John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)

The Minister had some amount of script to get through. I am delighted to speak on the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Bill 2006. Waters around the Foyle and Carlingford loughs offer superb fishing for both tourist and domestic anglers, with reports of sea bass catches of 16.5 pounds. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Good Friday Agreement. The Agreement provides for the establishment of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission and confers powers on the commission for the promotion of development of the Foyle and Carlingford loughs for commercial and recreational purposes.

The functions are restricted to marine fisheries and aquaculture matters and there is a concern that the Bill is excluding mussels and oysters. The Bill excludes the wild oyster and mussel sector and proposes only to regulate the aquaculture sector. How can we regulate one sector and not the other, when they are operating on the same ground? The designation of oysters versus mussels is contentious, but to reach such a conclusion when half of the stakeholders are excluded from the process will be difficult. The low level of consultation with fishermen on either side of the Border is also an issue of concern.

Negotiations have taken place between the Department and its counterpart in Northern Ireland about ownership of the sea bed and the costs levied for the leasing of the ground. That will be dealt with by the licences that are issued. The big concern to date has been the way mussels are dealt with. The mussels industry has collapsed as a result of a 40 year agreement which has discriminated between fishermen in the two jurisdictions on this island, in terms of exclusive fishery rights. Irish authorities have registered vessels from other European countries. A contentious issue exists as regards the oysters and mussels. The Minister will know this is an emotive issue in the North, where people are very much aggrieved. This Bill may introduce a very good precedent, however, and in time perhaps self-regulation.

The Foyle system has a spring salmon run on the River Finn and salmon and sea trout angling is available from hundreds of miles of other rivers, including the Mourne, the Derg, the Strule, the Roe, the Culdaff and the Faughan. Both the Foyle and Carlingford lakes are extremely important to the island of Ireland for many reasons, and I support this Bill today as it will provide for the development and licensing of aquaculture and for the exercise of a development function in inland fisheries by the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The Bill is in line with the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 and is also needed to update certain sections of the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952.

There is enormous potential for aquaculture development in Ireland and it is an important part of this Bill. Aquaculture development has taken place in Carlingford Lough, but only with licences issued separately by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Northern Ireland body, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Aquaculture development has not taken place in Lough Foyle, however, because of jurisdictional uncertainties. There is obviously potential for such development on the Foyle and the fact that it has not happened to date has economic and social implications. This Bill provides the opportunity to regulate and license aquaculture in Lough Foyle for the first time. It will provide significant protection to existing operators and make it an offence when licensed areas in Foyle and Carlingford are interfered with.

This is a welcome piece of legislation. The Bill updates the provisions of the Foyle Fishers Act 1952 and it is good to see cross-Border co-operation is working. On the salmon issue, the Bill allows for angling licences with photographs. This is a significant measure and will introduce control. In recent times we have had the issue of salmon licences and drift netting. I understand there are now drift licences on the Foyle. I met the chairman of the new Loughs Agency, Mr. Derek Anderson, last week, and members of the board, which is very representative. The members are very committed and have been very effective to date. This could perhaps serve as a model for what could be done with inland fisheries in our jurisdiction. The consultants, Farrell Grant Sparks, are reviewing the situation at the moment, and no doubt they have studied what has taken place at the behest of the Loughs Agency. It has been very effective as regards the management of replacement stocks and in terms of development. I believe angling licences with photographs are the way forward when it comes to control, in the light of the increased number of licences. This has far-reaching implications in terms of the conservation of stocks.

The question of punitive fines was also raised yesterday with the Minister of State, Deputy Browne. When it comes to the courts, while the licence fees have gone up considerably, the fines are minimal for breaches of the regulations. While people may be barred from fishing in the future, there should be punitive fines as well for those who are in breach.

The licences with photographs will do away with the transfer of licences and will allow for better conservation effort. Significant research is being undertaken all over Ireland, North and South, on fish and plant species. The Marine Institute and its chief executive, Dr. Peter Heffernan, are doing very good work in Galway. I believe the Minister is transferring the research initiative from the Central Fisheries Board to the Marine Institute. It is good to have the research effort based within a single institution. Scientists working on fish stocks in the Foyle and Carlingford areas have found great genetic diversity of salmon stocks. This research has indicated that individual populations of salmon can be differentiated in areas as small as 5 km of river. The provisions in the Bill will enable the Loughs Agency to reinstate habitat, which will be of enormous benefit to fish stocks. Provision is made to empower the Loughs Agency to prohibit the sale of rod-caught salmon for the first time, aligning the Foyle and Carlingford areas with the central and regional fisheries boards.

The Bill also provides the opportunity to recover the costs of prosecution. Such costs include investigation, detection and sampling analysis which will significantly assist the Loughs Agency in providing an efficient conservation and protection service and will be a further deterrent to those considering breaching fisheries regulations. The Bill includes the following provisions: to prohibit the carrying out of aquaculture without a licence or in contravention of the terms and conditions of a licence; to empower the FCILC to grant aquaculture licences under such conditions as it determines; to enable the FCILC to regulate aquaculture licence application procedures and fees payable in respect of licences; to vest ownership of aquaculture stocks in the licensee; and to allow the recapture of escaped stock from licensed sites.

There is provision for the variation, revocation, transfer and surrender of licences — and for the establishment of a register of aquaculture licences. There are penalties for offences relating to aquaculture as well as provision for existing fish culture, shellfish fishery and marine licences to continue to be valid. An appeals board may be established to provide for appropriate procedures for aquaculture licences.

Provision is also made to enable the FCILC to acquire fishing rights in the Foyle and Carlingford areas and there are provisions relating to the form and conditions of fishing licences. Further, provision is made for the reinstatement of polluted waters and the recovery of associated costs, as well as to improve the conservation and protection of fish stocks. Other measures include the facility to strengthen enforcement powers and increase penalties for fisheries offices and powers to recover the cost of prosecutions. There is also a means to increase controls over the appointment and activities of private river watchers.

I was grateful to have been briefed by the Minister's officials on the impact of this Bill. The Bill is long awaited, given the Loughs Agency's powers to regulate the shellfish sectors in the Foyle and Carlingford areas, through Westminster. Given the whole level of consultation and the fact that it had to be put on the backburner pending implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, it is good that matters are now being progressed. Perhaps it is regrettable that mussels, oysters etc. are excluded. This continues to be a contentious issue.

As for the regulation on the partnership approach to the effect there would be dialogue and consultation with fishermen, it is important to note that a degree of consultation makes a difference. It is also important to consult fishermen on both sides of the Border who might work together on the Bill. Obviously, people on both sides of the Border hold different opinions but they should co-operate in this regard.

It is good that the cross-Border agencies are beginning to become relevant. I met the board last week and noted its members' commitment to conservation, fish management, the development of aquaculture and added value for the State and the economy in terms of job creation. Given the high regard in which the brand of Ireland is held worldwide, the public health aspects of fish consumption and the worldwide demand for fish, there is a huge opportunity for the entire island of Ireland to develop aquaculture and increase the number of jobs in the shellfish and finned fish sectors. In particular, there is clear potential to develop both the wild and farmed salmon sectors.

Will the Minister clarify whether the Exchequer will allocate additional funding to this body for restocking? What other development moneys will be provided by the State in this regard? It is important to establish the body with a suitable level of funding. Heretofore, the funding devoted to inland and inshore fisheries within the State has been minimal. I am aware that Dr. Cawley is examining this issue, at the Minister's request. People are anxious to see the resultant report to discern the Minister's precise plans for inshore fisheries, inland fisheries and the development of cross-Border bodies.

Two of the new inland fisheries will have cross-Border dimensions. Having regard to the water basin district, two of the inland fisheries to be developed will straddle the Border. As an inland fishery body will also incorporate this aspect, the new review of inland fisheries could include consideration of the potential for cross-Border development.

In the context of developing the potential of Ireland's rivers and loughs, the opening up of the canal through Eniskillen has been a significant development. It has brought people from Carrick-on-Shannon in County Leitrim across the Border into County Fermanagh. Similarly, there is huge potential along the Foyle and Carlingford coastline, as well as for 12 miles out to sea. Deputy Keaveney will be aware of this potential and the significant impact it could have on the entire region.

I am sure the Minister will examine the regulation, because this matter is important. The issue of pollution and controls regarding oysters and mussels constitutes a major one. Undoubtedly, while the Department is aware of it, it has been restricted in what it could do in this regard.

Apart from the Minister's own contribution, having met the Department's senior civil servants on this issue, I compliment them on the amount of work done and the attention to detail shown on the Bill. It is comprehensive legislation, which is also passing through the Parliament in Westminster. As this empowering legislation is passing through both Legislatures together, it is important that it receive the same degree of recognition in Dáil Éireann.

There are concerns. The Bill refers to the negotiations between the Department and the UK authorities regarding the ownership of the seabed and the costs to be levied in this respect. This issue must be discussed. In particular, insufficient protection is offered to existing mussel farmers to reflect their investment to date in identifying good ground by trial and error. Some operators will have tried many sites within Lough Foyle and many will have lost seed mussels before finding good sites. Under these proposals, someone who sat back and watched others take losses while testing can apply for the good sites identified through the efforts and at the expense of others. While I am not an expert on mussel growing, this issue must be examined carefully.

Overall, the Bill pertains to co-operation, partnership and the level of funding from the State to the cross-Border body, as well as the commitment of the board. Mr. Anderson and his board should work with the inland fisheries authorities in this State, as many lessons can be learned from what has been done in aquaculture and how the salmon issue has been dealt with on the Foyle. It is important to learn the board's views on the draft licences which will be granted to remove surplus salmon. The question of how the Minister proposes to issue draft licences to remove surplus salmon and how the system will operate is highly contentious. Will he allow drift-netting within estuaries? This is also an issue in Northern Ireland.

How much of my time allocation remains?

See this speech in context