I welcome the following: Mr. Sean O'Donoghue, chairman of the Federation of Irish Fishermen; Mr. Gavin Power of the South and West Fish Producers Organisation; Mr. John Ward of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation; Ms Norah Parke of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation; and Mr. Ebbie Sheehan, chairman; Mr. Joe Maddock, chief executive; and Ms Caitleen Uí Aoda, secretary, of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation. Before I call on them to make their presentations, I draw to their attention the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. O'Donoghue to make his presentation.
Common Fisheries Policy: Discussion.
Mr. Sean O’Donoghue
I thank the Chairman for his invitation to appear before the committee. I have a number of slides which might be useful to the committee in briefly setting out the background.
I will outline the views of the Federation of Irish Fishermen, which comprises the four producer organisations in Ireland, on the way forward. I will also briefly set out the background to the review as well as the key issues identified by the federation.
The Hague resolution of 1976, which forms part of the legal background to the review, offers an option for achieving a better deal under the Common Fisheries Policy. The resolution extended the fisheries limits of member states to 200 miles offshore. The first CFP was established in 1983 and has since been reviewed in 1992 and 2002. The Irish fishing industry was active in making submissions to the reviews but we were unsuccessful in having our demands met. This time, we decided to take matters into our own hands by conducting a separate review of the industry. Over the past several months, we have been discussing the review among our constituent organisations and we held a very successful workshop on 9 October.
The CFP is complex and covers 11 separate areas. The chart I have circulated to members offers a useful tool for understanding the complexity of the CFP by breaking it into bite size chunks from access rights to total allowable catches and quotas. I will comment on ten of the 11 areas because the 11th, aquaculture, does not have a direct impact on fisheries policy.
The Green Paper which we are discussing today was published in April 2009 and we have until 31 December to make our submissions. It asks a series of questions and it is up to us to reply to them or to raise additional issues.
Given that the new CFP will not be in place before 1 January 2013, we will be discussing it ad nauseam over the coming years. Next year will be important because the Commission is duty bound to carry out a full impact assessment of the current CFP from social, economic and biological perspectives. We will be active in ensuring our social and economic concerns are considered. The review will now be covered by the Lisbon treaty, which requires co-decision between the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers and the European Parliament. This is a positive development in that the Council can no longer ignore the views of the Parliament.
We ask three simple questions in our review, namely, what changes are wanted, why do we want them and, most important, how will we achieve them? We have identified the key areas of concern for us. Rather than setting out chapter and verse on how we intend to proceed, I will give the committee a flavour of our concerns. Ignoring the objective of a policy can come back to haunt one. The Hague agreement is important, as are the issues of total allowable catch, our share of the quota and relative stability. I am sure members are tired of hearing from the industry about our poor share but we have to do something about it. We have definite views on the effort situation, decentralisation of fisheries policy, market and pricing structure and scientific advice.
We need to learn from past mistakes. We were not successful in the last two reviews other than achieving our request for regional advisory councils to allow stakeholders more input in the decision-making process. If we are to be successful in this review, we will need a committed partnership between the industry, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Marine Institute. We have to sing from the same hymn sheet because we will fail if we work against each other. We also need clear and effective rules that make sense to fisherman. As we have found over recent months, it is easy to get caught up with national rather than European issues. There are things we can change nationally ourselves without going next, nigh nor near Europe. I wish to avoid these issues in this discussion.
In terms of setting the objectives, we are firmly of the view that while ecological and biological sustainability of stocks is necessary, social and economic aspects must be built into the objectives. We need to give some priority to these. If we do not have sustainable stocks there will not be a sustainable coastal fishing industry, so these go hand in hand. However, we need to set out our objectives clearly and there must be clear prioritisation.
The Hague resolution, which is part of the Hague agreement, is important to us. This was established a long time ago. Ireland, because of its peripheral position and the dependence of its coastal communities on fishing, was given certain preferences, as were certain parts of the UK, although not all. These were given in flat-rate tonnages rather than percentages. For example, we were given a special rate for cod in the Irish sea, which is at our back door, of 6,950 tonnes. What the Hague resolution does for us every year is to give us a slightly larger allowed catch. Taking the Irish Sea example, we gain about 20% extra because we have a Hague preference on Irish Sea cod. For Celtic Sea cod, we gain about 5% to 6%. Every year there is an enormous dogfight at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in this regard. Despite the resolution we must fight for it every year.
Now is the time to have this enshrined in the Common Fisheries Policy so we do not have this argument every year. If we are trying to get our Hague preference every year we are taking fish away from other people, and they will not give it away lightly. We must have this enshrined in the CFP. The 1976 resolution clearly makes reference to securing "the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry on the basis of the Government fisheries development programme for the development of coastal fisheries". We feel there is an opportunity here not only to secure what is currently there but perhaps also to have some additional stocks included. This is a key component, from an FIF point of view, of where we want to go with the review.
I have tried to arrange the issues in order of priority. We feel very aggrieved at the percentage share of the total allowable catch that we get. We have the famous so-called relative stability, which means we have had the same percentage share since 1983. It has not changed one iota since then. We have the same percentage share of the stock every year even though the stock itself may go up and down.
Many figures are bandied around about percentage of waters and so on. What is important to us in the CFP is the waters around our own area. On the map, members can see the various area designations, from 6A and 6B off the Donegal coast to all the different area 7s. The total area accounts for some 46% of the waters around Ireland, but we have approximately 19% of the community TACs. There are many other figures, but these are the important ones. We carry out 90% of our fishing activity within the 200-mile limit.
In terms of trying to get an increased share, this time around we cannot clap ourselves on the back and say we have done a great job; we must seek to form alliances with like-minded member states that may have similar problems off their own coasts. We also feel the Hague resolution and the coastal state preference can be used not only for Ireland but also for other member states. Again, we are trying to think outside the box — how can we achieve what we want to achieve?
We strongly support regionalisation of the CFP. I do not mean nationalisation but regionalisation — bringing it down to the lowest level and having the industry actively involved. If we consider socioeconomic factors, use the present system of swapping and consider how quotas are utilised at the moment, we can be more imaginative and introduce ideas. We can change the percentage share, but we do not need to change it for every stock. Ultimately, we are talking about only a few stocks. It is a big problem but not a mammoth problem. If we could get four or five of the key whitefish stocks sorted out, it would be a good day's work.
That brings me to another subject that is being discussed extensively and on which we have a definite view. In terms of the Irish fleet, if the only factor in the regime is effort — that is, days at sea — rather than a TAC and quota system, I can guarantee the Irish fleet will be decimated. We must have sustainability of stocks; that will be the over-riding principle of any policy. I can see us ending up with only two or three days per month for every whitefish vessel in the Irish fleet. This is a major problem and we in FIF will not support a regime based solely on effort. We do not want an effort-based system at all, even combined with TACs and quota. We have major problems at the moment with people not being able to fish in area 6 or the Irish Sea based on cod effort days.
Our next area of interest is the possibility of changing the current top-down approach, in which everything is done at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council or under the Lisbon treaty. We are in a bizarre situation in that this Friday at the Council of Ministers, the Luxembourg Minister will be deciding the mesh size that can be used by a fisherman in the Celtic Sea or Donegal. This is absolutely crazy; it should never happen. The people who should be involved are the ones who know the business. That is why we need regionalisation. However, we must be careful about this. There is no point in creating another bureaucratic layer. Unless powers are devolved to these regional authorities, they are of little use; they are really only window-dressing, with another layer of bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy. The role of the regional advisory councils, which were one of the good things that came out of the last CFP, can be enhanced to fit into a regional, decentralised approach.
Another novel idea we are trying to bring forward is that industry self-management is probably the way to go and that the industry should be responsible for ensuring the sustainability of stocks. We are reversing the burden of proof. We are providing incentives to do this rather than having the stick approach with mention of criminal activity. We see a huge role for the producer organisations in this and feel it will lead to sustainable stocks and much better managed fisheries in Europe. This is one of the new areas that has not been much looked at and is really only being discussed now at European level.
At the end of the day, from a fishing enterprise point of view, there are two basic things to worry about. There are input costs, namely, fuel, gear, food and everything else, and then there is the price one gets for the fish. I think everybody is aware that prices have dropped dramatically in the past year, by about 50%, especially on the whitefish and shellfish side of things. In our view, this is mainly due to the large quantities of imports, not only those coming into Ireland but the large quantities coming into the European Union, which displace community production. It is crazy. We are self-sufficient by only 35% in the Community and still the prices are dropping. This should be a marketeer's dream — to get a decent price for our fish.
We need radical changes to the marketing regulation which sets prices and so forth. This will now happen only in terms of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy even though the Commission has been promising us for two years it will happen next year. We now find it will not happen until that review. We very much need this changed and emergency measures introduced in the meantime. We cannot wait until 2013 for the review of the marketing regulation.
Scientific research is another area that has been a major bone of contention between the industry and the scientists. From an Irish point of view, we have resolved quite an amount of the stocks and are in agreement with the scientists at this stage. However, there are a number of stocks concerning which we still do not agree. In a new Common Fisheries Policy we seek the setting up of a new structure on a Europe-wide scale. At present this work is meant to be done by what is called the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and Agriculture. Unfortunately, this committee does not do anything on social, economic or technical issues and considers matters purely on a biological basis.
A radical change and new shift is that we have an enormous number of fishing platforms, or fishing vessels as they are called, out in the water every day of every year. The problem is that we have not found a way of incorporating that knowledge into the scientific assessment. We need a sea-change to achieve this and need the industry to have confidence in the scientific assessment so that it would reflect the reality locally.
Another major issue in the Commission's Green Paper is fleet over-capacity. Unfortunately, the sound bites such as, for example, "too many boats, too few fish" sound very logical. Everybody thinks that is the situation. The real situation is that this is a highly complex issue in that it relates to the economic viability of the fleets. It is not that there are too many boats or that they have too much catching capacity. If a vessel is economically viable it does not matter whether it catches its fish in a week, a month or two months. The issue should be whether it is economically viable. We need clear definitions in respect of this. When this matter gets out to the broader audience, the over-capacity issue is lost. People think that if vessels are scrapped, the problem will be solved. However, if the price of one's fish falls by 20%, the figure scrapped last year does not make any sense with regard to the one to be scrapped the following year. Decommissioning is part of this issue but it must be proper decommissioning, on an economic basis.
The penultimate issue we dealt with was access and limits. We are very much in favour of maintaining the existing six and 12-mile limits. We think we will have a major battle on our hands in even maintaining the new Irish box, which is coloured yellow in the presentation. This was reduced to about a third of its size in the western waters regulation introduced in 2003. We seek to maintain that. There have been calls to look at broadening the six and 12-mile limits but we would caution in that regard. That would be fine provided we had control over access if the limits were moved out but we will not and may end up with a worse mess. We have juggled quite a lot with the access issue among all the organisations. Ultimately, we feel the issue of the six and 12-mile limits must be considered. We very much favour that inshore fisheries be catered for in the Common Fisheries Policy review. Sustainability of stocks will come into that also and must be taken into account.
We are saying that there must be a commitment to funding and in this regard we are introducing a new principle which may seem very self-evident to people. The existing Common Fisheries Policy does not provide for funding done under other mechanisms such as the Structural Fund and the European Fisheries Fund, EFF. That structural funding will run out in 2013 and therefore we want a commitment. If we are to go down a new route with a Common Fisheries Policy, we want all the elements dealt with, whether they concern the catching, processing, marketing, scientific or innovation sides. We want specific commitments in articles in a new Common Fisheries Policy to cover funding, the socioeconomic side, price support and all other areas.
This is as far as the federation has gone to date. What I have presented today is on behalf of all my colleagues, not only the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation but the four organisations we have so far. We are convinced we need to keep this in mind and to have alliances for the future. We need to decentralise the policy but must not create another bureaucratic layer in doing so.
I thank Mr. O'Donoghue for his presentation. I now call on Mr. Sheehan to make his.
Mr. Ebbie Sheehan
I thank the Chairman and the committee for giving my organisation a chance to address some of the issues that affect the industry and the Common Fisheries Policy. First, I compliment Mr. O'Donoghue on his spread. Unfortunately, we do not have anything like that. On my budget I have to use both sides of the paper. We have very little disagreement with anything Mr. O'Donoghue said with regard to effort and management. Some of our members would have different points of view but what Mr. O'Donoghue outlined would represent much of what we would be talking about.
My presentation will be simplistic because I am not educated enough, or able, to talk the technical talk as presented by Mr. O'Donoghue. I would like to address the current state of the industry before we discuss the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. Since we last met and addressed the committee there has been a steady flow of bureaucratic nonsense from the Commission. We are interested in reforming or renegotiating the CFP which, everyone agrees, has not worked to date. It was my understanding and that of many fishermen that reform of the CFP meant most things would be held off and there would be proper reform. Lo and behold every week different issues come down the line at us. As Mr. O'Donoghue stated, the CFP is due to come into force in 2013. I am concerned that we will not have an industry by 2013 and it is certain we will not have the number of boats in operation today. If they are decommissioned, well and good. That is a desirable approach from the IFO, Irish Fishermen's Organisation, perspective because many men on the ground are in dire straits and would consider getting out.
Recently, a penalty points system has been imposed upon us, one of 116 regulations which came from the EU, some of which were imposed and some of which were not imposed. The penalty points system means if one offends, which could include a mistake in the log book, and one receives a certain number of penalty points, one's licence is suspended for six months. If one reoffends, one's licence is taken away. That means the livelihood and the livelihood of one's crew is gone out the window.
There are new technical measures which, I understand, my colleagues will go to Brussels to discuss. The Commission seeks an increase in mesh size from 80 mm to 120 mm. The IFO has always advocated that the mesh size is too small and that we need a 100-head mesh. However, that was never forthcoming because our Spanish counterparts always fought off the increase in mesh size at EU level. Now, the Commission seeks to increase the size from 80 mm to 120 mm, too radical an increase in one jump. The increase is not limited to the cod end, that is, the bag of the net which holds the fish, it wishes to increase the mesh size of the whole net to 120 mm. This will be very costly for a normal fishing boat, an important consideration in the current climate. I am in the gear business my self in a small way. There will be ups and downs in this regard but the cost is likely to be approximately €35,000 and in the current climate that is not sustainable.
The greatest joke of all coming from Brussels is what is known as catch composition. It will be discussed tomorrow. We discussed this matter at our last meeting with the committee and we outlined how if we caught in excess of the quota we had to throw dead fish back in the sea. I believe everyone here and the public at large were appalled at the situation. The Commission has come up with the idea of catch composition, whereby one reports one's catch using a new, electronic log book every 24 hours and one must have the correct catch composition.
I have spent most of my life at sea and I probably understand the mechanisms and the way fishing works better than anyone in this room. Catch composition is an impossibility. It is not possible at 12 o'clock to have a given percentage of monkfish, megs or hake. When towing the net on the seabed, one catches a mixture of everything. The only way in which one could fish in line with the proposed catch composition is through massive discarding or, alternatively, breaking the law. That is one of the issues coming down the road.
I refer to the code of practice, a type of safety survey. The matter was discussed at the last meeting. I have two boats which were put through the safety survey. I understand from speaking to colleagues who have gone through the safety survey that the survey planned for next year is for older boats and will cost more. Unfortunately, at present one may put a boat through the code of practice but it does not have much bearing on safety. It costs between €50,000 to €80,000. If one were to go through a similar process in Scotland, the cost would be in the region of £10,000 and the cost in France is in the region of €10,000 to €15,000. Our problem with bureaucracy is that we seem to take everything to heart and multiply it by ten, especially in the fishing industry.
I refer to over capacity. The IFO supports decommissioning as a mechanism of removing vessels from the fleet. We are informed there are too many boats chasing too few fish. If there were a decommissioning scheme tomorrow morning I believe the people involved at the coal face of the industry would wish to get out. Given the level of bureaucracy in place, many people would gladly get out.
I referred to the matter of floating tonnage before the last decommissioning scheme. This means if the capacity of tonnes and kilowatts is removed from a vessel and sold to Scotland or South Africa, one is allowed to keep one's licence. Currently, there are not enough licences in use to cope with the introduction of a further 25 vessels. It would be of no use if 25 vessels were taken out of the fleet tomorrow morning once the floating tonnage remains in place. I do not have the answer to the question of what to do with floating tonnage. I raised the matter with the Department. However, there is an EU directive that one cannot remove tonnage on its own and it is a serious problem. Let us suppose there was an increase in quota at a later stage, we decommissioned some vessels and the remaining vessels in the industry were viable. If 25 additional vessels entered the industry, it would create a greater problem.
We wish to see a level playing field which is not in place under the CFP at present. We are being over-policed, or policed properly, whichever way one wishes to put it. The matter has been addressed at several meetings and everyone knows from the top down that our counterparts are not adhering to the law in the way we do.
I refer to regulation in Irish waters. Every boat, regardless of country of origin, should be regulated in the same manner. During any future CFP negotiations one of the important issues on the table should be the value of fish we have contributed in recent years. All our counterparts have taken endless amounts of stock from our waters, some of which was documented but much of which was undocumented. We have taken very little from our EU counterparts and there are few Irish registered boats fishing in the territorial waters of any other country. We have been significant contributors to the EU and that should be taken into consideration.
I fully agree with the remarks of Mr. O'Donoghue on the matter of limits. We must maintain or, if possible, increase the limits currently in place. Mr. O'Donoghue also outlined the fact that for us to negotiate for more fish, our EU counterparts would have to give up fish. This is true and it is very difficult to envisage anyone giving up fish. However, the same applies in an Irish context. There are internal difficulties within the industry inside and outside of organisations. I estimate 90% of the reason is that no one has enough quota. By taking a little from one person, the next person gets somewhat less and it becomes economically viable for no one. It is a very serious situation. At the moment no young people are entering the industry. Mr. O'Donoghue addressed the issue of scientific knowledge.
A more significant problem is that fishing is something which one cannot send a person to learn in school or college. It is one of the world's most unique industries because one has to go out and see how it is done. A young person could be in college forever but if one put him or her into the wheelhouse of a boat tomorrow morning he or she would be detrimental to safety because it is an industry which has to be learned. One has to come from the bottom up but that is not happening because of bad press and the manner in which the industry is regulated. Several matters will have to be addressed in order to get young people into the industry to make it more friendly.
I have a list with me which contains many of the issues Mr. O'Donoghue raised. One of the strong objections we have to the CFP are the individual transfer quotas, something which we would oppose because it means in the future foreign fleets might buy Irish quotas. As bad as the current situation is, we do not want the country to lose any more of its quota. Men are currently feeling desperate.
I will return to the point with which I started. The industry is in turmoil. We face many costs, which I itemised. As the committee knows, we have the same problem as every other sector in the country, that is, a difficulty in getting money from the banking sector. We need to do something quickly and cannot wait until 2013 to address the issue. We will have a very small fleet because many fishermen will have gone bust.
Much of what I said does not address what we came here to discuss, that is, the CFP but these are the issues currently facing the fleet. Mr. O'Donoghue has done a more than adequate job addressing the technical issues.
I thank Mr. Sheehan for his presentation.
I will be brief. I thank Mr. O'Donoghue and Mr. Sheehan for their presentations and their colleagues for attending the meeting and assure them this committee is in listening mode on this issue and will make a submission, as we discussed before the meeting commenced, to the consultation process before the end of 2009. It is important to be cognisant of that consultation process. One can view on-line the nature of the representations made to date.
I preface my remarks by saying that sustainability has to be the cornerstone on which the industry is prepared for the future. However, there is an excessive zeal regarding excessive restrictions on the industry post- 2013 in respect of the majority of submissions which seems to me to be almost orchestrated. It is important that there is balance in the submissions which are made to the Commission.
I have a number of questions. I was glad Mr. Sheehan mentioned the issue of individual transfer quotas — something to which Mr. O'Donoghue did not make reference — but it is an issue I view with significant concern. If there is a free-for-all I am concerned there would be a gravitation of quotas out of the country towards the larger factory ship type operations. It is not a simple issue. This committee recently met Commissioner Borg and raised this issue with him and how this issue affected other jurisdictions outside the European Union but my concern remains the same, namely, that there would be a withdrawal of quota from Ireland if there was a free-for-all. The analogy with milk quota is one which is worth making. That trade was not allowed outside national borders and served its purpose well in respect of the dairy industry in the country.
I welcome the proposed regionalisation, as outlined in the Green Paper. The point is well made that having Ministers from non-coastal countries such as Luxembourg and Austria sitting in on decisions on mesh size or other issues is illogical. We must ensure that if we are regionalising decision making we do not put in another layer of bureaucracy which has to be approved at a full Council meeting. If one is regionalising the issue one has to give the powers to make decisions to those at a regional level and if that were to happen it is something which could work to our advantage.
The Hague Convention is critical to any CFP post-2013. It has been used, albeit in the form of an annual bloodbath, to try to extricate additional opportunities for the Irish fishing industry. The uncertainty has to be removed and, in some ways, the underdeveloped nature of the industry here has to be recognised for once and for all. That process has to be formalised, it is to be hoped in the CFP post-2013.
I do not have more to say. I speak for my colleagues on my side of the House when I say we are in listening mode. Mr. Sheehan strayed into areas which were not specifically on the agenda but which were very relevant, in terms of viability and the current difficulties the industry is experiencing. Mr. O'Donoghue made the point about differentiating between Irish and EU matters.
We published a Bill, for which we are still canvassing support, which would deal with issues such as administrative sanction instead of the current regime. I regret to say there does not seem to be a level of support for it emerging at the current time which would enable us to bring it to the floor of Dáil Éireann with the prospect of success. I remain hopeful that the hearts and minds of my colleagues are open to be won on that debate but I am not interested in having a pyrrhic parade for the sake of it, only to have the Bill shot down.
This is a national issue which needs to be addressed at a national level. In that context, we are out of step with what is happing in Europe. In terms of a harmonisation of approaches there is an issue which needs to be mainstreamed, namely, the availability of information regarding fleets which are hauled in by the Irish Naval Service which goes on board and does not know the quota of the vessel. Such uniformity also needs to be provided for. There is a lot of work to be done.
I remain optimistic that the industry can be put on a more secure footing. I appreciate the enormous commitment and the financial investments of the people in the industry. It is an industry which is peripheral in its location. Without it, there will not be myriad opportunities, given the current economic difficulties. It is a battle to hold what we have and make sure the industry is given every opportunity to thrive and prosper in the future. There are local, national and EU issues in that context.
The CFP is now the major game in town and will run for a number of years. Important ingredients for the final outcome are being included in the submissions before the end of the year. It is important that we made a submission in that regard.
I welcome the delegation. I apologise for my late attendance; there was a vote in the Seanad and I had to attend another committee meeting.
I have found Mr. Sheehan's contributions over the years to be some of the finest in terms of education on marine matters. His ability to communicate what is a very technical subject to people such as myself never ceases to amaze me. He has communicated it in a way that is very easy for me to pick up on and he has communicated it on behalf of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation. Mr. Sheehan is one of the finest educators in this room.
The banks have received a great deal of support recently, not least through recapitalisation and now NAMA. A few months ago it was obvious that several boat owners had interest-only loans. How have banks reacted to the difficulties facing fishermen? Have they shown any flexibility to those struggling to meet the repayments on their boats and to maintain jobs in coastal communities, not least in west Cork and around the Kerry coast? These jobs are critical because every euro paid to fishermen generates approximately €4 in the local economy. We should not lose sight of an industry that is indigenous and that in a revenue neutral way can re-boot local and rural economies. Have the banks shown any flexibility or have they been heavy-handed in dealing with the industry?
The current system has failed Irish fishermen and coastal communities abysmally. The quota system, for example, does not work. We have seen Spanish vessels come in and take what they want and leave. I am conscious that there are many people listening on-line to this debate. I hope they will take cognisance of the harsh rules and regulations. While the laws are passed democratically by the Houses of the Oireachtas they are applied severely and strictly. I hope to see the criminal sanctions switched to administrative ones. The way fishermen are being treated is criminal. Best practice internationally shows that administrative sanctions work. The prospect of one's catch and equipment being confiscated and appearing in front of a Circuit Court judge for minor infringements is beyond belief. There are many in this room who have paid a high price for that. There must be a level playing pitch. We have the waters and the opportunity in respect of quota to reflect that potential.
It is a mortal sin to see fish being dumped back into the sea. There was a graphic report on the BBC website at the start of the year about how boat owners throw discards overboard. It is beyond belief. If the application of the law is so ridiculous or impractical, there must be a practical examination of technical conservation measures and stock sustainability. This applies not only at European level but also in the Irish context. It is all very well to introduce a law but if it is that difficult to enforce, it must be revisited.
It would be an appalling vista if a Spanish multinational could get hold of the quotas here. The status quo must remain. These are vital to sustain what little activity is being generated by fishing in our coastal communities, not just to re-boot the communities but to maintain what we have. State control of quotas is essential. The transferable quota would be detrimental. There are many obvious examples in other sectors where we have allowed other people to pilfer and plunder our resources to the detriment of the industry.
I again welcome the witnesses. This is a difficult time economically. Much of this we have brought on ourselves by not listening to the industry and proceeding on textual advice about applying regulations to an industry that is on its knees. I am mindful of Barry Desmond's book, Finally and in Conclusion. He would say “finally” but when he was finishing up he would say “in conclusion”. Finally, the Government has nominated the former Minister for Justice as the next European Commissioner. It can show a lead by going after the fisheries commissionership. I have heard commentators speculate about different areas in the past 24 or 48 hours. If we had a Commissioner holding that brief we would lead the drive to re-boot the industry in Europe. The Government needs to address this significant issue.
I thank both delegations for their presentations. It is always good to hear from somebody at the coalface. I know that Ebbie Sheehan has been at the coalface for his whole life. The most striking point in his presentation is the lack of young people going into the industry which is worrying for the future and for the hope that we can restore the fishing industry to its full potential.
Mr. Sean O'Donoghue spoke about expanding the six or 12 mile limits. If we have control over our own waters we have the ability to expand the limit. That would be a boost to the inshore fleets. I wholeheartedly support that suggestion.
Witnesses mentioned the non-implementation of many of the Hague resolutions of 1976 and suggested building alliances with other groups or fishing organisations in other countries to deal with that issue. I am not sure about the witnesses' opposition to the days at sea because I met fishermen last year who talked about the price of diesel and so forth. I can fully understand that climate plays a significant role but if one is working on a quota basis one can carry that over from month to month. Will the witnesses expand on that issue? I support the point about self-management and control. Those involved in the industry are the best placed to play an active role in it and conserve it because they are talking about their future.
What effect does imported fish have on the Irish market? I recall the fishermen picketing Cork airport to protest about fish coming in from South America which was undercutting prices here. Much of this fish made its way onto the market as Irish produce. This committee produced a report on the labelling of imported fish so that Irish consumers would know exactly what they were getting. I fully support the input and use of the knowledge of the people in the industry in research and scientific analysis. We receive many scientific reports but they are often very abstract and are presented as a fait accompli while the fishermen and women whom I know have a totally different view.
Ebbie Sheehan used the term "bureaucratic nonsense" which is a good way to describe what is going on, whether we talk about the Common Fisheries Policy or the Common Agricultural Policy. It causes people a great deal of difficulty.
Senator McCarthy spoke about administrative versus criminal sanctions.
Will members please concentrate on the Common Fisheries Policy? We discussed this before.
I am making a point.
Many members are straying away from the topic we are here to discuss.
I expect the same treatment here as everyone else.
I am not picking on the Deputy.
Other people have mentioned it and the Chairman remained silent.
I want to refer to every member, Deputy Ferris not the first. I had to say it at some stage.
Am I allowed to continue?
Yes.
The Common Fisheries Policy is up for negotiation between now and 2012. It is obvious that the current quota system does not meet the requirements of the Irish fishing fleet. It is hugely important that this committee should send out the message that the quota system should be renegotiated. It must be increased to meet the needs of those currently involved in fishing so they can have a viable livelihood.
The report mentioned the building of alliances on the issue. That is essential. In my opinion, and in the opinion of people I meet regularly, the political will has been consistently lacking to fight for fishermen's rights and entitlements in Europe. In the fisheries negotiations that will be taking place, it is essential that the quota system be addressed. If that does not happen, the industry will go into irreversible decline.
The code of practice, safety surveys, discard and the cost factors were mentioned. I live in Fenit and these are even affecting the smaller fleets. The costs involve a huge amount of money, and many of them are coming from Europe. They should form part of the negotiations no matter who is in Government in the coming years.
The size of mesh is an issue that has arisen on numerous occasions. Other European countries who abused the regulations for their own ends were facilitated. The EU has increased size from 80 millimetres to 120 millimetres. It was suggested previously that we were prepared for the 100 millimetres, placing extra cost burdens on people who find it difficult enough to keep going.
Decommissioning has been welcomed by many organisations over the years but I do not welcome it. It is a sad state of affairs when politicians welcome decommissioning because it is effectively the same as redundancy. The onus should be on quotas that allow for fishermen to have a viable income. That is paramount in the negotiations.
I thank both organisations for the comprehensive presentation today. They outlined their case very well and if one thing comes across it is that we need significant change if our fishing industry is to survive. I have highlighted on several occasions the importance of the industry to coastal communities. I would take it further, it is important to the economy of the country and will become more so from here on. The sooner we realise that, the better.
Many of the points have already been made but there are a few things I can see from my time in here and from dealing with the industry that are crucial if the industry is to remain economically viable, such as retaining control of the industry. Those involved must be in a position to control it at all levels. The price of fish is at an all-time low. It is important that there is a price support mechanism if the industry is to survive. We are talking about survival, let there be no doubt about it. We have a support mechanism for agriculture and we must have something similar for fishing.
Looking at an example where self management would work to the advantage of the industry, in the last 24 hours the crab fishing industry has been closed. This is at a time, in the run-up to Christmas, when there is huge demand for crab and the best price possible can be secured but, at the stroke of a pen, the fishery has been closed. There are other examples.
We are in the EU and subject to fisheries regulations but we have issues we can control ourselves. They have already been referred to, with the penalties we put in place for infringements. We cannot forget our responsibilities. Clear rules were referred to. Those in the industry must know exactly where they are going and what is to be done to keep within the remit of the rules that are there. They must be laid out clearly.
At a time when we have just passed the Lisbon treaty, we must take advantage of this opportunity. Such opportunities only come around every ten years, when the CFP is reviewed. It is a long time to wait to get something done, a lot can happen in that time. Many people will go out of business between now and the end of the review. Ten years is far too long to wait for a policy review.
I agree with Mr. O'Donoghue on partnership between the Department, BIM and the Marine Institute. Those three entities are all on solo runs and they must be pulled together to work together effectively for the industry.
The national versus European issue arose. For a long time I have believed that when EU regulations are put in place, the Government here adds another 20%, the over-regulation referred to by Mr. Ebbie Sheehan. On the Hague resolution, Mr. O'Donoghue spoke about specific tonnage to Ireland and parts of the UK . He gave the example of 6,950 tonnes of cod in the Irish Sea and said he would seek an increase in Ireland's percentage share. Is he seeking an increase on the Hague resolution or from the Celtic Sea? He said there is a fight every year to hold that quota. He referred to alliances with other like-minded EU countries. Is that a realistic possibility? There is so much fish to go around. Every country has its quota. We are seeking more quota. Is it possible to have a quota swap for certain species? There was a reference to innovative ways of juggling the system to Ireland's benefit. Can we get increased quotas in our TAC for the four or five white species? In regard to the effort, Mr. O'Donoghue said it was a no, no.
Correct me if I am wrong. Last year when the industry was at crisis point regarding fuel costs etc. did the organisations not seek effort at that time? I am trying to get a balance on this issue. Please do not assume I am pushing effort down. There is a view that if one could make a living from fishing three days a week, why go out seven days a week?
One might be told next week that one can only go out one day.
I am just making the point. On the regional authorities and the regional advisory councils, an inland fisheries Bill is going through the House the purpose of which is to get rid of the regional bodies. I think the regional advisory councils should have more input and should be self-regulating. When one sees what is happening with inland fisheries and IFI is being set up to get rid of the eight regional boards——
Please stick to the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy or we will be here all day.
I will. A marketing regulation review was suggested to get over the low prices which arise from fish coming in from countries outside the EU which would not have the regulation or the quality of product that we have in Ireland. A similar parallel would be the Brazilian imports. Brazilian beef was stopped coming into Europe. Perhaps that approach should be adopted in this case. Were it not for members of the IFA going to Brazil themselves and investigating the issue, that would never have happened.
In regard to scientific research, Mr. O'Donoghue said a new structure was required but should it be on a European basis or a national basis? In terms of fleet capacity, is it realistically possible to maintain and expand the six and 12 mile limits or is an expansion sought to maintain the new Irish Box?
On funding, has a price support mechanism been put in place? There are many fishermen out there but the main reason they are not making money is due to the price at which fish is sold, because of imports into the EU. The witnesses said the EU is only producing 35% of what is needed within the EU. Therefore, how can one justify a price support mechanism? If we could stop the imports into the EU we could control the prices. Discards were barely touched on. That is a very sensitive issue for me. What happens in this area is immoral. Mr. Ebbie Sheehan referred to tonnage that is not being used. What is the position with the tonnage that is being lost to the State, where people have stopped fishing but still have their licences which may be sold to other boats from other jurisdictions? Is it being put up on a shelf? The Chairman may rule me out of order here. When the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority appeared before the committee it gave a breakdown of the arrests and the people it boarded and it transpired that an inordinate percentage were Irish boats. One has to ask why it is not boarding the Spanish and other foreign boats. Perhaps there is a language barrier. Why is it that the Naval Service and the SFPA have to do 100% of the policing for 13% or 17% of the quota? Is there a structure whereby a European navy would police the fisheries? Why is it that the small fisherman cannot sell fish wherever he wishes? Why cannot a fisherman with a small boat sell direct to a restaurant?
I also welcome the organisations, in particular Mr. Ebbie Sheehan and Mr. Gavin Power who replaces Ger O'Flynn. As a non-member of the committee I am glad to support the fishing industry. If there are further meetings I would appreciate if I could be kept informed in order that I can lend my support. I learned about this meeting only this morning, thanks to the Chairman.
I have a few questions but will not go over the points made. There was an issue, and perhaps it has been resolved, that the monk quota is not being utilised because of various restrictions. It is not being utilised in full? For health reasons I buy a good deal of fish. In the fish shops whether in west Cork or Kerry I have analysed the fish and find that much of it is imported and it is not cheap. It does not make sense that the fishermen are not getting a fair crack of the whip. What percentage of the fish caught by our fishermen is exported direct, either in refrigerated containers or lorries, without being processed? How many people are currently employed in the fishing industry as opposed to ten years ago from the point of view of the economic problems with the Common Fisheries Policy going forward? What percentage of fish is processed here? Could the industry look at the issue of processing and exporting fish with added value rather than the raw product? I do not wish to make an issue of this. I recall recently getting sea bass but when I inquired in the shop I was informed that it was farmed in Cyprus. I realise that sea bass is scarce and it is difficult to get it in Irish waters due to the restrictions. This made me think. If the Cypriots are prepared to farm species such as sea bass, would the industry, given the way it is contracting, due to decommissioning, quotas and various restrictions — and I am addressing the representatives of all the groups — consider the salient options that might be available? I am not talking about molloscs but the general picture. I had the benefit of examining the position in Chile and it is unfortunate that we have Chilean, Asian and products from other countries coming into this country when the fishermen here are having difficulty in selling their product. The most annoying aspect, having caught the product with great difficulty, possibly in bad weather with restricted quotas and days at sea, is that we are not getting a fair price in the European Union market.
Another question for the organisations concerns the recent announcement by the Council in Luxembourg regarding the penalty points system and ensuring a level playing field across Europe. My understanding, and it may be incorrect, is that it is another way of imposing on us this famous administrative system we all fought for. I fought as hard as anyone in the past decade on the issue. I may have lost but we may have made some ground. I am concerned, having talked to fishermen privately and people not directly involved in the industry, that if a penalty points or administrative system emerges, that it will be more damaging for fishermen in the fishing industry. I would not like to see a system replacing the current position — bad and awkward as the regulations are and difficult as it is for fishermen to try to live within it — and us to end up being controlled by Brussels. That would be much more strictly imposed and, as Mr. Ebbie Sheehan said, it would be like the driver given a few penalty points in that the fisherman would be unable to fish. Not only would that damage the individual boat but it could damage the industry and the country if too many penalty points were imposed. The EU and the Commission could take the view that rather than penalising Mr. Sheehan, somebody in Killybegs or someone in Dunmore East it will cut off the entire Irish industry, so to speak, which would have serious implications. A new penalty points system that will apply throughout Europe sounds nice but I am concerned that the Irish fishing industry will take the brunt of the implications of that.
I get the impression, be it right or wrong, from dealing with fishermen for the past 20 years that the same rules do not apply to the French or to the Spanish. I am not sure what can be done in the negotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Spanish system is that they have a national quota and when Spanish boats are arrested in Irish waters it is impossible, with all due respect to the Naval Service or the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, to determine each boat's individual quota. They can say they have 100 tonnes of white fish on board but that that is part of their national quota. That boat could have breached its fishing quota in Irish waters but it is protected by an archaic regime where its government protects it. It is a national quota in the case of a boat crew arrested in Castletownbere or brought into Cobh, Cork or wherever, we have no way of finding out what that vessel has caught. Are the Spanish protecting their own fishermen to the disadvantage of the Irish fishermen?
I appreciate the opportunity of being here to support the fishing industry and to raise a number of points to which I hope the representatives of the organisations may be in a position to respond.
Notice of all meetings are on Tuesday's Order Paper. The Clerk to the Committee sends out notification to the members of the committee. She is not obliged to send out that notification to other members. The Senator can understand that.
I accept that.
I welcome the delegation. It is not before time that the representatives are putting their case to this committee. I am sorry I was not here in time to hear their submission but I have checked the literature provided and I know they have covered a wide field of suggestions. Be that as it may, now is the time to argue our case in Europe, especially when we are full members of the European Parliament and we have ratified the Lisbon treaty. That was the burning issue and it is something that I hope will result in some benefits for our fishing industry.
The fishing industry was treated as the hind tit industry in this country over the years. Nobody should cod themselves about that. Since our entry into Europe our fishing industry got nothing but the thin end of the wedge. If we do not get some concessions from Europe now, it will be a sad day for Ireland. We have 26% of the European fisheries waters yet we are allowed only 4% of the catch. That is a shocking irregularity that will have to be corrected if our fishermen are to have a livelihood. We were codded into accepting Mickey Mouse concessions for the fishing industry at the start of our negotiations to enter Europe and nothing has been done to rectify the position since.
In addition to that, the decriminalisation of our fishing skippers has been a burning issue for the past two years.
I ask the Deputy to concentrate on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.
I will but this entails reform of the laws governing the Common Fisheries Policy. No steps have been taken to decriminalise those people. Their counterparts in Europe were dealt with summarily in a district court and criminal prosecutions were not brought against them. I want to level the playing pitch for our fishermen with their European counterparts and it must come from common sense. There is an old saying that if we want to look neat we must begin at our feet. There has been a great deal of talk but no action as far as this country's fishing industry is concerned. The time is right for action to be taken to safeguard our valuable industry.
I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by my colleague and namesake, Deputy Tom Sheahan, from south Kerry.
The Sheehans are taking over today.
We have one or two of them on the panel. My friend Ebbie Sheehan from Castletownbere must have made an early start this morning to be here in time. His heart and soul is in the right place as far as the fishing industry is concerned. He has years of experience. I was sorry not to be here for his presentation but that was through no fault of mine. I was delayed in Cork city and could not set out in time.
It is better now to examine ways of improving our fishing industry and the right of our fishermen to prosper in their own waters. We should press for the 12 mile limit along the entire coastline. There is no point in saying a six mile limit will be allowed from Blacksod to Carnsore Point. It should be a 12 mile limit, exclusively owned by the Irish fishing association. That is not a major issue for Europe to concede when we go to negotiate. It should be policed thoroughly to ensure that Spanish trawlers cannot enter our waters. If the Spanish trawlers were allowed, they would travel up to the bridge in Athlone and take the limpet off the rock. Control must be exercised over these marauding trawlers that are plundering the stocks of our Irish fishermen.
We have the unnecessary attention of more than 20 fisheries inspectors in the port of Castletownbere. Do they inspect the Spanish boats when they are landing catches at Dinish Island? I am told they do not and that those boats are exempt from inspection. If that is the case, there is one law for one member state of the European Union and another law for Ireland. These are matters that will have to be ironed out. Regardless of what Government is in power, the onus will be on it to make sure that a proper deal is done in the negotiations for Irish fishermen and to ensure that it listens to what the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and all the fisheries associations have to contribute to this dialogue. The sooner that is done, the better.
We should also examine more processing of our catch. The Germans are an excellent race in this respect. They have a very small coastline, but they process herring and other fish caught in Celtic Sea. They process herrings in brine, wine, mustard and other substances in tins, which are exported to this country, end up in our supermarkets and are lapped up by our people. Why can Irish processors not come on line and explore this part of the industry? I eat smoked kippers every morning in Dáil Éireann, but I doubt if they are Irish.
They are from west Cork.
They could be imported from the Faroe Islands or from Scotland. That is my candid opinion. The price that can be got for herrings caught in the Celtic Sea is not sufficient to warrant them being fished. Why do our industrialists and entrepreneurs with bright ideas not get together and set up not one but two or three processing firms? One could be set up in Castletownbere, in Killybegs, probably in Greencastle and in Howth. There is ample business for such processing firms.
In the year I was born my father was exporting mackerel to the United States and lobsters and crayfish to Billingsgate Fish Market packed in tea chests from Schull pier. They were put aboard the tram at that time but that rail system was taken away. Everything that was any good for west Cork was taken away.
The Deputy should concentrate on fish and not the rail system.
My father used to pack the lobsters and crayfish layer by layer with sawdust, which then took the place of ice today in tea chests. That was back in the 1930s and the fish would arrive 48 hours later in Billingsgate Fish Market in perfect condition and make top market price there. Why do young people not embark on a similar enterprise now? That was more than 70 years ago. We have not done anything in this area to improve the conditions of our fishermen.
We need to maintain the 12-mile limit and to expand and maintain a new Irish Box. Those are the most important elements for which we must argue.
I wish the delegates' organisation every success. Any effort I can make on their behalf, I will gladly do so. It is a labour of love for me to speak on behalf of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and Irish fishermen. God knows there is no section of our community working so hard and getting so little in return. They must keep up the fight. Now is our time to argue and to put up a fight. The Minister with the responsibility for the marine must put forward their case in Europe. Now that matters have settled in Europe and the Lisbon treaty is a fait accompli, it is up to us to renegotiate our fisheries policy. I am sure the Chairman will row in behind me on this.
The Minister will be here next week. I thank Deputy Sheehan for his contribution. Does Mr. O'Donoghue or Mr. Sheehan wish to reply first?
Mr. Sean O’Donoghue
A number of issues were raised. I will respond briefly to some questions posed and statements made, which are worth clarifying. The first issue that was rightly raised by a number of members was the individual transferable quota, ITQ. I did not cover it in our presentation because there is agreement in the federation, in the IFO, with the Minister and everybody else concerned that this is the system for Ireland. I would be very surprised if that changed in the Common Fisheries Policy. It will be up to every member state to decide which method it will use to allocate it own quotas. We are not supporting the ITQ system for the reasons mentioned about losing quota to the bigger parties in other member states.
A number of members raised the issue of the days at sea regime and the fishing effort. Deputy Sheahan said that the industry was supporting a days at sea regime last year. I can guarantee him this is not the case in terms of the Federation of Irish Fishermen. We have been continually opposed to a days at sea regime. It may be worth explaining this. Deputy Ferris mentioned it as well that said he was quite willing to listen to arguments in respect of it. The reason we are so firmly against it — it was mentioned by Deputy Creed in his introduction — is that its underlying philosophy is the sustainability of stocks. If the TAC and quota system is removed and we are down to a days at sea regime, the only way to ensure that the stock is not over-exploited is to keep people tied to the pier. We would be the first to support fishermen being able to fish 15 or 20 days a month. That would be perfect, but we know that will not happen because it would be contrary to the sustainability of stocks. If we were to pursue a fishing effort argument — of which our Spanish colleagues are one of the main drivers and we should always be worried if they are seeking this as well — to the bitter end and if we did get a days at sea regime, which I do not believe we would, I could guarantee our whitefish fleet would be decimated within a matter of years. We would be down to fishing only a few days a month because of the sustainability of stocks argument. There is good reasoning behind our putting forward the argument that we are against a fishing effort regime, we are not putting forward that argument just for the sake of doing so.
Deputy Ferris made a good point about the fish imports and labelling, an issue that is close to our heart. Imports are having a huge effect on the price of European fish. We export quite a lot of our fish to European markets. Therefore if cheap imports are coming in to France, Spain and other EU countries — not to mention coming here as well — it significantly affects the price. One way to address it, as has been identified, is by labelling. That needs to be vigorously pursued so that consumers know they have the option to buy Irish fish or fish from other countries. It is a scandal that there are huge quantities of frozen fish coming into the European market which are then thawed out and sold as fresh. It is totally illegal and should be labelled as fish that was frozen. We need to go after not alone the labelling authority in Ireland — which I think comes under the remit of the environmental health officers — but all the other countries also need to begin enforcing similar environmental standards. We have a pile of south-east Asian catfish, or Pangasius, coming in. They are produced in the Mekong Delta, so there is no way that it lives up to any environmental or social standards. There needs to be equitable treatment. We need a level playing field not just on controls, but also on imports. The SFPA would have a role in that respect.
A number of questions were asked about the Hague resolution, which gives us an advantage on certain stocks. At a minimum, we want to see that enshrined in a new Common Fisheries Policy. If so, it would automatically give us an increase in our percentage share. For example, in the Irish Sea it would be 20%. For some stocks it would be 5%, 10% or 15%. If we could get that enshrined, it would be a good starting point from which to get increased quotas.
I was also asked about the possibility of alliances and whether this was realistic. We feel it is realistic, although maybe not in terms of all the issues I have raised. There are quite a lot of issues that we can get alliances on and move things on. Perhaps people have similar concerns to us, it is just that we have not been opening the right doors or looking at it in the right fashion.
The issue of discards was mentioned and is obviously part of our submission, although I did not cover it today. It is a highly complex issue. I would be very critical of the fisheries Commissioner for using soundbites to call for a discard ban, while not realising what that means for the industry. What can we do with unwanted fish? We will end up with a bigger environmental problem and there is no simple solution.
Senator O'Donovan asked about the numbers employed in the processing industry. I do not have the precise numbers, but in the last six or seven years employment on the fishing side has gone down from 6,500 to 4,500. On the processing side we have lost in the region of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 jobs. I am not certain whether the baseline is six or ten years.
It was said that we should do more to enhance secondary processing, but that is only valid for certain species. We could certainly do some extra secondary processing on some of the pelagic fish. We still have a bulk market given the quantities that we land. It is better to sell some of the white fish species fresh, rather than do secondary processing because one will end up with a better price. Market forces are at play here.
I will now cover the question concerning marketing regulation, which was whether the minimum price supports do much for us. I sought a radical change in the present marketing regulation and I will cite one key example of this. A minimum price is set for imports coming into the Community, but unfortunately it is not set at what we call a guide price — it is set at a withdrawal price. The guide price that is set in the Community is about 20% or 25% above the withdrawal price. Changing just one word in the market regulation would have a significant effect on imports because they could no longer be sold at the withdrawal price. A withdrawal price means that fish have to be withdrawn from the market, so imports should not be coming in at a withdrawal price anyway. Back in 2000, somebody was very clever with the regulation in making that connection between the withdrawal price and the price for imports. Some immediate amendments would affect the price that producers get for this.
We fully support the six and 12-mile limits. We would also support a further extension if it does not come back to haunt us. We do not want to end up causing ourselves bigger problems than we already have. I am all in favour of extending them if it benefits us, but if it cannot then I certainly would not be in favour of it.
Thank you, Mr. O'Donoghue. Does Mr. Sheehan wish to make a statement?
Mr. Ebbie Sheehan
Mr. O'Donoghue has addressed most of the questions, so I will go through them quickly. Deputy Sheehan raised the question of effort. Members of the joint committee will remember that we had some disagreement concerning effort between the organisations in our last encounter here. We had a long meeting with the IFO in the south-west a few weeks ago. We went through a list of matters and agreed on 99% of them. Between ourselves and the FIF we would have almost total agreement on all issues. We had a lot of problems with discarding last year, whereby we were allowed a certain percentage of each fish species, but one could not specifically target one from the other. We had a serious problem with discarding and were trying to get away from that situation. One of the proposals we put forward was for an immediate increase in mesh size from 80mm to 100mm, which we have been seeking for a long time. We will get it now, but it looks as if we will get more than we bargained for.
The other proposal was that in order to get away from discarding fish, we sought a days-at-sea regime whereby every boat would get a minimum of 21 days per month at sea. I agree with Mr. O'Donoghue's argument that if we do so, there is a possibility that we may get 21 days per month in one year, but would be down to ten days the following year. That situation would be undesirable. We would be open to looking at an alternative to that. We would have no disagreement with it if there was a sensible alternative.
As a fisherman, I would like to see stocks being conserved because that is what the whole argument between ourselves and the EU authorities is about. It is something that we could certainly resolve. Deputy Sheehan also asked a question on tonnage. When a person sells a boat, regardless of where it is sold, the licence is removed. The licence is valid for two years. That pressurises one into buying another boat, which one does not want, and utilising one's licence again within two years. That is an undesirable situation. Either the licence becomes dead or one is forced to buy a boat or, like many people, buy a boat in partnership, which one does not want to do.
Senator O'Donovan asked about the percentages of fish being exported. Again, I will not go into pelagics because I do not know enough about them. In the white fish section in Castletownbere, I imagine 60% to 70% of fish are exported in their raw form. The reason is that it fetches the best price in the raw form. Monkfish, megrims and hake are all exported to Spain which is the best market. One could fillet the hake and take out one's labour cost and get less. One's transport costs would be down because one would not be transporting the volume. The same applies to monkfish which one could tail or otherwise. Experience has shown that, unfortunately, it is better to export that type of fish, although not every type, in its raw form.
I agree with Mr. Sean O'Donoghue that we have lost in the region of 30% of the people employed in the industry in shore-based and sea-based jobs.
The issue of imports is very serious. It has been made even worse in the past month by a resolution passed by the Commission. It removed the duty from wild fish coming in from outside the EU. Large volumes of fish, mostly cod, are coming in. I believe 20,000 tonnes of herring is imported. It is being imported from outside the EU with no tax. We were told that ten years ago, we were 50% sufficient in wild fish and that now the figure is 36% and that we need an incentive to get fish from outside the EU. Next year that will have an even greater effect on fish prices.
Senator O'Donovan asked about fish farming which is a no, no at the moment because of Natura 2000. Almost all the bays are closed. There are hundreds of people in the fish farming industry waiting for planning, to be allocated sites and so on. Given the flow of bureaucracy from Brussels, it is impossible to go into that.
With all due respect, it is more the turf war between the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in interpreting the regulations rather than Brussels that is the big issue.
I ask Mr. Sheehan to continue.
Mr. Ebbie Sheehan
Agreed.
I find the penalty point system very dangerous. If one was a bold boy and not overly popular, one could be targeted. I am sure that issue has been raised with Senator O'Donovan and Deputy Christy O'Sullivan where certain fishermen in certain areas have been targeted. That is one of the bigger dangers of the penalty point system. If one's boat is boarded by a naval officer or an officer of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and is given a penalty point and the next day someone else feels it is within his or her power to give one another penalty point, one will run into serious difficulty and could be out of business in a short period of time. That is one thing I do not like about the penalty point system.
We fully support the limits, as Mr. Sean O'Donoghue outlined. Discards are very close to my heart. Throwing any kind of fish back into the sea dead is an absolute no, no. It is immoral and is not right. That is what we are trying to get away from. We do not know the mechanism by which we can get away from this. Catch composition will be discussed tomorrow where every 24 hours, one must have a certain percentage of each species. Any child of six years of age going to school will know that if one trawls the seabed, one has no way to get one's catch composition right and if anyone states otherwise, he or she is telling lies. One could get cod today and whiting tomorrow. It is impossible to get it right. One of the biggest issues facing the industry is to get away from catch composition. There should be some mechanism whereby one can keep what one catches. It will be very difficult to implement and police. It is a destination we must reach at some stage. Discarding fish, which is perfectly good, is an absolute no, no.
Self-management of different catches by fishermen and the industry was addressed. I refer to retailers and the rip-off of fishermen. Is there any way fishermen can address that problem by having shops or outlets for their products because, as Senator O'Donovan said, the price of fish in stores compared to what the fishermen get is crazy? That is an issue we or somebody else must address.
Mr. Sean O’Donoghue
I refer to many of the issues we have been discussing, in particular the discards, the technical measures, etc. If we had a proper self-management system, we would not have any of those issues because one would come up with one's own way to deal with them. This is a new area which perhaps I should have highlighted a bit more.
The member states and the fisheries Council of Ministers are shying away from this because they are afraid that if they hand over responsibility we will become indiscriminate killers of fish and that sustainability will go out the door. The bottom line is that a number of vessels could put together a plan showing the way they can fish which gets over the discard problem, the technical measures and the other raft of rules. We should really devote much time to exploring self-management and how it could be workable. It would sort out some of the myriad regulations.
Deputy Christy O'Sullivan is quite right about the prices. The prices in the retail outlets do not match the prices the fisherman gets on the quayside. Part of the problem from a fishing industry point of view is that we do not have the same strength as the multiples. There are only three or four major multiples on the retail side which virtually have 80% or 90% of the market. We, in the fishing scene, are not in the same league. We probably need to organise ourselves better so that we can try to get a better price. There is a big gap between what the fisherman is getting and what the consumer is paying the retail outlet. The prices for the consumer have not come down to the 50% I mentioned.
On the penalty points system, Senator O'Donovan hit the nail on the head. We have ended up with what I call — maybe I am wrong because I am not legal person — a double-jeopardy situation. After Luxembourg, we have not alone a penalty points system but also a criminal sanction system. There is a uniform level playing field that will be applied across the Community on penalty points but on top of that there will be a criminal sanction system which is not uniform across the European Union, and we have ended up with virtually all fishery offences coming under the penalty points system. This control regulation, which has been agreed, is not good news. It does not sort out what we have been trying to achieve to get administrative sanction. It probably even makes it worse because of the double system.
Mr. Joe Maddock
I want to make a few points on relative stability. The Green Paper asks how can it be better adjusted or left the same, but it clearly outlines some of the fault lines in the relative stability system such as the lack of flexibility and the discarding of fish to remain inside a rigid legal system. It has also led to the trading in quotas and days at sea to enable those with money keep their fleets fishing at maximum effort. It also is discriminatory against most fishermen. Everyone spoke clearly and plainly. It is not impossible to fish legally if one throws most of the fish one catches at certain times of the year back again.
On the rigidity of relative stability, any points we are putting forward are for debate and argument, like those of everybody else. For example, in area 7, the main fishery for the mersal white-fish fleet which is from Mayo south, along the south coast and right up to County Louth on the east coast, we would argue that under relative stability the way it is shared at present is a five-way divide — split as follows: 7B and 7C; 7H, 7J and 7K; 7D and 7E; and 7A, 7F and 7G. Within that pot we have quite an amount of fish that are no good to Ireland. We cannot trade them among ourselves. We cannot shift fish from 7F and 7G to 7A, for example. If that mechanism was changed, for example, one would be changing not the amount of fish Ireland would get but how Ireland could distribute the fish to its own fleet. It would be an internal matter. It would be a good concession that would break the rigidity of the relative stability because we have a great deal of plaice that would be uncaught whereas in 7F and 7G the boats will be stopped from fishing. The same may be said with sole. We have a great deal of sole on one part of the coast and no sole left on another part, and the fleet must throw them back. When there is this pot of fish for Ireland, technically, we could swap it with France and France could swap it back to us, or adopt some such crazy swapping system, and that is what this relative stability has led to as well.
There needs to be open debate, even on the days at sea. I do not like it because perhaps we have gone somewhere closer together on it, but the reality is that at present all boats are on days at sea, which is a debilitating system. That is why the Irish Fishermen's Organisation was putting forward the proposal of 21 days a month. That would amount to only five days a week. Most working people would like to have that to earn a living. That is the basis of it. At present, one must have a track record, one must have fished where one was, and then one will have days at sea. Some boats have no days. In addition, there is the quota system.
On the debate within Europe, as Mr. O'Donoghue stated, Spain, with low quotas like ourselves, is trying to look for a way out of the same predicament as we have. We can always point fingers at people and state that he or she is worse than I am, but one who has scarce quotas and the wrong mix of quotas must discard. The future of Europe is that we must get away from discarding.
I also argue along the lines that Norway and other countries have this no-discard policy. Some say it is a nonsense because people throw back fish, or they have grading machines and all kinds of sophisticated mechanisms. However, these points need to be well-aired. The days-at-sea regime, if it is moved to the Celtic Sea, is the only area under a western waters fishing effort regime and that is why the crab fishery is closed — they have run out of days.
The debate in Europe will be along the lines of whether there will be a change in relative stability, and whether there will be a move to effort. Under the present system, we have effort, the track record, quota. Relative stability is rigid. Unless these mechanisms are changed, we are at nothing because the present days and track record will put a number of boats out of business if it is extended to the Celtic Sea, and the intention is generally to do that.
There are many questions asked in that to provoke and we must be conscious of what is good for Ireland and what is bad for Ireland, how we gain or how we lose. The vested interests are for holding relative stability — France, Belgium, Holland. The UK is a little shaky. The southern part of the UK is debating a little about a days regime along the lines of having enough days to fish to stop discarding and to make life easier. If one is confronted with the law at sea, brought to court and fined £15,000 or £20,000, one is out of business. With 665 Acts governing fishing, there are more than 1,000 rules and regulations.
If matters cannot be simplified, why were we arguing for a simple system? Simple systems were not always the best — I am aware that they can very well fall down — but there is surely an easier system for fishermen than what is in place at present. This is what this reform is about.
As for the committee, since the passing of the Lisbon treaty the Dáil will be consulted on all European matters, and that is to be welcomed. Everyone would need to be sharp on the points that Ireland Inc needs to put forward and the EU debate must be open and clear to see from where the different elements are coming. We are a small part of it. We were dealt a bad hand and we are trying to make the best of it without losing more.
In the past two reviews Ireland Inc lost. We lost the Irish Box. We got a little slimmed-down version of what was a good protection for the Irish coast. The danger in this review is that there will be losses again, that the western waters agreement will come under strong pressure from our supposed neighbours because they think it too generous to Ireland.
All of these matters in this CFP reform are important. Some are of great importance; others are fairly academic. For instance, does regionalisation give one more fish? Maybe not. Lisbon has kind of clamped down on the power. The politicians have taken it to themselves and that is where the power should be as they are elected representatives.
Ms Caitleen Uí Aoda
The last two European fisheries policies have been disastrous. First, they have gone away from the people most affected by their policies in coastal regions. We have heard a great deal of talk about the coastal communities that we have to protect. All of Ireland is a coastal community. We are 4 million people on an island sitting in the most lucrative waters in Europe. The Common Fisheries Policy has come at a time when Ireland is facing a difficult time economically. Perhaps it is good that it has come at this time because, as an island, we might sit down and do something for the first time in 35 years since we got a bad deal for fisheries when we joined the EU. We have to try to push with Europe. Members represent coastal communities. The industry has never looked for anything and it has never received much from Europe.
Banks will not give money to fisheries. Why would they? We do know where we are going. Our past has been bad and our future is bleak. We have to put this industry on some sort of a footing. For the first time we need to start looking at this industry in the context of getting us out of the economic crisis. Farmers should be scared because they are in a serious situation. They have been dependent on cheques at the end of the month whereas we have not. What is left of the industry has survived and most people have invested money from banks in the industry. No matter what quota we get, markets in Europe must come right because if they do not, it will not matter how much quota we have.
Compliance is another important issue. We are compliant in Ireland and we should push Europe to allow Ireland have more control over its fleet. We need to ensure every boat entering Irish waters lives by Irish rules. I would not enter a Member's house and expect to have a different rule and, therefore, it would make it more difficult for the Spanish. Most boats returning to Spain are not inspected like ours. We should insist that any boat coming into the Irish jurisdiction has to be inspected. New electronic log booking is coming in next January and that will mean people will have to send information electronically to Vigo, Spain. We should start by saying we can control our industry and let us control the fishing around our industry. Europe will make the rules but to sustain our industry, we have shown we can regulate it and we should be given a right to insist the rest of Europe does the same. Boats entering Irish waters should call to the closest naval base or SFPA to maintain control because there is no control over the fish that are going abroad.
Unless markets come right, we will have a serious problem in the industry. Mr. Ward referred to the Common Fisheries Policy and we agree with much of his contribution. He said the Commission is determined to make this an all inclusive, no holds barred debate. Perhaps it will be the first time we look at the bad deals of the past and start a serious debate.
A profitable fishing industry provides nutritional food for our citizens. There should be a big difference between freshly caught fish at a market and imported fish. Fish is cheap and women will go for a Irish label.
We will not sustain our fisheries communities if the industry is not returned to the fishermen who depend on it. We must look for compliance in the Common Fisheries Policy in order that all fleets coming into Irish waters are regulated. Irish fishermen have been regulated for too long while other fleets were not subject to the same regulation.
I refer to the code of practice for boats. Why does Ireland have to go for something that is difficult for our fishermen to implement because it is such a high standard compared to France or Spain? That should not happen. Two years ago fuel prices were high but they have bottomed out and boats are tying up for six to eight weeks costing fishermen up to €60,000 in borrowings, which banks have no desire to give out. As well as losing fishing time, it is an absolute disgrace that this was forced on fishermen by the Government.
We can look at the negatives but this industry could produce jobs around our coast. Members will have to push this with the fishing industry.
When Deputies Creed, Doyle and Aylward, the clerk to the committee and I met the Commissioner he gave us significant time. He was forthcoming and he listened attentively to our concerns. I was impressed with him. We will have a joint meeting with the Joint Committee on European Affairs next week. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be in attendance to discuss the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. Following that meeting, it is the committee's intention to make a submission to the Commission on the Green Paper. Members who want to make recommendations or submissions should do so as soon as possible and forward them to the clerk to the committee.
I thank both groups for their presentations and for answering questions.