Acting Chairman: One cannot blame the system because it comprises those who work in it. Was anyone called in or are they retired? What happened?

Mr. Carroll: The inspectors on the ground were not properly trained, instructed or briefed on this issue by the management of the day. That is what happened.

Acting Chairman: It would appear there was a deliberate attempt to ignore the rules. It was decided to plant the area anyway and to draw down the grants. It did not make much difference whether they grew or not.

Mr. Carroll: No.

Acting Chairman: That is what transpired.

Mr. Carroll: That is not fair. The system clearly failed. A known soil condition which prevents the growth of plantations slipped through the system. A previous system detected it. The system failure arose from the concurrence of unusual events.

Acting Chairman: What part of the system detected this before?

Mr. Carroll: The acquisitions unit of the old Forest Service.

Deputy Gildea: It seems that Coillte has a large responsibility in this. It should refund the total loss.

Mr. Carroll: We have negotiated a pragmatic agreement where Coillte will make a 50% contribution to the cost - the £350,000 element.

Deputy Durkan: Regarding tree planting generally, what advice does the Department have, either from Coillte or elsewhere, about the suitability of ground generally for the growing of specific species of trees? For example, an oak tree will have a different requirement to a conifer.

Mr. Carroll: We have a high powered, highly trained forestry inspectorate with an academic background in forestry. There are also thriving forestry investment companies in the private sector. UCD has a forestry department. The protocols, both environmental and testing, are sophisticated.

Deputy Durkan: What is the chemical analysis of shell-marl?

Mr. Carroll: I am told it has an alkaline effect.

Deputy Durkan: To what degree?

Mr. Carroll: I do not know.

Deputy Durkan: Would that be known within the Department?

Mr. Carroll: It would, yes.

Deputy Durkan: Would it be known to Coillte?

Mr. Carroll: It would be known to individuals.

Deputy Durkan: Would it be known that there was a prevalence of it in certain regions?

Mr. Carroll: Yes.

Deputy Durkan: Notwithstanding that, no alarm bells rang or anything such as that?

Mr. Carroll: Obviously it did not become apparent until it failed.

Deputy Durkan: The tree failed?

Mr. Carroll: Yes.

Deputy Durkan: How many years of growth were concerned?

Mr. Carroll: About three or four years.

Deputy Durkan: Perhaps there may be other failures of which we are not yet aware.

Mr. Carroll: There is the odd failure. In the extraordinarily dry summer in 1995, some plantations failed which would otherwise have survived because of the water tables. I presume that was not anticipated when the decisions to plant were made. The frequency of failure, aside from shell-marl, is very small.

Deputy Durkan: Is shell-marl quarried in some parts of the country and used as a top dressing?

Mr. Carroll: Yes.

Deputy Durkan: It is known for its high lime content and it would also be known that certain species of trees, especially conifers, are not suitable for planting in those conditions. Were conifers planted in these areas?

Mr. Carroll: Predominantly. I spoke with my father about this, who is a farmer and who read about it in the paper. He said that the farmer should have known because they would know their land better than anyone else. If a person has had land for years and they have had to dig or plough it, they will be familiar with it. It was extraordinary that this got through the system.

Deputy Durkan: Senior people had advice and were conscious that there were high lime levels in certain soils and they would have given that advice over a number of years. However, when they moved on to pastures greener, that advice was not carried through. Surely someone in the Department or in Coillte must have said that there should not have been planting in those areas.

Mr. Carroll: A period of 20 years from the 1960s to the 1980s went by without anyone having any experience of shell-marl. It was not discussed at conferences because it was not a live issue so people did not know about it. With the massive staff changes and turnover - employment in Coillte fell from 2,500 to 1,200 - and the company undergoing massive change, many of the people who ran the systems no longer worked for the company. There was also a change from a centralised acquisitions system to a local advisory system. This combined to cause the chain of communication and store of knowledge to break down.

Deputy Durkan: It is very much like the tree of knowledge in this case. Does soil sampling and analysis now take place before plantation occurs?

Mr. Carroll: Yes, I would think so.

Deputy Durkan: We should be sure about that.

Mr. Carroll: The primary responsibility is on the landowners to make a commercial decision to invest.

Deputy Durkan: For how long if a grant is to be paid on foot of it?

Mr. Carroll: In approving the grant, we would ensure that the investment is suitable. The primary responsibility is on the landowner. It is a question of resources.

Acting Chairman: Perhaps what the Deputy is trying to say is that, if the landowner is to receive a grant and will not be recouped, he will not care if the project fails. That is what has happened. I am involved in a small urban forest park of less than one hectare which we will plant on Saturday, but we had to test the soil and lay topsoil before we could proceed, and that is only one hectare of land. Furthermore, it is on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Carroll: You are behaving exactly as I would expect those making an investment in the area to behave.

Deputy Durkan: Do farmers behave that way?

Mr. Carroll: It is a major risk for farmers if they plant and it fails.

Deputy Durkan: It is not a major risk unless there is no subsequent claim. In the event of a major investment in forestry, surely some soil testing takes place to determine the suitability of the soil.

Mr. Carroll: It is by and large a self-assessment system at present. People have professional advisers to conduct the testing for them, and that is supervised. We have over 20 forestry inspectors who conduct spot checks on and analyse the applications.

Acting Chairman: Is it as simple as inserting a fork into the ground, taking a soil sample and pouring liquid on it to see if it bubbles, which means it is alkaline, or if it does not, which means it is sound?

Mr. Carroll: I am told the tests are very simple and that any landowner would be able to do it themselves.

Deputy Durkan: I would have thought that would be preliminary in all such cases. I am not satisfied. It should be a prerequisite in all such cases. It is daft that the Department or Coillte is proceeding without conducting soil analysis to determine the suitability of the soil. Were the failures individual landowners or were investors involved?

Mr. Carroll: I am not sure.

Acting Chairman: Could we obtain that information?

Mr. Carroll: Absolutely.

Acting Chairman: We note paragraph 27. Are there any questions on the accounts?

Deputy Durkan: May I ask a question on the general promotion and development of forestry?

Acting Chairman: Yes, on the accounts.

Deputy Durkan: What are the planting figures for the forestry programme on an annual basis? From the knowledge I have gained from parliamentary questions, it is a case of peaks and valleys and not one of a consistent annual rise.

Mr. Carroll: Regarding the planting figures in recent years in terms of hectares, the peak year was 1995 when 23,710 hectares were planted. There were 20,981 hectares planted in 1996, 11,400 in 1997 and just under 13,000 hectares in 1998 with about the same for 1999. The current figures are also running at about that level which is about 30,000 acres of land, which is a lot of land being taken out of agriculture into forestry. The targets set by the Government were much higher than that - 25,00 hectares. We had a brief discussion on this last year which involved two trains of thought. One was that we should be planting more while the other was that we were too zealous at planting, depending on the part of the country that came from.

Deputy Durkan: I might have a different line again on that.

Mr. Carroll: In recent years the economic decision to plant forestry is, at minimum, a 40 year decision and with broadleaf it could be 70 to 80 years. It is a very big decision. Forestry must compete with conventional agriculture and the REPS scheme. It has been clear to us in recent years that the relative incentives have moved more than slightly against forestry. It is not as attractive as it was and the rate of planting has fallen off. One might expect that with a scheme like this the initial takeup would be higher and would taper off over time.

Deputy Durkan: One thing Mr. Carroll mentioned is that 30,000 acres is a lot of land to take out of the agricultural sector, but surely some of these lands are not agriculturally useful? It may be better to grow trees on such land and there is a considerable amount of land in the country which is not suitable for use as in agriculture. Why is there not a greater concentration on that land?

Mr. Carroll: At the end of the day, forestry is an economic activity.

Deputy Durkan: I am aware of that.

Mr. Carroll: The barren land may not be suitable for trees and may not justify an economic growth - they may not get the rate of growth and so on. There is competition for fairly good agricultural land for forestry. There is competition between landowners for land to use for forestry and conventional agriculture and I have seen it myself in areas with which I am familiar.

Deputy Durkan: There may be competition.

Mr. Carroll: There is, absolutely. There are about 1 million hectares of wet marl soils in Ireland which are suitable for forestry and of less use for agriculture.

Deputy Durkan: That is what I was getting at.

Mr. Carroll: We have to target those better. There is no doubt about that.

Deputy Durkan: I do not want to prolong this. Of course prime agricultural land is better for forestry if someone can get it at the right price, but we are talking about a 100 year cycle in some cases and a minimum 40 year cycle. Unless there is some other tax clause or benefit involved, there is no way the two can compete.

On miscellaneous items, page 210 of the Vote states that £1 million, including over £300,000 in costs, was paid in settlement of a legal action arising from a decision not to renew a prospecting licence. Can Mr. Carroll tell us about that?

Mr. Carroll: This relates to the withdrawal of a licence for mining exploration on Croagh Patrick which went through the courts. The then Minister for Energy, in April 1990, decided to refuse exploration or mining on Croagh Patrick due to its religious and cultural significance. A mining company had already spent £1.8 million in exploring the area with favourable results and would argue that it had a legitimate expectation to get a mining lease. That went through the courts and the High Court upheld the Minister's decision, but in the Supreme Court the matter was settled for the amounts mentioned. The total State exposure, had the case been lost in the Supreme Court, would have been of the order of £3.5 million.

Deputy Durkan: What are the parameters for issuing a prospecting licence? I know there are quite a number of them issued in the country at present, both onshore and offshore, and is it to be presumed that a person with a licence granted by the Department could, in theory, be assumed to have a contract and a licence to continue as in this case?

Mr. Carroll: Subject to the planning and permitting processes that apply. If one discovered a major mine one would have to go through the EPA, a local authority planning process and the Department's planning process.

Deputy Durkan: What happened in this case?

Mr. Carroll: It did not proceed through any of those processes.

Deputy Durkan: Why?

Mr. Carroll: Because the decision was taken by the then Minister that mining in the vicinity of Croagh Patrick was unacceptable and ---

Deputy Durkan: Who granted the prospecting licence in the first place?

Mr. Carroll: The Department issued the licence in the first place.

Deputy Durkan: In the first place and then revoked it?

Mr. Carroll: A policy decision was taken by the Minister of the day to revoke it.

Deputy Durkan: I do not want to get into the area of policy, I am trying to figure out what procedures were followed when the initial application for a prospecting licence was made. I presume normal channels were followed.

Mr. Carroll: Absolutely, yes.

Deputy Durkan: And were normal channels followed again afterwards? How otherwise would a liability arise on the State?

Mr. Carroll: Because the exploration licence was terminated and this company had raised money from the citizenry, let us put it that way, for a legitimate activity - to prospect with a view to a commercial return. Nobody will engage in prospecting if they do not have the prospect of a commercial return and the argument made by the company involved was that this had been arbitrarily cut off.

Acting Chairman: Do we note the accounts? Yes. I thank Mr. Carroll.

Acting Chairman: We now come to the Central Fisheries Board, Annual Financial Statements 1995-98.

Mr. Purcell: There are four years of accounts of the Central Fisheries Board before the committee today. There have been two recurring themes in my audit reports on the board - the absence of a complete register of fixed assets and a tendency to operate on overdraft from time to time without the required ministerial approval. Regarding the first point, the central board and all the regional boards are in the process of finalising the introduction of a new computerised accounts package which includes a fixed asset register module. If that package is properly implemented it should obviate the need for the negative reference in future audit reports.

While I do not want to overstate the problem of unapproved overdrafts, the Act is clear that ministerial sanction is required for borrowing by all fisheries boards. It is my duty to report when that condition is not being met. Taking all the boards together, the aggregated maximum unapproved overdrafts during 1998 would have touched approximately £1 million, I think. The need to resort to overdraft can arise from delays in drawing down State grants, a lack of awareness of cash flow status on the part of the boards and the obligation to incur and discharge expenditure on the tourism angling measure in advance of funding. Therefore, there is clearly scope for further improvement in both these areas.

Acting Chairman: Witnesses should be made aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege and should be appraised thereof.

Deputy Gildea: There is an obvious question in relation to overdrafts. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor could tell us about these.

Mr. O'Connor: I acknowledge the points made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the period under review there was a difficulty in relation to short-term overdrafts which arose mainly, as stated by the C & AG, from short-term difficulties in bridging expenditure. Before that period we did not have a difficulty with overdrafts, but during that period overdrafts developed mainly because we had a major development programme under Structural Funds amounting to £19 million or £20 million. This was the first of its kind in Ireland and the biggest in the European Community and we could not draw down the money until we had incurred the expenditure. Being a non-commercial State body there was a difficulty in that we did not have the finances to carry it. However, there was a process for getting overdraft approval from our parent Department and the Department of Finance and generally both the central and regional boards had approval. However, from time to time that was exceeded. Over the period, because of the major developments being undertaken, it was difficult in administrative terms to keep up to date with the requirement. For example, regional boards had to apply to us, we had to apply to the Department and the Department had to get approval from the Department of Finance. In general we did this on a quarterly basis which would normally have been sufficient, but because of the major expenditure we were not able to keep up to date. However, currently we have a new procedure in place for 2000 under which we have approval from our parent Department and the Department of Finance for overdraft facilities, not only for the central board but for all the regional boards. Hopefully this will take care of the difficulty.

Deputy Gildea: I wish to ask about draw downs by regional boards from the central board. Do regional boards encounter difficulties in drawing down funding? I notice that on 31 December 1998 regional boards in some instances had not received substantial outstanding sums.

Mr. O'Connor: Again, it is a matter of timing. The idea is that funding is applied for in advance of each period - perhaps a monthly period. The regional boards apply to us and we apply to the Department which gets approval from the Department of Finance. Sometimes there can be a time lapse, but we try to co-ordinate it as best we can to make sure this does not happen. We are always trying to improve things. As the Comptroller said, the central board has introduced a new computerised accounting system, not only for ourselves but for each of the regional boards. Therefore, all eight organisations have a new computerised accounting package which should help trigger demands for funding and ensure the process is more streamlined.

Deputy Gildea: In more general terms I wish to ask about the National and Inland Fisheries Development Plan, 2000-2005. The Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999, introduced many changes. There are now eight chief executive officers on the regional boards. Is it correct to say that each regional board must draw up its own fisheries development plan for its own area and that from those eight plans a national plan will also evolve? Is this what is envisaged?

Mr. O'Connor: Generally yes. Each regional board is an independent statutory body and will develop its own plan. There is an obligation on the central board, under section 5 of the Act, to submit a national plan to the Minister, and we are obliged to incorporate the plans of the regions in this. I expect we will do this on a partnership basis.

Deputy Gildea: Will each of the regional boards be provided with a list of the scientific services provided to each region as a consequence of the 1999 Act?

Mr. O'Connor: One of the obligations of the central board under the 1999 Act is to provide support services for regional boards. While our resources are not unlimited, we will provide the best service we can, as we are currently doing. We discuss these things regularly with the regional boards.

Deputy Gildea: Further to that, will a work programme be drawn up to show where the services will be provided within each region? What services will be provided? Will the chief executive officer in each region be directly responsible as the service provider in their own region?

Mr. O'Connor: Under the legislation each regional board and chief executive is responsible for the management and operation of all the fisheries services within their region. Our functions involve co-ordination and providing support services and we generally fulfil these functions on a partnership basis.

Deputy Gildea: Would you expect that the regional plans and the national plan will be ready by July or autumn?

Mr. O'Connor: First of all, we have a five year strategic plan which my board has developed in association with the regional boards. This is the current plan on which we are working. It has two parts: section one which deals with the development of the industry and a second section which deals with organisation and how we interact and how we provide services to each other. In addition, we have developed, in co-operation, a programme of investment to draw down funding under the national development plan. Over the next 12 months we will probably review the current five year operational programme. Much depends on the demands of the Minister who might look for that review. Currently that is what we intend doing.

Each of the regions is at various stages in developing plans. The eastern region has completed its plan and a number of other regions are part way through developing their plans. Some regions in particular are going through a very public process of negotiations and discussions with all the various interests in the regions.

Deputy Gildea: Under the 1999 Act will future Exchequer funding be made available directly to each of the eight regional boards, after agreement has been reached and following consultation with the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources?

Mr. O'Connor: There is a provision in the new Act whereby regular grants can be made directly to regional boards by the Department.

Deputy Gildea: In the case of the six regional boards which will operate within what is loosely referred to as the BMW area - the areas where Objective One status has been retained - will a structured agreement be reached whereby they will be granted the full funding for which they are eligible from both the EU and the Exchequer? In my opinion it is very important that those six regional boards get the full benefit to which they are entitled as they are operating in areas where Objective One status has been retained. I would not like EU funding to be replaced by Exchequer funding; they should benefit from both funding.

Mr. O'Connor: I take the Deputy's point. There are three types of funding. First, there is the regular Exchequer funding for all the boards. Everyone must fight their corner to get that. Second, under the national development plan, there is funding of approximately £24 million for inland fisheries issues. Third, there are the BMW and south and east areas. We have a plan for the national funding and we are working closely with the chief executives of the two other regional areas in the context of a major submission for the development of inland fisheries within these areas.

Deputy Gildea: When you say you have a plan, does the plan include the payment of the full EU funding to which the six boards are entitled? Will they receive the normal funding from the Exchequer?

Mr. O'Connor: Yes, Exchequer funding is a separate issue.

Deputy Gildea: It will be in addition to -----

Mr. O'Connor: Yes.

Deputy Durkan: Do you have overall responsibility in relation to the various regional boards?

Mr. O'Connor: No. I am not responsible totally for the operation of the regional fisheries boards. They are responsible for themselves.

Deputy Durkan: Independently?

Mr. O'Connor: Yes.

Deputy Durkan: That was not always the case, particularly in relation to the Moy fisheries area.

Mr. O'Connor: Since being set up in 1980, they were seven independent statutory bodies.

Deputy Durkan: Yes. To what extent do they have autonomy in terms of their development and their right to proceed in the manner they wish? To what extent is their policy determined by the Central Fisheries Board?

Mr. O'Connor: We do not determine the policy for the regions.

Deputy Durkan: Not at all?

Mr. O'Connor: Policy is generally determined by the Minister. We can make recommendations to the Minister in relation to policy. In consultation with the regional boards, we have put together a five year strategy for the development of inland fisheries. This has been agreed with the regional boards.

Deputy Durkan: Was there a problem in respect of the Moy fisheries, where the board in situ had responsibilities, but the Central Fisheries Board had similar responsibilities in relation to some operations of the board? Is that still the case?

Mr. O'Connor: No. Is the Deputy referring to approximately 300 or 400 yards of the River Moy in Ballina called the "Ridge pool"?

Deputy Durkan: Yes, I am familiar with the "Ridge pool".

Mr. O'Connor: That was purchased by the Department in the late 1980s. The Department managed it for a number of years and it then transferred management to the Central Fisheries Board in 1994. The Minister asked that it be transferred to the North-Western Board in 1997, and that has now taken place.

Deputy Durkan: Is that completed?

Mr. O'Connor: Yes.

Deputy Durkan: Excellent.

Mr. O'Connor: The next two most important fisheries have been transferred to the Western Regional Fisheries Board by the central board in the last two weeks.

Deputy Durkan: That is excellent. It has become very difficult to ask parliamentary questions about these issues. There seems to be a reluctance to answer questions in the House relating to autonomous bodies outside the House.

Acting Chairman: Is this relevant?

Deputy Durkan: This is relevant because it is the only place I can ask this particular question.

Acting Chairman: I will allow the Deputy to ask the question.

Deputy Durkan: To what extent do you encourage the development of the various fisheries that come within the control of the regional board? To what extent are you influencing this in a way which will enhance and develop the industry from the point of view of tourism and angling generally?

Mr. O'Connor: In partnership with the regional chief executives - we meet on a monthly basis - there is a broad plan for the development of fisheries in Ireland. We are implementing a programme of development to try to improve the product. There have been major advances in this regard in the last five or six years.

Deputy Durkan: At whom is the product being targeted?

Mr. O'Connor: The Structural Funds programme is aimed at developing angling for tourist anglers. However, we try to give everyone a lift. In other words, if Lough Corrib is improved for tourist anglers, it will be improved also for local anglers. We attach great importance to having happy local anglers and good angling for local anglers. In a sense they are as good as protection staff on the rivers and lakes. Under the Structural Funds programme we are obliged to develop tourist angling. Under the next round of Structural Funds and the national development plan, we hope to broaden this more. We will be concentrating on developing angling for tourist anglers but there are broader issues. These include environmental issues and water quality which might not necessarily be targeted at tourist angling areas, they might be targeted at general angling areas. There are broad environmental issues.

Deputy Durkan: What about the effect of pollution on the development of the fisheries industry? How is that progressing? Are you putting in place measures to improve the quality of the water, fish and so on in order to make the product more attractive?

Mr. O'Connor: The short answer is yes. Obviously the Department of the Environment and Local Government is charged with water quality management but we have a responsibility in relation to fish life and the fish habitat. There are a number of investment programmes at present in various rivers and lakes such as Lough Corrib, Lough Sheelin and so on. A catchment management programme is under way for the River Mulkear where there was a major fish kill a couple of years ago. The Central Fisheries Board has upgraded its laboratory facilities. We have a machine for assessing water quality and so on which is the only one of its kind in Ireland. While we do not have major funding as a semi-State organisation, we work very closely with the EPA, local authorities and the Department of the Environment and Local Government in trying to improve water quality. We are involved with the Department in the major investment programme for Lough Conn to improve the water quality.

Deputy Durkan: Improvement of water quality means improvement for fish quality and fish life generally?

Mr. O'Connor: Yes.

Deputy Durkan: What about the eastern region and the River Liffey in terms of water quality?

Mr. O'Connor: There are four pollution officers in the eastern region, the highest number in any region in the country. There are difficulties with water quality and water abstraction levels in the Liffey. The Eastern Fisheries Board is working with the local authority to try to get the best deal for fisheries within the region.

Acting Chairman: Mr. O'Connor said that the boards plan the development of fisheries in Ireland to benefit tourism and local anglers. I was a member of this committee when the board last attended and I asked some questions but there has been no improvement in the development of fisheries in my region. What agency is responsible for the monitoring of the sea lice problem which has wiped out a number of sea trout fisheries in Connemara?

Mr. O'Connor: The sea lice monitoring programme is the responsibility of the Marine Institute.

Acting Chairman: Would it not make more sense if the Central Fisheries Board or the regional fisheries boards were the bodies responsible?

Mr. O'Connor: Sea lice on salmon farms is an aquaculture issue and we do not have responsibility for that brief.

Acting Chairman: I want to find someone who had responsibility because it is an inland fisheries problem and a number of important trout fisheries in my area have been wiped out since the major sea lice infection in 1989. I asked this question the last time the board was here. What has been done since? What action is being taken to solve this problem? The smolts will be going out to sea in the next two months and if this crop returns infested with sea lice, another season will be lost, as has happened in the last eight years.

Mr. O'Connor: There is no disputing that there is a problem in those areas. The lice levels are monitored in the bays on a monthly basis. My board is involved in that, as is the Western Regional Fisheries Board. The Minister has introduced a number of by-laws to protect the existing sea trout, such as catch and release and changes to seasons.

Acting Chairman: Nothing is happening. The Ballynahinch and Gowla fisheries have been almost entirely wiped out. The bays and fresh water habitats in those areas are excellent but the sea lice problem has continued for eight years. The aquaculture legislation of 1998 promised control of sea lice. Has anyone been prosecuted for the high levels of sea lice?

Mr. O'Connor: There have been improvements.

Acting Chairman: Only in Killary where the management is better. In Ballynahinch and Gowla there has been no improvement.

Mr. O'Connor: Ballinakill has improved in recent years. Without being evasive, sea lice management is a matter for the Department. I have no responsibility for the area.

Acting Chairman: I want to find someone who will accept responsibility. There have been various reports, such as those by the Sea Trout Action Group and the Sea Trout Management Group, which made recommendations but nothing has been done. I want to find someone responsible for ensuring that the situation is improved. This comes down to the board because it plays an important part in the development of fisheries in Ireland for the benefit of tourism and anglers. If the sea lice problem continues, having already wiped out two very important sea trout fisheries in Connemara, there will be no benefit for tourists or local anglers.

Mr. O'Connor: It would be more appropriate to ask the Secretary General of the Department. I do not have responsibility for this area. I have responsibility for the management of sea trout and we have established a number of initiatives in association with the Department.

Acting Chairman: The sea trout are not being managed. That is the problem.

Mr. Carroll: I understand the problem but Mr. O'Connor is correct. The fisheries boards have a role in the sea lice and sea trout monitoring programmes but do not have overall responsibility for them. Overall responsibility rests with the Department. We operate a range of programmes through various agencies, particularly the Marine Institute. There is an ongoing intensive and costly management programme for sea lice.

Acting Chairman: Has anyone been prosecuted for breaching the sea lice regulations?

Mr. Carroll: As things stand, the system is not penalty based; it is a management system.

Acting Chairman: It does not work in Kilkieran Bay and Bertraghboy Bay. There are virtually no uninfected trout in those places.

Mr. Carroll: There are many programmes under way, restocking and rehabilitation programmes, and bi-monthly inspections during the critical periods in co-operation with fishery board staff. The lice inspections are available for public scrutiny. Corrective measures for sea lice control are incorporated into the inspection regimes, we are developing single bay management strategies and fallowing regimes, and the Act provides for a penalty structure. The existing protocols for lice management did not lay down enforceable standards but that will be rectified in the next round of licences.

Acting Chairman: When will that happen?

Mr. Carroll: The Aquaculture Licence Appeal Board has already adopted licences setting down standards. There will be a further round of renewed established farm licences in the next two months which will include new protocols.

Acting Chairman: If action is not taken, another season will be lost. The smolts will leave in April and May and will swim into an infected bay. There has been an improvement in Killary, the stocks have come back because of better fish farm management. There are two fisheries, however, where there must not be best management practice because the sea lice problem is as serious as it was in 1989. Who is doing anything about that? I asked that question the last time the fisheries boards were here and I am still waiting for an answer. There are two major trout fisheries, Ballynahinch and Gowla, which have been wiped out. The smolt from those areas go out through Kilkieran Bay or Bertraghboy Bay.

Mr. Carroll: I am told there has been an improvement in Ballynakill. We are trying to improve the management of those bays but it is a slow process.

Acting Chairman: Expensive reports have been published containing recommendations which have never been implemented.

Mr. Carroll: They have been implemented.

Acting Chairman: They have not been implemented on the ground.

Mr. Carroll: They certainly have. There is an intensive and costly programme in place.

Acting Chairman: The witness did not expect the question so perhaps he will report back to the committee the steps which have been taken in the two bays I mentioned to implement the recommendations of either of those reports.

Mr. Carroll: I will send the committee an early report.

Deputy Gildea: You have dealt with the question I was about to ask, Sir.

Acting Chairman: Thank you for your interest in Connemara, Deputy.

I thank Mr. O'Connor and his officials and Mr. Carroll and his officials.

The witnesses withdrew.

Acting Chairman: The agenda for the meeting of 2 March is as follows: Vote 41- Comhairle na n-Oileán, Appropriations Account 1998 and Annual Financial Statement, 1997-1998 and the Údarás na Gaeltachta Annual Financial Statement, 1998; Vote 42 - Roinn Ealaíon, Oidhreachta, Gaeltachta agus Oileán, Appropriations Account 1998. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Committee adjourned at 12.01 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 2 March 2001.

Next | Up | Previous