Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Kenny accurately summarised the situation. This is extraordinarily complex. If one stands back from the complexity for a moment and considers if one were starting with a blank sheet of paper, which we are not, would it be desirable to have a situation where we had reciprocal arrangements between the North and South? It is interesting to consider the Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Justice O'Donnell called the cross-Border approach in fisheries an important area of co-operation between the two jurisdictions and said there is much to applaud in this. He went on to say that such co-operation is arguably an implementation of the constitutional provisions which have been in place since 1999, which expressly contemplate cross-Border co-operation in a number of areas. We are talking about the zero to six miles, not the enormous resource outside the 12 mile zone where most of scaled fishing activity takes place. It is hard to argue that we should not have that reciprocal arrangement. Leaving aside all the consequences and complexities that flow from the judgment, it is still worth bearing that in mind and also taking into account what he refers to as the appropriate areas of co-operation as envisaged under the new constitutional arrangements since the Good Friday Agreement.

They are important. Deputy Ferris made the point about the fish numbers or catches for mackerel and prawns in EU areas. Deputy Ferris knows this, but if one looks at the fishing zones and boxes and one superimposes the zero to six mile and six to 12 mile zones, it takes an enormous amount of effort. In the context of Brexit, considerable effort was put into evaluating our exposure. It is interesting to note in the context of that exposure, while we are significantly exposed, we are not the most highly exposed in percentage terms. Among EU states most dependent on landings from the UK zone, in percentage value terms, Belgium is at 50%, Ireland is at 34%, Denmark is at 30%, Netherlands is at 28%, France is at 19%, and Germany is at 18%. In absolute value terms, France is the most exposed at €170 million.

To these member states and others that I did not mention, all of which have an exposure of one degree or another, we have emphasised that we face a shared problem and have a shared objective in negotiations. We are working on the figures Deputy Ferris asked about, but it is not an easy exercise. The zero to six mile and six to 12 mile zones cut across the boxes under which ISIS operate in terms of closed and open areas, and the fishing endeavour that goes on under those at any given time. We are working to get that figure - it is not the case that we are hiding anything - and once the analysis is complete, we will share it.

If I understood Deputy Ferris's analysis of the Common Fisheries Policy, he is correct. During the negotiations for next round of the Common Fisheries Policy, we will argue for the best possible outcome for Ireland. The last one started in 2009 and finished in 2013 so it is a long process. It would be counterproductive to open another front now, which, to be fair to Deputy Ferris, I do not think he is advocating. Once we see the direction in which fisheries is going in the Brexit negotiations, it is possible that those negotiations could start. We will be prepared for those in the context of getting the best deal possible for Ireland, but to open up a second front is not conducive to securing the best possible deal.

On Senator Mullherin's questions and observations regarding alternatives for coastal communities, during the last Common Fisheries Policy negotiations, we secured access to €240 million under the European maritime fisheries fund, EMFF. Spending is taking place in many areas. For example, under flags, local development companies are funded under the maritime fisheries fund. Local communities are asked to arrive at suggestions that will enhance the viability and sustainability of their communities. It is similar to Leader for coastal communities. Also under EMFF, there is much investment in onshore infrastructure to facilitate landings not only by Irish boats, but also other boats. For example, if a French or Spanish vessel was closer to an Irish port rather than their home port, it might be able to land its fish and have it processed here and exported directly to their desired market, which gives onshore employment here. As such, we are putting in infrastructure through EMFF in places such as Killybegs, Rossaveal, Dingle, and Castletownbere, so that these critical ports are benefitting from investment under EMFF.

That is all important and significant but the most important issue is the Brexit negotiations. Critical aspects of the negotiations will include working together, feeding into the Barnier negotiating team, sharing the analysis, ensuring that it is conducted in the broadest possible trade negotiations and not in isolation, ensuring that we retain access and retain our quota share. Even if Brexit had not been happening, we would be seeking to improve the economic opportunity in those coastal communities through the maritime fisheries fund, which is worth €240 million. That is really important in diversifying the employment opportunities onshore as well as improving the efficiency of our fishing industry through assisting in new technologies on boats and so on.