Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 2012

Vol. 768 No. 2

Common Fisheries Policy: Statements

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I am glad to have the opportunity to update the House on the result of a long but successful Council of Ministers meeting last night. Its objective was to get agreement among member states on a Common Position from the Council's perspective on the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, reform. This morning's EU Fisheries Council adopted a general approach on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. This general approach will form the negotiating mandate for the Council in the negotiations with the EU Parliament, which will commence after the EU Parliament has established its position. This will happen in the autumn. It is very likely that the negotiations between the Council and Parliament will take place during the first half of 2013, during Ireland's Presidency of the EU.

The meeting of the Fisheries Council focused on finding solutions to political issues in the Common Fisheries Policy reform package. Following the intensive negotiations, lasting 20 hours into this morning, the Council agreed a general approach. While there was general political agreement in advance of the Fisheries Council on the overall objective of eliminating discards, the issue that had to be solved was how to practically achieve a situation where fishing practices were changed while protecting the economic viability of the fishing industry. In order to find solutions, I tabled at the Council a new approach to deal with discards which took into account the real practical difficulties of changing practices, the economic impacts and other constraints which impact on fishermen in mixed fisheries. The proposal involved delivering a progressive and phased approach to the obligation to land catches of quota stocks in a mixed fishery context. I met fishing industry representatives last Thursday for detailed discussions on this approach. On Monday evening, I again met the industry representatives who had travelled to Luxembourg for the Council discussions and discussed with them the options and strategy for the Council meeting.

My approach combined appropriate technical measures to reduce catches of juveniles and other vulnerable stocks with quota adjustments to facilitate the transition for fishermen and cushion any early economic hardship that might result. The practical arrangements involved setting a start date and an end date for the delivery of a requirement to land all catches of quota stocks in each fishery. This approach was focused on incentivising changes in fishing practices, reducing catches of juvenile fish and allowing fish stocks to grow over a set period. I believe this approach stood the best chance of securing buy-in from fishermen and, in this way, delivering effective, more environmentally friendly fishing practices and sustainable fisheries into the future.

At the Council, I worked closely with fellow Ministers to agree appropriate measures. It is worth noting that some Ministers were seeking the immediate application of a discards ban to all species while others were seeking to delay the requirement to land all stocks until the latest possible date, even as late as 2020. The proposals I had tabled offered a middle ground which was viewed, especially by Ministers where the fishing sector is economically important, as practical and deliverable. In the end, the Council's position supports a three year phasing in of the requirement to land all quota stocks in mixed fisheries. It sets a start date of 1 January 2015 for whitefish stocks in Irish waters and provides that this will apply to all species by the end of 2018 at the latest. As for pelagic stocks, such as herring and mackerel, the requirement to land all catches applies from 1 January 2014.

A critical part of my approach involves ensuring that fishermen will not be disadvantaged, from a quota perspective, arising from this new requirement to land all quota stocks. I am pleased that, as part of the package, Commissioner Damanaki committed to further work in this regard specifying that the elimination of discards is not intended to reduce fishing opportunities. I secured a specific declaration from her on that issue. At the Council, the Commissioner accepted additional quotas must be introduced to meet the additional landings arising from this new policy.

The final and most important element of the package on discards relates to introducing technical measures, such as mesh size increases and escape panels, to reduce catches of juvenile fish to a minimum. The arrangements provide that member states, on a regional basis, will work with their industry and other stakeholders through the regional advisory councils to put in place such measures. The policy's new regional approach to decision making will enable these measures, where agreed by member states, to be adopted without delay by the European Commission and introduced in the relevant fisheries. I am confident Ireland will be in a position to move quickly on the adoption of these technical measures, which will support the phased introduction of the landing requirement in its mixed whitefish fisheries.

There has been agreement on many of the other important issues under review. Much progress has been made over recent months on many of Ireland's priority issues, in particular on agreeing a practical approach that will provide for decision making on a regional basis, as I noted earlier, as well as a commitment to deliver fish quotas based on scientific advice that will deliver a maximum sustainable yield per species in fisheries by 2015 where possible, and by 2020 at the latest for all stocks for which it is possible to put together information to make a calculation as to what is the maximum sustainable yield. There also was agreement that at European level, the development of an aquaculture industry must be supported and the policy provides for regional advisory councils involving stakeholders for aquaculture to ensure problems can be discussed and resolved as they arise and that best practices are shared across all sectors. I welcome this in particular as there is huge potential in Ireland to expand and grow aquaculture and finfish farming. However, this must be done in a sustainable way and in the correct locations.

Finally, and of paramount importance to Ireland, there was the removal of the mandatory proposals on privatisation of national fishing quotas from the Council's general approach. I have been a strong opponent of this proposal as it would have threatened the economic survival of Ireland's coastal communities essentially by allowing industries and individuals with the buying power potentially to buy up the white fish quota in particular from Irish fishing ports and would have consolidated the fishing industry in Ireland and potentially throughout Europe, which would have done untold and irreversible damage. I welcome the arrangements now supported by the Council to allow each member state manage its fish quotas to take account of its own individual circumstances, as will Ireland. Delivery of this key element was a vital part of the package, from my perspective, that allowed me to support it. I consider this Council agreement to offer a strong and progressive Common Fisheries Policy reform. I hope the new arrangements will be welcomed by both the industry and those campaigning for a more sustainable approach towards fisheries management.

As I understand I have a further five minutes available to me, let me give Members-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not according to my clock. Perhaps if the House was agreeable-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

No, I am happy to let others speak and would rather listen to what they have to say. While my understanding was that 15 minutes were allocated to me, of which I have taken ten, I will be glad to give Members more time because I would rather listen to what they have to say.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I thank the Minister. I call Deputy Browne, who has 15 minutes.

Deputy John Browne

I thank the Minister for arranging this debate on foot of his marathon negotiating session at the Council meeting. I attended such meetings in previous years and I understand the lengthy debates that continue deep into the night. A system appears to have evolved over the years whereby Ministers are obliged to keep negotiating until it is almost morning before reaching an agreement. However, I hope the package that has emerged will underpin a sustainable framework for fisheries into the future.

The Minister certainly is correct in stating this Council meeting was one of the most important for years in setting out the future of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. It is important that Members on all sides of the House would be of like mind in ensuring that Irish fisheries are protected into the future and that, when the Common Fisheries Policy document finally comes before them, it will be of major benefit to Irish fishermen throughout the country. While some reports of the meeting have presented its conclusions as a done deal, I am sure the Minister will accept much more work remains to be done in setting out the framework for a new Common Fisheries Policy. Under the co-decision procedure implemented by the Lisbon Treaty, yesterday's meeting merely comprises one part of a two-step process to establish a new CFP. As I am sure the Minister will accept, the proposal as agreed by the Council will now go before the European Parliament for further scrutiny, debate and amendment, if the latter is required. In this context, I note Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP has been very much to the forefront on the subject of fisheries and on the fisheries committee and I hope the Irish MEPs will support the Minister in his endeavours to get the best deal possible for Irish fishermen. I understand the Parliament will not complete its report until October, after which negotiations will commence between the Council and the Parliament. As the Minister noted, it will be deep into 2013 before the CFP is finalised. The Minister should acknowledge that reports presenting the CFP as a done deal are wide of the mark. It is to be hoped the Minister will have a major say when Ireland holds the Presidency of the European Union and that he will be at the coalface of ensuring the Common Fisheries Policy is the best deal on the table for Ireland and for Irish fishermen, as I am sure he will.

The CFP system for Irish fishermen continues to provide a system which I believe tries to set out a structured and sustainable management of international fishing activity in each of the key areas of interest to Irish fishermen, particularly in the rich north-east Atlantic. It sets out stable arrangements for access to the large European Union seafood market for the large volumes of Irish seafood products the Irish fishing industry exports to those markets. This sustains direct employment for fishermen and creates spin-off jobs in the agrifood industry. In this context, I welcome the Minister's recent announcement regarding grant aid for different companies around the coastline. I am aware of one if not two companies in County Wexford that received grant aid. While Kilmore Quay is at the hub of the fishing industry, it also is at the hub of adding value to the fish products provided by the fishermen. It is only right that such companies should get the support and assistance announced by the Minister last week. It will ensure they will be able to develop further products and markets, as well as ensuring jobs along the coastline, which is very important in certain rural areas. This industry is an important part of the economy and contributes between €700 million and €800 million annually to national income, as well as employing 1,100 people around the coastline. I consider it to be highly important to the continuation of a viable rural Ireland and I note that at present, agriculture and fisheries appear to be the two main areas that are doing well. It is important this should continue, because agriculture and fishing are areas in which there is huge potential for job creation. The Minister spoke about aquaculture. Like him, I have a deep interest in this industry. I know it can be very controversial at times but there are opportunities to develop it. The amount of fish available to the EU at present is only about 70% sustainable within the Union and there are opportunities for Ireland to develop this industry. I welcome that the Minister is now looking at a different approach in that, as he informed us last week, BIM will now apply for licences in certain parts of the country. If it gets the licence for aquaculture the industry will be under State control and I imagine BIM will be able to lease the licences to companies that want to develop and be involved in aquaculture. It is a good and even a novel way of doing things. As we know, and as the Minister is aware, the hoops one must go through to get an aquaculture licence in recent years have made it practically impossible to renew an existing licence and certainly impossible to get a new one. I welcome the Minister's approach in this regard. The future of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, is vital to those jobs and to the marine tradition of the coastal regions of Ireland which have a proud fishing heritage. In this light, yesterday's meeting was of critical importance to the people who are reliant on a sustainable and practical framework for their livelihoods in the fishing industry.

It is also important that we assess in detail the outcome of yesterday's meeting and review it in light of what fishermen believe its practical impact will be on their livelihoods, what the analysis of the industry as a whole is and also in respect of the broader fundamental question of the creation of a fisheries policy that recognises and adapts to the need to create a sustainable industry. "Sustainable" is a very important word both at EU level and for the Fisheries Commissioner. I know the Minister has had to bend the ear of the Commissioner on several occasions to ensure that while we have a sustainable industry it is also a practical one that is not tied up with red tape and bureaucracy.

I understand the issue of discarding of fish, whereby unwanted catches of dead fish are thrown back into the sea, was by far the most contentious element of the discussions yesterday and from what I heard in conversation with Pat the Cope Gallagher this issue could have derailed the Council's efforts to reach an agreement. There is no easy solution to the discard situation. Different Ministers at EU level have looked at the issue and discussed it but very few decisions were made in the past. Significant media and industrial attention has been paid to the issue and to the future of fishing as a sustainable industry. In every newspaper one read or took up in recent months, whether Irish, English or international, the discard issue is one where there has been major criticism of the lack of action within the EU. The United Nations has stated that the north-east Atlantic has the second highest discards level in the world, estimated to be 1.3 million tonnes annually. Most of these discards are attributed to EU fishermen and are carried out under the current EU Common Fisheries Policy. The Minister's compromise obviously averted the prospect of a collapse but we must question this. Perhaps when the Minister comments at the end of the debate he might take on board what the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation chief executive, Sean O'Donoghue, said on "Morning Ireland". He was highly critical of the decision of the Minister and argued that his organisation's policy of minimising discards by expanding fish nets and systematically avoiding specific areas offers a better method of reducing the elimination of fishing stock. Whether the fish are discarded or landed, they are dead and fishing stocks suffer as a result. There are real questions as to how practical a solution the compromise will be in reality for boats fishing in the Atlantic. I hope the Minister might elaborate somewhat on the concerns of Sean O'Donoghue. There is a very real fear that the compromise which has emerged may serve PR purposes rather than tackle the issue of sustainable fishing stocks.

The specific proposals involved cover outstanding issues. Most of the measures adopted are welcome and progressive steps but I believe difficulties may emerge with the implementation of some. The compromise aims to achieve maximum sustainable yields by 2015 where possible, and by 2020 at the latest. A consultation with third countries concerned will be initiated in cases where stocks are shared. Perhaps the Minister might elaborate on these third countries and how he sees this evolving. There has been some controversy in recent months about how third countries operate and we need more clarification on that.

On multiannual plans, the compromise establishes that member states should manage fisheries in more detail through quantifiable targets linked to biological parameters, as well as to safeguards and remedies. It applies the principle of maximum sustainable yields to the significant stocks in multiannual plans while specific measures apply to other stocks with an approach that takes into account interactions between stocks. We would welcome the multiannual plans as a good idea.

A gradual approach of the policy of landing obligation is proposed but the aim is still the elimination of discards. Concerning the landing obligation in identified fisheries, a specification through multiannual plans within a fixed timeframe is laid down.

Regionalisation has been an area of controversy in recent months and is an issue that was raised by fishermen throughout the country. This concept is now supported by a majority of member states as it accepts that one size does not fit all. It is very important that the Minister succeeded in getting concessions in this area. The compromise introduces an alternative model for regionalisation whereby member states adopt national measures through regional co-operation. This is a welcome step for the future of the fisheries industry in Ireland because what was initially planned would certainly not have suited Irish fishermen. Again, the Minister has come up to the plate and is keeping the fishermen reasonably happy in that particular area.

The compromise foresees the creation of additional advisory councils - one for the Black Sea and one for the outermost regions of the EU. We welcome that. I refer to transferable fishing concessions and capacity management which are also very welcome.

Consumer information is one of the key areas. The consumer is king and needs to have full information to hand about the types of products he or she is purchasing, the environmental factors and the sustainability of such products. The Minister might elaborate on what the Commissioners mentioned in regard to developing an EU sustainability label. I wonder how that would operate and how it would affect a country like Ireland where we talk about the green environment and about producing quality food, quality fish and farming products in a green area.

The European Parliament will look at these matters before negotiating with the Council. Over the coming months it is vital that the matters raised are thoroughly looked into and their practical impact is analysed. It is very important the MEPs work closely with the Minister on this area in order to get the best possible deal in the end. I hope the Minister will be in place when Ireland has the EU Presidency and that he will be at the coalface to ensure the Irish fishing industry is protected in every part of the country and is allowed to develop and expand. Yesterday's meeting is a significant step in the creation of a new Common Fisheries Policy but it is only one step on the long road that remains. I am sure the Minister is aware of that and is prepared for the long haul. It will be a long haul trying to negotiate his way and satisfy every fisherman in this country. That is not an easy task but he made an important point, one that I found to be the same when I was in that job, namely, it is important to have like-minded countries on board that will support us and help us to try to achieve the ultimate - what is best for Irish fishermen.

Deputy Martin Ferris

It is only right and proper to welcome what has happened in the past 24 hours and acknowledge the role of the Minister, on which I commend him. I understand from Conor Heaney, who works in the office of the Northern Ireland Minister, Michelle O'Neill, that an all-Ireland approach was taken during the negotiations on this. That is a welcome development. During any negotiations, it is essential for interested parties to work together for the common good. In this case, the Ministers were working together for the good of Irish fishermen.

The fisheries deal that was reached in advance of this country's accession to the then EEC was a disaster for Irish fisheries. Forty years on, the Government must focus on getting a fair deal for Irish fisheries. The main problem faced by the Irish fishing sector is that the management of the industry is almost exclusively in the hands of the EU and is bound by the Common Fisheries Policy. This policy is the successor of the fishery policy that was framed by the original six members of the EEC prior to the accession of Ireland, Britain and Denmark. The countries in question drew it up with a view to securing a share in a massive resource in which they were deficient. The Irish fleet was given a small share in the catch in waters off our coast, reflecting the lack of domestic development in the years prior to accession. Since then, the outworking of the EU stock management policy has had a dramatic impact on Irish fishermen. The Irish fishing fleet has been reduced by a third since 1993. It is clear that the intention is to accelerate the rate of decommissioning. Until now, Irish officials have accepted that there is a clear intent to reduce the fleet to one that operates from two or three large ports. Such a change would be of huge concern.

In 2002, the Common Fisheries Policy review group highlighted the inequalities and injustices of the Common Fisheries Policy as it existed at that time. It was pointed out that despite Ireland accounting for 11% of EU fishing waters at that time, Irish fishermen had only just 4% of the EU quota. The group particularly emphasised the importance of fishing to the west of Ireland. It said there was a need to break out of the straightjacket of a policy that was inhibiting the development of the fishing sector. Despite occasional public criticism of the Common Fisheries Policy, the official response to requests that it be radically reformed to address the issue of unequal quota allocation has invariably been that the mechanism for determining quota is historically based and more or less set in stone, in line with the so-called "relative stability" policy.

Estimates of the value of the fish taken from Irish waters by non-Irish vessels since 1973 vary. Some sources have placed the figure at €16 billion while others, using EUROSTAT figures for the amount of fish taken from Irish waters and their potential value including processed value, have placed the figure as high as €200 billion. No one who is involved in Irish fishing appears to be prepared to defend the Common Fisheries Policy. Many proposals have been made for it to be radically overhauled, particularly with regard to the allocation of quota, which disadvantages the Irish fleet significantly on the basis of the historical allocations that were made in previous years. There is a general recognition at Irish level and in Brussels of the need to acknowledge the historical disadvantage that has been imposed by EU policy since 1973. It is accepted that the Irish Government should take primary responsibility for the future management of the Irish fishing industry.

The current talks on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy were completed last night. I welcome the agreement that was reached by the member states involved to allow for greater regionalisation. It is imperative for local knowledge of the fishing industry to be used to create a more progressive policy. This can only be done if the red tape and bureaucracy that surrounds the approach of Brussels to the Common Fisheries Policy is replaced by greater regionalisation. The Irish fishing industry has been done a great disservice since Ireland's accession to the EEC. I hope this move will be a step on the road to rectifying the current problem. The Irish fishing industry has been micro-managed for too long. This is an opportunity to give fishermen some form of democratic control over their future.

The ban on the discarding of fish is also to be welcomed. EU rules mean that more than 1 million tonnes of fish are discarded into the sea every year. These fish account for up to 90% of catches in some fisheries. This action is utter madness. A ban on the practice was long overdue. The practice of discarding healthy fish into the sea illustrates how out of touch the Brussels bureaucracy was with the Irish fishing industry and the industry throughout Europe. It was beyond ridiculous for healthy fish to be discarded due to EU rules at a time when Irish fishermen were coming under severe pressure from Europe due to low fish stocks. We are waiting for a final deal to be passed by the European Parliament. The ban on this practice must be welcomed. It is important for the ban to be introduced correctly and in a way that allows fishermen to change the practices they have been forced into under European rules. Fishermen have often been portrayed in an extremely negative fashion because their practices have been seen to destroy fish stocks. I suggest that poor management from Brussels was the main contributing factor to these stocks being damaged.

Other issues must be addressed. Increased access to our waters by EU states has led to serious problems within the Irish fishing industry. Irish fishermen have borne the brunt of these problems. This must be rectified. There is a strong belief among fishermen that illegal fishing by non-Irish boats is underestimated. On that basis, there are proposals that fisheries control and surveillance should be related to quota so that vessels from bigger fleets can be given proportionate attention. At present, the protection agencies pay Irish vessels a disproportionate level of attention. It is unwarranted when one considers the share of the quota in Irish waters enjoyed by the Irish fleet. These and other issues must be addressed if we want a fair deal for Irish fishermen.

The Council and the Commission accept that we will need to introduce additional quotas to meet the additional landings that will arise from this new policy. The big problem for the Irish fishing industry has been the lack of quota. That has to be addressed in a fair way that reflects the substantial waters we have under our control and the terrible mistakes of the past. The lack of quota has contributed significantly to the massive decline in the fishing sector across our coast. As representatives of coastal communities, Deputies Harrington and McHugh are well aware, as we are in the south west, of how depleted the whole sector has been in the last 30 years as a result of the lack of quota, lack of viable income and lack of political attention. During his short period in office to date, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, appears to have given this sector his attention in a much better way than his predecessors in my lifetime. I welcome that and commend him on it.

I wish to speak about the general approach to the mandatory proposals on the privatisation of national fishing quota. I think everyone in this House has been absolutely opposed to privatisation in this sector. We have worked together collectively to oppose it. It is good that the Minister has won support for our position among other EU countries. I fully agree that the privatisation of fishing would be absolutely detrimental to the industry. It would wreck whatever is left of the industry and the fishing communities. All of us are singing from the same hymn sheet on the issue of decision-making on a regional basis. That is to be commended.

The Minister and his officials did a good night's work, or a good 20 hours' work. I am quite confident that the industry and its representatives are reasonably happy with the outcome. We did not get everything we want, but we took a step in the right direction. The position the Minister took on the question of discards, and the lead-in to the whole thing, was consistent with the position taken by my colleague in the Six Counties. The success they achieved in that regard shows what can be done. A small step has been taken as part of the effort to save what is left of our industry.

The Government's position regarding aquaculture etc. enjoys almost unanimous support in this House. If we focus on aquaculture and on natural fisheries, perhaps we can reverse the trend that has existed over the years and give hope to rural fishing communities. If we can make such communities viable, we can help to sustain the society that exists in such places and help to rebuild this depleted and depressed sector of our economy.

Again, go raibh maith agat. Fair play to the Minister. He has full support from me and my party.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the statements on the Common Fisheries Policy review. I welcome the positive news from the Council meeting last night and early this morning in Luxembourg, as well as the Minister's contribution to this debate.

When we debate the Common Fisheries Policy in this House, we should always start by mentioning the historical precedent that was set. I believe this goes back prior to our accession to the European Economic Community, as it was at that time, where, while we were negotiating, the six so-called partners actually changed the rules to ensure they got control of our fisheries stocks. They did this because they knew what we were bringing to the table. I do not believe we were fully aware at that stage of the potential and resources we had. From an Irish perspective, we need always to take this as a starting point when we talk about the CFP and about fisheries policies across the EU. We need to set it as an objective to try to revisit that decision at some stage in the future and this needs to be a starting point in negotiations.

That decision led directly to the CFP, which has gone through a number of reviews before the current review. We have always been playing from a point where we were disadvantaged from the very start. We were disadvantaged because decisions were taken by other countries in a negotiating stance that left us handicapped. We need to try to find a way to rectify that at some future stage, which should be an overarching goal to work towards. If we can achieve that sense of fairness and equality that is supposed to be the foundation stone of the EU, we can then have a fishing industry that can address some of the regional imbalances that exist within this State, where the west, north-west and south-west coasts have been underdeveloped historically. It is only by trying to develop marine resources and aquaculture to the greatest potential possible that some of those imbalances can be reversed.

The Minister has been praised and I would like to add to that and congratulate him on his work at the Council meeting. The agreement on discards in particular is important for the Irish fishing industry. There is much to be worked out in regard to the mechanics of how it will work and what the technical measures will involve. Will the technical measures include, as Mr. Seán O'Donoghue said on radio this morning, the inclusion of areas which are not fished at certain times, which would help to reduce the level of discards? To have the measures for discards of pelagic fish come into effect on 1 January 2014 is more than likely achievable because there would not be as big a problem with mixed fisheries within the pelagic sector as there would be within the whitefish sector. To have the time period begin from 2015 gives three years to allow for the discards measures to take effect for all species in the whitefish sector, which is very important. It will give that room for developments to take place and for technical measures to be introduced in regard to mesh sizes and so on, so we can see what actually works and what can help to reduce the level of discards.

I am slightly concerned about the fact the Commissioner has agreed additional quota will be provided, although this was said to be a concession. While this has to happen and is welcome, I wonder how it will be policed during this transition period. If fishermen get additional quota, will they be penalised through the enforcement concerning the discards and the technical measures if they land fish over that quota? Will we force a continuation of discarding because of that additional quota element? We need measures that ensure all fish that come over the rail are landed and we need to find ways to ensure fishermen are not penalised. Whether they achieve the full economic value of that fish is perhaps a method that could be used to ensure discarding is eliminated completely and that we do not force it further underground. This would add to the scientific knowledge and the knowledge of what is working within the sector through the technical measures as well as improving the information set and the overall standard of control within the fisheries sector. These issues need to be worked out and there will be ongoing discussions in terms of the practicalities in this regard.

It has been welcomed in the House that it has been left to member states to decide whether they will participate in regard to the individual transferable quotas, ITQs. I have previously expressed my concerns that the principle has been conceded in regard to these negotiations on ITQs. I would foresee in future reviews of the Common Fisheries Policy increasing pressure to bring this in here. I wonder what we would lose in terms of negotiating stance if we continuously oppose it. Obviously, it is a negotiating process and it was the best that could be achieved from that process, and it does protect the Irish industry until the next review of the Common Fisheries Policy. From that point of view, I would definitely welcome it and consider it vital.

Aquaculture has huge potential for us. The Minister has been very proactive in terms of the offshore proposals and trying to develop that area further. I do not know how a regional advisory council, RAC, for aquaculture would add anything to the equation and we have our own difficulties in dealing with the Natura 2000 sites. That is working its way through the system at present and, hopefully, over the next year or two that system can kick in and allow licensing to restart, and allow the potential for development. Many jobs could be created in inshore aquaculture throughout the country and many companies would be in a position to avail of that if the licensing regime was sorted out. The regional advisory councils might only add another layer of bureaucracy and control into that situation. I do not see where the value could be in terms of aquaculture unless it is in regard to the offshore and deep water developments.

The Council agreed the policy and a general approach earlier today. As I understand it, that is the Council's negotiating position and we will then enter into negotiations with the Parliament on the overall shape of the CFP reform. The Minister in his concluding remarks might expand on how that interaction with the Parliament will work and where the weighting is between the Council and the Parliament. Is it a 50-50 approach whereby everything has to be negotiated? In terms of a negotiating stance for the Council and Parliament, it is a very good starting position and there has been good movement in terms of the discards and the ITQs, which is positive. The Minister might expand on how the negotiating process will work, where the weightings are and what the final shape of the CFP might look like when it is finally reviewed in 2013.

It is a positive development that the Minister will be chair of the Council of Ministers during the final stages of the review. There is no doubt he has taken a very proactive role in regard to fisheries and has a lot of knowledge in the area. He can bring that to bear in terms of the final make-up of the CFP. Overall, the news is positive. There will be measures and issues to be ironed out with regard to how this will work on a practical basis. In terms of a negotiating stance with the European Parliament, it is positive and I commend the Minister on his work in getting it this far.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I would like to answer the questions in detail and if any Deputies have specific questions, they should feel free to intervene and I will be happy to answer them.

I will begin with Deputy Browne's comments on what Seán O'Donoghue said this morning. Outside of my Department, most of us involved with fishing would accept that there is nobody who knows more about the fishing industry than Seán O'Donoghue. He is an oracle of knowledge on all things fishing, particularly the pelagic sector but also whitefish. I was a little disappointed to hear him say this morning that this was the wrong approach. However, I understand where he is coming from and six months ago would have agreed with him. His position is that we should concentrate on avoiding catch in the first place, rather than on an obligation to land catch and ban discards. He is right, but that is not the politics of this and things have moved on since that approach was politically achievable. At last night's meeting, almost every member state was adamant that we had to achieve a final date for a complete discards ban. Otherwise they would have walked out of the negotiations.

That is the politics behind this, due to the pressure coming from consumers in countries like Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere, who refuse to accept that we cannot come up with an intelligent solution to end the practice of discarding tens of thousands of tonnes of perfectly edible dead fish. Whether these dead fish are juvenile stock, by-catch for which fishermen do not have a quota or whether they are extra fish, the idea that we can continue pumping them back into the sea, as if in pretence that they have not been caught, and only land the amount of fish for which we have a quota, is no longer sustainable. Mr. O'Donoghue accepts that. What he would like is for the fishing industry to be given the chance to use technical measures to their full potential, to increase mesh size, to introduce escape panels and to introduce set-aside areas where there would be no fishing, particularly when juvenile stocks are growing. We have some areas where we have already implemented that type of set-aside at sea and these have worked well. There are some good examples, particularly in the Celtic Sea, of where because of good sustainable management we have seen a significant increase in both tax and quotas because the stock is very healthy there.

The debate has moved on from there. Therefore, as well as doing what Mr. O'Donoghue wants us to do, which is to introduce technical measures that will ensure we are more targeted in terms of the species and size of fish we catch, we must also have a phased introduction of an obligation to land everything that is caught. In other words, there must be an end to discards. We need to do the two together. It would not have been a credible political outcome for us to put off setting a date for a discards ban and trust that we would implement sufficient technical measures to end discarding by being more targeted in our fishing. That was not a possible solution, because things have moved on and powerful countries in the European Union, particularly Britain, Germany and the Scandinavian countries, were adamant. Many of them were, in fact, unhappy with the final compromise that we were not just setting a clear date at the earliest possible opportunity after which there would be a complete ban on discards.

The challenge for countries like Ireland, working with countries like Spain, France, Belgium, Portugal and others, was to convince the member states that if this was to work, we had to bring the industry with us. We need to look at more technical measures, but we must also agree, in order to get a buy-in from the other member states, that we are taking a hard line and that we agree a start date and an end date by which we will have a full ban on discards or a complete obligation to land all the fish we catch in terms of commercial target species. There are some flexibilities around the agreement that will allow for a by-catch and so on, but essentially that is what was agreed last night and that is the political reality of the Common Fisheries Policy position now. The big change in this Common Fisheries Policy round, which did not happen but should have in previous rounds, is that there is a determination now to end the practice of discarding. We can no longer have a situation where the European Union needs to import 70% of the fish we consume, yet we discard 40% of the fish we catch. Nobody can defend that.

Fishermen do not defend that either. They want a solution that will allow them move away from that unacceptable situation and that is what we were trying to do. Last night, I was determined to introduce an approach that would indicate that while we could not do it overnight, we would be able to do it over a five-year transition period. However, in the end, the agreement was for over a three-year period. That may change again in negotiations, but it was as far as the Presidency and member states would go last night. I want the industry to have time and space to change radically the way in which it fishes. It must move away from discards and become more targeted in terms of how we catch fish, through the use of technical measures, and must land what we cannot separate.

If, for example, fishermen are fishing in the Celtic Sea for cod, haddock and whiting, they cannot be so targeted that they can separate the mature cod and haddock because they are a similar size and shape. It is impossible to target those two fish and release one and catch the other. However, it is certainly possible to be able to release juvenile fish by providing escape hatches and bigger mesh nets. I agree with what Mr. O'Donoghue has said with regard to technical measures but I urge him and others in the industry to understand that we have reached a stage where a ban on discards must also be part of the solution, along with the more technical measures. We have a phasing-in period now for mixed fishery or white fishery - pelagic fishery is different and more straightforward - which will give us the time and space to adopt both approaches, namely, what both consumers and Mr. O'Donoghue want.

There is a problem with regard to the maximum sustainable yield, MSY, and third countries. We are aware of what is happening to our mackerel stocks currently off the Faroe Islands and Iceland. What is happening is a disgrace, but we have no way of forcing them to stop that overfishing, which will damage stock for everybody. For that reason, we are trying to progress with the Commissioner efforts to get trade sanctions put in place to force Iceland and the Faroe Islands back to the negotiating table so as to reach a reasonable solution. Such a compromise solution is available on the European Union side. This is what we want in order to save this stock. Otherwise, we will find in a number of years that we will have a dramatic slashing of our budget because the stock will no longer exist. If that is allowed to happen, it will create a nightmare scenario, particularly for the north west because it is so reliant on mackerel. It will also be a nightmare because of the financial loss as mackerel is a hugely valuable stock for the fishing industry. We must do what we can to force a change in the overfishing practice of both Iceland and the Faroe Islands. There is no mechanism to force third countries to respect MSY in the same way we ask our fleet to do it. At approximately 4 a.m. today I was discussing this with the Minister from Malta, as Malta also faces a specific problem in this regard as it shares fisheries with North Africa. Malta is being asked to respect MSY, yet it knows that the countries it shares or borders fisheries with will not implement MSY. I am afraid we did not get a satisfactory solution to the issue last night, apart from the proposal to negotiate with third countries to try and get a better outcome.

A number of Deputies mentioned regionalisation. This is an area where we have boxed clever and have got what we want, namely, that when we can achieve agreement among all member states that are fishing in our area, we can, together, change policy in that area, without having to return to the Commission. In other words, if we want to change fishing policy in the western waters for any kind of progressive reason, we can do that if we get unanimous agreement. The important thing for Ireland was that we did not want a situation, in regional discussions of changes, in which Ireland was against a particular change but other larger countries were for it and they could force a change in our waters that we could not prevent. In a case in which there is not full or unanimous agreement for change, the decision goes back to the Commission, as an honest broker, and goes through the normal process of the Parliament and Council to achieve a decision on a new policy. That is an important insurance mechanism for situations in which, for whatever reason, France, the UK and Spain decide they want to push something through in the western waters, and we are opposed to it because it is against Irish interests. We certainly would not like to see small countries being bullied in regionalised decision-making. We want a fallback position whereby a country can go back to the Commission and say that it does not agree with what is happening in its waters, that it requires intervention at general level, and that it will take it to the Council. That insurance mechanism is important, and we have it in the text now, which is a good balance.

Deputy Martin Ferris

What happens if a country goes back to the Commission, but the Commission does not agree with it? Will the decision be imposed on it?

Deputy Simon Coveney

If a country goes back to the Commission, this essentially means it is going back to the European Parliament and Council, which means it can appeal to all the other Ministers. If something unreasonable is being imposed, other countries can get involved which would not otherwise have participated in the debate. Thus, there is a certain level of protection there. One of the fundamental tenets of the functioning of the European Union is that the Commission is supposed to protect small member states so that debates are not dominated by large countries. That is the whole idea. We saw a pretty good example of that last night, when the concerns of some smaller member states were listened to.

A number of countries do not like the idea of eco-labelling, which the Commission is pushing for - and Ireland strongly supports - because they import large volumes of raw fish, grade them, process them and sell them on as European-produced fish. We would like to be able to label fish that are caught in Irish waters - including in the Celtic Sea, the Irish Sea and the North Sea, as well as off the west coast of Ireland - as Irish-caught fish, because we think we could build a strong and sustainable brand around that, just as we are doing for Irish beef and also for dairy products, including infant formula. The Commission introduced an amendment to at least keep the door open for some kind of area-based eco-labelling, which would be a powerful tool for marketing Irish fish products in the future. I would like to see that implemented, but there will be many concerns among other member states. Getting this through will be one of the challenges for our Presidency.

A number of people asked about the role of the European Parliament. This is the first time the Common Fisheries Policy has required co-decision following the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. It is the same for the Common Agricultural Policy. It will be our job during the Irish Presidency to achieve a compromise agreement between the position of the European Parliament on the CAP and the CFP, which will be voted on in the autumn, and that of the Council, which now has a common position on the CFP but will not have one on the CAP until we are into the Irish Presidency. This will make it difficult to achieve in terms of a timeline. However, at least the Council now has a common negotiating position on the CFP. When the Parliament votes, which it will do by the end of October or November, we will need to work with the Commission, which is supposed to act as an honest broker between the two institutions, to achieve a compromise that both sides can live with, on which we will have to vote in the Council and the MEPs will have to vote in the Parliament. What the MEPs can do, potentially, is to produce a position which is not actually voted on in the full Parliament, and then wait for our common position, so that only one vote is required in the Parliament. They would vote on a compromise position. Those are the two options they have. If they form a position that they vote on in the full Parliament, which is probably what will happen in terms of the CFP, we will then need to reach a new compromise agreement that is voted on and agreed by both Parliament and Council. This will have to happen in the first six months of next year if a new CFP is to be in place by 2014, which is the aspiration.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Does each side have equal weighting?

Deputy Simon Coveney

Basically, yes. There is not really a weighting as such, because each side essentially has a veto, in that it can just not agree and therefore delay a decision. That is why people such as Pat The Cope Gallagher, MEP, are so important in the European Parliament, as is Jim Higgins, MEP. One is a full member of the fisheries committee, while the other is a substitute member. It is also important to have Irish interests on the environment committee. This week we put together a whole series of amendments to our common position - the kinds of amendment we were trying to get passed last night - and we have given these to our MEPs today. In this way they can try to move the European Parliament's position as close as possible to that of the Council, so that we end up with an agreement that is as close as possible to the document on which we agreed last night.

With regard to the all-Ireland approach, as mentioned by Deputy Ferris, I try to speak frequently to the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle O'Neill, MLA, about CAP and CFP. We have a shared interest, North and South, in both farming and fishing, which is not always reflected in England. It is normally reflected in Scotland - not always, but normally - and generally Wales is somewhere between the English position and the Scottish and Northern Ireland position. I do not know whether this is politically correct, but when I am trying to get a better deal for Irish farmers or fishermen, as far as I am concerned I am negotiating for fishermen both North and South. Even though my mandate is for fishermen within the Republic of Ireland, I am conscious of the fact that many interests and concerns are shared North and South of the Border. That is why I have tried to meet representatives of farming organisations in Northern Ireland in particular and obtain a perspective on their concerns so we can try to accommodate them. I also work with the Northern Ireland Minister, who will be trying to push the British positions on both CFP and CAP in that direction also. It has been a constructive relationship so far.

I will not go into the historical issues. I agree with some of what the Deputies said, but not all of it.

Deputy John Browne

I ask the Minister about support for producer groups in the areas of fisheries and agriculture. Will it be monetary, or-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

It will be both. There will be monetary support for producer groups. This is one of the matters about which the Commission feels strongly; it wants to empower collective producer groups because that is the best way of ensuring they secure the right prices for their products. We will see strong support for such groups.

We all agree on the point about individual transferable quotas, ITQs. There was a major sigh of relief in my Department when we found we would not have to deal with that issue. We think we have won the battle, but I would not write it off just yet. Some countries are adamant about mandatory ITQs because they want to deal with the problem of having fleets that are too big for their quotas. ITQs allow them to buy up more quota, which is a way of solving their over-capacity problem. I certainly do not want them to solve that problem at the expense of the Irish industry. That is why we have been so defensive on that issue.

I want to mention the difference between the pelagic sector and the whitefish sector. For people who are not familiar with the industry, I will explain that there are major differences between the two in terms of management and discards. In the pelagic sector we are dealing with a much cleaner fishery, and any discards - there should not be a huge amount - are undersized or juvenile fish, which we should be able to deal with through more targeted gear. I believe it will be possible to introduce an obligation to land all catches in the pelagic sector from the start of 2014 onwards and I hope to work closely with the white fish and mixed fishery fleets in Ireland over a phased three to five year period to introduce an obligation to land species alongside more targeted technological measures that ensure we catch the fish that we want to market and sell. In doing that, the stock will recover and we will see increases in our quotas.

It is important to note that Ireland has never had a quota to the value of €750 million quota as it has this year. The idea that we have no fish to catch is not true. Clearly we would like to have a bigger quota and we will work towards that but we will get there by ensuring the stocks are healthy and expanding. Ultimately we want everybody to benefit.