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

In realpolitik, it is an illogical position to adopt. For many good reasons, primarily because this operated successfully for nearly 50 years, because it is the right thing to do for our neighbours in Northern Ireland, because it is not partitionist and is all-island, because it was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement and because it would be strategically and politically wise in the context of Brexit to do so, we should not say that they cannot come down any longer.

Voisinagewas a good idea in the 1960s and it continues to be a good idea. As I said, the world in the 1960s was a much simpler place. Ownership was a much simpler structure. Under EU regulations, I can go to the UK, reside there and set up a business there. I can go to Germany and to Holland. That arrangement is reciprocal in the sense of their movement of goods and services. That is part of what we wholeheartedly embrace as members of the European Union. What the Senator wants to do now is simply to cherry-pick that and say that by this legislation we want to revert back in some way to the 1960s and ensure the man who owns and operates his boat and lives in Northern Ireland is the only person who is entitled to benefit under voisinage. That view of the world changed very significantly as the European Economic Community and the European Union evolved with the free movement of goods and services, establishment rights, residency rights, etc.

Points were made about the resource itself and invasive species and all that. I am getting drawn into a specific view of the world here that is dominated by mussel seed. This is not the only fishery that is affected by this legislation. Let us deal with it. We have a joint managerial approach North and South for the management of the mussel fishery. It involves regulations around gear, closed and open periods, consultation and co-operation between two jurisdictions. It is a template for how we could do greater things and have greater co-operation with Northern Ireland. Why would Senator Norris want to tear it up and walk away? I think that would be calamitous in terms of what we could do and achieve together. Yes, it needs to be regulated and managed as a resource. That has been the case all along. There is a management approach to this, as I said, that has closed periods and restrictions on gear. It operates on a North-South basis and I believe it operates pretty well.

On the issue of registration for mussel seed, there is a requirement for a secondary authorisation from the Northern Ireland authorities to operate specifically in the mussel fishery areas. One can register in the UK, but to be a part of the mussel fishery operation, which is one element of the voisinagefishing arrangements inside the zero to six nautical mile zone, there is a secondary authorisation required in Northern Ireland.

Senator Norris spoke with what I appreciate is a widely held view of the history of our fishing industry, the European Union and all that. I ask him to bear in mind that when we joined the European Economic Community back in the 1970s, the Irish fishing industry was a fraction of the industry we have today. We now catch 40% of that industry's effort in UK territorial waters. The access the EU has given to us means our industry is much bigger. I accept that we would like it to be even bigger still, but in the EU we share our resources. Part of the threat we face in our nearest neighbour leaving the EU are the resources it takes with it.

I cannot say what the landing spots are going to be in the context of those Brexit negotiations. Obviously, whether this legislation passes is in the gift of this House. I cannot determine whether this amendment or legislation will pass. At a later stage post Brexit, it may be opportune to revisit this when we see where those negotiations are. However, I think it would be folly in the extreme now to undermine gratuitously our negotiating position.

That aside and Brexit aside, on the basis of an all-island approach, it was right in the 1960s to have reciprocal arrangements and it is right to continue those today. I hope I have dealt with most of the issues that were raised on the amendment.