All fish farms must have a fish culture licence that indicates the species that may be farmed. The Department's policy is to refuse the cultivation of non-native species. However, applicants do have an independent route of appeal to the Water Appeals Commission in cases where the Department is not minded to grant an application. In fact, the Water Appeals Commission recently overruled the Department and granted a licence for American Brook trout - a non-native species - to a fish farm on the River Faughan.

I note that the Committee has some concern about my recent decision to allow the introduction of common carp. This decision was taken following detailed consultations with the Environment and Heritage Service. The Department undertook a technical and environmental analysis of the impact of carp before the decision was taken. Each application will be considered on a case by case basis following rigorous assessment. I do not believe that my decision is in conflict with the Committee's recommendations.

Predation by cormorants is a problem that must be addressed. Everyone is aware that cormorants are a protected species under EU and national legislation. Fishery owners can apply for a licence to cull cormorants. They also currently have the right to take action to prevent birds from attacking their fisheries providing that they can show that the birds were causing serious damage to the fishery and that the Department of the Environment is notified immediately.

Section five of the report deals with physical habitat, drainage issues and obstacles to migration. The Committee highlighted the need for habitat restoration to compensate for the negative effects of unsympathetic drainage works in the past. I am pleased to note that the Committee has recognised the important contribution that the salmonid enhancement programme has made to the restoration of fisheries habitat. As the Committee stated, this is a long-term approach, and the impact on fish populations will not be immediate. The report recommends that further EU funding should be sought to continue this work. This has already been done. In fact, the Department will launch an angling development programme later this year which is funded by the new EU Peace II programme.

Drainage works are a matter for the Rivers Agency. Procedures on the ground have improved considerably following the major drainage schemes undertaken prior to the mid-1980s. There is now closer liaison between fisheries technical staff and Rivers Agency staff in relation to the requirement to protect fisheries. These procedures have been in place for the previous 14 years. Any review of the operation of sluice gates and flow management regimes is also a matter for the Rivers Agency. However, the agency has a statutory duty to protect fisheries in the execution of its works. There are other legitimate interests to accommodate, for example, farmers who might be at risk from flooding. It is not always possible to regulate flows at the optimum condition for fish migration.

Section six of the report deals with pollution. I note that water quality was the most frequently raised issue in the submissions. The Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment has overall responsibility for water quality and pollution issues. While none of the 11 recommendations in this section of the report fall under my remit, I, as Minister responsible for inland fisheries, emphasise that I support the Committee's comments. Again, I have not had an opportunity to discuss the issues with Colleagues. I will be interested to hear what they have to say, but I realise that many of the matters are complex.

Section seven of the report deals with other environmental impacts and is concerned mainly with fishery protection measures at water abstraction sites, including hydroelectric power schemes. The report rightly highlights the fact that current legislation is inadequate in its provision of regulatory controls for water abstraction. This matter concerns more than one Department. The Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 makes provision by way of regulation to control, restrict or prohibit the abstraction of water from underground strata or waterways. The Department of the Environment's Environment and Heritage Service is currently reviewing the matter of abstraction licensing in Northern Ireland.

The determination of fishery protection measures at water abstraction sites is a matter for my Department. The Department recognises that the fishery protection measures in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 are outdated. In fact, when they were introduced in 1966 they applied mainly to the regulation of linen mills.

The Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 is also deficient in relation to regulatory controls. For example, we have no powers to introduce flow regimes. The Department will review the Fisheries Act as soon as practicable with the objective of providing more comprehensive powers to protect fisheries at water abstraction sites, and the Department will consult with a wide range of interest groups in this process, including anglers.

Amendments to the legislation will take time to pursue, and in the interim the Department is working on the issue of a code of good practice to hydro operators and other river water abstractors. Nevertheless, we have been able to introduce modern fishery protection measures by negotiation and with the co-operation and agreement of operators through conditions contained in exemption permits. This has enabled, for example, the introduction of angled screens and abstraction channels, electric barriers and smolt bypass channels at specific sites.

I agree with the comments in the report that compliance with these conditions needs to be carefully monitored, and I have recently obtained some core funding to enable the Fisheries Conservancy Board (FCB) to devote more resources to this. I also wish the Committee to note that the Department has already made good progress in implementing the sites-specific improvements at hydroelectric plants recommended in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment study report. For example, new fish passes have been constructed at the Blackwater and Randalstown hydros, and alterations have also been made at Harperstown. All these were installed by the FCB, mainly for fish counting purposes under the salmon management plan. They have the added benefit of assisting fish passage. Furthermore, the Department has commissioned consultants to continue trials to monitor and evaluate the operating regime and flow factors at Randalstown hydro.

With regard to the section relating to the questionable legality of fattening ponds, the Department is not aware of any illegal ponds. The Department does not license fattening ponds. The Department is responsible for licensing owners of fish ponds who wish to stock them with fish for their own consumption. It is a condition of such licences that the fish will not be sold or used to develop any business in the production, processing or marketing of fish. If there is anecdotal information that there are people operating outside these requirements, then the details must be furnished to the Department for investigation.

Section eight of the report deals with tourism issues. I share the view that our salmon rivers and coarse fisheries have a significant contribution to make to the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. In developing the tourism potential, there are two distinct aspects: first, having a quality product to sell; secondly, the promotion and marketing of that product. My Department is primarily concerned with the first.

Again, the Committee recognises how the salmonid enhancement programme has helped improve angling facilities and has encouraged private fisheries to be more accessible to visiting anglers. As I mentioned earlier, I will be launching an angling development programme later this year that will release further resources for the development of tourism angling.

Promotion and marketing of the angling product is primarily a matter for the Tourist Board. My Department will assist the board in this important task in whatever way it can, although I am aware of the criticisms. I agree with the report's recommendations that the complexity of the existing licence and permit arrangements are not customer-friendly, and I have already indicated that I will be looking to the FCB to review the licence system as a matter of priority.

Section 9 of the report deals with a range of inland fishery matters, particularly the conservation and protection of fish stocks and the need for scientific research. The Committee will be interested to note that the FCB decided at its last meeting earlier this month to proceed to introduce a salmon carcass-tagging scheme as soon as practicable.

I am pleased that the Committee has recognised the outstanding contribution that the work carried out at the River Bush salmon station has made to the scientific knowledge and management of wild salmon stocks and the international reputation it has achieved. I also note the Committee's recommendation that research on the eel and other exploitable fish populations in Lough Neagh and Lough Erne should be undertaken as a matter of priority. There is work ongoing in these areas.

The Committee has recommended that the commercial salmonids should be closed by buyout and that the Government should accept primary responsibility for the initial capital investment.

I am actively pursuing this issue. I bid for funding in the 2000 spending review but was not successful. I will continue to bid for funding at every opportunity.

The closure of the nets combined with the implementation of the salmon management plan - which was not mentioned in the report - and salmon tagging and restrictions in angling exploitation represents the best way forward in the management of declining wild salmon stocks. The Committee must understand that there is a serious problem with marine survival, but this is not within the control of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department.

I was interested to note the Committee's presentation of the institutional issues in section 10 of the report. The report indicates that many people who made submissions consider that the present arrangements are unnecessarily fragmented and complex. It drew attention to a repeated suggestion that management and development functions should be transferred to a single fisheries body, either as a newly created organisation or as a very much enhanced Fisheries Conservancy Board. I note that the Committee did not recommend a preferred option on the way forward.

The report also states that the funding arrangements for the Fisheries Conservancy Board are far from satisfactory. As the Committee is aware, I said some time last year that I intended to carry out a review of the Fisheries Conservancy Board, but I delayed starting that review until the Committee had completed its inquiry. I now intend to proceed with that review, but I do not wish to prejudice the outcome. However, I will consider whether the terms of reference need to be amended in the light of the Committee's report. In the interim I have secured some core funding for the board for the next financial year.

I cannot comment on the references to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, as it is not within my area of responsibility. The Executive Committee's plans to undertake a review of public administration in Northern Ireland are also relevant. That review will look at all Government Departments, their non-departmental public bodies and other statutory bodies and the functions they deliver.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure appreciates that the new EU Water Framework Directive will have significant implications for inland fisheries. The Department will liaise with the Department of the Environment and other relevant bodies regarding its implementation.

The Committee has put a great deal of emphasis on the frequency with which issues were raised. I do not object to there being a bias towards angling, but there are very few references to commercial fishing or aquaculture, which also play a major part in inland fisheries and which make an important contribution to the economy.

There could also have been a better understanding and appreciation of what the Department has done and is seeking to do as it works alongside the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development fishery scientists. The absence of any reference to the salmon management plan is a significant omission in addressing wild salmon conservation. I am disappointed that there is scarcely any reference made to the public angling estate, which provides an excellent range of fisheries for the public at affordable prices and appeals to many who cannot afford to fish in private fisheries.

It is a pity that the Committee did not examine the work carried out by the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department's inland fisheries branch and the resources deployed. I have only six fisheries technical staff and three policy staff to cover a very wide range of inland fisheries duties. I am trying to address that chronic level of underfunding, so support from the Committee would have helped. I do not think that the report has a single reference to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department's Inland Fisheries Branch.

The report points up many of the problems and issues, but it does not come forward with many concrete proposals or solutions.

One issue that is crucial to the successful management of Northern Ireland's inland rivers for fisheries and other interests is the co-dependence on landowners and the farming community. Access to many fisheries depends on the goodwill of farmers. The concept of integrated management of river corridors and the problems associated with reducing farm-sourced pollution all need the constructive involvement of farmers. Farmers must be consulted about proposals to create river corridors through their property.

We need to think how the farming community, which is already on its knees because of the BSE and foot-and- mouth crises, can be encouraged to engage positively in this process - for example, through financial incentives. I see this as a major challenge, but I do not see it addressed in the report.

I conclude by returning to my concerns about the consequences of the Committee's evidence process. I have already made it clear that I welcome the thrust of the report and acknowledge the commitment and efforts of those who produced it. I stand over that. However, notwithstanding the need, which I recognise and support, for the Committee to function separately from the Department and to act with a high degree of autonomy, there is an overriding need to act, and to be seen to act, responsibly.

I fear that the Committee has not done itself a service by giving credence to a few individuals who made wild, scurrilous allegations against people in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure during the evidential process. Some of those allegations were of the utmost seriousness and were without a shred of evidence. The provision of a platform for a few individuals to air their grudges and vent their malevolence has resulted in baseless and false allegations appearing in print while the substance of the report, which is worthy, hardly gets a mention. I am sure that that is not what the Committee intended.

If people have allegations to make I recommend that they report them to the police as a matter of urgency. My Department is fully aware of the need for everyone involved in fisheries to act responsibly and within the law.

I welcome the report. I am determined to do all in my power to ensure that the inland fisheries industry in Northern Ireland is developed responsibly, that it will be one of our greatest resources and an asset that we can all take pride in.

I am very pleased by the response, particularly from members of the Committee and others who contributed to the debate. It has been a very useful extension of the work that the Committee has been involved in over some months.

I will quickly go through some of the general comments made by Members and will pick up on a few of them. In the time allocated it will be difficult for me to do justice to all the comments. The Committee decided, as this was an extensive report, that we would attempt to cover individual sections between us in some depth. I thank the Committee members for that. My Deputy Chairperson, Mrs Nelis, gave a very good presentation on management. She carried it out with the same competence as she did when helping me in the Committee and when she covered for me on a number of occasions.

Much of the report has to be historical. When we began, very little work had been done by the new Department, because we were all new at the time. We began this process over a year ago.

The Deputy Chairperson said that the report should not be left on the shelf to gather dust. Mrs Carson made a very energetic suggestion that it should not be put on the long finger, that a timetable should be prepared, with a programme set up to produce results.

The Committee is determined, through its relationship with other relevant Departmental Committees, to push the recommendations made in the report and monitor their implementation among all Departments across the areas of responsibility that the report covers, to ensure they are put in place.

The Committee believes that, as many Members have said, there have been many difficulties. It is time to set things right. The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee must make an impact, so that the environment that we leave to our children is a worthy testament to our work and to that of the Assembly. We will not baulk at the task, and I assure Members that we are committed to ensuring that it is followed through.

Mr Jim Wilson, who can always come up with a good point, said that the outcome of the Black Report was predetermined. Our Committee listened to people who took considerable time and trouble to make substantive representations supported by a wide range of evidence. The Committee listened to their views and ideas. Those people know the difficulties. Many other Members made worthy points, but I cannot do justice to them in the limited time that is available.

It is significant that the Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, Mr Alban Maginness, is present today, as well as the Minister. I thank the Minister for giving us his time today, and I thank Mr Maginness for his support, which is - in fairness to the other Committee Chairpersons - a reflection of their interest. It is critical that the Committees concerned should take a full interest in the issues that fall within the responsibilities of the relevant Department.

I welcome the Minister's proposal to launch an angling development programme under the Peace II programme later this year. That was one of the more encouraging things that the Committee heard about. We have seen the good work that has been done by similar schemes, particularly in Galway and the Corrib catchment area. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome that announcement. I also welcome the Minister's intention to consult other Ministers about the report's recommendations. There are 11 recommendations on pollution in the report, nine of which fall within the Department of Environment's responsibilities. The Minister has not had time to speak to them yet, but he has said he will support all nine recommendations. That is very hopeful, and it is also good to see that there is a code of practice for water abstractions.

The Committee recognises that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has been working hard on many of the issues while the Committee was working hard collecting data. The Committee's views have been expressed to the Minister and the Department. The Committee was pleased that a review of the complicated licensing system has been given priority.

I am heartened, as the Committee Members will be, to see the nets buy-out. We have placed a lot of emphasis on that as a means of making the single greatest contribution to the preservation of at least the Atlantic salmon stock. It may help encourage some growth in that area. The Minister has continued to make bids. I know that it is in the Executive Programme bid for the full amount. I was pleased to see that. I hope that with the pressure that both the Minister and the Department are applying, combined with the pressure that we are also trying to apply, we will begin to see some progress in that vital area.

The Minister said that, while we made a couple of comments in relation to the Fisheries Conservancy Board - and we were certainly entitled to do that, given the evidence that we looked at - we did not recommend a preferred route. We felt, as he did himself, that we did not want to prejudice the outcome. We felt that it would be a bit restrictive to make any suggestions when the Minister had already launched an inquiry into possible new arrangements for the Fisheries Conservancy Board. There was not much point in our saying something about that and then expecting the review to come up with something. We were conscious of prejudicing the outcome as well, and that is why we did not make any recommendations as to a preferred route. However, the Minister can be assured that when the review is completed, we will have something to say.

There was also criticism about the quality of some of the evidence that we accepted and examined. Perhaps the less said about all of that the better, as there were quite a few things that we looked at that helped us to get a background. We looked at all the evidence. We could not be too censorious in terms of what came up from the public. If people had submissions to make to us, we accepted them. The important issue is what we did with them. The recommendations were made on the basis of the generality of the evidence that we received - evidence that was presented to us in a way that was proven and would stand up. In fairness to the hard work of the Committee, I must make the point that its recommendations and judgements could not be said to be unevenly influenced by uninformed comment. The reality is very much the opposite. I hope that this will not, as the Minister suggested, taint the overall work of the Committee. That would be a serious wrong.

<< Prev