Seanad debates

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Sea-Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2017: Committee Stage

 

10:30 am

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has challenged the veracity of the Marine Institute's map as it pertains to the zero to six-mile limit. What evidence has he presented for the scale of fishing by vessels registered in this state that has been ongoing in waters off the North of Ireland since the Supreme Court's decision? Does he have evidence of the scale of fishing taking place? He has made an argument about reciprocity. If he looks at the voisinageletters - I refuse to refer to an agreement because it is my view that an agreement should be grounded in law - he will see that it is clearly stated on the British side that this arrangement will apply as long as the authorities of the Republic of Ireland continue to accord to Northern Irish vessels the same treatment accorded to vessels of the Republic of Ireland in the waters around its coast. In their opinion, this arrangement, as they refer to it, is clearly based on its continuing to be adhered to by this side. Therefore, there is no arrangement. According to the letters to which the Minister is referring, there is no arrangement as we speak.

I query the issue of reciprocity, which is obviously fair to do. Of course, reciprocity is central to all-Ireland co-operation and the Good Friday Agreement. I ask what is happening. How many boats registered in this state are actually fishing in Northern waters at this time? How much fishing has been taking place since the Supreme Court's decision? According to the actual letters about which the Minister has spoken, the basis of the goodwill in this area, the arrangement ceases. That has to be the case following the Supreme Court's decision. Obviously, the Supreme Court's decision is sovereign and has to be respected by the Government. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and laws. It is for that reason, based on the actual voisinageletters, I suggest this arrangement is null and void. It no longer applies. Therefore, we are back to the drawing board and if we are going back to it, that takes me to my next point.

The Minister quoted from the Supreme Court's decision on all-Ireland co-operation and suggested this was in line with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. Of course, that is positive. As I said in my earlier comments, if Irish fishermen resident on the island of Ireland were utilising the resource around the island of Ireland in a managed and sustainable fashion, surely the Minister would be positive about it. I will explain my frustration. The Minister referred to all-Ireland co-operation. I accept that point in so far as it relates to residents of the North of Ireland. The difficulty is that a glaring loophole in the licensed registration process in the North allows foreign multinationals to access a precious natural resource which is under profound pressure. The Minister can see the numbers. The reduction in the productivity of the bottom mussel seed industry, for example, in recent years is unchallenged. This natural resource is under serious pressure. As a result of the loophole I have mentioned, this resource which has immense potential to create jobs and prosperity in coastal communities is being handed to foreign multinationals. That is not in line with the Good Friday Agreement, rather it takes advantage of the goodwill of the Agreement.

This legislation is way too premature. If we are serious about the Good Friday Agreement and all-Ireland co-operation, we should make sure the Northern authorities are asked to ensure the registration process for their legislation guarantees that those who avail of these licences are resident on the island. I have no problem with the Minister receiving advice from his officials to enable him to respond to the points I am making and believe he is sincere. I accept that he believes in the all-Ireland markets provided for under the Good Friday Agreement. He is sincere in his appreciation of the importance of all-Ireland co-operation in ensuring the resources of this island benefit all of the people on the island. The difficulty is that there is a huge loophole that has yet to be closed fully. This legislation invites that loophole to be exploited yet again. The Supreme Court's decision closed that loophole, but this legislation provides for it to be reopened, which is not prudent. We should have engaged in negotiations and discussions with our Northern counterparts to ensure there would be a level playing pitch for all fishermen on the island. I refer, for example, to differences in licensing. It is not fair that one can obtain a licence in the North way cheaper than in this state. We should make sure those who avail of these licences are resident in Ireland and contributing to the economy on the island, in line with the Good Friday Agreement. I am not going to argue that they should have to be Irish citizens.

If ever there was legislation that should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, this is it. The Bill should have come through the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We should have been able to bring in the stakeholders - the fishermen around the coast - to make an argument about the reality for them versus that for those who will benefit from the Bill. I remind the Minister that the voisinageletters are very clear. There is no other way to interpret them. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the arrangement is null and void. Dr. Beamish is advising the Minister.Following the Supreme Court decision, it is very clear the voisinagearrangement is null and void so we do not have a responsibility to legislate or to restore anything. It is a blank canvas. I believe the Minister's sincere objective is an all-Ireland fishery, which makes particular sense to a person such as me from Donegal, so let us commence negotiations. Let us bring the Northern departmental officials and all the fishing interests to the Oireachtas committee.

This is premature and smacks of senior Department officials, frustrated at the Supreme Court's decision, deciding to use taxpayers' money to defend their position and utilise these Houses to teach a lesson to the people who took the case. This is clearly rushed because the Minister is creating a loophole. The court cases are not concluded and certain matters have to go through the High Court.

The people involved took the case because of the exploitation of Irish natural resources by foreign multinationals. That is a laudable reason to take a case and I know of nobody in coastal communities from Donegal to Louth who feels we are getting full justice from Irish waters or from our huge resources as an island nation. I have no problem with coastal communities across the island of Ireland sharing our resources but in the zero to six km and zero to 12 km zones there is exploitation by foreign multinationals of an Irish natural resource. I will not stand for it because I do not believe we got a fair deal outside those limits. The Common Fisheries Policy has not given our fishing communities a fair deal.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.