Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the groups for attending and giving expansive and comprehensive presentations. Being from the midlands, which are inland, this has been educational. My first exposure to this matter was the discussion on the Supreme Court case with Mr. Kelly, his colleagues and their legal adviser. It was instructive. I have been against the Bill from early on for a number of reasons, but it would be prudent and wise for the Minister now to withdraw it and go back to the drawing board. It is legally infirm on its face, not least because of its level of uncertainty. It is vague and, as a barrister, I can see a large number of issues. This is even without turning to the UK's membership of the London convention.

The reason that the Minister gave for introducing the Bill with considerable speed was to show goodwill to our neighbours in the Brexit negotiations. Contemporaneously, the UK indicated that it would withdraw from the 1964 London Fisheries Convention. The reciprocal arrangements would fall, as would the whole edifice, and the UK would resume full control. From that perspective, the Minister's likely suggestion will be that he can remedy some of the issues that have been raised about the restrictive parameters by way of secondary legislation, such as statutory instruments, but the Bill is so defective that doing so would be farcical, given that the statutory instruments would be larger than the Bill itself. Normally, primary legislation should be clear in its objectives, but there is ambiguity in this regard. Prevailing would be difficult were the legislation attacked on these grounds. Perhaps the Minister should take the prudent course as regards these issues. As some of the witnesses have stated, the legislation may not be required in a couple of years' time anyway.

I listened with interest to the organisations' pitch. It is all about quotas, of course. I come from an area where, years ago, sheep and milk quotas were the real beef, as they say. All of my colleagues present are from along the coast and know far more about fisheries than I do. I was jotting down points and may well have them wrong, so forgive me if they are. I expect the witnesses to correct me.

It was stated that there were no ITQs in Ireland. That is national policy. My colleague, Deputy Gallagher, would have been involved in that. ITQs have never been in place. There was an opportunity to change the policy in 2013, but it was not taken by the then Minister, Deputy Coveney. This distinguishes us from other member states where ITQs prevail. I undertook some legal research on this matter as best I could, although I could have misinterpreted the situation because I am not familiar with the fisheries industry. I am surprised that there are so many diverse views. In a natural resource industry that was argued for trenchantly in the Supreme Court by Mr. Kelly and his colleagues, it is important that some degree of uniformity of approach be achieved.

Surely the argument being made is that the 11,000 additional tonnes in mackerel that will become available from the EU for distribution are the subject of the review. Am I correct in saying that 87% has been allocated to 23 boats and 13% has been allocated to 27 boats? Maybe I am wrong. Surely the issue of the 11,000 tonnes could be examined in that regard. If the Minister will be in control of the quotas, surely he or she will be able to make a decision in that regard. It was made in 2003 in terms of albacore tuna. That quota was built up and distributed across a large number of boats. Perhaps I misread the information and there are no parallels, but it strikes me as having some significance. There must be an opportunity to take quota in the fishing industry, thereby spreading the objectives.

Surely a solution can be found that recognises the significant investment made by many of those who depend on fishing to pay their bills, while also achieving some uptake for those at the bottom of the food chain. Is this not what we seek to achieve by allocating quotas in other areas? As I have always argued for this approach, I do not propose to be two-faced and hypocritical in this regard. Having seen small farmers crushed and larger farmers do very well, I must take a consistent line in the area of fishing. Nevertheless, I also recognise special factors such as the investment made by individuals who should not be denied the opportunity of making repayments in difficult circumstances. I hope all parties' objectives can be met in a reasonable manner that ensures this important natural resource, which provides significant employment in coastal towns and counties, will continue to progress. I genuinely hope this outcome can be achieved.

While I may well have misconstrued some of the comments made, I was struck by the points made by Mr. Crowley of the National Inshore Fisheries Forum. I may have gravitated towards his contribution as I am from an inland area but it was clear and cogent and struck a chord with me. Moreover, it was instructive and illuminating that it seemed to steer a middle course.

I thank all the parties for their comprehensive presentations. This has been a worthwhile exercise. As Deputy Pringle stated, a meeting with each of the organisations represented would have been warranted.