Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I extend a hearty céad míle fáilte to the Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries. I reflect on the historic nature of this day. I am sure it has not been lost on the Minister of State that he is representing the Republic of Ireland steering through legislation with a very strong North-Strong element to it in the aftermath of the events in the North yesterday. This debate has seen contributions from two esteemed Members of the House, Senators Maurice Hayes and Mansergh, both of whom, I am sure, have experienced great happiness and personal reward for their individual contributions to the peace process going back over 25 years. I am sure it is a source of great pride to be in this House today as we embark on a new era. This legislation reflects us embarking on a new phase of political co-operation on the island of Ireland, North and South.

I come from a maritime county, which sometimes surprises people. We do not have any mussels but I believe we have eels. As we have two and a half miles of Atlantic shoreline, I am sure I could have a dialogue with the Minister of State about the various forms of fishing species that are probably off the coast of Tullaghan. I even noticed that my remarks about Leitrim being a maritime county perked up the departmental officials who probably reckoned the Minister of State had not thought of that. We have always been proud of having the shortest shoreline in country because whenever issues regarding to fisheries arise I have received the jibe that I would not know about them coming from County Leitrim. Like many in our immediate vicinity, our county is renowned for our lake fisheries and our course fishing.

This legislation, coming as it does after developments of the past 24 hours, reflects a continuation of a history of co-operation particularly in Lough Foyle and to a lesser extent in the Carlingford Lough area, to which Senator Maurice Hayes referred, going back to the 1952 Act. I believe that following partition, that Act was probably the only manifestation of co-operation between the North and South authorities, primarily because of the geographical location of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough. As Senator Mansergh stated, in these loughs the partition line could not be defined. Even in the worst period of relations between North and South there was recognition by both authorities of a need to regulate the Lough Foyle area. We are now in a new era of co-operation.

Senator Maurice Hayes spoke about the true feelings of many in the DUP. There was a mindset that was reluctant to embrace the concept of North-South bodies. In the ongoing discussions on the Good Friday Agreement, my enduring image is of some on the Unionist side wanting to restrict not only the number of bodies to be agreed to, but also the scope of those bodies. However, I do not believe anybody disagreed with the need to have this particular legislation introduced. We have reached this point following those momentous events at the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.

A DUP delegation attended the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body plenary session held in Killarney last year, at which both Senators Maurice Hayes and Mansergh were present. That event was historic in its own way. I remember asking Peter Robinson about the perception that the DUP was opposed to extending or enlarging the North-South bodies. If memory serves me right, his response was largely positive in that, as Senator Maurice Hayes put it, he was quite satisfied to encourage and support North-South bodies that would have a practical dimension and where there was a real need to regulate on an all-island basis, but he was not prepared to go beyond that. However, that is a debate for another day. At least there was a positive element to it. On that day many of us present at the event felt we were on the verge of a significant political breakthrough, which fortunately has now come about.

I wish to ask about section 5 and amendments on the regulation of stock. Several Members on both sides of the House have referred to the responsibility now imposed on the new agency for the regulation of wild mussels, oyster fisheries, eels, all freshwater fish, salmon and other fish of a kind that migrates to and from the see as well as sea bass and tope. Given the concerns expressed and increasingly by consumers at what seems to be a reduction and certainly a restriction in the species of traditional fish we have been used to, particularly cod, to which Senator Kenneally referred, what steps will be taken to ensure they are conserved? I presume this section is concerned with the pirating of these fish stocks apart from the element of developing the aquaculture.

Who will be responsible for enforcement? Senator Mansergh conjured up images of an Irish naval ship operating in Carlingford Lough glaring across at a British naval ship in the same bay. Who will be responsible? Will it be a joint British-Irish operation under an EU flag or how will the enforcement element operate? It is not a matter of great significance as I am sure that sort of enforcement happens already. I have a feeling in answering my own question that the onus might be on the Irish side.

While I know it is not specifically in the scope of the Bill, is the Minister of State confident that fish stocks can be conserved and preserved, particularly those fish to which we have traditionally been used? I would hate to see a day when we could no longer purchase cod which has been a staple of all those of us who enjoy fish. I am glad that the salmon stocks will be regulated, as salmon is one of my favourite fish dishes. I am sure the Minister of State will take the opportunity to encourage as many people as possible to consume more fish. Like my colleagues, I commend the Bill to the House.