---

Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2007

I do not want to have to send for a doctor. All I am asking is for the noble Lord to listen to what I say. I did not call anybody a whinger. I just answered the questions. It is not my job to answer questions in a way that people will like. My job is to answer the questions in as factual a way as I can. The answers may not be liked—that is tough. I gave an assurance that we were fully confident of the co-operation of the Government of the south. I was about to say that I am well aware of the sensitivity of both fisheries and both loughs, simply because of the border issues, which are historic and still unsolved, as it were. Nevertheless, we are here trying to deal with protection of the environment and of fishing. It is my job to answer the questions; whether anyone likes the answers is another matter. On conservation of the salmon stocks, the responsibility lies with the Loughs Agency. I realise that there have been difficulties concerning salmon, but the agency is subject to the direction to protect salmon stocks. That is important. There are some technical issues relating to the consultation period. As the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, this issue has been around for a considerable period. I make no excuses or apologies for that. As I said initially, the draft order gives effect to the implementation bodies order and it is required to be brought forward in parallel with legislation in the Republic. It is a question of matching drafts ofthe legislation in this place and in the Parliament of the Republic. That is why the consultation period was limited to just over eight weeks. Notwithstanding that, there was extensive consultation in 2000, including public meetings. I am also pleased to announce that it is hoped that this will be one of the last six items of legislation—forgive me if I answer a question that was not asked. I was asked: why are we doing this now; why do we not leave it to the Assembly? There are good reasons for that: it is about time. We certainly do not want delay. I understand that this is one of the last six items to be dealt with by Orders in Council that we expect to go through this place. We are down-counting, as it were and are well into single figures. This is a complex policy issue; there is no question about that. It has taken a good deal of discussion with the Republic to get this right and ensure that the legislation is the same. It is not just a question of getting an agreement, we have to get the same legislation. We expect the area to be policed and looked after equally on both sides. The implementation body and the powers need to be the same under the legislation in both jurisdictions. We had to develop a plan for introducing a new regulatory system that would work well in both jurisdictions. An appeal mechanism is provided for in respect of applications for aquacultural licences. That is implicit in the order. If someone is turned down, there is a right of appeal. As the noble Baroness suggested, the matter touches on much wider issues. The order is quite narrow but it touches on much wider issues. The Marine Bill White Paper was published today. It includes Northern Ireland; it is not as if Northern Ireland is being left out. That followed the response to the consultation. We were faced with a choice about 18 months ago. If we kept waiting for a Bill to come along for Northern Ireland, with or without devolution, we might have to wait for years. For the Marine Bill, we decided to include it in the GB legislation, so that Northern Ireland does not fall behind. It is important to protect the situation there. On the obligation to consult, the agency is required to comply with European Union environmental legislation, including the habitats directive. There is no get-out from that: I think that the noble Baroness asked about that. The draft order confers powers on the Loughs Agency to regulate within the Foyle and Carlingford areas, which covers jurisdictions on both sides of the border. I fully accept that given the way that the border is, especially in Lough Foyle, there are some difficulties. The parallel legislation takes account of that so that we have a workable solution. That is what has taken the time: getting a workable solution in the interests of conserving the fish and improving the situation for angling and tourists—something I imagine that people on both sides of the border want. Regarding whether the board members of the Loughs Agency have an interest in the preservation of fish stocks, we believe the agency has so shown so far a real interest in conserving fish stocks. The agency also has an advisory forum, which includes representatives of all stakeholders. Having gone through the background notes, I am not aware of anyone thinking this is not practical and will not work; it is just that it has been a long time coming. Finally, there is an appeals mechanism in the order, which was the issue I had not dealt with. I have answered some questions I was not asked, for which I apologise—whether people like the answers I do not know, but they are factual and can be subject to examination. On Question, Motion agreed to.