Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Clare Daly's amendment proposes to amend the text of section 10 to add to the description of a foreign sea-fishing boat. The Deputy will wish to be aware that the Bill intends to amend Part 2 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. Therefore, the definitions within that Part of the Act apply to terms or phrases used in the Bill. Within that Part the definitions already address the Deputy’s concerns. I will read the definitions for the information of the House: “sea-fishing” means fishing for or taking fish or sea fish; “sea-fishing boat” means any ship, boat or other vessel of whatsoever kind used for sea fishing and includes any vessel or boat used for the treatment of fish or partly or wholly for the transport of fish. Aquaculture boats are sea fishing boats within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the Deputy’s amendment can be considered to be tautology as the definitions already encompass the elements it seeks to include.

Deputy Pringle’s amendment has the appearance of seeking to exclude mussel seed from the scope of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. I cannot accept the amendment as the Act is the primary legislation used to regulate sea fishing and manage and conserve sea fish resources within the State, including mussels and their seed. The Act is intended to give national expression to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy that relate to marine biological resources and do not make any distinction such as the Deputy proposes.

I must stress that the Bill should not be seen as an opportunity to regulate individual fishing activities or manage any particular species. It is about the principle of access. The regulation and management of fishing activities are a complicated business, one in which I engage regularly with the fishing industry and experts from the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, as I do with other stakeholders.

I will quote again from Mr. Justice O’Donnell’s judgment in the Supreme Court, as I did earlier in responding to Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher's query:

In particular I agree that reciprocity is only required at the general level of fishing, and is not required at the level of each species. I also accept that the arrangement must be a flexible one if it is to permit the fishing now carried out. The corollary is however that the present fishing is not within the precise terms of the 1965 correspondence.

Reciprocity at the general level of fishing means that if an Irish sea fishing boat is permitted or restricted in a particular way, the same must apply to a Northern Irish sea fishing boat while fishing under the arrangements and vice versa.

See this speech in context