Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to put on the record the annoyance of this side of the House at the failure of the Government to introduce this Bill in a timely manner. The Bill was introduced in the Seanad two years ago. In the intervening two years, nothing was done until two vessels were apprehended and we now have to deal with this Bill as a matter of urgency. In an interview to RTÉ and a national newspaper the Minister, Deputy Creed, pointed the finger at the Fianna Fáil Party and suggested it was responsible for the delay and withdrawal of this Bill in the Seanad. That is not perception, but a fact, and I ask the Minister to deal with it. It is not a political charge but it is factual one. I refer in that regard to the RTÉ and newspaper interviews of November and December of last year.

This Bill should have been dealt with and the blame for it not being dealt with must be laid at the foot of the Government and, in particular the Minister, Deputy Creed, who decided that this would evaporate until such time as a vessel was apprehended. It is for that reason we are here today rushing through this legislation. We on this side of the House accept the principle of this Bill and the need to correct the historical failure to underpin the agreement of former Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, and Captain Terence O'Neill, some 50 years ago, which was beneficial to small vessels on both sides of the Border within the nought to six nautical mile zone.

We are here now because of the decision taken by the Supreme Court which while it accepted there was an informal agreement said it had to be underpinned by primary legislation. Can the Minister confirm to this House that the view of the courts is that the voisinageagreement does not distinguish between sea fish and aquaculture? Is it correct that the judgment against the State on the voisinageagreement covers all species, not only sea fish? This referred only to sea fish when it was first established before a practice in the 1990s extended to other activities such as aquaculture and non-quota species.

I ask the Minister to confirm to the House that the Supreme Court judgment does not differentiate between species in terms of interdependence on the voisinageagreement and what is permitted to fish under the terms of that agreement. I also ask if the same interpretation is taken by the UK authorities on what is permitted.

The greatest area of concern is not necessarily sea fishing but mussel seed fishing. I have concerns about this. There is a Donegal man on hunger strike outside the gates of Leinster House. Deputy McConalogue and I met with the man's brother rather than the man himself because of the sub judicerule and his brother is very well versed on the issues. I am sure the Minister was asked this in the Seanad, but I ask him to extend the courtesy of meeting with that man before the end of the day and of taking his concerns on board.

Is the Minister satisfied that, if we enter into this agreement, the mussel seed resource of this State can be protected in a sustainable way? I am not sure if anyone has details of the state of our mussel resource and that is important to have. We must ensure that resource is managed so it is not decimated at the expense of those who have been fishing it for years.

The Minister referred to meeting various Ministers from the UK Government. They have asked the Minister if he is going to put this on a legal footing. Is this on a legal footing in the UK? We cannot question the judgment of the courts but the Minister might tell us if the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Robert Goodwill, MP, or the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Gove, MP, are prepared to do that.

Does the Minister have any plans to introduce management measures under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 and, if so, what type of management measures is he considering? Will those management measures apply to all non-quota species, aquaculture or both?

Despite having two years to prepare this Bill, the Minister found that a lot of progress was made in the time after he withdrew the Bill from the Seanad as a result of meetings with stakeholders which were requested by Opposition spokespersons when we met him in his office on two occasions. We insisted that telephone calls on a Wednesday evening did not constitute consultation and the Minister eventually conceded to have consultations in the Department's office in Clonakilty. It is unfortunate that, even still, there were those who did not have the opportunity of consultation because some of those who were not consulted are more seriously affected than those who were consulted.

Does the 18 m restriction only apply to sea fisheries and not to aquaculture activities?

I want to give an opportunity to my colleague, Deputy McConalogue, but I hope that, during the course of Committee Stage, we will have an opportunity to ask more specific questions.

See this speech in context