Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their submissions today. The two issues we are discussing here would probably both justify a meeting to discuss each equally. There are many implications in them.

On the voisinage agreement, I think the situation that has arisen through the Supreme Court case - in that the Department has never regulated properly for inshore fisheries at any stage over the past 50 years, which has led to a situation where people have had to go to court to get their rights vindicated - is a signal of how the Department has traditionally dealt with fisheries and fishermen right across the board. Everybody here representing the organisations could point to situations where a proper intervention and intervention in a regulated manner would have dealt with many problems. Mr. Francis O'Donnell outlined the situation with the penalty points earlier. If that had been handled properly in the first place, we would never have had a situation where fishermen had to go to the High Court and the Supreme Court to get justice from our own Department.

It has led to the problem where some inshore fishermen, as a result of the cost of entry into fishing in this State, with the Department having manufactured a market for kilowatts and tonnage, go to the Six Counties and get a licence there where it is much cheaper and the barriers to entry are not the same. Then, due to the lack of regulations, they are able to come to live and work here and fish with their vessels. That is the mess that has been created by the Government not looking at the voisinage agreement that was implemented in 1965, regulating it and having a proper system of regulation. It makes one wonder why the Government ever governs at all, when these situations are allowed to happen.

I agree with what the witness from the IFPO said. Perhaps something could be done - a trade-off, for example - regarding the voisinage arrangements as part of a future negotiation, but if the UK leaves, we will not be able to make a bilateral agreement with it. The EU 27 would have to do it, which means that it probably will not happen. Mr. Conway, the solicitor, might be able to answer my next question, but it is open to all of the organisations. If the Minister insists on proceeding with this legislation, would an amendment be possible whereby, if the UK withdraws from the London agreement, the legislation will fall or the system under it will cease to be?

Some of my questions have already been answered, so I am going through my list to see what has been missed. My point is about agreeing voisinage. If the UK withdraws from the London agreement, it will make continuing with the legislation a waste of time and we should not be pursuing it.

Mr. Murphy of the ISWFPO stated that the mackerel share-out was pitched as being for the uplift that took place in 2016. Given the fact that the uplift was not an actual uplift and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, has stated that it got its figures wrong, in that it made a mistake in calculating for an increase in the mackerel quota and that this will more than likely be clawed back next year with a 20% to 25% decrease, does it not remove the rationale for seeking the share-out in the first place? Is the real intention for requesting a review to change the ratio in the share-out? The €9.6 million in whitefish that it is claimed polyvalent vessels will forgo is almost equivalent to the value of mackerel that will be gained. Is this being done purely on the basis of looking after the vessels that only fish for whitefish?

Regarding the potential impact of the review on Killybegs, everyone working there depends on the fish factory for a livelihood. Any reduction would not only have an impact on fishermen, but on people's ability to live and work locally. This should be given significant consideration in the review.

It was mentioned that the refrigerated sea water, RSW, sector lands better quality fish. Surely that means better quality for the whole fleet and a higher value for the export market and it should be maintained. There has been a significant emphasis on improving quality in recent years so as to maximise markets, including export markets.

I have a question for the NIFF. Mr. Crowley mentioned that it could not take a view on the Bill because of the structure of the original forum. I read in one of the fisheries newspapers in recent weeks that an inshore fishermen's organisation was being set up because the NIFF could not take a view as a result of being a part of the Government, in that it is a part of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM. Does the fact that this is departmental policy have an impact on whether the NIFF takes, for example, a contrary view on it?