Mr. Francis O'Donnell:

I am accompanied by Dermot Conway, our solicitor and by Michael Flannery from Dingle and Niall Connolly from Clogerhead, both vessel skippers. I thank the committee for the opportunity to present our reasons the Sea-Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2017 should not proceed further. The Irish Fish Producers Organisation, IFPO, is the longest established fish producer organisation, representing all fishing segments from large RSW, refrigerated seawater, fishing vessels to small under 10 m inshore vessels that fish for crab and lobster.

On 30 November 2016, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, indicated in a parliamentary question that he would introduce legislation in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Barlow case. The Supreme Court found that the previous voisinageagreement had no basis in law but that the Government could put such an agreement or a similar agreement on a proper legal footing. The Supreme Court did not direct that this should be done.

The voisinageagreement was an agreement by way of the exchange of letters between senior civil servants from Northern Ireland and Dublin. In that correspondence between J.V. Bateman and E. O’Sullivan in late 1965, it was agreed that vessels not exceeding 75 ft, owned and operated by persons permanently resident in Northern Ireland, could fish in accordance with a licence issued under the 1952 Fisheries Act or the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1959. An extract from the note of 25 August 1964 from the Commonwealth relations officer stated that Her Majesty’s Government propose to leave unchanged the arrangement under which vessels from the Republic of Ireland are permitted to fish within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands adjoining Northern Ireland and that this arrangement would stay in place as long as the authorities of the Republic of Ireland continue to accord to Northern Irish vessels the same treatment as they accord to vessels of the Republic of Ireland in the waters around the coast of the Republic.

On 9 December 2016, I wrote to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, expressing my grave reservations and, in particular, that such legislation may extend or increase access to Ireland’s exclusive fisheries limits by foreign vessels beyond that agreed at the London Fisheries Convention. I was also concerned that by making provision to allow one of the contracting parties of the London Fisheries Convention, namely, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to alter this agreement, that all other 11 countries may avail of any new agreement.

On 9 February 2017, the draft Sea-Fisheries (Amendment) Bill was published. This raised serious concerns with my organisation and across the Irish fishing industry in general. In the first instance, there was no stakeholder engagement on what was an attempt to allow vessels owned or operated in Northern Ireland to enter and fish between zero and six nautical miles measured from the base line.

On 2 March 2017, I took the unprecedented step of asking Dermot Conway, our solicitor, to write to Máire Whelan, the then Attorney General, on the Sea-Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2017, and in particular to raise our concerns on the potential difficulties around the definitions and obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy and the preferential treatment of a class of person. That document is before the committee. I also wrote to the committee in March of this year for the first time in six years asking that I present my concerns on this Bill to its members. I am doing that here today.

If this Bill is passed, any vessel registered in the UK, whether owned by an individual or conglomerate from any EU member state, can avail of access inside our exclusive six-mile limit. The Bill, as presented, is devoid of any safeguards. There are no length or engine power restrictions. This proposed legislation clearly exceeds the scope of what was agreed in 1965. It was not a blank cheque in 1965 but this legislation is. The Minister in presenting the Bill to the Seanad on 8 March 2017 indicated other measures will have to be put in place. However, the Bill as drafted, contains none such. The Seanad was correct to reject the Bill as it is fraught with uncertainties and lacks the preciseness required to avoid future legal challenges or abuses by those availing of it.

This Bill is an open back door for all EU operators. Ireland fishes approximately 40% of its fisheries quota in UK waters and retaining that access will be critical. Both the Common Fisheries Policy and the London Fisheries Convention are under threat from the UK triggering Article 50. The UK fishing industry is lobbying for a withdrawal from the 1964 convention. It is illogical to progress at this time with the Bill in light of the clear lack of legal certainty that now exists. One may very well wish to promote good all-Ireland relations. The Supreme Court, however, has clearly held that we are talking about natural resources belonging to the State. Good relations may be a goal of the State but it ought not to be at any cost. In the Seanad, the Minister relied on the fact Article 50 had not been triggered. It has now. The Minister knew in March that it was coming and argued that he could only deal what was before him. Article 50 was triggered on 29 March 2017.

National self-interest is an important concept. The UK is promoting its own agenda to put Britain first. As a state, it is more than entitled to do so. It is equally the case for Ireland. To pass this Bill would be politically naive to say the least. More importantly, Ireland would be giving away its poker chips before the game even commenced. There is simply no justification for bringing this Bill forward. The UK is leaving the Common Fisheries Policy and is likely to leave the London Fisheries Convention. Ireland and other EU member states may be excluded from accessing much needed fishing opportunities in UK waters in just a couple of years. This, if it happens, will have massive economic consequences for Irish coastal communities and businesses.

The outcome of the Supreme Court case is an opportunity for Ireland as vessels from Northern Ireland and the UK will require access inside our six-mile exclusive zone. This should be part of a future negotiation strategy by the Government in terms of maintaining our access to UK waters in the future. Any future legislation on this issue should be presented in detail to impacted stakeholders under a proper transparent public stakeholder review process. The opposite has been done to date. This I found to be alarming and without proper reason or justification.

One member of this committee posed a question during the Seanad debate on this Bill on 8 March. His view was that bringing this Bill forward was a mendacious reaction to the State losing the Supreme Court case.

The demersal quota system is managed well through a committee process. We make recommendations to the Minister on a monthly basis and quotas are allocated on the shares given under the Common Fisheries Policy.

The sharing arrangements for pelagic stocks are managed differently. The 23 RSW vessels, six of which are members of the IFPO, have access to pelagic stocks only. Four of those vessels are based in Killybegs and two in Castletownbere. We also have polyvalent vessels that fall under a mixture of pelagic and demersal quota management regimes. Some are limited to demersal species only; others have access to demersal and pelagic stocks. For example, 11.7% of the share out of Ireland’s horse mackerel quota is given to six polyvalent vessels from the south exclusively. The rest of the polyvalent fleet does not get a specific allocation. RSW vessels have been excluded from the pelagic Celtic Sea herring fishery. There are also RSW vessels that do not enjoy a specific entitlement in the boarfish fishery while some polyvalent vessels do. There is much history attached to track record and ambiguity around how some of the policies were finally settled. A large number of RSW vessels do not have access to pelagic fish when they are dedicated pelagic vessels.

At our annual general meeting last December, the IFPO took a decision not to support any change in the sharing arrangements for mackerel. We did have a minority position in the organisation with several members wanting to see some changes allowing polyvalent members having access to mackerel. Our position, however, is clear. We do not support it. There has been much trouble settling this in the past and much political capital expended on it. The majority of the IFPO members stated there was no merit in this review.