Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

I support the Fine Gael motion. The fishing industry contributes significantly to our economy. As the Cawley report states, it is a vital indigenous industry that directly employs approximately 12,000 people, with total annual revenues of approximately €702 million.

Fishing makes an extremely important contribution to our coastal communities and thereby our country. We are an island nation with approximately 7,400 km of coastline, which is approximately 10% of the coastline of the European Union. Our major cities are all located at the coast. If major coastal urban centres are included, Ireland's coastal population would be 50% for the whole of Ireland. A total of 34% of Ireland's population lives within 5 km of the coast.

The Cawley report states that fishing makes an enormous contribution to the regional and local development of remote rural coastal communities. The report outlines that the waters around Ireland contain some of the most productive fishing grounds in the European Union. It is estimated that in 2004, the total catch by all fleets within the Irish economic zone was 700,000 tonnes of fish valued at €500 million, the greater proportion of which was taken by non-Irish vessels.

Fishing is an industry that faces challenges. That was the reason behind the Cawley report. As other speakers mentioned, the issues to be dealt with include depleted stocks of fish, marine and coastal pollution and competing development pressures for ocean and coastal space. Future challenges include climate change, one impact of which will be the loss of fishing days because of increased numbers of storms. There is also the challenge of dealing with EU regulations and the need for our fishing and aquaculture industries to compete.

I recently read the book by Damien Tiernan, Souls of the Sea, which is about the loss of the Pere Charles and the Honeydew II. Despite the conditions those boats went out because they had no option but to do so. In The Irish Times recently, Lorna Siggins wrote about the inquiries into the causes of these incidents and said they were at various stages. She stated: "but there is one common thread — the best safety equipment in the world is of limited benefit when skippers and owners coping with shrinking quotas and expanding fuel bills are under pressure from an unworkable Common Fisheries Policy and the banks". She also stated: "Several studies suggested the true impact of the crisis was being concealed by a steady flight by crews to the construction industry". That is important in terms of the future of the industry.

The Labour Party marine spokesperson, Senator Michael McCarthy, highlighted a number of issues brought to his attention by fishermen, one of which is the fact that the Government committed €42 million recently for the decommissioning of boats over 18 ft. when the Cawley report had called for €62 million. There is no funding for decommissioning of boats under 18 ft., which means that small fishermen have been forgotten by the Government. Boats under 18 ft. are generally older and their owners are an older age group. It is logical that those fishermen would be more willing to retire but, unfortunately, decommissioning is not an option open to them.

As other speakers said, the dumping of fish is a major issue. Senator Michael McCarthy, as marine spokesperson, has highlighted the fact that there are more sea fishery protection officers in Ireland than in all of Spain. We have approximately 100 sea fishery protection officers yet there is no comparison between the size of the Spanish and the Irish fleets. As speakers from all sides of the House have highlighted, Irish fishermen can be prosecuted in courts and face jail terms for minor offences, and there is no facility currently for administrative fines.

On the issue of enforcement, Senator Michael McCarthy got an e-mail from the wife of a fisherman in which she outlined the impact of the inspection regime on her husband. She said her husband had a completely clear record and that in ten years he had never been cautioned, never mind committed an offence, yet he and all the other boats were being subjected to 100% inspection on arrival in port and had to endure that while being laughed at by fishermen from other countries like France and Spain, where virtually no inspections are being carried out. She said these inspections take hours and have led to her children going to bed and school very upset because the boat is in, having been at sea for up to three weeks, but their father has not been able to come home to them. That is an indication of the huge impact of the regime on the families as well as the fishermen themselves.

The Cawley report is the framework document for meeting the challenges faced by the fishing industry. It was published in December 2006 and sets out clearly the steps that need to be taken to address the issues for the fishing industry. As Members are aware, the recommendations range from developing markets for aquaculture projects, protecting the marine and coastal environment and, as highlighted in the motion, discarded fish and unsafe equipment, all of which are covered in the Cawley report.

As the motion points out, however, the progress of implementation of the report has been slow. In that regard, I tabled a parliamentary question on 18 June in which I asked for a report on the recommendations of the Cawley report implemented to date, the recommendations that have been partly implemented, the recommendations that have not been implemented and so on in tabular form. The reply from the Minister outlines all the recommendations in tabular form as I requested but, interestingly, the "Implemented" column is blank. None of the recommendations of the Cawley report has been entirely implemented. The report was published in 2006. The Government does not accept the significance of the fishing industry to our economy and the importance of the portfolio of the marine, which is another issue that has been highlighted by my colleague, Senator Michael McCarthy.

In 1987, the Government showed great commitment to the marine by setting up a Department of the Marine but, unfortunately, successive Fianna Fáil Governments have rowed back on that commitment and slowly but surely sidelined the Department. Currently, the marine and coastal responsibilities are spread over six Departments — Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Communications, Energy and Natural Resources; Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Transport; Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs; and Arts, Sport and Tourism. All those Departments are involved in the area to some extent.

I put down another parliamentary question recently asking if there was any interdepartmental unit, group or committee to oversee the co-ordination of the marine responsibilities and it appears there is not. There is a fragmentation of the responsibility. A recommendation in the Cawley report was that the co-ordination of the marine and coastal responsibilities should be spearheaded by what was then the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The report was critical of the negative impact of the under-resourced marine Department at the time but matters have got worse. It is at odds with European Union policy and policy in Canada, the United Kingdom and so on.

In that regard, the first ever EU Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs was recently appointed. Canada is bringing in an ocean Act but there is none of that type of co-ordination here. Labour is calling for the immediate establishment of an interdepartmental committee to co-ordinate coastal and marine responsibility at Government and State agency level because that is the type of thing that was sought by the Cawley report, and no doubt it is necessary. There should be a single framework for the management of marine and coastal responsibility and, obviously, an integrated and cross-sectoral approach. There should be full implementation and proper funding for the implementation of the Cawley report.

See this speech in context