Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997

SECTION 2.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 26, to delete "Foyle Area" and substitute "Moville Area".

This is a purely technical amendment. The term "Foyle Area" describes the area within the jurisdiction of both the Republic and Northern Ireland. The "Moville Area", as defined in the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952, is the area within this State's jurisdiction. It is intended that aquaculture development within the Foyle area will be licensed and regulated by the Foyle Fisheries Commission as is the case with inland fisheries development. Legislation is now under preparation in both jurisdictions to facilitate this. This amendment simply clarifies that area which is covered by this Bill, the area within this State's jurisdiction.

Mr. M. Smith

We are dealing primarily with a jurisdictional matter. Will the type of regime which is contemplated in this Bill for the facilitation of aquaculture in general be in line with a similar development under the Foyle Fisheries (Amendment) Bill? In other words, will there be similar regimes or will there be differences which would lead to problems?

Mr. Gilmore

The intention is that the regimes will be similar. As Deputy Smith will appreciate, the legislation for the Foyle Fisheries Commission must be pursued in both jurisdictions but the intention is that the regulation of aquaculture will be similar to the provisions which are provided for in this Bill.

Mr. M. Smith

Is that legislation imminent?

Mr. Gilmore

The legislation is under preparation and the intention is to have it published later in the year.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. Smith

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) A research control area for sea trout shall be designated in the North West by the Minister as soon as may be before the commencement of this Act, and upon such designation the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such area.".

This arises from representations made to me by scientists who argue that the idea of a control area as a standard of comparison for checking the results of a survey is central to scientific examination. This has to do with the causes of the disastrous drop in the sea trout population. The task force on sea trout recognised in its deliberation the necessity for the provision of a control area and I make this proposal in that context. There are clearly differences of opinion as to how this can and should be achieved. This is only one way of trying to deal with it. The Bill, as amended, is designed to ensure that there can be satisfactory development of the aquaculture industry and at the same time to carefully manage the indigenous resources of inland fisheries, sea angling, etc. We are trying to find the best circumstances to accommodate these legitimate desires. This is one approach which could be considered.

Mr. Gilmore

I do not consider it appropriate to include this type of provision in primary legislation. As no doubt the Deputy will be aware, a control area was reserved in 1994 in the area north of Achill to Donegal Bay on foot of a recommendation of the sea trout task force to facilitate research into the sea trout problem. That control area remains in place but it will be subject to periodic review by the Marine Institute. It would not be appropriate or advisable to designate any specific area as a control area in perpetuity, although, for the foreseeable future and until sea trout stocks recover fully, there is clearly no question of the reservation of the control area being rescinded. In any event, section 62 of the Bill provides the opportunity for underpinning a control area reservation for whatever period is needed.

Mr. M. Smith

Is the existing regulation on the control area not open to change in respect of applications for fish farming licences in that control area?

Mr. Gilmore

There is a control area at present and there are no plans to rescind it. The control area can be given regulatory effect through section 62 of this Bill. My concern is not with the principle of the control area nor, indeed, with the existing control area, which has already been designated and which we have no plans to change, but with building the control area into the primary legislation because it may be necessary to have new control areas or make some changes to the existing control area depending on the recovery of sea trout stocks. As it stands, it would not be possible to obtain a licence for salmon farming within the control area and that will remain the case.

Mr. M. Smith

In terms of marine research how far advanced are we in obtaining the necessary information which we could draw from the experience since 1994? Do we have any specific, detailed information from the Marine Institute of the comparisons which can be made between that control area and other areas where fish farming licences have been granted and are in operation?

Mr. Gilmore

There is continuing research into the sea trout issue and the very dramatic decline in sea trout stocks in certain areas in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That research is being conducted through the Marine Institute. There is a sea trout working group made up of scientists drawn from the Marine Institute, the central fisheries boards and a number of groups, including academic interests. There is also a sea trout monitoring and advisory group which is chaired by Professor Emer Colleran, which reports to me quarterly on the progress made. There has been some recovery of sea trout stocks in some areas. There is clearly no cause for complacency in relation to the state of sea trout stocks and there is a long way to go in some areas before sea trout stocks are back to the levels at which they once were. The question of cause and effect is still a matter on which the scientists differ.

Mr. M. Smith

Is it not true that some scientific evidence is emerging that fish farming activities are not as significant a cause of the sea lice problem or the decline in the sea trout population as was first thought?

Mr. Gilmore

As I said, there are different views on this subject in the scientific community.

Mr. M. Smith

There always are.

Mr. Gilmore

I have seen reports from some scientific studies on different species of lice and so on. The approach we are taking on the issue is a precautionary one. In other words, we will take what measures are necessary, on a precautionary basis, to protect sea trout stocks and to rehabilitate stocks.

In addition to the research and the ongoing monitoring of sea trout recovery, there is a rehabilitation programme which is being funded through the tourism angling measure, for which in the region of £1 million has been earmarked. A great deal of that work is being done through the Salmon Research Agency, which is based in Newport.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister of State will more than likely agree that the survival of the sea trout has been a very contentious issue between freshwater anglers and the promoters of, and investors in, salmon farms. If the demise of the sea trout cannot be scientifically associated with the location of salmon farms in the vicinity of these estuaries, what other factor has the research thrown up as the likely cause of the sudden demise of sea trout and the very valuable sea trout angling tourism industry?

Mr. Gilmore

As I said, there is a considerable number of scientific views on this. Suggestions made range from pollution problems in the inland waterways, over grazing, afforestation, overfishing and the management of fisheries. It is fair to say, however, that all the scientists agree that salmon farming could be a contributory cause to the sea trout problem. That is what lies behind the precautionary principle we are adopting and the emphasis we are putting on controls at the point of licensing, the introduction of new treatments and the importance of fallowing, where there are not succeeding generations of stock on the same site. That provides for a better environmental and husbandry regime.

Mr. Molloy

Is it not true that in some of the areas which have suffered from the demise of the sea trout there has been no domestic pollution, no forestry activity and no extensive use of fertiliser by farmers because they are not intensive farming areas? The only new factor which people could identify in those areas was the salmon farms; hence, the tendency to blame the salmon farms without absolute scientific proof. The Whitaker report seemed to indicate that it saw a connection but it could not say it was absolutely scientifically proven.

Mr. Gilmore

One of the difficulties with this is the absence of a cause and effect relationship. As the Deputy rightly states, nobody has been able to state with absolute certainty that the presence of salmon farms is the cause of the collapse of the sea trout stocks. The Whitaker report, which examined the question in considerable detail, did not come down on that cause and effect relationship.

The Whitaker report set out a strategy for the coexistence of salmon farming with the recovery of sea trout stocks. The report has been the basis of the strategies which are being pursued through the Department, the Marine Institute, the fisheries boards, the sea trout monitoring and advisory group and all the other agencies and bodies which have been involved in this. The objective of that is, first, to halt the critical decline of sea trout stocks which was taking place in some fisheries and, second, to reverse that process and rehabilitate the stocks.

Mr. Molloy

My final question relates to the earlier discussion on the salmon task force and the change in the by-laws. Drift net fishermen on parts of the west coast, where they fish close to the shore in small boats, have been the victims of some of the measures which have been introduced to try to protect the sea trout; they have been pushed out into deeper waters where they are asked to put their lives at risk for the sake of catching a few salmon. In view of the lack of absolute scientific evidence, was it not a bit harsh to move the small boat drift net fishermen so far from the shore?

Chairman

I have invited the Minister to address the committee next week on that subject.

Mr. Hughes

I agree with the Minister of State's reply and the reasons he would prefer if a control area was not given statutory legal effect. I note his assurances that control areas will be maintained for as long as it is necessary to undertake and continue the scientific comparisons necessary to ensure that an area is free of aquaculture.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.