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

I thank Mr. Kelly and his colleagues for their very comprehensive outline of the various issues involved. They are certainly complex, difficult issues and do not lend themselves to a summary evaluation or assessment and require drilling down into various points, because following through on various issues, it seems to be the witnesses' contention that the Department has misconstrued the outcome of the Supreme Court case. The witness is saying that this applies to all areas within the zero to 12-mile zones, apart from the areas provided for under the London convention. Is that correct?

If the new Bill is passed into law, can the witnesses summarise how they will be disadvantaged? There has been a significant focus on aggressive dredging in the zero to six-mile zone when fishing for mussels, which is wiping out the industry. Are the witnesses saying that this legislation is not only premature but is not necessary? Is that the contention? I want to debate this with the witnesses. The Minister says that he brought it forward in the interests of re-establishing what was a prior right which did not have a legal basis but which was essential due to the reciprocity arrangement. Could the witnesses explain how those vessels register in an owned and operated scenario? Can the witnesses give an example of how that operates?

They mentioned some Dutch vessels. The witnesses are saying that not only is the legislation not necessary but it is premature in advance of the Brexit negotiations. I am inclined to agree with them. I said in the Dáil that I do not see anything happening on Brexit for five or six years. There has been no clarification.

Everyone is going around talking about stuff. They do not have a clue. No one does. There are toenail experts talking about Brexit now. The only certainty is continued uncertainty. The very people who promoted Brexit do not know what it is about themselves. Let us be clear about that. Experts in this country are trying to say that we should be prepared. It is nonsense. I thought that the legislation was totally vague and imprecise, and if it was challenged in the courts it would fall due to uncertainty. I am not saying that because it suits the agenda of the witnesses. I believe that it was rushed in response to the Supreme Court case. Mr. Justice O'Donnell gave the judgment. Did the witnesses interpret from that judgment that the Department should actually bring forward its legislation? That appears to be a follow on.

The impression that I got from what the Minister was saying in the Seanad was that this was only going to regularise the situation and that friendly cooperation was important, and the judge did advert to that in the course of his judgment. Is it the view of the witnesses that there was no necessity for the Minister to bring forward this legislation because it was not advised? The Minister does not have to do what a judge tells him, and there has been much talk about the separation of powers in recent times. The judge indicated that a lacuna in the law would have to be fixed, but the witnesses are saying that there never was a lacuna in the law and that this was never the position. Let us suppose there was a lacuna in the law. Any Government worth its salt would have to react to a Supreme Court judgment in that way.

Could the witnesses explain the issue of access to mussel seed resources by shellfish farms under joint management? Perhaps they could give us some degree of explanation as to how that operates, particularly for people who are more used to inland fishing like Senator Paul Daly, who would be more worried about brown trout up in Lough Allen than fishermen on the coast.

I thank the witnesses for giving me a very good exposé on this whole area, without which I would certainly have had less knowledge.