Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

I might not be telling the truth. This reinterpretation was driven by DARD in the Six Counties but I cannot apologise for being protective of the area I love and the people I represent. I cannot apologise for saying that we have an important and unique resource in the Foyle that we wish to grow, manage and see generations work and earn a living from. I cannot apologise for fighting a corner to have the right legislation and not some touching of a cap to the symbolism of a North-South body. We are a real community, dealing with the real implications of having no legislation. Those implications would be even worse should a quick-fix piece of legislation be pushed through to satisfy deadlines or optics. I appreciate that the Government has listened to my comments and I applaud the interest engendered and the work done by officials and Ministers, which I hope will continue.

We are discussing a North-South body, but approximately 95% of the fishermen involved are from County Donegal. The proposal before the House needs the consent of both jurisdictions and I ask that all sides embrace the Attorney General's opinion that the Good Friday Agreement envisaged the Loughs Agency as a body for all fisheries, not just farmed aquaculture. The legislation should not be delayed further as those involved in delaying its passage will do fishing communities a disservice.

My constituents and I are attention seekers in this regard. We want the Government to be involved in our struggle to be heard and we want our opinion to be taken on board, not only at national level, but at every level, including in the Loughs Agency, which will gain the power to license fishing through the Bill. We want consultation and input on a regular basis, not just when a Bill is published, and a say in our future. We have fishing expertise because we are a coastal community. We know what it is to suffer quota cuts and increases in regulation, whether on the lough under the Loughs Agency or on the sea in terms of the large whitefish fishing community at Greencastle.

Any fisherman will accept that stock conservation is vital to the sustainability of the industry, which can only be the case if stocks are managed. Once amended, the Bill will aim to license all fisheries in the Foyle. No other area would have sustained a situation whereby the only licensing that took place since 1952 was in respect of salmon. Our fishermen feel aggrieved that we had a strong management system for salmon fishing in the form of the Foyle Fisheries Commission, subsequently the Loughs Agency, but we have succumbed to the same penalty as all other rivers that might not have paid the price down the years, as it were.

Feelings are understandably running high and it is difficult for people to get over their sense of deep mistrust. A speedy resolution to the issues of compensation and the community moneys promised would help and would tie into this legislation neatly. Being blunt, there is a feeling of "us and them" among the key stakeholders, whether they are salmon, oyster or mussel fishermen.

While there has always been an advisory committee to the commission, those who served on it told me that they were often held back from being too forceful for fear that they would not be awarded their licences in future. When I entered politics, I spent much time listening to complaints about the commission. Opinions given at advisory committee meetings were treated like token opinions. According to the people who matter, the fishermen, while the advisory committee was a good idea in principle, it was not as effective as it could or should have been. A proper consultation process that takes cognisance of and acts upon recommendations and input from key stakeholders would help to heal much of the mistrust.

Many years ago, the salmon drift net fishermen walked out of the committee and refused to return, but the only way forward in any issue is via communication. Recently, a new burden was placed on them. The Loughs Agency is examining the option of reducing the number of fishermen working on the river from 112 to 30.

Under the Good Friday Agreement, a new, wider-based advisory forum was created, but, like many organisations, it was considered a talking shop. The Loughs Agency seemed to railroad through its views. A fisherman to whom I spoke provided an interesting quote that applies to a Deputy sitting across from me. I will not name the fisherman who stated:

The present Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is politically appointed and knows very little about fishing. Andrew Ward, Arthur Morgan and Lord Glentoran are the only ones who would recognise a fish without chips alongside it.

Whether that is a fair reflection, I wanted to give the House a sense of the feeling on the ground.

In the interest of balance, I found a degree of unanimity within the advisory group when I met it recently. Its members are interested in and aware of the issue and are on the ball. Sometimes, people are not au fait with all the facts, but I commend Councillor Peter Savage and his team.

The fishermen I represent have received bad press. They want regulation and to know who is the regulator. Falling between two stools for a short period until issues are resolved is one matter, but 13 years is a long time to be without a stool. In particular, oyster fishermen have seen their combined catch drop from more than 400 tonnes per annum to less than 100 tonnes. Recently, the agency gave me statistics detailing that the oyster fishery's catch is between 50 tonnes and 100 tonnes, which is worth €200,000 to €400,000.

The desired legislation to regulate, conserve, protect and improve oyster fisheries was promised, but never delivered. The Bill must offer that opportunity. Indeed, many fishermen blame the lack of legislation for allowing the bonamia ostrea disease to enter the fishery, despite our excellent record of being disease-free. The lack of regulation is adversely affecting stocks. A report by Friel on the Foyle oyster and mussel fisheries in 1997 stated that oysters should not be fished before November and that new legislation is the "ideal opportunity" to develop the industry. In its absence, spating takes place in late August and fishing takes place in September. Legislation is needed to protect fishermen who want to conserve stocks and wait until later in the year. The fishery is all but fished out by November. This legislation must not fail in its basic aim of protecting the stock.

I commend the Government on its grant aid for boats and BIM for its work with fishermen, but there is no legislative back-up. The Bill will open many development opportunities for BIM and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Of the 75 boats in question, 60 are half-deckers and 15 are 40-metre dredgers. They employ approximately 200 people.

Between 10,000 tonnes and 15,000 tonnes of blue mussels are landed with an estimated value of €10 million. Approximately ten years ago, the landing at Moville was worth €1 million, which was a considerable amount at the time, and it was in this manner that we acquired the money to replace the collapsed pier. I welcome the fact that the catch has increased substantially due to investment in basic infrastructure, which was followed by investment in the Carrickarory pier. I also welcome the Minister's announcement of funding to continue the development of the Greencastle harbour.

A small, but important from the perspective of tradition, part of the industry is that of beach gatherers, who are not mentioned in any of the consultation documents. There has been a tradition of gathering winkles, seaweed and barnacles for the purposes of money and private consumption. Others ask about sand, namely, who owns it and regulates its removal. This reverts to the point made on the Crown estate.

The Foyle needs an overall development plan. The more aspects it embraces the better. I would go so far as to include the areas of marine leisure and recreation. Too many rivers, including the Swilly, to which Deputy Eamon Ryan referred, have had their potential ruined by a lack of co-ordination and proper planning. I do not want that to happen to the 188 sq. km. of the Foyle. While it will not be easy, a single co-ordinating unit provides hope. Like the Bill, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well.

Some site holders have spent time and money trying to establish which sites are suitable for mussel cultivation, but there is no provision in the Bill to recognise their pre-legislative investment in aquaculture. However, they have been supported by BIM. We must keep the door open for those interested in developing the fisheries and it would be unfair not to differentiate them vis-À-vis other licence applicants. Additional consideration should be given to those already in occupancy of sites when they apply for licences. However, I welcome the provision to vest ownership of aquaculture stocks in the licensees.

The Bill provides for the jurisdictional issue relating to the Foyle and, as the Minister and the Attorney General have stated, the first point of departure must be the definition of the lough. While aquacultural development has been undertaken in Carlingford Lough, with licences issued to promoters operating south of the navigational channel by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and those north of the channel by DARD, no such development has occurred in Lough Foyle due to the jurisdictional uncertainties. I query the status of the river bed in this respect. The Bill provides, for the first time, the opportunities to regulate and licence aquaculture in Lough Foyle and creates an offence for those interfering in licence areas in both Foyle and Carlingford.

There have been bad years when the "Foyle Fisheries Commission" were swear words in my community. Having walked the red beds with commission staff and seen many of the projects developed there, including the insertion of counters and stock conservation measures that others ignored, I commend the efforts being made by Derek Anderson and his team.

Some I know are still critical of the public consultation process in the North which had redefined aquaculture, blaming the Loughs Agency for that. Sometimes, however, it is wrongly blamed or is caught by legislation, such as the legislation on the drift net ban. We want real interaction, however, as this Bill is put into practice. When the new board is constituted in a year's time, the Minister should ensure that those from the fishing industry or from a fishing background will be appointed. Meanwhile I wish the old board well in what will be a challenging year.

Many people have said this will be a massive opportunity for the tourism industry. I am concerned, however, that it may become a tourism only event. Many in Donegal are worried that the highest bidders will get the licences. There must be respect for local people who have fished the Foyle and its tributaries for many years so they are not outbid or their applications considered less valuable than someone from Scandinavia. This is an opportunity to offer an added value product, linked to community support for drift net fishermen, to ensure conservation and development on the river.

One of the major polluters of the Foyle is Donegal County Council, which still lets raw sewage flow into it. Controversy exists about sewerage schemes but decisions must be made because the local authority is as liable to be fined as anyone else. Pollution cannot continue no matter who is responsible and the Minister should work with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure tertiary treatment works are put in place for the Moville-Greencastle sewerage scheme. The river must have the chance to recover and if that means putting the outfall pipe into the channel, which might cost more, it should be done.

People tell us that a wind farm would be lovely because the smolts could swim around, becoming a tourist attraction. We want our smolts to go where they need to go and not to be prey for other species.

I welcome the Bill's aim of defining the area of jurisdiction over the Foyle. I ask the Minister to examine how we are paying for the British Queen's corgis through the seabed issue. The Loughs Agency was held up for years as an example of North-South co-operation, something that annoyed my constituents who dealt with the body. This legislation was held up as a further example of North-South co-operation but had the limited definition of aquaculture remained, I could not have supported it. I trust it will now provide recognition for those who have invested in mussels and oysters to date while giving opportunities for new people who are serious about fishing.

Achieving consensus on a policing or licensing regime is always difficult and this will be no easier. Hard decisions will be necessary but they must be informed decisions. A single regulator for all aspects makes sense. If possible an overall development plan for the Foyle should now be embraced to give a clear, co-ordinated river map. We could then ensure a less hazardous future than has been the case in other regions.

See this speech in context