Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

The Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Bill 2006 is finally before the House. It has been like Lanigan's Ball. Instead of "He stepped out, I stepped in again" it has been "We will wait for the Executive — no, we will go on without it; we will wait for the Executive — no we will go on without it". The Bill has been long awaited in my area. I agree with Deputy Morgan's final point and feel this is only the start of the trouble.

I begin by declaring my interest — I live on the banks of the Foyle, one of the most beautiful places in the world. Seldom does any Bill going through the House have implications for only one Deputy, but I am she on this occasion. That is why I was very despondent, having waited for this legislation throughout my political career, to be given a mere ten minutes to speak on it today. I am glad that my time has now been increased.

I am less despondent than I was earlier this month when I was made aware that aquaculture was not what I thought it was, namely, all mussels and oysters, and that there were to be separate regimes for spat, under the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, DARD, and the laid product under the Loughs Agency. That represents a reinterpretation of the word "aquaculture", because I thought shellfish were fish — the clue is in the name. I was very annoyed that everything seemed to change. In a bottom culture shell fishery, definitions between aquaculture and wild fishery are difficult to understand and would be impractical and impossible to operate successfully under two different masters, in this case DARD and the Loughs Agency.

I should apologise to the Minister for the tough time I gave him, the Taoiseach, the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on this omission from, or reinterpretation of, the Good Friday Agreement. I will not annoy the Minister for the rest of this year.

See this speech in context