Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

First, I welcome the representatives of the fishing communities on the various islands who are in the Visitors Gallery to listen to the debate. I failed to do so at the start. It has been a lengthy debate during which many views have been contributed, but the consensus seems to be that Members are supportive of the Bill. In fairness, even the Ministers of State have said they are in favour of its broad principle. However, there are a number of issues which were raised in the Minister of State, Deputy Andrew Doyle's contribution which I would like to address, including the notion that the Bill gives one group entitlements above others. Yes, it does and unapologetically so. If we think about it, every citizen 18 years and older is entitled to put himself or herself forward for election to this Chamber, yet we have rules which state parties must select a certain quota of women candidates. Therefore, we favour some potential candidates over others for the simple reason that we have a problem in that we do not have enough women Members. Deputy Charlie McConalogue mentioned, as I had intended to do, the areas of natural constraint schemes under which special payments are made on the islands and in mountain areas. There are umpteen examples of the Government acknowledging in law special circumstances. It happens everywhere we go.

Another issue I want to raise is that the Government representatives say the Bill is too narrowly defined. They suggest residents of an offshore island who are engaged in fishing are defined too narrowly. They have also asked how residency will be determined. All of these issues can be dealt with on Committee Stage. That is how we deal with these things. The Bill would be 20 pages long if we were to go into detail on everything. We have to deal with these issues on Committee Stage. When we reach that Stage when we will actually put licences in place, as we hope we will, it will be up to us to ensure the Minister will put in place the conditions and restrictions needed. The Bill does not define the term "offshore island". There are already definitions of it. Therefore, the Bill does not need to define it, but we will deal with that issue when the Bill is taken on Committee Stage.

It is long-standing Government policy that Ireland's fish quota is a national asset. I took that point from the Minister of State's contribution. It certainly is a national asset. Therefore, as a Government and an assembly, we have the power and ability to decide how to use it for the benefit of the people and in the national good. It is my view and, I believe, that of the majority of Members that the national good will be served by marking off a small portion of the quota and ensuring it is given to island fishermen in order that they can continue to sustain their communities.

The Minister of State has said the Bill provides for no means of review, appeal, surrender or withdrawal of a licence. Again, that is an issue to be dealt with on Committee Stage. He has also said the Bill is not a serious attempt to address the concerns of island fisherman. That brings me to the obvious question: was his committee not serious about its report? The need for a Bill such as this was part of it. If he is saying it is not a serious attempt, he is saying the work his committee did and the report it produced were not serious. More questions arise from his contribution than answers. The first part dealt only with the various grants and subsidies available to all fishermen. All fishermen know about them because they absolutely need them to survive. In fairness, he was speaking about inshore fishermen.

The issue of salmon management raised by the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Kyne, is interesting. We did hear talk about salmon coming up rivers being affected. The reality is that, as stated in the Bill, we are talking specifically about quota species. As there is no quota for salmon, the species will not be affected.

See this speech in context