I am concerned about the time that we have left. Quite a number of Members wish to contribute, so I suggest that they try to limit their contributions to five minutes. But that is only a guideline. I may have to be slightly stricter about the time limit after the first round of contributions.

I welcome the Committee's recommendations, and I would like to concentrate on the tourism industry, the potential of which must be realised.

Northern Ireland has a large tourism industry, and we have an abundance of stunning and environmentally significant sites. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) has made a commendable job of marketing certain areas of Northern Ireland, such as Fermanagh and the north Antrim coast. Those areas attract the lion's share of tourists and enjoy the financial benefits of that tourism. However, more recently, the Board has taken a blinkered approach to the development of tourism in other areas, such as Strangford Lough, where there is game and deep sea angling. Put-and-take fisheries dot the Strangford landscape, but there is a perception that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is either unwilling or unable to take the resolute action required to maximise the huge potential of such a tourist gold mine.

More than 120,000 visitors arrive in the Republic of Ireland each year with the specific goal of spending their holiday fishing, and that is worth tens of millions of pounds to the Republic's economy. However, there has been no real focus on developing the angling sector in Northern Ireland and realising its potential. Many of the anglers who visit the Republic are from Northern Ireland, and I believe that they go because, apart from Lough Erne, no area of Northern Ireland has been the subject of a NITB marketing campaign. As a direct result of that lack of interest, even people who live here are not fully aware of the opportunities in Northern Ireland. That potential can be realised, provided that the will and commitment is there. Only 8,000 fishing permits were issued last year in Northern Ireland. Why do we fare so badly compared with the Republic of Ireland? How can we raise the profile of fishing in Northern Ireland? That is the object of the recommendations.

We must have money from the Government and from Europe to restore and rehabilitate streams and rivers. There must be grants for work to extend the angling sector and incentives for those who wish to move into that sector. There are people who are willing to make things happen, a prime example being the Ards and Down Salmonid Enhancement Association project, representatives of which addressed the Committee. Members will forgive me for promoting that project, which could create 260 jobs and a turnover of £6 million, making it the biggest fishing project in the United Kingdom. That is the kind of project that is waiting to be realised, provided that the tourist board and others grasp the nettle.

It is essential that plans, targets and timescales be put in place and enforced. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has shown that it is more than capable of marketing Northern Ireland as a tourist destination. If the board really wants to, it can make a success story of angling in the Province. We have the raw materials, the locations and the people to make it work.

In the past, the tourist board has not delivered on the issue, but I am sure that our goal is attainable. It is time for that potential to be realised. Customers are knocking at our door, looking for exciting fishing locations. We could all benefit from the energetic promotion of the sector by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the creation of spin-off jobs in restaurants, cafes, boat rentals, bed and breakfast accommodation and hotels. With total commitment from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, we can make angling in Northern Ireland a success story and bring benefits to everyone.

I am delighted and privileged to have been part of this critical inquiry. For years, fishermen and the angling fraternity have faced very serious problems. As a result of this inquiry nothing less than a root-and-branch overhaul is required, and required now.

Water pollution was the most important concern of the submissions made. On pages 36 and 37 of the report of 22 February 2001 it is quite clearly shown that 80% of people coming to our inquiry said that quality of water was, in every aspect, the biggest problem. We, as a Committee and now through the Assembly, therefore have a bounden duty to rectify the wrongs of many years.

I am delighted to see the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure present. I know that he will be as determined as the rest of us to put this report into action at an early date.

Water pollution comes about by various means. Perhaps the most common reason is plain and simple carelessness, or thoughtlessness, by some people. There are also instances of chemical pollution from industrial discharges and organic pollution from agricultural and sewerage sources. Undoubtedly pollution of our waterways by sewage provoked the most strongly worded comments from those who gave oral and written submissions. They mentioned the frequency of sewage incidents, lack of policing, the inability or unwillingness to find culprits and prosecute, and the unpleasant visual impact of raw sewage floating around in our waters. A further bone of contention was the low penalties for polluters. The Crown immunity from prosecution for sewage pollution was a thorn in the flesh of many people.

Changes have simply got to be made. In many cases the Department for Regional Development - the Water Service - has got off scot-free, despite being responsible for very serious sewage spills. That is wrong. Every polluter, whether big or small, must be punished.

It is not only our waterways that stink. Management, over the years, has a lot to answer for. The Committee, when listening to those people who made oral submissions, had enormous sympathy with their plight in relation to reducing the incidence of pollution and getting those responsible into court and sufficiently punished for their crimes. Sympathy must go to the bailiffs, who did not, on many occasions, get the support they deserved. One can only imagine the anger and frustration of the fishing and angling fraternity after working hard to provide a good, healthy stock of fish species, only to discover the whole lot wiped out in a single incident of careless pollution. The polluter, if found, will receive little or no punishment.

We have a duty to rectify this anomaly without delay. The Committee has put forward 11 recommendations to eradicate water pollution. They can be found on pages 16 and 17 of the report. Many are plain common sense. One or two will take courage and determination by the Assembly, but the Committee will insist that they be carried out. As a Committee member, I was astounded at what was allowed to go on for years. We have the first opportunity for 30 years to put things right. We cannot - we will not - negate our responsibilities. Let our rivers, lakes, loughs - all our waterways - be the best in Europe. The Chairman of the Committee has charted the way forward through this report. I hope Members of the Assembly will support it today.

The first thing I want to do is congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Eamon ONeill, for the manner in which he chaired the sessions. Many of them were lengthy and tiring, and he showed tremendous stamina. His attitude never changed; he was a very patient individual and always displayed that sense of humour that people in Northern Ireland are noted for.

I also want to thank the past and present Committee Clerks and their staff, as they were always accommodating, and their work was tremendous. I would also like to mention and thank my old friend and colleague Mr Jim Wilson for his input - I think we all realise just how fishy a character Jim really is.

As someone who is not interested in angling - it would not be my sport - I was fascinated by some of the things we learned. When we looked at some of the evidence all of the ingredients for a James Bond movie were there. There were threats and intimidation; we had reports of people diving into other people's filing cabinets to nick files. All of this was going on, and it made the Committee sessions absolutely fascinating and interesting. It was worthwhile, but it was good fun too.

The serious side is that there are many things wrong with the angling industry, and they need to be addressed. This is a positive attempt to resolve many of those difficulties. As someone who is anti-Belfast Agreement I have to say that the work of this Committee embraced all the good aspects of those who are pro-devolution. If all things were equal and working well within the Assembly, that is the sort of thing we would expect. This is an excellent report; the Committee worked well and produced a report that needs to be acted upon.

I know that others will discuss things such as the hydro-electric schemes. That fascinated me, but I do not want to steal someone else's thunder. That is where much of the corruption seemed to exist, and I was interested in some of the names mentioned, because I knew them from the construction industry. When I heard a particular person being mentioned as someone who was corrupt and taking the wee brown envelopes - I have not mentioned his name, Madam Deputy Speaker - I said that I knew him from another era and could believe it.

In the time I have left I would like to raise the issue of pollution. We are told that pollution comes from many sources, those quoted being agriculture and sewage. One of the new words we learned in the Committee - and I have to keep saying it to remember it - is eutrophication. That is a new word for Members, and I am still not too sure what it means, but it is a sort of a scum that appears on places like the Six Mile Water after Jim Wilson fishes it. We have all these problems with pollution, and I hope that the recommendations deal with them.

One of the simple things that could be implemented would be for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to offer free soil testing to farmers with free advice following the sample results. A farming colleague of mine here in the Province advised me of this. Other schemes would be useful, but this measure would be simple and easy to administer. I am told that it would be cost effective in the long run. There would also be a place for a voluntary management and enhancement scheme in high-risk areas with proper levels of subsidy being paid. In the long term everyone would benefit. Phosphate fertiliser is an expensive commodity, but if farmers could cut their usage without yield penalties, they would gain financially. This is a win-win situation that will be achieved only by an approach that offers incentives and does not impose penalties. Finally, I welcome the recommendation that the Department should carry out a study into the removal of crown immunity when other Government Departments cause pollution.

My time is up, but I want to make a couple of points on physical habitat. Before new training schemes commence, an environmental impact study should be carried out so that cognisance can be taken of fishery requirements. It has long been recognised that many drainage schemes have created poor physical habitat. There is a need to embrace and promote the concept of river corridors by ensuring that fishery interests are consulted in the planning process. In this way, physical obstacles to fish migration, such as weirs and artificial sluice gates, will be properly assessed.

This is a comprehensive report and one that I am pleased and proud to have been associated with. I commend it to the Assembly.

In supporting the motion, I register my satisfaction that we in this locally elected Assembly are dealing with an issue of importance to local people, the local environment and the local economy. It has been often said that the measure of the Assembly's ability will be in how we address the so-called bread-and-butter issues. I am pleased that this afternoon we are addressing one of those bread-and-butter issues in a positive manner. The level of cross-party agreement shows that consensus politics can work in Northern Ireland. The primary benefit of devolution - of accountable democracy - is that we can effect change in Northern Ireland. The Committee system, which allows the views of experts and other interested parties to be fed into our considerations, will help that change to be informed.

As with all other members of the Committee, I have an interest in the report as a whole. However, given the time limitations, I will concentrate primarily on the area which has interested me most in our deliberations - biodiversity. Anyone with an interest in the environment has an interest in biodiversity, and more than one third of the groups and individuals who made submissions to us specifically addressed the topic. In writing our report, we distilled 34 issues into seven broad themes. "Biodiversity and fish predators" is one of those seven themes and accounts for 11 of our 67 recommendations.

The term "biodiversity" is often misunderstood. Simply because it includes the word "diversity" it is often taken to mean a process whereby the countryside is opened up to every possible pursuit and our rivers filled with every kind of fish and aquatic biota. Nothing could be further from the truth. Biodiversity is not about turning the countryside into a Garden of Eden theme park. Rather, it is about conserving what we already have. It is about ensuring that our natural habitat and our long-introduced species, whether flora or fauna, survive in abundance for the enjoyment of future generations.

There is nothing more alien to biodiversity than filling our loughs with bucketloads of zebra mussels. Indeed, one of our recommendations is that full support be given to current initiatives to limit their spread. My Colleague, Jim Wilson, has been assiduous in tackling the problems caused by zebra mussels, which upset the natural balance of our inland waters. The knock-on effect on long-established species has the potential to be devastating. I trust that if current initiatives to limit their spread prove unsatisfactory the Minister will consider other initiatives. It should always be remembered that once a species has been introduced, it is more or less impossible to remove.

We make a number of recommendations with regard to fish populations and the need to protect, or enhance, their habitats. In terms of biodiversity, the most important fish to Northern Ireland are undoubtedly the Lough Melvin brown trout and the Lough Neagh and Lough Erne pollan.

It is essential that action be taken to improve the habitats of these populations. Atlantic salmon is also considered to be of biodiversity interest. Northern Ireland is a renowned destination for overseas anglers. We have good fishing and a good reputation for unspoilt waters. However, we should remember that, compared with the inland fisheries of continental Europe and Great Britain, we are relatively species poor. This means, of course, that the introduction of new species can have a relatively larger negative impact on habitats.

This was highlighted by the argument surrounding the Minister's decision to allow the introduction of carp for angling. Understandably, there was a considerable level of concern among the local angling community about this decision. Anglers were worried that the carp would have a damaging impact on those species that we think of as indigenous. I was one of a number of members who tabled questions on that issue.

In endorsing the recommendations of our report on the introduction of new fish species, I commend the Minister for weighing his decision with safeguards in line with the recommendations - for example, only allowing carp into lakes which have no fishery value or a very low fishery value; adequate screening to prevent escapes; and each new request for introduction to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I am pleased by the Minister's assurance that all fish will be checked to ensure that they come from disease-free stock.

May I start by saying that prior to the inland fisheries inquiry my knowledge of fishing was limited, but I can put my hand on my heart and say that that is certainly not the case now. For several months the Committee has assessed written submissions and has listened to oral presentations from a variety of organisations across Northern Ireland. I can now say that I have an extensive knowledge of the concerns and issues faced by our anglers throughout the island of Ireland.

I would like to comment on hydroelectric schemes. I will explain briefly how a typical hydroelectric scheme works. First, the natural river flows into a weir, where the water is extracted. The water goes through a turbine at which a volume of water falls approximately 12 feet. It then turns a rotor that makes the turbines drive a generator or an alternator to provide power.

Submissions from angling groups expressed fears that extracting too much water from our rivers to power these turbines would prevent fish from moving upstream and downstream. It would also prevent them from spawning. If the fish did make it upstream, on their return the turbine blades would kill juvenile and spent fish. A turbine operator who gave a presentation to the Committee argued that the installation of smolt screens would deter smolts from entering the turbine blades. He also maintained that returning salmon were denied access to the turbines, running rotors, by the use of electric fish barriers.

The Committee found that while hydroelectric schemes are to be welcomed on renewable energy grounds, they can have a serious negative effect on migratory fish and they can lead to direct mortality because fish pass through the turbine blades. Operators could extract up to 80% of the water of a river, and this would have a clear impact on the ecosystem and fish life. In dry periods there is evidence of up to 100% abstraction, which does not bear thinking about.

Our report highlighted several recommendations. Legislation must be introduced to ensure that abstraction is controlled so that the main river always has a residual flow sufficient to ensure the unimpeded movement of migratory fish both upstream and downstream. Abstraction based on agreed rates of flow should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Every abstraction point should have a flow meter controlling the amount of water abstracted. Levels should be set at a minimum of 50% of the river flow over weirs and at all water heights. Amendments to legislation aimed at preventing fish from getting into abstraction systems whether for potable water, hydroelectric or fish farm purposes, should follow the best aspects of equivalent legislation elsewhere.

Where damage to fish occurs, hydroelectric operators must be required by law to contribute to restoration programmes. Recommendation 37 in the report states

Moreover, the issue of exemptions to hydroelectric operators and fish farms must be carefully monitored and exemptions should be issued through any new fish bodies established.

Any identified significant impacts of existing hydroelectric schemes on fish passage and mortality should be addressed and mitigated as a matter of high priority. Random inspections should be carried out, with severe penalties for non-compliance. Any proposals for new electric schemes should be required to undergo a thorough and independent environmental impact assessment, prior to any approvals being granted. It is imperative that the impact of schemes on fish populations be assessed as a matter of urgency.

I compliment the Chairman of the Committee and the staff who worked tirelessly to help the Committee compile the report. As a Member for West Tyrone, and a native of Strabane, I will quote from a submission of June 2000 that referred to angling tourism:

We need to look at that and develop it here.

I support the motion.

I also support the motion.

At the outset, I join others in paying tribute to the efforts of the Committee and support staff for their outstanding and sterling endeavours in getting the report to this stage.

It is just over a year since the inquiry was announced, and I never thought that the issue would generate the level of interest shown. With 76 written and 32 oral submissions, I assure the House that every aspect of inland fishing has been fully explored and scrutinised. Once we scratched below the surface, it was plain that, from an early stage, we were dealing with an issue of immense passion. That was clearly conveyed time and time again during evidence sessions.

However, that is all in the past. We have identified a section of the Northern Irish economy that includes leisure and tourism that is in serious decline, a decline that must be arrested immediately. To that end, the inquiry has come up with 67 key recommendations. I appeal to the various Departments with responsibility for work to begin immediately in preparation for the implementation of those recommendations if we are serious about reclaiming lost ground.

During the inquiry, seven themes cropped up time and again as the evidence was gathered. I want to comment on biodiversity and its associated problems with inland fishing. I draw Members' attention to a couple of recommendations.

First, the potential impact of salmon farming on natural wild salmon and sea trout populations, with regard to escapees and the spread of parasites - notably sea lice - is a matter of serious concern. The maintenance and enhancement of wild salmon and sea trout populations should take preference over the expansion of salmon farming operations. It is interesting to note that 34% of written submissions specifically wanted to see that matter addressed.

One example, recently highlighted in the press, was a report on the effect of sea lice on sea trout stocks that linked infestations with salmon aquaculture and farming. That particular report revealed that sea trout stocks have continued to decline with the development of aquaculture in all the major bays in the western seaboard.

Between 1974 and 1999, while tonnage of farmed salmon appeared to have rocketed, the number of trout caught by anglers at one location had dropped from 12,000 to fewer than 2,000.

The most important fish population in Northern Ireland for biodiversity has already been mentioned - the brown trout. Brown trout populate Lough Melvin, as do the sonaghan and gillaroo trout. Pollan inhabit Lough Neagh and Lough Erne.

Having studied the report and the detail of the submissions I share the view that there are concerns about the water quality status at all three locations. In addition to the concerns about the Arctic charr at Lough Melvin and Ballyarton, it is imperative that consideration be given to recommendations three to eight immediately in order to protect the natural stocks of our native species as well as the salmon and sea trout.

Attention should be paid in particular to recommendation seven that deals with the introduction of new species. There is no doubt that requests to introduce new species to Northern Ireland should continue to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and movement restrictions should be strictly adhered to. New fish species should never be permitted in open or closed waters where there is a significant risk of escape. The introduction of new species in fish farming should be resisted.

The other recommendations deal with two areas of biodiversity that are dealt with extensively in the submissions. The problem with zebra mussels is unpredictable. They can cause damage when they are introduced as they have an impact on native species and other aspects of the freshwater environment. Full support should be given to the current initiatives to limit the spread of zebra mussels and aqua-biota that might impact on the freshwater habitat or biodiversity of inland waters.

Cormorants are still a problem. Not surprisingly, this complex issue was raised in 28% of submissions, so there is a fair level of concern about it. Various reports and studies over a period of years have looked at different ways of managing and controlling the damage these birds do to inland fisheries. However, none of the management issues listed in the report are feasible for fisheries that operate by naturally reproducing fish populations in natural habitats.

Studies of similar problems in other northern European countries should be researched, and, in line with recommendations 10 and 11, where best practice can be identified elsewhere it should be implemented in consultation with the Environment and Heritage Service as a matter of priority to reduce the problem.

The inquiry has adhered to its terms of reference well and has taken into account the need to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance biodiversity. The inquiry also considered the need to maximise the economic, social and recreational benefits derived from salmon and freshwater fisheries and the need for the management of fisheries to be on a fully sustainable basis.

I support the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and I welcome the report. I congratulate the Committee on producing a comprehensive report, comprising five volumes and containing 67 recommendations. The recommendations were based on the evidence given by the fishing fraternity, angling clubs, individuals, farmers, business people, the Government and statutory agencies.

If we did not already know how serious the situation had become for inland fisheries then this report should alert us to the state of the rivers and lakes, the quality of the water, the decline in fishing stock and the diminishing angling-tourism industry. The evidence given during the enquiry is alarming. Our rivers have been destroyed and, as the report states, the destruction can be attributed to man's abuse and neglect of the environment.

Those of us who watched the recent BBC television programme, by Julian Pettifer, were shocked about the effect fish farming is having on wild salmon stocks. The programme painted a picture of collusion, greed, vested interests and attempts to prevent the public from receiving information on the depletion of stock and other serious environmental concerns. The practices of some inland trout farms have implications for public health. We need to know the precise nature of such concerns.

Fish farming was an issue that occurred in 34% of submissions, and, according to the report, some strong views were expressed about the impact of discharges on water quality.

Most concerns ranged around the process of water abstraction and the potential for the entrapment of young salmonids. The current legislation to prevent such entrapment is inefficient, and recommendation 35 of the report highlighted a number of ways of addressing that serious problem. The suggestions included flow meters to control the amount of water abstracted and the setting of levels at a minimum of 50% of the river flow over weirs and at all water heights. It is particularly important that the Minister should take steps to introduce legislative amendments on these issues to ensure that we follow the best aspects of legislation elsewhere.

I pay tribute to all those involved in the inquiry: the Clerks to the Committee, the Chairperson and the other members. I include the Deputy Chairperson, my party colleague, who I know worked hard on the report, even if others refuse to acknowledge it. I support the motion.

I speak on behalf of the North Atlantic salmon. As a Committee, we were gravely concerned to discover that Northern Ireland's fish population had declined so dramatically in recent years. As the Chairperson and others have said, it was brought home to us that the Atlantic salmon in particular is in danger of becoming extinct unless urgent action is taken.

As a boy I was brought throughout the Highlands and Islands of Scotland by my grandfather, and I was introduced to the Gaelic language that is so much part of the Presbyterian tradition there. There I first heard the beautiful poem 'Song of Summer', published by Alexander Macdonald in 1751. In its original form it is one of the most beautiful poems written in Gaelic. In English it reads

That is the fish that the ancient Irish thought was the source of knowledge, wisdom and power. Man, however, has changed the very nature of the salmon. Those that are raised in hatcheries have more aggressive feeding habits. They spend most of their time at the water surface looking for food, unlike the wild salmon that spend most of the time under cover in deep water. As a result, escaped hatchery-raised salmon consume most of the food that the wild salmon need to live, and, at the same time, this aggressive feeding makes hatchery salmon more vulnerable to predators because they are near to the surface. Hatchery salmon usually has less genetic diversity than wild salmon. That leads to lower resistance to disease and other environmental hazards, so that they are easily infected with fish lice.

The Atlantic salmon is unique because, unlike the various species of Pacific salmon, it does not die after its first spawning, but returns year after year to its breeding places with a remarkably specific migratory instinct.

I have fished in the Puget Sound in the North Pacific Ocean with one of the finest local fishermen, George McShane, who is of Irish descent, though he does not hold a candle to Jim Wilson. One of the greatest sadnesses of his life, and that of the Indian tribal chief Douglas Luna, is that less than 2% of the wild salmon population of the Columbia river basin - including parts of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and British Columbia - remains. Only one individual sockeye salmon returned to the Snake River in Idaho in 1994. Coho salmon has been declared extinct in the Snake River by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as have 106 other salmon populations across the West Coast of America.

We must not allow that to happen in Northern Ireland. Our inquiry has identified commercial netting as a major contributor to the decline of the salmon population in Northern Ireland's rivers. The River Bush salmon project makes an outstanding contribution to research and the management of salmon stocks, and its continuation is a matter of priority. However, it remains important that angling interests are given due consideration when managing and marketing the River Bush.

The recommendations arising from our inquiry into North Atlantic salmon are as follows: salmon net fisheries should be closed by buy-outs, and the Government should accept responsibility for initial capital investment; salmon conservation measures, including catch-and-release rules and bag limits should be considered for implementation, particularly for spring run fish; the salmon carcass tagging scheme should be implemented as a significant tool in the interests of conservation and the fight against poaching. In addition, the River Bush salmon project should be examined in relation to the management of salmon stocks and the impact of the Bush salmon and other indigenous brood stock; stocking programmes should only be implemented with the appropriate habitat assessment; and restoration, when it is necessary, should always use indigenous livestock.

I hope that the decline in the salmon population will unite environmentalists and fishers with industries which extract natural resources to reach a compromise that will save the wild salmon populations and the fishing industries that depend on the species' continued health. Our inquiry has given us the knowledge that the salmon represents in ancient Irish lore. I hope that we will find the wisdom to implement it.

I congratulate the Committee on its report to the Assembly. It has performed a great service to the subject of debate, inland fisheries, and highlighted the appalling state of some of our rivers and the sewage pollution which exists in certain areas. The report makes disturbing reading for anyone, because it relates to problems which affect the quality of life of many people throughout Northern Ireland. The issue also affects the quality of the service and the environment that we can offer tourists. That could have a very disturbing effect on our local economy, and particularly the economy of rural areas.

As Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee, I find the extent of sewage pollution within Northern Ireland most disturbing. I have often highlighted the poor state of Northern Ireland's water and sewerage infrastructure, as have my Committee colleagues. For at least three decades, the water and sewerage systems have been starved of proper funding. If we had had proper funding of these services, this might not have been such a disturbing report. For that reason I support this report's proper criticisms of Northern Ireland's Government Departments and, in particular, the Water Service - I am sure that my Committee colleagues share this opinion.

Whether or not we have proper infrastructure, there needs to be better policing by the Departments involved. They need to be more conscious of the problem of sewage pollution and the effect this has on our waterways and the tourist industry. It is important that Government Departments, particularly the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, do their duty and deal with the problem of pollution.

European measures go some way towards dealing with the problem of treating water and waste water. I hope the Department for Regional Development can fully implement the relevant directive, which should be a top priority. If the Department does not act proactively we will be unable to stem the problem that affects our inland rivers and waterways.

As Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee, I will continue to support the demand for further investment in our water and sewerage infrastructure. The Assembly should press the Executive to accelerate their programme of renewal through the Programme for Government.

I welcome the inquiry into inland fisheries in Northern Ireland and congratulate the Committee on this excellent report. Some Members may wonder what relevance an inquiry into fishing has to our situation in Northern Ireland. First, this report clearly shows an urgent need for the people of Northern Ireland to have control over their own environment. Secondly, it shows that Government Departments should be accountable for their actions. Thirdly, it shows that civil servants need local direction, something that has been lacking for the past 30 years, much to the detriment of all our lives here.

In the report's executive summary one sentence says it all:

This excellent report must not languish on a shelf or in somebody's cupboard, or be relegated to the long finger. It must be given an immediate timetable. The Departments directly concerned must work out a combined strategy, decide priorities and produce a programme that will show results. The summary of recommendations gives the Departments a working framework, and I urge that that work commence as soon as possible.

Of the 11 recommendations in the section dealing with pollution, nine are the direct responsibility of the Department of the Environment. They include the implementation of the European Water Framework and planning permission; I will not expand on those issues. What would we do without our weather? Not many people know that if we did not have a good wind blowing over Lough Neagh to disturb, aerate and oxygenate the water, it would become a polluted pond.

I want to touch on two issues concerning my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone - zebra mussels and the Ballyshannon hydroelectric scheme. I have spoken in this Chamber before about zebra mussels. This is an infestation from outside our jurisdiction which the Department of Agriculture knew about; it knew where the infestation was emanating from. What did the Department do? It put a few leaflets and pamphlets in some guest houses and hotels. Who cared that boats and cruisers sailed in from the Shannon with zebra mussels clinging to the bottom of those boats and to their buoys and ropes? Was even one of the cruisers travelling from the Shannon system inspected? If not, why not?

I can draw a comparison with the present foot-and- mouth disease. The Republic of Ireland took immediate action against the disease on the land frontier. What happened in Northern Ireland? Did the Department of Agriculture take precautions on the roads? No. All traffic entering the Republic is disinfected at checkpoints. When coming back to Northern Ireland, there are no precautions. That is what happens with us - we do not look after ourselves. We must protect our environment.

The hydroelectric scheme at Ballyshannon in Donegal is a monument of folly. It was a memorial to the destruction of game fishing in Lough Erne. That same hydroelectric scheme has probably caused the demise of the common scoter from Lower Lough Erne. The Erne problems caused by the Ballyshannon hydroelectric scheme have been known for years. But what was ever done to address them?

I recommend that these two problems be immediately put on the agenda for a North/South meeting, and I look forward to a speedy implementation of the solution to them in my constituency. I look forward to the Ministers concerned giving their support to the recommendations for actions which fall within their Departments' remits.

If the recommendations of this report are implemented quickly, I look forward to the return of leaping salmon in Lough Erne; hands not bloodied from zebra-mussel-covered buoy ropes; and islands and shorelines of the lower and upper Loughs Erne not fringed with pea-green algae. I look forward in the knowledge that Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly can ensure that appropriate and immediate actions will produce the desired results.

I support the motion.

First, let me make it clear that I welcome this report on inland fisheries and thank the members of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee for the work they have done in filtering out the key issues from 76 written submissions and 32 oral presentations.

However, I want to state in the strongest possible terms that I have great disquiet about the credence which the Committee has given, perhaps unwittingly, to the comments of a few individuals during the process of taking evidence. I will return to that.

I will now deal with the substance of the report. Leaving aside the comments I have just made, there can be no doubt that the significant number of organisations and individuals who took the trouble to submit evidence to the Committee reflects a widespread interest in inland fisheries. The number and diversity of issues raised reflect the fact that we are dealing with a dynamic subject with many different facets which pose many challenges for fishery managers and policy makers.

With regard to the Department's overall response to the report, the key issues raised are largely what we had anticipated. On the substance of the report, the Assembly should be aware that only about half of the recommendations are solely within my area of responsibility. Some will require action by my Department working in conjunction with others, while a substantial number of other actions that are recommended fall completely outside my remit. I have not had an opportunity in the short time available since the report was published to seek the views of ministerial Colleagues on those matters.

Furthermore, action is already being taken on many of those recommendations which are my responsibility. Others relate to problem areas which have been recognised, but the levels of resources available are inadequate to address them.

I will now comment in further detail on some of the key issues and recommendations following the order in which they appear in the report. Paragraph 4 deals with biodiversity and fish predators. This Department actively supports and promotes the concept of biodiversity and sustainability through restrictions on fish movements and through encouraging the propagation and restocking of indigenous genetic strains into their native catchments, as happens under the Salmonid Enhancement Programme.

Another example is the work carried out at the Erne and Melvin hatchery, where the aim is to stock Lough Erne with genetically distinct Lough Erne trout reared at the hatchery.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>