John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)

I second Deputy Broughan's vote of sympathy on the loss of life of the people off the south-east coast. Our hearts are with them and I hope, in the not too distant future, there will be closure on this appalling tragedy that demonstrates the perils of the sea and the risks people have to take. It has been an extraordinarily difficult time for all the families concerned and we sincerely hope that the matter will be brought to a conclusion.

While it is recognised by all that this Bill is very important as it contributes to the Good Friday Agreement, we cannot ignore the fact that it also contains many flaws. As it stands it could cause problems for and divisions between stakeholders on the Foyle and Carlingford Lough. I was in north-east Donegal last weekend and the lack of concentration in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, as mentioned by Deputy Broughan, was brought to my attention. The study on which the implementation plan for this Bill is based has been cast in doubt by the stakeholders. Clearly adequate consultation would have prevented much difficulty.

One of the concerns expressed to me related to the level of driftnetting that will be allowed on Lough Foyle. The ban on the driftnetting of salmon is contentious in terms of the cutting back in the number of licences to 35. Will the Minister of State explain the position on the operation of driftnets on the Foyle? Although there are counters available, there is no quota system operating on the lough. People are concerned about the effects of the implementation plan on driftnetting on the Foyle.

Security of tenure for existing operators on the Foyle was brought to my attention. The Minister has accepted the advice of the Office of the Attorney General on the definition of "shellfish", for which I am thankful. However, he has given advice on several other areas that impinge directly on the future implementation of the Bill. What thoughts has the Minister of State given to this? The Bill refuses to recognise adequately the work and millions of euro invested by existing operators in aquaculture sites. They took risks to create sustainable jobs in an area of high unemployment and used their own money without assistance from any Government.

Deputy Keaveney raised issues concerning the mussel and oyster industries. Unfortunately I was not present for the committee hearing on the matter but I read its note on duplication in the area of licensing. This is also a very contentious issue. Neither the Government nor its predecessor would accede to the operators' request for licences for their aquaculture sites. It is not the operators fault they are deemed unlicensed. Had the two Governments applied the same logic to the Foyle as they did in Carlingford, licences would have been issued. The operators on Carlingford Lough will have their work and risk capital recognised but their colleagues on Lough Foyle will not.

Targeting social need is a declared objective of this Bill but, by not recognising the investment of the operators, over 100 jobs are being put at risk in an area with one of the highest unemployment levels in Ireland. Those who know most about developing a sustainable fishery are not being given a proper opportunity to continue their work.

Perhaps the Minister of State will refer to the suggestion by local fishermen based on the Wexford Harbour experience, as indicated by Deputy Broughan. Like Lough Foyle fishery, the one in Wexford developed over many years through a lot of hard work. There have been successes in many areas. When the Department proposed to introduce a licensing regime, the status quo regarding the existing sites was accepted. A time period and methodology were introduced to allow existing issues regarding site boundaries, area designation, etc., to be resolved. When this process was completed, legislation was introduced that accepted the status quo as a starting point and covered future plans for enhancing the sustainability of the resource. The Foyle situation is very similar to that in Wexford and the lessons learned from the Wexford experience should not be dismissed summarily.

The Minister has reassured fishermen that an appropriate weighting will be given to existing track records when applying for aquaculture licences for the Foyle. He pins his faith on the Loughs Agency taking his view on board, but does not enshrine these assurances in law. The Loughs Agency has great responsibility with regard to appointments to the board. It is equally important that there be sufficient accountability and that consultation takes place. There is much uncertainty regarding accountability and Deputy Keaveney is more aware than me of the uncertainty over public consultation on the salmon, mussel and oyster industries.

The success of aquaculture development on Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough was brought to my attention last week. It is dependent on access to sufficient seed mussel. At present neither lough has sufficient natural seed to sustain the industry and it must therefore must be obtained from sources outside the loughs. This is inequitable in that any UK-registered vessel can enter Irish waters to fish mussel seed but an Irish boat does not have similar rights. It can only gain access to Northern Irish waters and thus the system is open to abuse by UK operators. This issue ought to be discussed.

There is no Northern Ireland register of fishing vessels; rather, there is only a UK register. The United Kingdom's single register does not differentiate between Belfast, Liverpool, Cardiff or London as ports of registration. Thus, mussel dredgers and non-fishing vessels beneficially owned in Wales or England, can access seed mussel off Wexford, but Irish boats cannot access seed off Wales. Irish mussel dredgers have no reciprocal access to mussel seed in Welsh waters, where there is currently a vast untapped seed resource. There is no restriction on where the seed may be re-laid. This means UK-registered boats beneficially owned outside Northern Ireland could continue to harvest seed in the Republic and simply leave their native seed untouched for future use. Any UK-registered vessel can access a Belfast fishing identification number that allows that vessel to fish in the waters of the Republic. Does the Minister propose to revisit the inequitable voisinage agreement to secure an even playing field? Irish vessels should either have fully reciprocal rights to access UK seed or the Irish seed resource should be accessible to Irish beneficially-owned boats only.

See this speech in context