Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)

We had a very interesting conversation this morning at the fisheries committee. I welcomed this morning, and I welcome here, the fact that not only do we have a Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries and the marine but also a committee that is dedicated to it. I think it will make a big difference and, hopefully, we can work closely with the Minister of State to progress the many issues that will be coming our way.

I do not think anyone argues against the fact that as a shared and a dynamic resource that our fisheries need regulation and to be managed. That is cross-jurisdictional too. What has been clear for many years is that there must be a level of fairness within that system. I do not think anyone looking at how Europe divvies up the quota would say that Ireland has ever got its fair share of our resource and of those quotas. That is something that is very difficult to do but I would like to see the Minister and the Government push much harder for that, so our fishers have a fairer share of that shared resource.

There are also things we can do as a nation. We need to prioritise the smaller fishers and low impact fishers to assist them as much as we possibly can. They are probably the ones struggling the most, whether it is regulatory, political or, indeed, environmental pressures that we see impacting our fisheries at the moment. That is something I will be raising with the Minister of State.

Today I will use my time to talk about a couple of issues. I come at this from the basis that in order for us to have a sustainable fishery where people can pass their skills, knowledge and vessels on to family members and know that they are handing them something valuable their children and grandchildren will want to be involved in, we have to make sure they are being treated in a sustainable manner.

We need to do a large piece of work in Ireland because I do not think we have done that to date. In many instances, whether from a national or European perspective, there has been overfishing and a lack of management in different fisheries and stocks. We need to move away from that approach. The best way to do that is for us to take a holistic look at our waters and introduce the marine protected area legislation. That has to be key. That has to form the basis of all and any other policies coming after it. If we do not protect our environment and fish stocks and ensure there is a future for our environment and the marine, there will not be a future for fisheries or our coastal communities.

I said to the Minister of State earlier that I was pleased to receive a response from the Minister for housing that the marine protected areas Bill is at an advanced stage of drafting and it is intended to finalise the draft as soon as possible and seek Government approval to publish the Bill this year. That is very welcome. He went on to say that the draft Bill is intended to be a Bill in its own right and is not amending legislation. When I asked the Minister of State about this earlier, I am not sure whether his response was that the remit has not been transferred to him yet. He spoke about perhaps co-ordinating with the national DMAP process. I do not know what that could look like or what discussions there have been to date on that, but it is raising alarm bells for me. Similar to what I have said, the marine protected areas Bill has to be the basis of what we do and must inform DMAPs and other policies.

I hope it will be intensive. The plan was for it to be an intensive and robust, but also complex, piece of legislation. It is not a matter of simply drawing a few lines in our marine areas and territory and deciding that something is a marine protected area. It will have to involve regulations and enforcement. It also needs to be designed with a mind to what the environment needs and the environmental constraints. Ideally, marine protected legislation would be quite dynamic. It may not necessarily deal with one spot on a map but rather a particular current and the aquatic life that current upholds. That is what should be protected.

If the Bill is done well, and we need it to be done well, it will be a very complex piece of legislation. I am worried about being caught up with any other processes. There are risks with that. It would perhaps be worthwhile for the Minister of State to come back to the committee at some stage, assuming that the Chair and committee are in agreement. When he knows what he is thinking of doing, perhaps we could work that out and assess it because it would be important to have those discussions.

I also want to discuss sprat fishing. I acknowledge the work the Minister of State has done in this area. Whatever the outcome, I know he wants to make sure that is known before the summer and can inform the September fisheries. I have a number of concerns about this. From reading the documentation on the consultation from the Marine Institute, I noted one of the things it said was that even if we banned vessels above a certain size there is nothing to say that sprat would not be taken up by smaller vessels because there is no management. This is a species that, to date, no one valued. We do not value it from an ecological perspective, but there is also no financial value on it. Only 2% is used for human consumption; most of it goes to fish food. As the fish was so undervalued or unrecognised, we ignored it.

The reality is that it is important for everything else that happens. Our fish, including cod or hake, feed on sprat. If we do not have sprat, we will not have cod. Similarly, if we do not have sprat we will not have seabirds, whales, dolphins or marine tourism. Recent media reports have stated that, unfortunately, Colin Barnes is pulling out of whale watching because of the impact of overfishing on marine mammals. It is fundamental and we need to start valuing it for the ecological services it provides. From that perspective, I understand that the Minister of State is awaiting the outcome of the consultation but will also take into account legal considerations.

In parallel with all of that, it would be very worthwhile to mandate the Marine Institute to start doing stock assessments and begin the process of determining the stock levels. We do not have a real understanding of that aspect of fishing. The Minister of State could mandate that pretty quickly. We need to start valuing this species.

A ban on boats over 18 m was mooted in 2018. The process is taking quite a while. We have seen considerable increases in fishing. There is a risk that we might have gone past that point and a more drastic approach may be needed on an interim basis in order to get this stock back up on its feet. There have been calls for a moratorium, rather than a ban, until the data is available. If the Minister of State wants to ensure the species is protected, in the absence of any data, monitoring or management, we need to take a precautionary approach. We need to be very risk averse. There is merit in considering a moratorium to see whether that is something we could be doing instead. It could be a short-term thing. Anything like this would need to be done while being cognisant of fishing groups and communities that have fished this species legally to date. Even they would understand and appreciate that if we do not manage this resource, this fishery will not continue and all of the other fisheries that rely on this fishery will not continue. I ask the Minister of State to examine that.

See this speech in context