Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I compliment the committee chairperson, Deputy Doyle, on the fantastic work and effort that has been put into this report. Although he claimed at the beginning not to know much about coastal communities or fishermen, he made a significant contribution to this report. I must also say I do not have the knowledge of fishing that Deputy Martin Ferris has, but I have been dealing with fishermen for a long time.

In the first place, I have never agreed - I accept it was my party that was in government at the time - with the arrangements made with the European Union in relation to our fishing waters where we have 40% of the fish, with 4% going to this country and the rest going to others. I believe that in every negotiation in Europe this matter should be raised by the Government. I have expressed my view to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, that when the Common Fisheries Policy is being negotiated we should always start on the basis that the present regime is not fair or just. In the forthcoming negotiations with Britain and with Greece, we should put this issue on the table again and say that if they are going to get special deals, there are a few outstanding issues that Ireland needs resolved as well. There is a saying in my part of the country that the crying baby gets the bottle and the silent baby does not. It is time we became the crying baby.

Recommendation 2 is important. The present situation whereby the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, on a day-to-day basis, is also the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and for defence is totally unsatisfactory, and means that this incredible resource, which is many times the size of the country, is being neglected. Therefore, I believe that the marine portfolio should not be part of a much bigger portfolio. In particular, I am surprised that there is not even a dedicated Minister of State dealing with fisheries and that Deputy Coveney was given the job of Minister with responsibility for defence.

Recommendation 7 makes a lot of sense. As Deputy Martin Ferris stated, it is time to break with all of these rules about track record, etc. Nowhere is that more evident than if, for example, one goes out to Inis Meáin on the Aran Islands. One asks what the track record is, and they will tell one it is damn all because, not having a pier to tie up a boat, all they had was currachs. Are they forever to be penalised because there was not the wherewithal to keep boats on the island because the State did not provide it? I believe the next time extra mackerel quota is given, it should be given exclusively to the inshore fleet.

The next recommendation is to do with salmon. My party, in government, banned drift-netting. We were told that this would solve the problem and there would be plenty of salmon. It is amazing that we do not even know the salmon numbers. We need a comprehensive fish-counting system on the rivers so that we know how many salmon are going up and down, and then we need to find out why they are not going up. It cannot be blamed on the drift-net fishermen now.

Recommendation 10 concerns the issuing of heritage licences to rural coastal communities. It is important to recognise that there seems to be little evidence that the ban on drift-netting achieved much except for the impoverishment of many communities. It would be fair to say that island communities have been particularly disadvantaged. The Government of which I was a member made the decision. There was a fairly heated debate about it. However, we should look at this issue of heritage licences and do it in a controlled way. That also relates to Recommendation 12. Through the use of new technology, I believe the old traditional arguments against drift-netting can be overcome. We can do it in a way that would be controlled, whereby we would get over the mixed-stock fishing issue, while still giving the communities that live by the coast access to some of the stock.

I do not see any evidence of a massive increase in incomes arising from angling tourists in areas where we were told new opportunities would open up if drift-netting stopped. Should the Minister ask the fishermen, they would tell him they have not gained.

Deputy Martin Ferris spoke of the recommendation to give exclusive rights to fishing within the 12 mile limit to vessels under 10 metres. I will not argue here about the overall length, which perhaps should be slightly larger. The idea of going back to traditional-style fishing makes a lot of sense, and allowing fishermen with boats with limited catch capacity to fish all the different species actually takes pressure off the species. What all the fishermen would tell the Minister is that the day we stopped drift-netting we put more pressure on the lobster. Everyone went at the lobster, and the Minister brought in controls on the lobster they moved on to fishing crab, and then the Minister brought in controls on the crab, and the fishermen kept moving away because they have to earn a living. The traditional practice, where the capacity to catch fish was much more limited, meant that all of these fisheries were sustainable, and it was the development of technology, bigger boats, etc., that resulted in the raping of the seas. If we cannot getting our own fishery grounds back, persuading every coastal community in Europe to limit the first 12 or 20 miles offshore to small boats, it would have a similar effect, because we have more coastline than most, but it would also get buy-in from small coastal communities. There is one interesting democratic issue here. The vast majority of those fishermen who vote are in small boats, not big boats. If the Minister were to do this, it would be popular. Also many on the green side would say the damage done by the small boats is limited and the real challenge is large factory boats. I often wonder how many salmon are being taken unintentionally by the large trawlers that effectively take everything out of the sea.

It is time we put a time limit on aquaculture licences. If we can put time limits on planning decisions, it is time for them to apply to aquaculture licences. I tabled a question in the Dáil this week about an oyster aquaculture licence that was applied for in 2012. I was told that the engineering division is looking at it, three years later. It is not satisfactory that I cannot get information on when it is likely that a decision will be made, which was the question I asked, and it is not satisfactory that someone should have to wait three years for a decision. I believe statutory time limits should apply to decisions on aquaculture licences. When someone has to make a decision, he or she makes a decision. We see that with county council planners all the time.

Recommendation 19 is important because it addresses other threats to fishing stocks, including municipal pollution, the effect of fish farms on native stocks of salmon and the cross-breeding that is going on. We need to do more scientific study. As I have said, we need counters on the rivers as well.

The meaning of recommendation 22, which relates to small boats, is that we need infrastructure. I am a little surprised that the Minister with responsibility for the marine has funded just one pier in County Galway this year, not including the Ros a' Mhíl project. That just one of the hundreds of local authority piers in the county is getting money - it is getting it for a bursting wall - is a demonstration of the lack of priority that attaches to marine infrastructure. As small boats are tied up locally, there needs to be constant investment. We were making such investment in previous years. I would respond to any suggestion that we do not have the money now by saying the total investment required is tiny by comparison with a mile of motorway, for example. This needs to be a much higher priority.

Recommendation 23 is a request for the sub-committee to be consulted "when the relevant Ministers consider any draft Statutory Instrument" that should be brought before it. The stakeholders are very unhappy about a statutory instrument relating to razor fish on the east coast that was introduced in recent weeks. I am sorry that this matter was not brought before the sub-committee so that it could be debated. It is now proving quite contentious. I have a question down on it for next week.

Safety initiatives are very important, as are many other things. The simple answer to the social welfare issue is to get the Minister for Social Protection to cover all self-employed people for invalidity, illness and the whole gamut. We need to do that. There have been reports done on this proposal. It would deal with the class P issue. I would have liked to have spoken about the seaweed industry and the establishment of a Comhairle na Mara along the lines of Comhairle na Tuaithe.

See this speech in context