Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to briefly add to what has been said. I acknowledge and agree with much of what has been said by colleagues, particularly by Senators Norris, Mac Lochlainn, Nash and Senator Marshall who provided insight from a Northern perspective.

I acknowledge that last Thursday the Minister met representative organisations and had a discussion, presumably, on this Bill. However, not notwithstanding that, concerns remain. The following is clear to me. When we adjourned our discussion of this Bill two weeks ago, there was a request for meaningful consultations to take place but from my perspective such consultations have not occurred. While I acknowledge that discussions took place with representative bodies, including the IFPO and the national forum, there were other requests to his Department and office from other fishermen and fishermen co-operatives, including, for example, the Dunany Lobster and Crab Association. I understand that a request on behalf of Mulroy Shellfish was submitted to the Minister's office seeking a meeting with him to discuss the legislation. What is the status of that request? Why has the meeting not been facilitated prior to today? I ask the Minister to clarify the matter.

The main groups of people affected by this legislation and with boats registered in the Republic of Ireland are mussel, crab and lobster fishermen. Other fishermen are affected but primarily it is the inshore fishermen in those categories who are affected. We are talking about people who have invested lifetimes of hard work and financial resources, time and commitment into establishing, developing and nurturing their businesses over the years. Their fear is that their enterprises and livelihoods will be wiped out as a result of this legislation. I fully appreciate the reciprocal nature of the voisinageagreement. Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court ruled against the voisinageagreement giving a very clear and specific line around the constitutional protection that should be extended to the natural resources inside the six-mile limit. Yet, this legislation is being brought in now to, effectively, attack our Constitution and the protection referred to in the Supreme Court judgment.

If we accept that the reciprocal arrangements are mutually beneficial to both parties, that is fine. It is my understanding that the reciprocal arrangements are not mutually beneficial to both parties. One party has much more to lose than the other and one has much more to gain than the other. Therefore, that is not in keeping with the definition of a reciprocal arrangement. In fact, this is not only a reciprocal arrangement but it is also a binding bilateral commitment with reciprocal duties, rights and obligations attached to it. That is what we are talking about here. It is a binding bilateral commitment that we are offering here. The issue at stake here is much greater than the weight being given to it by the Department at this juncture.I read carefully the 2017 letter from the British Minister with responsibility for environmental matters, Mr. Michael Gove. They were different times in 2017 and today things are very different in London. Whitehall is a different place and the British Parliament is a different place. The Ministers, including Mr. Gove, are effectively dancing with shadows over there. We should not be extending the courtesy of any deal in those sorts of circumstances.

This should not be rushed as this is crucial to livelihoods. I have absolutely no connection with any of the stakeholders involved but I only raise these matters out of pure concern. I know some of the fishermen from Senator Nash's area of Dundalk have spoken to me and their livelihoods will be wiped out. For example, they have spent in excess of 25 years in the v-notching programme for lobsters, trying to nurture and cultivate the stock. The same nurturing and cultivation of the stock, in my understanding, has not taken place in northern waters. As such, vessels in the North would benefit substantially from the great work of our fishermen in the Republic of Ireland, so this could not be defined as a reciprocal arrangement. There is no equality or parity of esteem here whatever. These are issues that should have been teased out more with our fishermen. Surely it is the job of a Department to listen to the concerns of stakeholders.

The Killybegs Fishermens Organisation, KFO, based in my area, is a representative body predominantly for the larger vessels or the pelagic fleet. I sometimes refer to the "small fishermen" as I would the "small farmer". The small farmer in west Donegal, Connemara or west Mayo does not always have his or her view necessarily represented by the Irish Farmers Association, which is why there are so many splinter groups of farming organisations being established and holding public meetings and demonstrations. I do not have the answer but I am not sure all the national platforms and fora of these organisations represent the views of these specific fishermen. That is why it is so important that the Minister should fulfil his obligations and meet the groups that have made specific requests to meet him. I am not suggesting he must agree with them but he should at least listen to their concerns and tease out the issues. Until that happens, I cannot support this legislation because I would be doing a disservice to ordinary fishermen in doing so. We cannot ride roughshod over small fishermen for the benefit of larger commercial operations. I get the distinct impression that it is happening in this instance and I do not like to see it happening.

Many other matters have been raised with me concerning this Bill. I know the Minister is genuine in his objectives and I do not doubt his sincerity for one moment; however, it is misplaced. The Minister should not rush this legislation through the Seanad this evening and he should certainly not put it through the Dáil on Thursday. He must afford that further space to meet the affected fishermen. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from Donegal, Senator Mac Lochlainn, as the Kelly family should be included. They were brave enough to bring that case to the Supreme Court and they were successful in that venture. Their livelihood is also at stake here.

There are far-reaching ramifications to this legislation and although the Minister might be of the view that those ramifications are not founded in fact, he may or may not be right. The fishermen affected by the legislation feel that the Bill will have a detrimental effect on their livelihood and they may or may not be right. They should be afforded the opportunity to meet the relevant Minister, who is in the Chamber this evening. I respectfully suggest that he should reach out to those people, respond to the request made of him and meet those people this week and certainly before the Bill is discussed in the Dáil. If the legislation is passed here this evening, so be it, although it is the wrong course of action, such is the extent of the damage that this Bill could do to some of our smaller fishermen along the coast. The timing is wrong and there should be further consultation.

I agree that there should have been pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, which would have allowed an Oireachtas committee to listen to all the key stakeholders and tease out some of the issues. It is the best way to formulate legislation anyway. We had two years in which that could have been done but, unfortunately, that did not happen. I certainly do not subscribe to the notion that just because Mr. Gove or the British Government wants to see this legislation introduced, we should jump to that tune. We should not do so but we should protect our own fishermen first before worrying about the consequences in London afterwards. I am not so sure there will even be a British Government in London in a few months and nobody knows the answer to that question. We can only speculate. A deal with any British Government or Minister now is a deal with a shadow as far as I am concerned. We should protect our own interests in the meantime before any legislation is brought before the House again. I appeal to the Minister even at this late stage to fulfil the request before him.