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

We are dealing with this Bill today and I note from the Minister's contribution he has at least tried refer to some of the issues that have been raised by various members of the fishing community. As was said by previous speakers, we had a meeting a few weeks ago the outcome of which was that we sought to ensure that the Minister would engage directly with the representatives of the fishermen and the fishing organisations. I understand that happened last Thursday week for a number of hours. While the outcome of that was communicated very clearly to us, namely, that the fishing organisations still had many reservations around some of the issues they were concerned about, in general, they felt that this Bill would proceed. That was the general theme we got back from it. However, since then there has been a sense of possibly more concerns, particularly about the London Fisheries Convention, which is an issue that has come up clearly. People are concerned that if this Bill is to pass, it will allow boats from other countries that have signed up to the London Fisheries Convention equal access to Northern Ireland, which is also part of that convention. The Minister needs to deal with that issue and to spell out clearly the position in respect of that.

In terms of the broad thrust of the Bill, it is important to remind ourselves that, as many have said, we live on an island and if there are boats off the coast of County Mayo from County Kerry or County Donegal that have travelled to fish there, it is equally right that boats from County Derry or County Antrim would also be able to fish in those waters or vice versa. As a party that wants to see a united Ireland, which is one of our central objectives, we understand that this has to happen and that everything has to be done to make it happen. As the Minister mentioned, the Good Friday Agreement is part of that. We need to progress this forward. However, there are concerns and it is important to separate and outline those concerns.

As mentioned by previous speakers, some of the concerns relate to the broad fishing industry and what has happened in many cases where we have seen large boats from other jurisdictions come into our waters and plunder our resources and do all kinds of damage. In fairness, this legislation provides for restricting the size of boats to under 18 m and allows access within the six-mile limit. Those provisions address some of the concerns but there needs to be an emphasis on protecting the resource.

The main concern is regarding the mussel industry and the protection of the mussel beds. It appears there has been at least a degree of over-exploitation of those mussel beds in the past that has brought us to this situation. It is for that reason we tabled amendment No. 8, proposing the implementation of a all-Ireland sustainability and conservation management plan for non-quota species within the six-mile limit. While it has been ruled out of order, I would appreciate it were the Minister to address that and those issues, because they need to be dealt with. I note the bottom mussel forum, which is an effort across the two jurisdictions, North and South, to deal with this matter, has been up and running for approximately ten years now. It is timely to examine that, review what has happened and identify what has been positive and where improvements need to happen. What has been communicated to all Deputies from many of the fishing organisations is that there is room for major improvement in that respect.

Many of the other issues mainly relate to the ownership of vessels and to ensure that flags of convenience cannot be flown. Our amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 4, in the names of Deputies Clare Daly and Pringle, are similar and address the same point, namely, that those who own the boat need to be resident on the island of Ireland to guard against boat owners from abroad travelling to our waters and using them as a flag of convenience. Every effort needs to be made to ensure that does not happen.

On the issues that have been spelled out in our other amendments, particularly our amendment regarding the London Fisheries Convention, the scenario whereby boats from Belgium or other countries would be able to come under the radar in this regard would be of major concern for everyone. The Minister needs to assure us that will not be the case. The best way to do that would be to accept our amendment and its inclusion in the legislation would make it clear to everyone that this could not happen and that the London Fisheries Convention would be outside the terms of this Bill.

There are problems facing the fishing industry, particularly the inshore sector. The Minister has acknowledged that by some of the work he has done recently in limiting the size of boats that come into the inshore sector. That sector feels very much aggrieved by what has happened over decades within the fishing sector. When issues arise, they see them as another example of them being victimised and losing out to others. This legislation presents an opportunity for the Minister, the Government and all of us to be a champion for that sector and to make sure that does not happen and that what we are doing here in the context of this Bill will not do that.

The Minister stated that the fisheries in the zero to six-mile zone will need to have the necessary authorisation from their own fishing administration to avail of UK quota for the species in question. That brings me to an issue I would like the Minister address. In the context of Brexit, whether there is a deal, no deal or whatever transpires, it is clear that Britain will be outside the Common Fisheries Policy before very long.

If it is, quota will not apply to boats registered in the North because they will be outside the EU and therefore they will not have an EU quota. Unless they come up with some quota regime of their own, where will we all be in respect of all of that? What will that quota regime be? The current quota is organised and agreed among all the members of the European Union and while we have many issues with that, if Britain intends to independently set its own quota standards and size of quota, it can say it has quota to fish anything they like within the six-mile zone and bring it back to Britain. It is an issue with which the Minister needs to try to deal.

The Minister mentioned scaremongering in his contribution and people talking up the problem rather than looking for the solution. That is always thrown back at people who make representations on behalf of a community that feels aggrieved, left out and put on the back foot but at the same time, the major grievance we have is around the level of authority of the British boats. When boats from the South go up to the North, do they have a legal standing? It was challenged here and that is the reason we got into this situation. Had it been challenged in the North, perhaps there would be no legal standing there either. It is very vague in respect of that. The Minister said he asked the Minister in Britain about that recently and that he received assurances from him but I would say his verbal assurances are not worth the paper they are written on. Unless we have something solid we can see that it is underwritten in British legislation, where then do we stand?

I want to deal with the amendments before the House. The first two amendments in the names of Deputies Clare Daly and Pringle are on the issue of aquaculture and the mussel seed beds, as is our amendment No. 8, which was ruled out of order. They are issues with which the Minister needs to get to grips and come up with solutions for people and provide firm reassurances, not like the verbal assurances he got from the Minister in the UK but something that is real and on paper.

Our other amendments relate to the ownership of the boats, for which I hope we get support. There are three other amendments sponsored by Deputies Mattie McGrath and Michael Collins. While I understand where they are coming from in proposing them, I have issues with them because they are basically saying that the 26-county State stands on it own, we are not an island any more and that we recognise partition. We have issues with that and that is why we could not and will not support those amendments.

Amendment No. 9 regarding the quota or allocation of any species in accordance with the quota on both sides of the Border is a real hole in all of this and it needs to be dealt with appropriately I hope the Minister can accept it, which would mean we would at least have an assurance in respect of that.

Other parties have many views in this respect but while I sense this Bill will pass, these amendments need to be inserted in it. We need to be able to see that we are standing up for the inshore fishermen and fighting their corner. The man who is protesting outside the gates of Leinster House is an example of that. Whatever people's views may be of court cases, he is obviously a person of strong commitment who is prepared to make a stand. We must be prepared to admire people who make such a stand and acknowledge they are worthy of being considered.

I appeal to the Minister to also speak, if not to the man himself, then to people close to him; for example, his brother is someone the Minister could speak to. He should have a conversation around these issues and make sure we can make progress.

See this speech in context