Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

As someone who comes from a part of County Wexford located 1 mile from Duncannon, where fishing is a way of life for many, I am deeply concerned for the community. I thank the Rural Independent Group and will support its motion. It reads "all fishers, including the inshore fishermen, have been hit extremely hard by record high fuel cost increases, while bait prices have also ‘soared’ (mainly due to almost all bait now being imported) as larger whitefish vessels have taken advantage of tie-up schemes". We all know that the rising fuel costs have burdened many sectors in our society, but those in the fishing fleet are wholly reliant on going out to fish to make ends meet.

The alternative to this is to cease operating, which, unfortunately, many are choosing to do. Those who rely on going out to fish cannot avoid the fuel crisis by working from home, switching to public transport or buying a new electric vessel. The choices that might be available to onshore workers to avoid the additional costs are simply not there for the fishing communities. This is why tax breaks or supports to a slightly larger degree than those for other sectors would be appropriate.

The motion also highlights the fact small fishermen are facing annihilation, a problem that was exacerbated by the Government, which has decided that the simplest solution to deal with the loss of the Irish fishing quota is to decommission the whitefish fleet. This scenario sums up the Government's approach to the fishing sector, as well as that of previous governments. The political will just is not there to stick up for the interests of Irish fishers when it comes to negotiations. The fallback solution appears to be the notion that we can pay off the fishermen. I am pleased the motion highlights the reality of many of the deals the Government has agreed to at EU level, and there is no doubt our membership of the EU brings many benefits to sectors of the Irish economy, but it seems that at least one exception to this is the fishing community.

The motion highlights some of the reality when it states "Irish boat owners are forced to sit in the harbour and watch as their EU neighbours from France and Spain land fish from Irish waters in Irish harbours, while benefiting from a fuel subsidy implemented by their governments on the back of a derogation given by the European Commission". Imagine how soul-destroying this must be for Irish boat owners and fishers, struggling on the margins or toeing the line between staying afloat and going out of business, to see this type of thing happening and being allowed to continue to happen.

With all that in mind, the motion calls for increased Government supports for the inshore fishing sector and for such a support scheme to be processed speedily and conveniently to increase quotas. I agree with the proposers of the motion in their calls for action and I hope the Minister is listening such that the Government will put a plan in place to support those in the inshore fishing community. I received an email earlier this month that relates to some of the commentary the Minister made in his opening remarks. I stood on the pier in Kilmore Quay with him and his visit was very much appreciated, but he might recall that the anger in the community, which depends entirely on fishing, was palpable. It has a processing plant and all the restaurants and hotels in Kilmore have a reputation for having fresh fish caught by their own local fishermen.

I received that email on 9 January from a fisherman in Kilmore. He stated that, because the decommissioning scheme had been in the news lately, he wanted to outline the views of fishermen. He explained that a figure for compensation is calculated based on the tonnage of the boat, the quantity of fish caught and the age of the boat.

This presumably is to compensate fishermen for the loss of their income and way of life forever. This should not be confused with the temporary tie-up scheme which has run for the last two years as compensation for our reduced quotas due to Brexit. The decommissioning and temporary tie-up schemes are separate and the tie-up money should not be deducted from the decommissioning money. The decommissioning scheme is a disaster for costal communities. It is a cop-out by the Government which has failed miserably to get a fair share for our fishers, even in our own waters. Since 1983, we have 2.9% of that quota for sole in area F and G. In brackets, he says that the south coast of Ireland to Lands' End is what that area covers. Belgium has 63% which is a disparity of over 60% to the advantage of Belgium. Ireland has 7% of the monkfish while France has 57% and Belgium again are up on Ireland at 8%. If we had a fair share of the quotas, there would be no need for a decommissioning scheme and the State would save some €60 million. If there is a big take-up, the industry will get very small and will not be able to sustain many of the back-up industries such as processing, engineering and transport. I think we can add tourism and serious tourism particularly in costal areas to that. The value of restaurants having fresh fish every day is particularly what enhances people's experience and brings them into the community.

He continues to state in his email that a much better scheme would be to continue the contemporary tie-up for one month every year. In line with what we have been discussing, and again it is the Minister's Department albeit a different junior Minister, is the issue of Coillte and decommissioning. We are selling off the family silver or at least that is what it looks like in rural Ireland and I know the Minister is from a costal community. Why would Coillte be selling our lands? Something that was brought to my attention this morning is very relevant because this is about rural Ireland and it is also about rural communities. The Minister has the power to change the forest premium because it has not been sanctioned by the EU. Some €100 million in forest premiums would be leaving the country annually and I am told the Minister can reduce this to the investors with which Coillte seems to have a done deal. What is being suggested, and I very much back the suggestion, is that he would reduce the premium to the investors and increase it to the farmers which would incentivise farm forestry and at the very least we would retain ownership of our lands. Decommissioning is the same thing. We are selling the family silver. When our Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, appointed a third Minister in a Dublin Central constituency, it was a rejection of rural Ireland and the calls we put on the floor like this.

See this speech in context