN about the recommendations of the aquaculture licensing review.

I did not revise them now but at the time I thought most of the 2017 recommendations were quite reasonable. I would add that we have moved on. We now have nature restoration law, which has huge potential, and maritime spatial planning, which we did not have then. We need to put things into that wider frame. There is expertise among aquaculture operators on the ground, particularly in the bivalve sector and in seaweed. It would be very wise to use that for nature restoration law.

I think I got the answer to this from the facial expressions when I put the question to IFA, but would SWAN agree this is a missed opportunity?

Yes. The only thing to add is that as the European Commission is pushing quite hard for the deletion of section 19A(4), if any amendment is made, that should be made now, and then making it as it is.

I think we have broad consensus that this is a missed opportunity on the part of the Government and that the recommendations from 2017, notwithstanding the changes in the legislative and regulatory environment in the nine years the recommendations have stayed on the shelf, would be a good starting point for the Minister to reconsider the approach to this.

This point goes back to Mr. Murphy's contribution, SWAN's submission and a point Ms Dubsky made on referencing the nature restoration regulation. It has to be the cross-over and interface of all these. That is hugely important. The witnesses think the recommendation around including specific reference to those is a vital part of this legislation.

The next point relates to the public participation obligations, particularly where a full EIA is required for finfish. There is no reference to the public participation directive in this. Is that correct? Do the witnesses think that should be a central component of it?

Whenever an EIA takes place, there is a strict legal obligation for public participation. However, when heads 7 and 8 talk about the Minister making his determination as to whether something will be environmentally impactful, there is no reference to public participation. It is not clear from the heads that it is envisaged - it is not clear from the heads what they intend by this at all, in fact. In the information we sent on, case law says the Minister cannot rely on previous environmental assessments that have gone out of date. I am left with more questions than answers by reading this.

All the witnesses have been before the committee a number of times and have made submissions. Some will say the salmon-farming industry should come to an end, while the industry will say it produces organic salmon to the highest standards and there is rigorous oversight. The committee's job is not to adjudicate on the rights and wrongs of that; our job is to ensure in this legislation there is appropriate balance found and decisions are made in a timely fashion. I want us to focus on that.

A number of things are clear today. The level of consultation with the stakeholders was not what it should have been, despite the fact there were very intensive sessions with a previous Minister for the marine, Michael Creed, and his officials, looking at the independent report into what was happening with aquaculture. We still do not have these recommendations implemented in legislation.

I am concerned this is a missed opportunity. We are not asking the witnesses to agree - they obviously will not agree - on the merits or demerits of the industry; we are here to look at the planning process and legal framework. I find it exasperating. The committee will do our own report and make our own recommendations. When it comes through, some of us may put in additional amendments to the legislation and seek to progress it. I would not encourage contributions that focus on the merits or demerits of the industry. We have already received very strong submissions. The issue is whether this will address the balance that needs to be found in terms of the timeframes. It is clear from the evidence that this is a deficient series of amendments and more needs to be done.

I am not looking for a response. I just wanted to make that commentary and to thank everybody for coming in today. There has been a lot of food for thought. We will seek to strengthen the legislation and not make it a missed opportunity. We look forward to strong engagement next week with the relevant Department and so on.

Can I come in with a short comment on that?

I would like to give a couple of moments to each set of witnesses to conclude. We will start with SWAN and finish with IFA. That can include Ms Morrissey's response. The witnesses can summarise their main points in conclusion.

One of the amendments we would like to see is the historic environmental performance, especially for renewals. We have a situation now in the country with climate change and whatever. I think I have circulated it to the committee. There seems to be extreme mortalities on salmon farms. I will not identify the location but it was all over the Sunday papers. There would appear to be excessive mortality on salmon farms, up to 50%.

A Chathaoirligh, with respect, I just made a statement about the merits and demerits of the industry. I have asked people to focus on the process. They will not convince members here today. Some members will agree with Mr. Murphy; some will agree with IFA aquaculture. I do not think it is productive to continually bring in particular sites. We have had it now three or four times. I have ignored it but cannot continue to ignore it. It is inappropriate.

Thanks, Deputy, I take your point. I was waiting to see what direction Mr. Murphy was going in with that.

I am not going in any direction.

It brings the committee into disrepute if you keep doing it.

If Mr. Murphy says he will not identify a particular site and then says it was on the front page of Sunday newspapers, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that people will look back and identify a site. I do not know what he was going to say about the site he was trying not to identify-----

I am not going to say anything; I am just saying there should be-----

-----but just to caution him that doing that does not skirt around the rules I read out at the beginning of the meeting.

Okay. There should be-----

Mr. Murphy, with respect, when I am speaking-----

Sorry.

-----you might show a bit of courtesy and decorum and listen to me. Now you may come back in.

I am just saying that there should be an amendment in the legislation which looks at historical environmental performance, especially for renewals.

Thank you. The point is made and understood.

I would agree with the general gist of letting us only make amendments or would ask whether the most immediate amendments could be made. As for the current sections in the old Act which have not been commenced, can they be commenced or the Government asked why they have not been commenced? More effort should be put into actually doing the environmental surveys properly on the ground, not as desk studies, and then giving the licences or not giving them and putting in proper enforcement. Then we need to look at the wider frame of maritime spatial planning and where aquaculture and nature restoration law fit as another stage. That law will probably take longer, and therefore, some amendments should probably go through, but not to try to get everything through and make some additional ones.

I will come back to what Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned a few minutes ago about the licensing review and a missed opportunity and the lengthy process of engagement that went on nine years ago. We have had lengthy processes on engagement on several fronts to deal with licensing, the licensing system and proposed amendments. Even in recent years, we have had two task forces in the last three or four years for the seafood industry, but our main modus operandi all the time is to deal with the licensing system and to make it more efficient. We are constantly making our case on that. We have set out our stall numerous times to the current Minister, previous Ministers, the Department and all the agencies on that front. I might ask Mr. Hunter to give the perspective of someone who is looking to make a future in the industry and how difficult that could be.

I got my first licence in 2016, so this year it is now in for renewal. Knowing that there is no end date as to when that could go through and when it could be processed makes it really difficult to even think on the future. I am lucky that I come from a family where I grew up within the aquaculture industry but that was because they were forced into the aquaculture industry as I am the first generation of four generations to not become a fisherman. Being from that coastal community, I still wanted to stick by the sea. Quite a few Ministers, and even SWAN have also said that fishing is such an important thing to our coastal communities. Aquaculture is now, and it needs to be, and it needs to be the future within these coastal communities to keep people here. For someone my age, immigration is the only other option when it comes to our local areas. It is disheartening to see that I cannot make that decision to stay in the country and in my coastal community without the system failing or at least not working.

As I said, my first application went through in 2016 and is now up for renewal. The legislative reform review was in 2017 and at this point I already have gone through a licence. It would be great to see this missed opportunity we have identified here today whereby some more amendments or even the full review can be pushed forward so that people like me and people who may be interested like me, can actually move forward and have a future in our coastal communities.

Thank you very much. I thank all our witnesses and members for their participation here today. I assure Mr. Hunter and all the witnesses that this is the first of two meetings where we will be scrutinising this draft Bill. We will be digesting all the testimony we have gathered and our analysis thereof, and we will be feeding that into the process. Rest assured that the concerns of SWAN and the matters raised by the IFA have all been heard here.

I think all of our witnesses, barring Mr. Hunter, have been here before so I thank them for their continued participation in this forum. Mr. Hunter is welcome and I thank him for giving that particular perspective of a young person living by the coast. It is very valuable.

As there is are no further matters to discuss, today's meeting of the joint committee stands adjourned until 29 September 2026.