Brendan Kenneally (Fianna Fail)

I, too, welcome the Minister of State, Deputy John Browne, to the House. I also welcome the introduction of the Bill and hope it has a speedy passage through the House. People in the area have waited a long time for these provisions and it is hoped, now that they are about to be enacted, that it will spell a new era for aquaculture in this area.

It is appropriate in the week in which there appears to be a final settlement of differences in Northern Ireland that we should debate and, hopefully, approve a measure that has something to offer to the people in the two jurisdictions. I digress briefly to mention the significant events that have taken place in Northern Ireland this week. There have been many moments during what we euphemistically call the Troubles which have been described as historic, and the phrase has seen a certain amount of overuse in the past few years. However, watching the breakthrough yesterday, when a date for entering Government has at last been set between the two most extreme parties in Northern Ireland, we might be forgiven for once again using the term "historic". There is a feeling of confidence and achievement this week which is wholly justified, and I congratulate all of the parties that have brought about this ground-breaking agreement. That underlines the necessity to work together to prove that not only the two communities in Northern Ireland but also the two jurisdictions can co-operate for everyone's benefit.

Under the terms of the Bill, the Loughs Agency will regulate the fisheries of the Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough areas. This is one more agency to come under the jurisdiction of the North-South co-operation bodies established under the Good Friday Agreement and, at the risk of repeating myself, shows the potential for co-operation between the two jurisdictions.

Prior to that, Lough Foyle did not have an aquaculture licensing system because of the key jurisdictional issues involved but this measure will allow for what should be a strong and lucrative industry to be given a formal standing. We must face up to the fact that fish stocks have either declined significantly, as one part of the industry claims, or, in the case of cod, are moving much further north because of an increase in sea temperatures. Whether either or both of these arguments is correct, we know there is a shortage of fish at market and that the price has risen enormously. That provides a genuine business opportunity for those who wish to get into this area of endeavour and any boost to the economic fortunes of the communities in the vicinity of both of those bodies of water would be very welcome.

There are genuine business opportunities available, partly because of our growing demand for fish but also because over 80% of the seafood Americans consume is imported and at least 40% of those imports are farmed seafood. The Americans are expanding their fish farming operations but there is no reason we cannot look for a share of what is a growing market.

In parts of my own constituency there is a thriving shellfish industry and we should not deprive the Foyle and Carlingford people of the same opportunity to make a living from this kind of shellfish farming. All species should and must be provided for. Naturally, as with any food producing endeavour, that will be subject to regulation and control and the Bill provides for an aquaculture licensing system in the area. The loughs agency will provide these licences to those who abide by the terms defined in the Bill.

I trust that in setting up this joint agency, sufficient cognisance is being taken of the fact that it covers two jurisdictions. In this case, any amending legislation or expansion of the area of operations, or in dealing with any potential new problems as would arise from any new area of endeavour, will need the approval of the two jurisdictions, which may slow down to some extent the taking of any necessary decision and subsequent action, but with co-operation that should not prove to be of major concern.

The agency will be representative of both jurisdictions but I am conscious that we must get this right first time to avoid any unnecessary pressure or difficulties on the agency and on the industry in due course. Aquaculture in this jurisdiction has proved to be contentious and can pose a health risk for the consumer and a source of pollution in the area of production. It is essential, therefore, that there be a reasonable measure of control and a licensing system appears to be the most reliable way to operate that.

The Bill makes it an offence to pollute a river. I am not sure whether pollution can travel upstream but it is probably wise to provide for that at this stage. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that an environmental impact statement be sought and provided before a licence can be issued and that those who operate outside of the system be subject to the substantial fines and imprisonment as provided for in the Bill.

I am pleased that licences are being granted for substantial periods of between ten and 20 years. It is only proper that those who will be expected to invest large sums of money should have a reasonable time in which to recoup their expenditure and take a profit from their investment.

I am also in agreement with the provision which stipulates that there should be a restriction on the number of licences issued for commercial netting within the two areas. It has long been accepted that there is a limit to the available fish and it would be pointless to have a free for all, with none of the investors gaining a reasonable return on their investment.

Aquaculture licences granted in an estuary owned by another person can only be granted with the consent of the owner. In my own constituency there is ongoing litigation in regard to ownership and fishing rights in the estuary of the River Blackwater, though I feel strongly that, regardless of what inherited rights might allow, the waters of estuaries and foreshores should be in public ownership.

We know from previous experience that tradition and established custom and practice should be taken into account and, in this regard, there should be local consultation with fishing interests to decide the best way forward and to ensure that we do not diminish anyone's established rights or ability to make a living. It is essential that we be sensitive in the introduction of this measure and take cognisance of the established and traditional fishermen in the two areas. It is equally necessary that if we are disturbing people's livelihood in any way, we compensate them appropriately. This would hardly amount to much in view of the relatively small number of established fishermen, or women, involved. The point has been made previously that this measure, or at least the proposed regulation of the industry in both loughs, was discussed with the fishermen of Northern Ireland and I am anxious that our fishermen be treated in the same fashion.

I can understand the reservations of fishermen, who have been plying these waters for generations, regarding the prospect of their being subject to penalties and I again urge the Minister to ensure that no one is seriously discommoded in making a living on the loughs. Current fishermen enjoy rights built up over generations and I am anxious that these are not unnecessarily or arbitrarily curtailed in any way.

I also ask the Minister to ensure that those aquafarmers who have already invested heavily in the area are not put at risk by cowboys coming in for a quick buck, who are not particularly concerned for the environment and would not take sufficient precautions in their method of fishing and farming. There are very real dangers, particularly in aquaculture, that disease is introduced to the area and that people who have invested many years and a great deal of money into their particular venture see their investment put at risk because of unscrupulous operators. The Bill provides for what we might, in ordinary circumstances, consider to be significant fines but sometimes the stakes can be very high and, in some cases, these fines and penalties might not be seen as a sufficient deterrent. Provision should be made for an increase in the relevant fines, with discretion in the courts to respond to what might be a minor breach of the regulations while punishing the cowboy operator with a significant maximum.

For a variety of reasons, fish farming in this country has received a bad press, sometimes with good cause. With good husbanding, however, far from being a negative influence on the seabed and other marine life, shellfish farming in particular can be a source of renewal on the seabed and create a habitat for a huge variety of other marine plants and animals. A recent study in the United States has shown that biodiversity may be significantly increased by the presence of deep-water oyster farms. Experts have confirmed that oyster farms provide a habitat for diverse groupings of invertebrates with high abundance and biomass. One oyster string can provide a habitat for up to 3,000 individuals from as many as 80 different species.

Many of the world's natural marine fisheries no longer yield the benefits they once did, due mainly to overfishing. Governments across the world are responding to the fisheries crisis by reducing fishing efforts and protecting fisheries habitats. We have overseen a programme of fleet reduction in this country to try to conserve stocks and there is an onus on this generation, worldwide, to try to expand stocks again and restore the productive possibilities of the world's oceans. This will not necessarily happen in the loughs of Foyle and Carlingford, but there may be scope, in time, for a net contribution to wild stocks and there may well be advances in science of which these areas can avail to help restore and restock the oceans. It can legitimately be asked whether the advances in aquaculture which now enable juveniles of many species to be produced en masse can be applied to speed up recovery of some stocks, or increase the production of others.

There is a strong future in aquaculture and advances in science and in methods of release of juvenile stocks into the wild are happening all the time, particularly in northern Europe. The first and second international symposia on stock enhancement and sea ranching, in Norway in 1997 and Japan in 2002, were instrumental in highlighting the technology and approaches needed to release hatchery-reared juveniles in a responsible way. A third such symposium is on the way and the future of fish farming looks bright. There are difficulties in the industry and there is resistance in some areas to the practice, but we must wake up and recognise that fishing as we know it in western Europe is changing and, in some instances, almost dead. This Foyle and Carlingford initiative shows a way forward and I support it wholeheartedly.

We must examine the whole question of the ownership of the seabed and work out with our British counterparts a final and acceptable settlement in this regard. The most important element of the project is the possibility of economic progress for the communities of the Foyle and Carlingford area and, for that reason alone, this Bill must be supported and placed on the Statute Book at an early date.