Mr. Hugo Boyle:

The Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, ISEFPO, thanks the committee for the opportunity to present its views on the Bill. As with all fishermen and women around our coasts, we recognise the difficulties that islanders face on a daily and seasonal basis in making a living from fishing. Islands are the epitome of disadvantaged peripheral areas, but this is also true of areas on the mainland, which in most cases are just a few miles or less from these islands. One could point out that if the six mile zone from the islands described in the Bill were applied in the direction of the mainland, it would encompass and include many more fishing families who depend on the same resource as those on the islands. In light of this, we fail to understand how anyone can support what could really amount to discrimination against those who reside in equally disadvantaged areas ashore in favour of those who live a few miles away on an island.

The introduction of non-transferable island quota is referenced in section 2(6)(e) of the Bill. This is ring-fencing by another name. Our quota is a finite national resource shared as equitably as possible on a monthly or seasonal basis between all Irish fishing vessels that have an entitlement to it. Any ring-fenced allocation has to come out of that national pot, so giving more to an island sector means less for their neighbours across the water who fish in the same area with the same overheads. While we would wish more fish and quota for everyone, we cannot support ring-fencing or giving extra fish quota to any one group over another. Hence, in the interest of a level playing field for fishing families all along our coastline, we are not in a position to support the Bill.