Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Oct 2001

Vol. 542 No. 1

Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Aquaculture Development.

Alan M. Dukes

Ceist:

1 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the basis on which grants were made by Bord Iascaigh Mhara or any other agency under the aegis of his Department for mussel seeding in Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly; the number of applicants who received grants for such activities; if applicants were directed to have regard to the location of oyster beds in the loughs; if not, the reason therefor; if either his Department or Bord Iascaigh Mhara has carried out an assessment of the effects of mussel seeding on the oyster fisheries in the loughs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21283/01]

Under the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, responsibility for the development and licensing of aquaculture in Lough Foyle was conferred on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, FCILC. The necessary legislation to enable the loughs agency of the FCILC to exercise its functions as regards aquaculture is being progressed by my Department in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland and respective legal advisers.

Pending the legislative framework for aquaculture in Lough Foyle, public funding has not been made available to support the development of commercial aquaculture operations. It is the case that in recent years Bord Iascaigh Mhara made grant payments to operators for exploratory bottom mussel trials throughout Lough Foyle to determine the mussel growing potential of the lough. A total of 19 co-operatives, enterprises or individuals received assistance for mussel trials. Three enterprises also received grant aid towards related equipment. The conditions attached to the BIM grant offers specified that grant payments did not confer any legal rights or title to the area. Offers of grant aid were made on condition that mussels were relaid on areas outside of proven oyster growing areas. In three cases where there was subsequently found to be marginal encroachment on oyster beds, no grant aid was paid to the fishermen concerned.

A joint evaluation by BIM and the loughs agency of the mussel seed trials concluded that overall the trials were successful and that encroachment on oyster grounds was not significant. Additional oyster surveys were carried out in 2000 and 2001 by the cross-Border aquaculture initiative team, established under the peace pro gramme, in association with the loughs agency and BIM. The reports on these surveys are being finalised.

Aquaculture projects in Lough Swilly are licensed by my Department under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997. There is a full public consultation process, including advertisement of proposals prior to decisions on licensing under the Act. To date, 12 grants have been paid by BIM to seven co-operatives, companies or individuals in respect of fully licensed sites in the lough. BIM is funding work on the development of the oyster fishery in Lough Swilly, including a detailed survey of native oyster beds.

Where did the Minister of State get his information? Why is it completely at variance with what I have been told in Lough Foyle? When will the reports in respect of the oyster surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001, which the Minister of State says have been finalised, be published? Will he answer the final part of my question, whether either his Department or BIM has conducted an assessment of the effects of mussel seeding on the oyster fisheries in the loughs? Is he not aware that Bord Iascaigh Mhara promised to conduct such a survey, that it appears to have been carried out but that the results have not been made available to any of the interested parties?

All the information I have given has been carefully sought and found by my departmental officials by whom I place great store. Much attention is being given to aquaculture and we are turning the corner in that regard. The views of all involved in the areas in question and who live on or near the loughs in question were canvassed or they were offered the consultation process. I am satisfied that any information given to the House is accurate.

On the last part of the question, BIM has conducted a survey which I believe is complete. There are strong connections between BIM and the people involved in the area. As regards oysters, I understand BIM has agreed to pay a substantial amount of money to ensure the native oysters are kept in place.

The Minister of State will forgive me when I say I am not interested in what he believes. I want to know the facts. Has a survey been conducted by BIM of the effects of mussel seeding on existing oyster beds in Lough Foyle? Is the Minister of State aware that sample trawls conducted in traditional oyster bed areas in Lough Foyle have revealed extensive encroachment on oyster beds by seeded mussels? Is he not aware that there is no evidence that any care was taken in seeding mussels with grant aid from BIM to avoid existing and well known oyster beds?

No, I do not accept that. What I say is fact.

The Minister of State is talking through his hat.

The Deputy should not get carried away. I know there was not extensive encroachment and that is a fact. I also know that some people involved did not succeed in drawing down grant aid from BIM because there were slight encroachments.

The Minister of State would want to visit the place to find out.

Barr
Roinn