Seanad debates

Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Bill 2006: Second Stage.

 

6:00 pm

Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I do not pose as an expert on fishing but this is a most appropriate Bill in the circumstances of what happened yesterday. I remember the Northern Ireland (Foyle Fisheries) Act 1952 being passed, which was one of the first, if also one of the few, examples of cross-Border co-operation between the Unionist and Irish Governments. There was also an agreement on the Great Northern Railway and another on the drainage of Lough Erne.

The Foyle fisheries arrangement has stood the test of time and has proved itself in the management of this hugely valuable fishery and waterway over the years. It points the way in which North-South bodies can profitably work. The DUP has a suspicion of North-South bodies, especially if its members sense unification by stealth, but they are and will continue to be interested in practical measures to use and conserve resources and manage systems across the Border. The more such schemes can be progressed the better and this is an outstanding example. As the Order in Council has already been passed in the British Parliament it is clear we will have to accept the Bill as it stands but, in any case, I do not believe Members will rush to make amendments.

It is important to recognise the economic value of aquaculture and the Bill points the way forward in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. The Minister may want to leave himself more room in the definition of species of fish. Fish will change over years and if cod are migrating to colder water other fish, which find it too hot where they are, will come into our waters.

The Bill also opens up the possibility of developing aquaculture in both Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle. I agree with previous speakers that it is important to bear in mind the people of those areas and bring them along with whatever plans there are. The worst thing that could happen would be a North-South body being seen to enter an area with a big stick with which to beat people. That would not only be detrimental to fishing operations but to the very concept of North-South co-operation.

The world has moved on since 1952 and methods and regulations which were thought appropriate at that time are no longer considered acceptable. As Senator McHugh said, the way forward for policymakers nowadays is through discussion, consensus and by bringing people with them. I believe there is a great future for aquaculture in Ireland, partly to replace the stocks that are gone but also to build up a new and lucrative industry.

People involved in that might look at an area in south-west France which I know quite well. The people there live off oysters and mussels. Senator Kenneally might be interested to know that the founding father of the oyster industry there was a sailor from Waterford called Dalton, who was marooned on a rock off the French coast and discovered that it was better to grow these creatures on ropes than on the sea bed. The people in the area have co-operatised and developed the industry. They have tight controls.

Tight controls are required with regard to pollution because the industry can be destroyed by it. Pollution can be caused by other aquacultural activities, so they must be watched as well. These species are quite susceptible to viral attacks and attacks by predators so there must be regulation and a deep concern for the health of the operation. There must be control and thoughtful regulation.

This is a good Bill. It addresses a real need. It is important that we march side by side in legislative terms with the legislative provisions in Northern Ireland. It is also important and hugely symbolic that we take this opportunity to advance cross-Border activity in a way that is sensible economically and holds out the possibility of the development of profitable business for people on both sides of the Border. I commend the Bill.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.