Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Bill. In general, I welcome it warmly. There are a number of issues to which I wish to refer and which have been brought to my attention by people from the constituencies of Donegal North-East and Louth.

I thank the civil servants involved for their extremely helpful briefing of spokespersons and forwarding additional material to Members, which was invaluable. I also thank the Minister. The two waterways concerned are among the most beautiful and interesting coastal waterways on this island. Obviously, the partition of the country in 1922 created the circumstances whereby such special administrative arrangements must be established for them in the Bill and in previous Acts from 1952 onwards. It is striking that Lough Foyle did not have an aquaculture licensing system because of some of the key jurisdictional issues involved. I broadly welcome the Bill.

Recently, while debating the Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Single Electricity Market) Bill, I was supportive of the development of the all-island energy market as an example of practical patriotism. This is another example of a concrete cross-Border measure that, in general terms, should bring economic and social benefits to citizens on both parts of the island, particularly in counties Donegal, Derry, Down and Louth.

The Bill follows through from the Good Friday Agreement and the establishment of the commission in 1999, as the Minister and Deputy Perry noted. I join other Members in wishing the chairperson, the commission and the Loughs Agency great success in the years ahead.

One of the major issues that arose during the introduction of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill was the complete dearth of consultation with local fishing coastal communities. I was interested to read a consultation document prepared by the Northern Ireland authorities on the eight-week period of consultation in Northern Ireland. However, it is a pity, as the Minister probably will agree, that the Assembly does not exist as a legislative body in Northern Ireland with an agreed government to have a full discussion, particularly involving local representatives from the Derry, Down and Armagh areas most affected.

The core objective of the Bill is to provide for the inland fisheries development function and the development and licensing of aquaculture in the Foyle and Carlingford loughs in agreement with the Northern Ireland government and in the context of the British-Irish Agreement.

Three concerns were raised with me as the most important, the first of which is the issue of the jurisdictional claims. Looking at the map with the civil servants a few days ago, we saw that the Border effectively runs through Lough Foyle and the channel in Carlingford Lough. Some of the local fishermen have asked me what is the impact of this in the context of the Crown Estate. When the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and his successors presumably negotiate fees for the different functions to be carried out by the commission, does that mean ultimately that we are recognising the Crown Estate and the Crown's claims to the seabed in the two loughs or have we gone past that following the British-Irish Agreement? What is the position? Many local people in Donegal feel it is invidious that we be engaged in a recognition of the British claim.

Second, there has been much local disquiet, in particular, about the oyster fishery. People who have had long-standing historic rights to the oyster fishery, which has been an important source of work and income, see themselves as excluded from the terms of this Bill. Likewise, people involved in the small mussel fishery — who have sowed seed and harvested for ten or 15 years and have identified the areas of the seabed where mussels grow best — feel that under this legislation anyone may apply to take advantage of their hard won experience over many decades, and of what one might call their research and development investment in their little fishery. I have heard people state that they have spent up to Stg£60,000 and put in considerable effort. They feel there is an exclusion here due to a narrow definition of aquaculture in the first part of the Bill.

There is a general feeling that there has not been sufficient discussion with our stakeholders on one of the most important areas of the Irish coast — the local Deputy, Deputy Keaveney, is seated just behind the Minister — and that all the fishing communities along the wonderful area around Greencastle have not been sufficiently consulted about the matter. There would be similar concerns on the Carlingford side. I note there is a local Deputy from that area present in the House also. Those would be the three areas to which I would like the Minister to respond if he gets an opportunity.

The lack of licensing regime in Lough Foyle has been a serious and worrying anomaly. It was my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, who, as Minister of State at the then Department of the Marine in the mid-1999s, introduced the fundamental licensing of aquaculture in this State and fish farmers throughout the rest of Ireland have had to live with that over the past decade. Of course a transparent and effective licensing regime in aquaculture is absolutely essential to ensure high standards of cleanliness, disease control, fish welfare, environmental impact and husbandry, and it has been a concern that this was not available in Lough Foyle. I hope that the reference in Part 6A of the Bill to the EU directive, particularly in the protection of the environment, is a matter that will be carried through.

A little before the present Minister's time, when Deputy Dermot Ahern was Minister, the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources undertook an in-depth look at aquaculture. At the time people spoke of the famous cover story in The Economist, "The Blue Revolution". With the worldwide development of aquaculture, allied to our grave concerns, highlighted in our discussion with the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, yesterday on the 2050 report, and our concerns about the wild fishery, aquaculture must be a way of the future. In that context I was deeply disappointed with the Minister's provision for aquaculture in the recent Estimates. He provided an increase of 3%, a cut in funding in real terms.

In general terms, the Bill is a welcome development, notwithstanding the caveats I outlined on aquaculture in Lough Foyle. It is obviously critical that aquaculture and other fishery resources in Lough Foyle and Lough Carlingford are exploited in the most responsible and most sustainable manner for the benefit of all of the residents of this country.

I note that Part 3 of the Bill refers primarily to the amendments to the 1952 Act and covers much territory we dealt with in discussions at the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and, indeed, in the sea fisheries legislation. We must bear in mind that this area encompasses quite a large territory in terms of sea-fisheries.

I note that in Part 3, section 15(42)(i), which deals with the penalties for pollution, the summary conviction does not exceed €5,000. That is a matter I was going to raise with the Minister in the context of amendments. Obviously, we can put forward amendments as soon as possible, but I realise they will involve the Minister in further discussions with his Northern Ireland counterpart.

In general, like Deputy Perry, I welcome Part 3, the section 7 amendment to section 13 of the 1952 Act which provides for photographs along with the rod licences. This is an important development on which the Department is to be congratulated.

How will the commission will be invigilated? Obviously, it is a cross-Border initiative under the British-Irish Agreement, but there was a reference already to the costs of the commission and the general policy directives it might be given. The FCILC has significant powers in the Bill, for example, as outlined in Part VIA and Part 3 — amendments to the 1952 Act — to grant and revoke licences, provide education and training etc., and extensive powers to appoint officers and to invigilate offences under the Act. It is important that all of those would be matters on which we would have the final say in the case of our citizens, in particular, and in general terms of all the people of this island.

Earlier today we approved the levies for the single stock management and for the development of the new regime for salmon which the Minister has accepted. He might refer in his final reply to how this will work with this Bill.

The other point I note is that with the current Dáil ending shortly, the Minister has included a slight amendment to the foreshore Act. Deputy Sargent must have raised that matter approximately 40 times since I have been a Member of the Dáil and, unfortunately, we still have not had that matter addressed.

In general terms, I commend the Minister on getting to this stage today and bringing forward the legislation. There has not been enough consultation. There are some concerns, particularly in the Donegal area, and I want him to address those before we finally pass the Bill.

See this speech in context