Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív:

I propose to focus on the process, the boring element of this discussion. Cén chaoi a dtiocfaimid ón áit ina bhfuilimid go dtí an áit ar mhaith linn a bheith? Is bóthar fada atá i gceist. Caithfimid tabhairt faoi gan dul ar strae ar an mbealach. It is very easy to have a long process. I compliment the Chairman on bringing us to the point at which we have produced this report. This was a straightforward matter, however, in the sense that we knew from the outset what we wanted to achieve. Fair play to the islanders in County Donegal who came here and put an argument to us. It was strongly believed by mo chara in aice liom, an Seanadóir Ó Domhnaill, that we should hear what the islanders had to say. We subsequently decided to widen the discussion on the basis that all coastal communities need special attention. Under the direction of the Chairman, the sub-committee has produced a report which makes 29 recommendations.

I understand the witnesses would like us to make one minor amendment to increase the threshold for boats from 10 m. The reference to 10 m vessels in the report is indicative. I hope the representatives of coastal communities will agree that this report is fair and provides a good shopping list which, if delivered to a significant degree, would be a major step in the right direction. It sets out a good agenda on which to work. For this reason, we should not introduce all sorts of new issues until we have doggedly pursued what the proposals the sub-committee developed through this process. As I noted, minor amendments can be made because they do not require us to depart from the concept. We must focus, however, on trying to advance all 29 recommendations.

Mr. Aston painted a very interesting overall picture, one which reflected the position of the sub-committee and fitted all the pieces of the jigsaw together. We want to create an industry whereby the benefits of the seas around the coast rebound significantly to the advantage of local communities, rather than the large operators which are not area specific. The large operators may operate out of one port and deliver their catch into another port 500 miles away. The report focuses on fishermen who fish from and land their catch at the same port.

Recommendation 14 proposes that only boats of a certain size would be allowed to fish within a certain distance from the shore. It does not matter what size of boat is specified, whether 10 m, 12 m or 15 m, or what distance from shore is agreed, whether 12 miles or 14 miles. In that context, it was not very European to use miles rather than kilometres. No European country will cede their right to fish in certain waters, whereas every small maritime community in Europe has an interest in having exclusive access to its maritime waters. If one made a case in Europe for excluding all French and Spanish boats from one's waters, it would be rejected. However, if one were to make a case to French fishermen operating small boats along the French coast that they should have exclusive access to their coastal waters for a distance of 12 miles, they would agree, as would Italian and Portuguese fishermen and so forth. We must develop proposals that fit into the European jigsaw because other proposals that may be more attractive from a chauvinistic point of view would never see the light of day.

The second issue emphasised in the report is salmon. The first requirement is to obtain information. It is amazing that despite the various bans on salmon fishing, there is not a counter in place on every river. Being able to produce boring detail of this nature will get us somewhere. If we could show that the number of salmon in our rivers is increasing, we would be in a better position. It was a lack of information that killed us previously.

I hope all the groups that appeared before the subcommittee and others will propose amendments to tidy up the report before we move on to the next phase. The amendment proposed today relates to the size of boats.

We could then all agree to pursue this through official channels to try to get it implemented. We should pick off each recommendation one by one and ask if it will be implemented. My experience is that some will be accepted, some will be rejected and some will be amended. However, the ones that are accepted can be ticked off once they are done. For the ones that are amended, the witnesses will need to see if they can live with the amendment and can then tick those when they are done. They then need to fight on the other ones to try to get a change of mind. Of course the more that are done, the more it is possible to focus on the remainder. We need to be very dogged and systematic and not be deflected regardless of how long it takes. If it takes five years to get somewhere, we should think that if we had started this ten years ago, it would have been all over five years ago. We have to start somewhere and it is always a slow route through bureaucracy so the witnesses need to have a clear policy set out.

There is a reference to Comhairle na Tuaithe. As the witnesses know, Comhairle na Tuaithe brings the statutory agencies, including the Departments, around the table. If the Departments are not at the table, there is no point in talking because so much rests on them. On the hill walking, there is Coillte Teoranta and all the relevant statutory agencies. In addition, there are farming organisations, Mountaineering Ireland, Keep Ireland Open and so on. All the players are around the table advising the Ministers and much of the time coming to common positions. We did extraordinarily well to come to common positions on all sorts of things where we could all move forward together. I believe if there was a permanent representative group, involving Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann and the small fishermen groups, it would give the witnesses a place at the table on a consistent basis every three or six months. They could go back and sit around the table and this would be on their agenda.

I agree with the recommendation that responsibility for the marine should be in one place, but that is not the case for the moment. This means that representatives of the relevant Departments need to come around the table in order to try to get them to move forward on the agenda. In the committee's work directly with the various Departments and agencies, it is vital to try to push the same agenda in parallel with the organisations represented here today.

There is one recommendation that is totally within the hands of the community organisations represented here today. It is recommendation No. 20, which states that while recognising there are a large number of representative fishing organisations based on geographical area, LOA, and fishing time, all fishing organisations should consider restructuring which would lead to the formation of an inshore fishing organisation to provide a unified voice. The absence of a confederation of local fishing organisations operating on a national basis is very detrimental to their interests. Despite differences in different areas, and there are the usual local loyalties and so on, when it comes to impacting on us as a committee and on the Departments, unless some consensus can be built between lobster fishermen in Connemara, Kerry and Donegal, and people interested in salmon in different counties, the witnesses are at a massive disadvantage compared with the industries that have a national voice. That is not something we can do. Only the people themselves can do that.

Ms Majella Ní Chríocháin knows that when representatives of the various islands around the coast came together 30 years ago to form Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann, they dramatically changed the status of the island lobby for 3,000 people. As a Minister, I found it greatly beneficial that representatives of Gaeltacht and non-Gaeltacht islands came together. Going back to that time, there was not a ferry to any non-Gaeltacht islands. In the beginning I believe some people in the non-Gaeltacht islands thought they would be totally subsumed because the Gaeltacht was much stronger. In fact, it worked greatly to the benefit of the non-Gaeltacht islands and brought them up. Therefore, I believe recommendation No. 20 falls back on the witnesses.

In my experience it is very difficult to communicate when it is necessary to communicate with 20 different disparate groups which might not agree all of the time and they have no mechanisms to come to agreement. That is one part that falls to the witnesses and not to us. We have made the recommendation. Europe and the State are organised on the basis of representative groups. Let us think about it - Europe in particular and national representative groups. If we are considering going down the route of a comhairle na mara, unless that is in place the witnesses will not have the impact they should have and they will not see all this happen. If that was put in place they would see a real force for making this happen. I hope that such an organisation could have a full-time office and people who could pursue this as only full-time staff can do. It is very hard for purely voluntary people to do.

Má chuireann tú ceist ar Ms Majella Ní Chríocháin, míneoidh sí cé chomh tairbheach is a bhí sé do na hoileáin. Nuair a raibh eagraíocht uile-oileánda amháin ar fud an chósta le 30 bliain anuas, rinne sé an-difríocht do phobal na n-oileáin.