Mr. Hugo Boyle:

I reiterate the fact that we, as part of the industry, were not consulted before the publication of this Bill. It would be normal practice for that to have happened. We represent members from County Louth, County Down, all around the south coast, up to Galway.We have a wide membership base that would be affected by the Bill.

My submission is short. The Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation object to the introduction of the above Bill in its present form. I do not intend to go into the legal technicalities but will rather concentrate and confine my comments to the practical fishing issues that would impact on our fishermen should the Bill be passed in to law.

We see this Bill as giving open unfettered access to Northern Ireland vessels of any size and power to fish in our 0-6 mile exclusive Zone. This could result in extreme over fishing in this vulnerable zone, over which we currently have exclusive control. Examples of this would be where our vessels are constrained by national measures such as quotas, restrictions on access etc., but under the proposed Bill we would have no control over Northern Ireland registered vessels in this same area. This would allow said vessels to fish indiscriminately for non-quota species and also target quota species during periods and areas that are closed to our national vessels. This would present a totally unfair situation.

Access would also be a problem. We have a restriction on access in certain areas around our coast for our national vessels whereby vessels over a certain size may not fish inside our 12 mile limit. Northern Ireland vessels would not be subject to such restrictions under the Bill. These vessels could enter and fish in areas closed to our national fleet such as the Dunmore Box - a very famous herring fishing box - which is closed completely to herring fishing for all Irish registered vessels of over 17 m, and which is closed for more than 40 weeks per year to all smaller vessels targeting herring.That is the sentinel fleet consisting of vessels of 8 m, 9 m, 10 m and 12 m. This would be an outrageous situation to find ourselves in.

At present a vessel from anywhere in the UK could register in Northern Ireland at short notice thereby complying with the Bill’s stated objective in Section 1(a). In theory, UK super scallopers - big, big vessels with a lot of dredges aside - could be given open access to grounds which are off limits to our own similar vessels. I do not have to point out the resulting damage to our stocks but this will also have a major environmental impact due to the use of very heavy fishing dredges being used on delicate inshore grounds traditionally fished by our smaller vessels with static gear, for lobsters, whelks, crabs, etc.

Control would also be a problem for our control authorities. Smaller vessels are not subject to vessel monitoring systems, VMS or to electronic reporting. There is no facility under the Bill to make this a requirement. As a result we would not have accurate data on quantities of fish taken out of this zone or of the number of vessels engaged in fishing there. The same problem of policing these vessels would apply where they may enter our internal waters. This is the zone to the landward side of our baselines, the areas into the bays. The baselines normally go from headland to headland tor rock to rock.

The reciprocal rights issue that the Minister so eloquently promoted at every opportunity is dead in the water, as pointed out by Senator Mac Lochlainn during the Seanad debate on the matter. These reciprocal rights would entail trading an area of 84% of an all Ireland zone for a 16% zone of indeterminate value. While it is laudable that all fishermen from the island of Ireland could in theory fish right around the coast, and while this would be in line with the Good Friday Agreement, we seem to be intent on introducing legislation with no indication of parallel legislation being introduced by the Northern Ireland Administration. Even if the will were there to legislate and afford us reciprocal rights I believe this could not be done in the context of Brexit. It would not be practical to pre-empt Brexit by now introducing an open border at sea while we do not yet know the outcome of Brexit negotiations regarding an open border on land.

Fishing at sea has changed dramatically in the 50 plus years since the 1965voisinage arrangement. All vessels - even small vessels - have multiples of the power that vessels had in those days and modern vessels can operate with much heavier and much more efficient gear, which can decimate a fishery in a very short period of time. Giving legal status that old arrangement could never result in the outcome that was envisaged then. As such, we cannot introduce a Bill giving free-for-all access in our 0 to 6 mile zone to what would in effect be UK fishing vessels. It would be irresponsible and reckless in the extreme.

I will now turn to the issue of quota sharing. As the two previous speakers have indicated, we have a monthly quota management advisory committee at which we allocate quotas on a monthly basis. We advise the Department on allocations of quotas on a monthly basis, ready to keep fish at sea and hang on to it - making sure that quotas are not eaten up early in the year and that boats can stay at sea for the year.

The committee specifically wanted to address the mackerel situation. It is our position in the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation that any review of the mackerel allocation policy should not be limited to a partial review that would limit the scope to cover any increase in 2017 over that of 2016. To that end we wrote to the Minister. As per our letter to the Minister on 23 December 2016, it is our stated position that any review of mackerel policy should be a wider ranging full review and our request is that in such a review 5% of the national mackerel quota should be set aside for demersal swaps. Demersal swaps refer to whitefish swaps. This would in some small way partially rectify the imbalance where over a number of reviews the pelagic entitlements of a large section of our polyvalent fleet was eroded and lost to those vessels. Originally these entitlements allowed them to target pelagic species. All our vessels would have had entitlements to fish pelagic species in previous years.

In the event that this review is limited for 2017 to the figure quoted by the Minister of 10,617 tonnes, our position is that 4,000 tonnes of that figure - which would equate to approximately 5% of the national mackerel quota for this year - should be set aside for demersal swaps.

Should the Minister accede to the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation request by dividing the remainder of the increase between tier 1 and tier 2 equally in 2017, those vessels benefitting from this share of mackerel should surrender their whitefish entitlements for 2017. It is a fact that some of our members who are in that sector have indicated to me that if they did not get any share from the 300 tonnes to 350 tonnes of mackerel increase, then they would not surrender their share out. That would give lie to the figures for whitefish that would be returned to the whitefish fleet. They have said there were other members of other organisations who would feel the same way in that regard.