The Joint Committees on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and European Affairs are holding a joint meeting to discuss the Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Tony Killeen, will also brief members on critical fisheries issues other than the Green Paper. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the hearing and thank them for making themselves available. I also welcome Dr. Noel Cawley who the Minister of State appointed to oversee the consultation with Irish stakeholders on the Green Paper. The consultation will feed into our response to the Green Paper which will be issued before the end of the year.
Common Fisheries Policy: Discussion with Minister of State.
I, too, welcome the Minister of State, his officials and Dr. Noel Cawley. Special importance was placed on having this meeting at this time to ensure the relevant committees of the House had an opportunity to make their case before the event, as opposed to worrying about the matter after the event. In particular, the Committee on European Affairs is concerned about how the Common Fisheries Policy will affect the food industry and people dependent on the fishing industry. I ask the Minister of State to address the hearing.
I thank the Chairmen for the opportunity to appear before this joint session to discuss the Common Fisheries Policy and members for accommodating me by arranging a joint meeting. With me are Dr. Noel Cawley, Mr. Cecil Beamish and Ms Josephine Kelly. Ms Sheila O'Neill is also present.
Given the length of the briefing document, I will, with the indulgence of the Chairmen, race through some parts and discuss other parts in detail. I have included issues other than the Common Fisheries Policy because they are current and Opposition spokespersons have indicated to me that they wish to deal with them.
In every sense, we are in a different world and Irish fishermen are facing the same issues being faced by all sectors of industry as a result of the global economic slowdown. However, the fishing sector has its own set of drivers and actors which are many, unique and complex. I will concentrate on the key topics at present and deal with any other issues as they arise, time permitting.
A simple fact we must always bear in mind is that the Irish fishing fleet is totally dependent on the state of fish stocks in the waters around Ireland. The health of these stocks is a key determinant in the economic viability of our fleet. In recent years, a steady decline in quotas has impacted on the fish available for fishermen. Scientific evidence shows that many fish stocks important to Irish fishermen have declined to dangerously low levels. While the state of the cod stocks has attracted particular attention, other important stocks, including whiting, sole and herring, are at low levels.
As a Europe-wide issue, this fundamental problem can only be addressed through proper and pragmatic decisions taken at Council level. We have tried to take on board the views of fishermen and have made their advice available to the scientific community and vice versa. We will continue to foster a collaborative approach between the industry, Department and other key players.
The review of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, is the most important medium-term item on the fisheries agenda. On adoption in 2012 it will form the strategic blueprint for European fisheries through to 2022. Members will be aware of the Green Paper published last April as the committees have discussed it. On foot of the paper's publication, I appointed Dr. Noel Cawley to oversee the consultation process with Irish stakeholders. Meetings have been held with fisheries interests throughout the country, including in Killybegs, Galway, Dunmanway, Dunmore East and Dublin. Dr. Cawley is actively seeking the views of all stakeholders.
Following advertisements in the national and fishery newspapers a web portal was established on the fishingNET.ie website for the public at large to electronically submit their observations on the Common Fisheries Policy in order that their individual comments and concerns can be considered in finalising our response to the Green Paper. Member states are required to make a submission by 31 December 2009. In one sense, the submission marks the beginning of the process. Considerable work has been done on this issue for which I am grateful to Dr. Cawley and those who have worked with him. I am also grateful to the fishing organisations for their input and for setting out their ideas in a clear manner. This has been helpful and will strengthen our submission.
Our coastal communities and family owned fleet have traditionally been sustained by our available national quotas. While I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of our consultations, our purpose must be to create and retain jobs and industrial opportunities in our coastal areas. This imperative is doubly important given the current economic climate. To maintain the social and economic fabric of these communities' quotas and fishing effort should be retained at national level. Suggestions that promote internationalisation, individual transferable quotas, ITQs, and transferable effort and the concentration of activity among large European companies would be counter-productive and ultimately result in the loss of jobs for our local coastal economies.
All our fishing communities, large and small, are dependent on the fleet. That is different from the case in Europe where there is somewhat of a divergence between the very large fleets and the inshore fleets. That does not apply in Ireland. In Ireland a large proportion of onshore employment in the seafood sector is dependent on the largest vessels operating from and landing at Irish ports. While this is critical in areas such as Donegal and the south west in particular, it also applies generally. If those vessels and those quotas were transferred from the country or into freezer vessels, Ireland would lose a large part of the economic benefit and jobs it gets from the seafood sector. We will endeavour to protect against this in the reform process.
Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is a major issue for all of Europe and we are committed to working closely with the producer organisations, other stakeholders and our member state colleagues to try to get the best possible outcome. As I frequently say at Council meetings, Ireland shares a disproportionate burden of the management and the policing of the CFP in our zone. This was recognised at the outset of the CFP and was set out as a consideration in the Hague Declaration in 1976 which granted Ireland the Hague Preferences. In return for this Ireland gave its support for the extension of the EEZ of the European states enabling the birth of the CFP. In the intervening decades Ireland has done its part in administering the CFP in our zone. As long as we retain a viable fishing industry, with access to and dependent on the resources in our zone, we will endeavour to the best of our ability to continue to fully protect and sustain the stocks in our area and administer a reformed CFP that ensures the future prosperity of our seafood sector at sea and on land.
I wish to take on board the views of all stakeholders and at the end of the process Dr. Cawley will compile an informed response to be considered in the final submission the Government will make to the Commission. I have listened intently to the fishermen and am more than glad to have the opportunity again to listen to the members of both committees who have much to contribute to this process. I agree with the Chairman that it is important to do it at this point. This is by no means the end of the consultative process and we will continue to be engaged closely with the stakeholders and the industry on all matters regarding the CFP review in the months ahead before the adoption of the new CFP in 2012. It will be central to the European agenda throughout 2010 and 2011 and for a considerable amount of 2012.
I also like to take this opportunity to refer to some current issues. Regarding the December Council, it is fair to say that the latest scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas for 2010 is not good news for Irish fishermen. In summary, the science indicates the need for reductions of at least 15% in total allowable catches for many of the stocks of importance to our fishing fleet. I am examining the advice with the Marine Institute and BIM, consulting with the industry, and where appropriate will seek a more favourable outcome. Specifically, the proposals for demersal stocks of cod, haddock, whiting, sole and plaice promote reductions in excess of 15%. It is not all bad news however, with welcome increases suggested for two important stocks with increases of 15% proposed for monkfish in the Celtic Sea and a 72% increase in Celtic Sea herring. There are no changes proposed for monkfish in the north west and haddock in the Celtic and Irish Seas. Nephrops are very important to the whitefish fleet and the proposal for a 30% cut and a complete closure of the Porcupine Bank fishery is totally unacceptable and unjustified. I am advised that the science does not support a cut of this magnitude. It is true that the scientific advice for the Porcupine Bank is that this stock is in trouble while the Irish Sea and Aran grounds are in good order. The North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council has submitted a detailed response with the assistance of our own Marine Institute which we fully support. The NWWRAC suggests a "summer closure" for the Porcupine Bank stock and a more modest cut in the total allowable catch.
Given the current economic climate, the increase in fuel prices and stagnated or declining fish prices, the proposed cuts will be extremely difficult for the Irish fishing industry. We will work closely with it to deliver on the most appropriate, sustainable and economically viable opportunities for Ireland in 2010.
The cod stock in the Irish Sea is in decline and has been for years. A revised EU cod recovery plan was put in place in February. Under the new plan, each member state received annual allocations of cod fishing effort for the ICES areas covered by the plan, which include the Irish Sea. The allocations are based on each member state's historical patterns of fishing with particular types of fishing gear in the relevant areas during a given reference period. I established a steering group consisting of representatives from industry and State bodies to advise on management arrangements for the Irish fleet. For 2010 we are facing a further 25% cut in effort. The management of this reduced effort will be a considerable challenge for both areas.
The cod recovery plan measures do not include the stock in the Celtic Sea. Thankfully proposals concerning a long-term recovery plan for cod in the Celtic Sea have been postponed in the short term. However, we are facing a 25% cut in this stock which I strongly oppose as such a cut will only lead to increased discards as cod is taken in mixed fisheries in the Celtic Sea.
I mentioned the Hague Preferences which have existed since 1976. A group, generally including Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, is very strongly opposed to these. Each year at Council meetings it becomes a flash point — particularly last year — and we expect to have to deal with it again this year.
I refer to the EU-Norway and coastal states agreements. After achieving a 33% increase in the total allowable catch for mackerel in 2009 as a result of prudent management and fishing practices we are facing a possible reduction for 2010 in the order of 5% to 13%. This is not because of the state of the stock which is healthy but mainly as a result of irresponsible unilateral fishing being executed by Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland outside of agreed limits. Every autumn a set of key multilateral and bilateral negotiations take place which determine the level of pelagic fishing opportunities for Ireland. The first set of these are the coastal states discussions which dictate the total allowable catch for blue whiting, Atlanto-Scandian herring and most importantly mackerel. There are different components for each set of negotiations with Norway, the Faroe Islands and the EU engaged in the mackerel discussions joined by Iceland — and Russia as observers — for the blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring negotiations.
Iceland claims it should be accorded full coastal state status for mackerel and this is proving a very thorny issue. While mackerel is the most important stock for Ireland, blue whiting plays a big role in the EU-Norway agreement. This stock is under severe pressure and in last year's negotiations the 2009 total allowable catch was reduced from 1,266,000 tonnes to 590,000 tonnes. Traditionally an industrial fishery, its value is increasing as the level of human consumption increases.
While I welcome the successful conclusion in London, of the coastal states negotiations on blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring setting total allowable catch levels of 540,000 tonnes, down 11%, and 1,483,000 tonnes, down 10%, I am disappointed that the talks on mackerel held in Clonakilty this year did not reach a similar successful conclusion. We cannot fully decouple the coastal states process from EU-Norway bilateral negotiations and there are many complex issues which would take too long to cover at this point.
At last Friday's EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels, I set down a strong marker to make clear that the important mackerel fishery be protected and that Ireland's share of the fishery be maintained. Each year the EU and Norway negotiate access to fish stocks in each other's waters and changing stock patterns mean there is increasing pressure for Norway's access to mackerel to be increased. There is growing concern that the EU will agree to increase Norway's share of the stock, which would reduce Ireland's quota for 2010 and future years. The mackerel fishery is very important to Ireland as has been discussed at this committee on many occasions. In 2009 we had a quota of 62,000 tonnes worth an estimated €65 million at the quay side. Norway has demanded an increased share of the overall total allowable catch which Ireland totally opposes and is also seeking to be allowed to fish that quota in EU waters. I made clear to fellow Ministers and to Commissioner Borg the importance of the mackerel fishery for Ireland and that we needed to work together to prevent any reduction in the EU's share of the mackerel quota. I am prepared to discuss mutually acceptable arrangements that would increase the access for Norwegian vessels in return for a long-term agreement on the share out between the EU and Norway that protected the interests of Irish fishermen. The negotiations continue this week in Edinburgh and they will be very difficult. I am committed to getting the best possible outcome, which is vital for our mackerel fishery.
Historically blue whiting has been the main currency in the equation but with the collapse of that stock intense pressure is being brought to bear for the inclusion of other pelagic stocks such as mackerel and horse mackerel. Ireland is a net contributor to the process which is an unfair and inequitable situation that we have consistently opposed. Last year Ireland stood alone in opposing the terms of the agreement as we were being asked to contribute too much in lost opportunities. This year there is additional cod on offer and pressure will come on again to accept it all by paying with more pelagic resources. I assure members that we will work to deliver an agreement that is fair and balanced and which limits the transfer to Norway of pelagic stocks of importance to Ireland.
Iceland formally applied to the European Council for membership of the EU at the end of July. I have advised the Department of Foreign Affairs of the importance of fisheries in the forthcoming negotiations and have requested that it keep the Department fully advised and consult on fisheries issues as they develop. Our fishermen will point to the situation they were in when Ireland joined the EEC and other member states got access to all the stocks around our coast. A major consideration for me will be the possible implications of open access for Iceland to fish in the European waters on accession. No doubt Iceland will demand that its fleet be given increased access to EU waters and-or additional fish quotas. Our industry sees opportunities for our fleet getting access to Icelandic waters and stocks and I will ensure that any possibilities in this regard are strenuously pursued. This is a watching brief at the moment but members can rest assured I will be actively engaged in defending Ireland's best interests. I know the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs in particular will be on top of this issue. We would welcome any information from that or any other source, which may be of importance.
As regards technical conservation measures, the Fisheries Council last Friday also discussed new conservation measures on mesh sizes and closed areas. These measures are important to deliver on our overall objective of conserving fish stocks and promoting sustainable fishing practices. EU fisheries Ministers agreed to continue the existing measures for a further 18 months to allow for more detailed discussions with fishermen. I consider that we need to strengthen the current conservation rules but I want to ensure the new measures, which are very technical and complex, allow for economic fisheries that protect the livelihood of fishermen. I was disappointed that the Council's failure to reach agreement has resulted in the continuation of measures applied last December for the waters off Donegal and Area VIa. While I secured some limited changes, the Council was not prepared to make substantive changes to the existing arrangements for Ireland and the UK in the interim period.
There is also the issue of the control regulation. The European fisheries control policy is at the heart of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, because its credibility depends on its effective application. After months of negotiations at all levels, the latest regulation was adopted at the October meeting in Luxembourg. Overall, the new approach to control aims to simplify, standardise, increase cost effectiveness and reduce administrative burdens. Deficiencies in control and enforcement have been cited as one of the major contributing factors undermining the effectiveness of conservation and management arrangements across Europe. The European Court of Auditors reported negatively on the current control system and identified the many deficiencies in need of action.
I am satisfied the end result will go a long way towards achieving one of Ireland's main aims, namely, a level playing field, ensuring fair and equal treatment for all fishermen wherever they operate. I am having the nature of the legislative change, if any, examined and I will ensure the committee is informed in that regard.
In conclusion, I thank both Chairmen for their attendance and for their interest in issues raised. I have no doubt both committees will be engaged in the process right up to the conclusion of Dr. Cawley's consideration at the end of this year and perhaps, more importantly, for the following two and half years, when the detail will be thrashed out at Fisheries Council level, and elsewhere. The participatory role of the European Parliament will be important as will party membership of the various EU political groupings during that period.
I thank the Minister of State for his presentation and now call on Deputy Tom Sheahan.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. From an overview perspective I believe he is being somewhat downbeat. I appreciate a battle has to be fought on behalf of Irish fishermen, but given his statement recently on the pursuit of the mackerel quota by other member states, I would say to the Minister of State that the best form of defence is attack. I have not seen any statement from him about getting extra quota, particularly for the four main white fish stocks. I am therefore saying in a constructive manner that the best form of defence is attack on behalf of the Irish fishermen.
Last year, with 62,000 tonnes, the mackerel quota was of major benefit to Irish fishermen, equivalent in value terms to €65 million on the quays, but there are many sectors within the fisheries industry that are struggling, as the Minister of State and Dr. Cawley are aware. Without being cheeky, I believe it would be better for us to adopt a more attacking stance, in which we should fight for more instead of just trying to defend what we have, and this would put us on a stronger footing.
I take it the state of the cod stocks is confirmed by scientific evidence. From time to time the fishermen's groups tend to question the scientific evidence and the input of the Marine Institute in that regard. The scientists have never really worked with the fishermen to ascertain this scientific evidence. This tends to annoy some of the fishermen, while their counterparts from other member states are coming into our waters to take more of the white fish.
I want to refer now to the Minister of State's statement and the cod in the Celtic Sea. Fishermen are using a recovery plan in the Celtic Sea which is working very well. I note that there is to be a cut of up to 25% in cod quotas. How will that impinge on cod levels in the Celtic Sea? Is there to be a 25% cut there? It has been put to me that unused quota – stock not being fished — is effectively taken up by the State. Will the Minister of State say what becomes of such quota? We met recently with the fisheries bodies and they were calling for expansion and a more reasonable role for the regional advisory committees. Is it part of the Minister of State's agenda for the future that they should have greater input as regards decision making?
I take note of the line in the statement where the Minister of State talks about working to deliver an agreement that is fair and balanced and which limits the transfer to Norway of pelagic stocks of importance to Ireland. That is the type of language about which I am talking and it sounds very much like a done deal. It sounds as if they are going to take some of our pelagic and that we are just trying to minimise that effect. Would that be a fair conclusion from the Minister of State's comments?
The fisheries organisations are seeking to have areas VI and VIa increased. Does the Minister of State believe those areas could be increased to facilitate improved access for Irish fishermen? The SFPA and the Navy police 100% of the Irish coastline yet we have only 11% of the quota of the fish being caught around our coasts. Does the Minister of State believe it would be either a positive or negative step to have a European navy to police these waters, given that the other European countries take the majority of fish quota around our coastline?
Before calling on Deputy Joanna Tuffy, I should inform the Minister of State that one of the reasons for having this meeting is that during the course of the Lisbon Treaty campaign, a number of issues arose that were embarrassing from the viewpoint of impressing on the electorate the importance of Irish immersion in the European arena. One of the issues that arose related to the importation of fish at Cork Airport while the local fishery interests were being stood down
Following on from Deputy Sheahan's remarks, it will become very difficult in the future to explain to those involved in the fishing or the food industries — for reasons they see as bureaucratic — why they cannot participate in production etc. We know the fish stocks are seriously diminished, but we are also aware that the European fishing fleet is a great deal larger than the Irish fishing fleet. The Portuguese and Spanish fleets, for instance, were equivalent to 80% of the size of the overall European fleet when those countries joined the EEC. Within the European Union there is social partnership and member states are treated equally, but it is unsustainable that an island State such as ours should find itself in the position where it cannot sustain its fishing industry while being allowed to import fish from other European countries and from outside the Union. That would be tantamount to saying to the French they cannot export their wine but they can import it from other countries within the Union or outside it, and it will be for sale in France. It is similar to saying to the German motor industry that it cannot export its motor vehicles to the rest of Europe but that it will be allowed to import vehicles produced either within the Union or outside it, at a price that would be arrived at by virtue of competition between the two.
In a similar fashion, the end of the sugar beet industry in this country was particularly embarrassing. We are not blaming the Minister of State but the Joint Committee on European Affairs has discussed this issue at length in the past. It was hugely embarrassing that the sugar industry was dismantled to comply with European thinking on the issue. The majority of the reasons for doing this have been since found to be false. For example, it was alleged that sugar prices would reduce dramatically as a result and the consumer would benefit, but this did not happen. In fact, sugar prices have increased to the extent that they are now the highest in almost 40 years. All of those issues combined made it very difficult for the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who were campaigning for the Lisbon treaty.
What we are saying at this stage is to strengthen the Minister's hand in the negotiations that are taking place but also to set down a marker that the various interests in this country are entitled to equal treatment and not to be extinguished just because of expedience in some quarter, whether it be at home or abroad. It is essentially about getting the infrastructure in place in the beginning so that we do not find ourselves at a disadvantage at a later stage, and find ourselves subject to the kind of queries and issues that were raised by Deputy Sheahan.
I want to make one further point.
We will come back to the Deputy.
I will forget the point, which concerns fish prices. As has been stated, including by myself, Cork Airport is the biggest fish port in Ireland at present due to the amount of fish being imported. However, there is a big questionmark about how much of this fish is being unethically caught. We had the same scenario with beef only a short time ago, when Brazilian and Argentinian beef was coming in. To be fair to the IFA, it put a stop to that. I believe we will have to take a similar approach to stop these imports of fish. The value of the fish being caught is not being realised to the fishermen because of the imports of unethically caught fish.
I have questions for Dr. Noel Cawley. There is a proposal in the McCarthy report that Bord Iascaigh Mhara should be abolished. I noticed Social Justice Ireland, which is Fr. Seán Healy's group, made a similar proposal in its pre-budget submission, which suggested savings of €7.3 million. What is Dr. Cawley's view on the impact of the implementation of his own report if Bord Iascaigh Mhara was abolished? Is Dr. Cawley satisfied his report is being implemented in a timely manner?
I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. He needs no reminder of the state of our coastal communities, in particular how the fishing industry has been decimated, primarily in the past 20 years. The Minister of State made reference to scientific evidence that shows that fish stocks important to Irish fishermen have declined to a dangerous new level. On many occasions in the past, committee members have questioned the accuracy of the scientific evidence that is available, particularly how it is compiled and how there is no input from the stakeholders themselves — the fishermen — in assisting the scientific research. From my knowledge and experience of talking to fishermen in the south west in particular, this does not appear to be the case. They would argue that the scientific evidence is not accurate and that the methodology adopted in the scientific analysis is flawed.
The Minister of State said he met with the stakeholders in various areas such as Killybegs, Galway, Dunmanway, Dunmore East and Dublin. It is fairly obvious when I look at that spread that he has not met with the stakeholders in the south west, in particular in places such as Dingle, Castletownbere, Bantry and areas up as far as Rossaveal. He also makes the point that Dr. Noel Cawley will compile a report for him. Does Dr. Cawley intend to meet the fishermen and fisherwomen in doing that? Will their analysis of the situation be taken on board in order to have the best possible information, resulting from their knowledge, going into negotiations?
The renegotiation of the review of the CFP is of huge importance, as is the outcome, with regard to whether the Irish fishing industry continues to survive. We in Sinn Féin have always argued that the entire CFP has to be renegotiated because the quota allocated to the Irish fishing fleet is not adequate to meet its requirement to maintain a sustainable income from the industry.
The Minister of State referred to the larger fleets and their benefit to the Irish Exchequer and economy. Many in the sector would argue that the larger vessels have a tendency to follow the higher prices and land their fish outside of Ireland. I was in the company yesterday of a person who had just come back from the Shetlands after landing fish there because the price was better. This is very unpatriotic, to put it mildly, because in my analysis the quota belongs to the Irish people and is in trust to the fishermen who fish the quota. If they are taking the quota out of the country to places like the Shetlands, Norway or elsewhere, this is taking money out of the Irish economy. The issue needs to be examined.
With regard to the Icelandic possibilities and the opportunities this provides us to get a better quota system for our fishing fleet, if Iceland is accepted into the EU, there is no doubt there will be huge negotiation in that regard. Positive discrimination should be applied to Ireland because, through very bad negotiation in the early 1970s, the Irish fishing sector was compromised for another sector in that negotiation. I urge the Minister of State to play as strong a role as possible to get a better quota system for the Irish fleet.
The Minister of State stated that additional cod is on offer and that pressure will come on again to accept it by paying with more pelagic resources. Will he expand on that statement? It appears to hark back to the old negotiating style of 1972, where fishing was compromised for agriculture, in that pelagic fish will now be compromised for cod.
To move on to the aquaculture side of the industry, we and the IFA argue that we must ensure the industry develops, and that efficiencies through research and development and the implementation of a marketing programme are put in place — in other words, that the policies are there to deliver the best possible opportunities.
Deputy Sheahan referred to fish coming in through Cork Airport and we are told that much of this fish is coming from South America. What is the labelling process in regard to such fish not only on shop shelves but in restaurants? When one goes into a restaurant and orders fish one assumes it is from Irish waters when, in fact, much of it may come from Peru or other coastal communities in South America. We need to know what we are eating.
I wish the Minister of State well because, like myself, he comes from a coastal county and has a good understanding of the depressed state of the industry and how to get the best possible deal. The reality is that the quota available to Ireland is totally inadequate. We have seen this consistently in recent years where the decommissioning process has been welcomed by the political establishment. Even within the industry itself, I am at loggerheads with organisations that welcomed the decommissioning process. It is wrong. It is taking people out of a traditional way of life and, effectively, giving them some kind of minuscule redundancy. That is disgraceful. We must open every possible avenue to increase the quota system to ensure the current Irish fishing fleet is sustainable.
I am extremely concerned about inshore fishermen whose trawlers have been reduced from 24 m to 16 m and the precarious situation in which they find themselves. It is fine for the supertrawlers, they can follow the fish on the west coast of Africa or wherever and can make an adequate living, while the person who tries to make a livelihood from whitefish is in a precarious position.
I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. I wish him well in the negotiations and advise him to play hard ball. If I were him I would not sign off on anything that reduces the present quota. The Lisbon treaty has been mentioned. The returns from the coastal communities on Lisbon 1 were unanimously "No". That was a reflection of how people felt as a result of the way they have been neglected by the current and past Governments. It is necessary to take that issue on board. Many fishermen were led to believe that if the Lisbon treaty was passed they would be well rewarded in any future negotiations. I trust that will be the case.
I am a layman when it comes to fishing. I welcome the Minister of State, Mr. Beamish, Ms Kelly and Dr. Cawley. I pay tribute to Dr. Cawley and his family for the massive contribution he and his family have made to agriculture and food over the years. I am a consumer of fish rather than a person with experience in that area. I tried to fish on one occasion but failed. I enjoyed a day's fishing at sea but that was it.
I understand the complexity, the seriousness and the historical nature of the industry which the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, and his team have inherited. We have ten times more of a seamass than a landmass and it appears we have never capitalised on that seamass. We have an excellent group of people involved in the industry at all levels, both on the professional and the practical side, as well as an outstanding Marine Institute. It is a big challenge to try to find a balance that will capitalise on our resources, taking into account the serious depletion in fish stocks which appears to be an ongoing international problem.
Ten years ago when Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, I established the Ireland Newfoundland Partnership. I have had much experience in dealing with the Newfoundlanders and I am aware that 90% of its industry and economy was dependent on the cod industry. That industry is extinct now and the country has not recovered. I hope the Minister of State and his team will have some success for Ireland. While that is a major challenge it may be possible to collaborate with the Newfoundlanders and get some information from their experience as to how we might move forward and capitalise on our massive marine resource, taking into account the serious challenges of the Common Fisheries Policy and the fact that Iceland is an applicant country. On that basis, it might be an opportunity to renegotiate our position. I wish the Minister of State and his team every success.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials and acknowledge his work in Europe in the area of fishing. No doubt he is well acquainted with the problems that face the fishing industry and the fishing community in general. The next two years will be very important for the survival of the fishing industry and everybody associated with it in Ireland. How we deal with the issue in that period will have a very significant bearing on the outcome. It is essential that every sector of the industry works together. For far too long we have had divisions in the fishing industry and we have reaped the rewards.
There are a couple of issues that occur to me as I go through the Green Paper. The Commission argues that the main reason for the failure is overfishing which does not allow fish stocks to recover. Who is doing the overfishing? The Commission does not point the finger at anybody in particular. Is it overfishing by people who come in from outside and take the bulk of our fish out of the waters or is it overfishing by our own fleet? Perhaps I could have an answer to that question.
It is stated that the fleets have the power to fish much more than can safely be removed without prejudicing the future productivity of stock. Who has the power and the fleets? Who is coming in here and cleaning out our waters? I appreciate we are talking about a Common Fisheries Policy and it applies to much more than Irish waters. Who is the culprit and to whom is the finger being pointed? I will leave it at that for the time being and I may have a further question later.
I will try to deal with the issues as they arose. Deputy Tom Sheahan raised the question of the approach one ought to take in the negotiations. That is a vexed question. The scientific advice in regard to the state of stocks is not helpful in regard to some of them. My strong view is that a simplistic approach to negotiations in regard to fish stocks would be disastrous for the country and the fishermen. It would be totally lacking in credibility. It would be by far the easiest approach and somebody who was lazy and not prepared to learn the brief would take that approach. That approach certainly would not work and would be ill-conceived.
In my experience of Council meetings during the past year and a half, the only way to approach it is to go behind the issues and study the scientific advice and all involved. It is very complex and it is necessary to try to establish the interests of other member states to ensure a significant level of support for whatever argument one is making. Different countries will give support on different issues. However, as politicians, members are aware that one does not achieve that level of support by banging on the table, shouting and roaring or generally sounding like a fool. That would be absolutely disastrous for the Irish industry.
Our fishing industry is being walked over.
Please allow the Minister of State to continue.
A number of speakers have raised the issue of the scientific community and the fishermen about which there have been two developments that are of considerable value. First, last July I set up a committee involving the fishing community with the scientific community in which they sit down together and thrash out issues. Moreover, in recent months a fisherman has been placed on board the boat the Marine Institute uses to gather scientific advice. One of the fishermen's main complaints was that in their opinion, the Marine Institute boats and scientific research boats in general operated without the benefit of the fishermen's knowledge and that consequently, they frequently made their assessments in areas in which the fishermen knew the stocks were not present at a particular time. This issue is being addressed and already there are some indications that this is having some success.
I also should note that the Marine Institute has a very positive standing in the international community and that a member from that institute is about to assume the presidency of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, which is an extraordinary achievement for a small country like Ireland. This means Ireland has a level of influence that ultimately is helpful to us all. However, one also must accept that the scientific community is obliged to conduct its research entirely in neutral terms and that the credibility of its research and the outcomes therefrom depend entirely on that community being able to demonstrate this in peer reviews, which are an integral part of the process.
On Celtic Sea cod, I outlined previously that a 25% cut has been proposed and this will be a matter for decision at the December Council meeting. Members will recall there was a highly damaging proposal on the table for the December Council last year, which the Government managed to have deferred. I expect it will be back on the table this year with a slight variation and we will try to ensure the best possible outcome at the December Council meeting. While unused quota is swapped in most cases, there is a provision for a 10% carryover into the following season. Sometimes an issue arises whereby a particular stock achieves extremely poor prices on the market, which consequently leads to underfishing. While it is difficult to predict where this might arise, the Department takes measures in the monthly consultative forum with the fishermen to try to ensure that the level of carryover is within the 10% limit in order that this will be available for the following year should this scenario arise.
Deputy Tom Sheahan mentioned the possibility of an increased role for the regional advisory councils, RACs. This proposal has featured strongly, albeit not unanimously, in some of the points made by the industry. While it has some advantages, there are some inherent risks. When talking about regional policy, one tends to talk about dividing this country into small pieces. However, the likelihood is that regional policies would be divided into areas such as the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Atlantic seaboard, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. These are very big regions and major players such as France, Spain and the United Kingdom have an interest in the one that is of most interest to Ireland. Consequently, we need to be careful to avoid jumping onto the regional bandwagon without ensuring that our involvement therein was sufficiently robust to ensure the outcomes of any decisions were in our favour.
As for the transfer of quota and stocks to the Norwegians, this has been happening for approximately 20 years. Historically, this was easier to do because stocks were sufficiently robust to allow the change to be made without reference to pelagic fish. That no longer is the case and the availability of cod from the Norwegians is of no advantage to our fishing fleet. At the last two Council meetings, I made the point strenuously that Ireland no longer is prepared to put up with a situation in which the transfer requires us to pay more than we receive in return. I have made it clear, using the kind of terms that would meet Deputy Sheahan's requirements, that we are not prepared to stand for it.
On the issue of changing areas, I believe Deputy Sheahan was querying Irish policy regarding the boundaries of areas. The nationwide consultative process has come up with that idea. It already happens to some extent. For example, our fishermen in general do not fish in the Channel but it is part of the same area in which they do fish. Consequently, there are arrangements in place that allow for subdivision of areas, sometimes formally, as in the French line, which is off the north-west coast and sometimes a little less formally. There is an argument that a change in the boundary might be of some advantage in respect of the Celtic Sea. However, some people who operate there have told the Department that the risk in making a change might be greater or as great as the benefits. This is a matter that must be examined in respect of the final submission to the Commission on that issue.
The Deputy also made a point regarding the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the Navy and whether it would be appropriate to have other non-Irish agencies operating in that area. At the control measure discussion in October, something along those lines was discussed and there is provision for EU observer status in some cases. I made it clear that I considered the patrolling of Irish sovereign waters by another sovereign nation to be entirely unacceptable. While I am unsure how strongly that position is supported, it is my view.
In respect of fish prices, the amount of fish on one side of the equation and the cost on the other are what determine whether the industry is viable for a particular participant. Consequently, the point made by Deputy Sheahan is of great importance. Moreover, the impact of imports is a critical issue. One must be careful how this issue is handled because as historically fish consumption in Ireland has not been high, we are obliged to export most of our own product, which also is the case in agriculture. We do so highly successfully to the most lucrative markets in Europe, which in most cases are in France and Spain. We have good arrangements there and sometimes must preserve good relations with those countries to retain such a level of access. Moreover, some elements are sent to Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and so on.
However, a real issue exists in respect of the quality and provenance of the fish that comes in. One problem was that illegally-caught fish were coming through that route. Some were caught in European waters, others were caught elsewhere and as Deputy Treacy noted, the impact of the consumer on the marketplace is extraordinarily high and is growing rapidly. The requirement that one can prove one has caught, or in the case of aquaculture, farmed, one's fish ethically is growing all the time and ultimately will be to our advantage. Deputy Sheahan made the comparison with beef from South America and this point certainly is made regarding pangasius, which is imported from Asia. This matter is being examined carefully.
In general, we have tended to take a more positive approach and have argued with some success that the quality of available documentation must be improved and must be recognisable to the person who is doing the shopping. Once upon a time, one could refer to the housewife with impunity but now one must refer to whoever is doing the shopping. All members are aware that extraordinarily confusing labelling is the norm across a range of food products and the Department is working to have this matter addressed. Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, is working closely with the industry in this regard. I have had a few sessions with the board and I am enormously encouraged by the input of the fisheries sector in this regard, as well as by their understanding of the challenges of the market place. While we did not do this historically, I am pleased we are doing it now.
Although Deputy Tuffy asked two questions, she may have directed them at Dr. Cawley. If that is the case, I will defer to him when the time is right. As for BIM, I believe it is making a particularly positive contribution at present and has a role into the future. Deputy Ferris made a point with which the majority of fishermen probably agree, namely, that the stocks have been decimated for more than 20 years. Someone else asked who was responsible but it is probably too late to answer that question. We must operate on the basis that the practice for the future must be to the highest standards and the control measure goes some way towards this.
The Deputy also raised the issue of the accuracy of the evidence. The two measures taken have moved some way towards ensuring that the traditional knowledge of the fishermen, which is extraordinarily high, comes into the picture with regard to the scientific evidence. I should mention that I only noted the meetings I held in respect of the CFP review. This year, I have visited Castletownbere three times, Dingle twice, Rossaveal, Bantry and Clonakilty a few times and met fishermen at each. For the CFP review, I went wherever the POs or the organisation suggested I visit. Fairly central places were suggested, partly for the convenience of the organisation's members. This helped me, as many people were brought together at those locations, but I also met everyone in their own ports.
Larger boats following prices has been an issue historically. Initially, I believed that I could address it, but court proceedings found that we do not have the competence to enforce landing in Ireland. People can go legally, although we have encouraged them to stay. The indications are that the percentage of fish landed in Ireland, even by larger boats, has increased in the past two or three years.
The Icelandic negotiations might be problematic, but we will make every attempt to ensure positive discrimination for Ireland. I might not have addressed the question of exchanging cod for pelagic fish. It arises because stocks that were historically swapped, such as blue whiting and so on, have fallen from approximately 1.25 million tonnes in 2008 to a little less than half of that figure last year. That stock is no longer available for swapping with Norway. This has forced a move into pelagic species which might be damaging for Ireland. For this reason, we voted against the outcome in last year's negotiations. Indeed, we were the only ones who voted against it and would have satisfied Deputy Sheahan, given the amount of jumping up and down we did, but the outcome was no more positive. This situation must be accounted for this year and we have argued our case strongly.
Deputy Ferris made a point on the aquaculture industry. I did not mention it in my approach because it gets a brief mention in the review document. As part of the consultation process, however, we have had a formal meeting with the industry and received a positive submission from it. Deputy Ferris also mentioned fish from South America. In Chile in particular, circumstances have reduced the level of aquaculture imports, but imports had a significant impact on fish prices. When a market can sustain a certain level of usage of any product, in this instance fish, and someone enters with an additional 20%, prices will be depressed. This issue arose in respect of imports from Asia, South America and "black" fish, that is, illegally caught fish.
Regarding decommissioning, the Commissioner has stated several times that the number of vessels fishing in European waters exceeds the income available to them by approximately 30%. This is a real problem that we have tried to address twice in the past five or six years via decommissioning. It helped a little and removed some of the pressure from the remaining vessels. In practical terms, we have been forced to do this, but it sits with me no better than it does with Deputy Ferris.
The Chairman referred to ship imports and the fact that Cork Airport had a particular role in this regard. Almost 70% of fish consumed in Europe is imported. There are two approaches to this issue, the first being that of labelling, which we have been promoting strongly and for which we have received considerable support from fishing states in the EU. There has been some progress. The second is close co-operation between BIM and the industry. This has been strikingly positive to date.
We must remember that, on accession to the EU, we had an underdeveloped fishing industry. The figures are unreliable for a variety of reasons, but indicators suggest that we were catching approximately 4% of the fish being caught in our waters in the 1970s. We are catching approximately three times that amount now. The Chairman's point on our view of how fishing and marine-related issues have developed might not be well informed, but it is difficult to argue the point.
Deputy Treacy mentioned the consumer. With any food product, as the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is cognisant, we must ensure that the consumer's interests are taken into account, not just in a window dressing sense. Those interests are real and dictate outcomes in terms of the consumption of food products. At the end of last year, I met my counterpart from Newfoundland. The ties established by the Deputy a number of years ago have been positive and my counterpart and I have been learning from each other.
I take Deputy Christy O'Sullivan's point regarding a united approach. Such an approach is difficult, however. To be fair to fishermen, they are competing with one another, which was evident last year with the division of the mackerel quota. This is a small example, but there are many other examples. In such an environment, co-operation can be difficult. Before my time in office, however, producer organisations joined together as the Federation of Irish Fishermen, FIF, which brings a significant level of knowledge and expertise to the table during negotiations. Sometimes, the IFO is in attendance and brings its own perspective, although it has a slightly different role because it is not a producer organisation. During the year and a few months for which I have been in this job, I have acquired an enormous regard for the expertise of the fishery organisations' representatives and their willingness, not only to tell me their wish list, but to advise me on what would be the least damaging of the sometimes negative options that are available, for which I am grateful.
Answering Deputy Christy O'Sullivan's question about who was overfishing is difficult, mainly because no one knows the full answer. A complex series of players are involved. However, there have been sizeable developments in terms of the acceptance of the new control regulations and the extraordinarily high standard of technology now available to the naval service and the SFPA. Ideally, electronic log books will be in place on 1 January or soon thereafter. The old problem of the navy not knowing a boat's quota and so on will be addressed, although more slowly than we would have liked. During the Irish Presidency in 2004, the then Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, hosted a major conference in Ireland on this issue, but only at the end of 2009 is there agreement on the controlled measures. We opposed some of them strongly and, by and large, had them excluded. I believe I have covered the main points.
Dr. Noel Cawley
When we devised the strategic report, we assumed that BIM would continue. While we did not assess BIM's functions at the time, it is clear that the fishing industry is highly specialised and does not fit easily with any other food sector. It is uniquely complex, given the regulations and different fish types. It is important that there be a specialist agency to handle it. BIM has many skills and, in recent years, a change of course has seen its marketing functions taken over by Bord Bia. This was a segmentation of responsibility, but it is important that there be a clear view of who is responsible for the fishing industry's aspects.
A question on whether the strategy was being implemented in a timely manner was asked. It was meant to happen over six or seven years, so we still have time to measure whether it does. A number of events have occurred. The federation's formation as a representative body has been a consequence. As the Minister of State indicated, the federation has improved the industry's ability to represent itself. Despite the considerable number of differing opinions within the industry, the FIF has managed to bring various groups together, which has been important in many respects that I will not go into now.
We took no pleasure in the decommissioning scheme, which was a consequence of the strategy but came from within the industry itself. The majority of those in the industry wanted such a scheme. People who stayed in the business received quotas of approximately 20% or 25% extra. The scheme must provide value. Much money was spread around the country. It was not a small amount of money that went to a number of individuals. Some €600,000 to €700,000 was paid out to a variety of people. I hope some value came of that.
The key issue is that there is a greater quota as a consequence of this. Good progress has been made in modernising the processing industry. Enterprise Ireland is working on this and an implementation group exists and has met three or four times this year. We are endeavouring to progress matters but some areas have run into difficulty. There is no question but that we are short of cash. The marketing functions do not have the amount of money available that was originally envisaged. That is not surprising in the current climate. The number of grants that were available previously are not now available to the processing side. Many issues have nothing to do with Government but relate to the fishermen themselves. I refer to how they argue and debate quota and the structure and operation of quotas.
The greatest area of difficulty centres on aquaculture. The operational programme covering the area is in difficulty because of a failure to agree various principles involving the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Europe and the fishing industry. We are stuck in gear and unless that matter is clarified, aquaculture in Ireland will not progress. We are stuck on issues such as licensing, which is a very difficult area. People go back and forth to Brussels to try to sort this out yet we do not have an operational programme agreed. That is the most disappointing area of the matter but we will not give up. We must keep going at this and that is the plan. That addresses the questions posed to me.
I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries, Deputy Tony Killeen, Dr. Cawley, Mr. Cecil Beamish and Ms Josephine Kelly. In his opening remarks, the Minister of State spelled out in no uncertain fashion that he considers the review of the Common Fisheries Policy the most important medium-term item on the fisheries agenda and that on adoption in 2012 it will form a strategic blueprint for European fisheries through to 2022. I recall that when the agreed allocations key was applied to the 1982 total allowable catch amounts for the seven main commercial fish species, Ireland's quota share expressed as a percentage of cod equivalent in Community waters amounted only to 4.4%. This compares with 36.6% for the UK, 23% for Denmark, 13.4% for West Germany, 13.4% for France and 7.3% for the Netherlands. Of the member states bordering the Atlantic, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, only Belgium, at 2.1%, had a smaller share than Ireland. Surely that was a shocking agreement to be enacted in 1982 on behalf of our Irish fishermen. It would have been more or less the same were it not for the Hague agreement that brought Ireland's quota some way in line with 4%. I consider this a gross error that must be corrected if there is a future for the Irish fishing fleet. We have 25% of the fishery waters yet only 4% of the catch. We must fight tooth and nail now that the Lisbon treaty has been passed. Ireland is entitled to receive some concessions. I know that the Minister of State is a willing negotiator on behalf of the industry but he should not take "No" for an answer if possible. The future of the Irish fishery policy rests on the shoulders of the Minister of State at the December meeting. He must be thoroughly and well briefed and well armed in order to deal with his European counterparts.
The Minister of State refers to next year's fishing opportunities, stating that at the December Council the latest scientific advice is not good news for Ireland's fishermen. We cannot take this sitting down; we must fight it tooth and nail. Scientific evidence does not bear out the true situation pertaining to the stock. It is most important to note that when the Celtic Sea was closed to herring fishing for five years, some 20 years ago, I attended a fisheries debate, arguing with the then Minister that herring were dying of old age in the Celtic Sea for the want of fishing. Scientific evidence later proved me right when they opened the sea to herring fishing. Today I notice that the Minister of State said it is not all bad news, with welcome increases suggested for two important stocks, 15% proposed for monkfish in the Celtic Sea and 72% for herring in the Celtic Sea. Who was right 20 years ago? I was right in Dáil Éireann at the time outlining the case on the scientific evidence of the day.
The Minister of State outlined the situation in detail. He states that the cod recovery plan measures do not include the stock in the Celtic Sea. The proposal for a long-term recovery plan for cod in the Celtic Sea has thankfully been postponed in the short term. However, we are facing a 25% cut in this stock, which I am strongly opposing. I am pleased to note that the Minister of State is doing this as such a cut will only lead to increased discards and cod is taken in mixed fisheries in the Celtic Sea. One does not conserve fish stocks by discarding fish that are caught. Let people not cod themselves.
The Common Fisheries Policy must forget about discarding and take in stock that is caught. One does not conserve fish stocks by discarding mature fish and throwing them dead into the ocean for the sharks and mammals to devour. That is disgraceful. In this day and age, can the Common Fisheries Policy in Europe not see another way to conserve stock than by discarding good fish into the ocean after being caught?
The Minister of State referred to achieving a 33% increase in the total allowable catch for mackerel in 2009 as a result of prudent management and fishing practices but we are facing a possible reduction for 2010 in the order of 5% to 13%. This is not because of the state of the stock, which is healthy, but mainly as a result of irresponsible unilateral fishing being executed by Norway, a country that is not in the EU, the Faroe Islands and Iceland outside of agreed limits. The Faroe Islands has not made an application to join the EU. I believe Iceland has made a formal application. Will Iceland be let into already overfished European waters? How will we fare and will we get concessions in Icelandic waters, which we have been barred from for generations? The Minister of State must fight very hard.
As well as that, Deputy Killeen stated that at last Friday's meeting of the European Fisheries Council he set down a strong marker to make clear that the important mackerel fishery should be protected and that Ireland's share of the fishery should be maintained. I welcome that approach and I hope he will continue that fight.
Deputy Killeen also stated that the mackerel fishery is very important for Ireland and in 2009 we had a quota of 62,000 tonnes, worth an estimated €65 million at the quayside. Norway has demanded an increased share of the overall EU TAC, which Ireland totally opposes and rightly so. We must oppose it to the hilt because Norway has plenty of additional waters in which to fish. It has its own waters, which it protects very strenuously and, as I stated at the outset, it is gone from the European Union. It has discarded the European mantle and it should be treated accordingly.
Deputy Killeen stated the following: he would like to briefly mention Icelandic accession; that at the end of July Iceland formally applied to the European Council for membership of the EU; that he advised the Department of Foreign Affairs of the importance of fisheries in the forthcoming negotiations; and that he requested that he be kept fully advised by that Department and consulted on fisheries issues as they developed. I am sure the Department of Foreign Affairs will carry out that to the best of its ability.
Deputy Killeen pointed out that when Ireland joined the EU, other member states got access to all of our stocks around our coastline. We should press for an extension of our territorial waters to at least 200 miles all around Ireland and conserve them for Irish fishermen. The Spaniards have a record of pilfering our stocks through the ages. At a recent meeting on fisheries, I stated that the Spaniards would go to the bridge of Athlone if they could to catch fish and they would take the limpets off the rocks around Ireland. The situation we must bear in mind is the threat from the foreign invaders. They are members of the European Union but I describe them as foreign invaders in our Irish waters where they have no right to fish. Instead of Irish naval patrol boats persecuting native Irish fishermen and making it impossible for them to make a living, they should be bringing in the Spanish, French and Portuguese trawlers every second day and charging them with violation of the fisheries regulations in our waters.
The Minister of State will have to take this on board and ensure that we get our rightful share of the fisheries quota as an island nation. We are an island nation surrounded by water. Great Britain was but is now joined to mainland Europe by tunnel. We are the only island nation member state, and will be until Iceland eventually joins. Here and now, we are not being recognised as an island nation in the European Union. Now is our time. We have proved to be good Europeans and we accepted the Lisbon treaty. We are long overdue a renegotiation of the fisheries policy to the benefit of Irish fishermen.
I apologise for being late and I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, and his delegation. This forms part of our deliberations as the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a submission on the Common Fisheries Policy prior to the end of the year and time is tight. From the Minister of State, the federation and the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, the Department and Dr. Cawley we have a body of evidence to compile a very telling contribution to what are the early stages of the debate. It is imperative that we do so. I understand that Dr. Cawley will make a contribution on behalf of the Department also. It is important that substantially we sing off the same hymn sheet.
I want to tease out a couple of issues on the Common Fisheries Policy and raise issues on the December Council meeting to which I ask the Minister of State to respond. The Hague preferences are invoked on an annual basis to try to deliver additional fishing opportunities for Ireland. They are exceptionally beneficial although it is an annual battle. Can this be regularised or standardised so that we obviate the necessity for that annual skirmish? That would be great for the new Common Fisheries Policy.
The Green Paper proposes regionalisation of decision-making in the Common Fisheries Policy. The principle of subsidiarity, whereby decisions are made at the appropriate level, seems to be a cornerstone of much EU policy. It makes little sense that eastern European or Mediterranean nations have a say on policy on the Irish Sea, the North Atlantic or the Celtic Sea. If we have regionalisation of decision-making on seas and waters of critical importance to Irish fisheries, will we cut across the Hague preferences, which have been a platform on which we have been able to argue on a European-wide basis? Is regionalisation necessarily of benefit to us if we alienate or put offside a list of smaller countries in particular who might be sympathetic to the plight of Ireland? The Hague preferences state that because of Ireland's peripherality and the underdeveloped nature of our fisheries when the share-out is being determined we get an additional percentage increase in various areas. Is this how it operates and if so are we in danger of scoring an own goal if we pursue regionalisation? Regionalisation has been presented as motherhood and apple pie, as have the Hague preferences, which are.
The December Council meeting is the annual outing of greatest significance. Is the Commission expected to pull any rabbits out of the hat, as happened last year, particularly in area VI? Very severe difficulties have been caused for the fishery fleet operating out of Killybegs in particular but not exclusively.
We are led to believe that initiatives are being planned or are near enforcement for a degree of uniform compliance procedures throughout Europe. Is the Minister of State not somewhat embarrassed by Ireland being the only country that criminalises breaches of the fishery code rather than pursuing them through administrative sanctions? Will the Minister of State give a commitment here that he will accept the Fine Gael Bill as published that would put us into line with practice throughout the European Union? Will the Minister of State give us an update on this?
I appreciate that the Minister of State's heart is in the right place but at some stage he must deliver. There is no point in telling the fishing organisations that the Minister of State is on side but that he cannot convince his colleagues. We need to make progress.
The 13% reduction in mackerel quota is further cause for concern at the December Council meeting. I do not want to reopen the acrimonious debate we had last year about how the increased quota would be allocated but there is a danger that the south and west could suffer a double whammy because of the disadvantageous manner of the allocation. If a reduction is applied uniformly, it will only compound a bad situation. How does the Minister of State propose to share the mackerel quota in the event of it being reduced?
I am disappointed that despite the number of inspections and boardings that have taken place over the past several years, we are still not in a position to identify the culprits behind overfishing. Surely the evidence has been gathered by now. An organisation has been established with the specific function of inspecting the industry and it is doing its fair share of boarding of Irish vessels. As we are being told by the Commission that we are overfishing, someone must be able to point the finger. We are taking a very small percentage of the catch from Irish waters. That must help us find out who is responsible.
I am disappointed to hear the points made by Dr. Cawley because I hoped that we would be able to encourage aquaculture in view of its potential for job creation. Dr. Cawley has informed us that it is not proceeding as smoothly as it should. We must examine this matter because jobs are at a premium at present. It is important that money is found for marketing activities.
I advise my colleague, Deputy Creed, that the Minister of State does not do embarrassment. The operational programme intended for implementation in 2007, in respect of which Dr. Cawley laid all the blame on the Directorate-General for the Environment and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, has not yet been progressed. We are losing the guts of €10 million per annum in European funding because of the failure to implement the programme. If that does not highlight incompetence, I do not know what does. In September, the Minister of State told me that progress was being made on Natura 2000. I do not jump up and down to make noise but, as the old saying goes, if one fails to prepare, one should be prepared to fail. I believe the current approach to the Common Fisheries Policy will fail Irish fishermen after 2012. Decommissioning is only a redundancy package for fishermen.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. It is welcome that a representative from a coastal county is involved in our first renegotiation since 1973. It is proposed to cut the whitefish fleet by 30% and to completely close the Porcupine Bank fishery. How will the Minister of State argue against this unjustified cut in an important sector for Ireland? I have full confidence that he will do excellent work on our behalf.
A previous speaker compared fisheries with the sugar beet industry but the sugar price has risen because of global conditions. With Brazil and India both experiencing sugar shortages, we should not be making this type of comparison.
I welcome the Minister of State and his delegation, including Dr. Cawley, and offer my support and good wishes to them in the renegotiation of the CFP. We should face reality from the point of view of the fishing industry because we cannot forever ignore science. The problem is international in scope and one cannot say that science is always wrong, even if scientists sometimes err on the side of caution.
I had reservations about the decommissioning programme when it was first proposed. However, the industry would be in a bigger crisis if decommissioning had not taken place because too many boats would be competing for too few fish. The programme was implemented transparently and nobody was forced into it. Some fishermen were glad to admit they have had their day in respect of this type of fishing. The perception was that it would leave sufficient stocks to give those who remained a viable living. One could take the argument made by Deputy Ferris and others that it is merely a redundancy package but if it allows the industry to survive, it should not be criticised.
The Minister of State has a difficult job to do in Europe. Many years ago, I fought within my parliamentary party to establish a committee to investigate the fishing industry. When I was elected to the Seanad in 1997, fisheries was not being overseen by any Oireachtas committee. I had several battles with the former Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, before this was achieved.
What sanctions were imposed on Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland in response to their irresponsible unilateral fishing actions? If Ireland acted similarly, we would be hauled before the European courts. It is most unfair that non-EU member states would be allowed to get away with these practices. Are strict sanctions available to stop countries breaking the rules on a whim?
I am deeply concerned about what Dr. Cawley described as the stagnation of the aquaculture industry. I would like to see Ireland's fishing develop on a global basis. We should not differentiate between shellfish, molluscs, pelagics, etc. There should be an overall plan for the industry. I remember attending meetings in the early 1990s when there was a plan for the expansion and development of fish farming in general with a view to creating jobs along the coast. It seems to have completely stagnated.
We can consider what Norway, Chile and other countries have achieved in fish farming, and we have been left miles behind. It is not good enough that 12 or 15 years after the initial concept, we are where we are. I am very concerned that somebody with Dr. Cawley's capacity has said we have difficulties with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or otherwise. If we continue to see fishing as the domain of the guys with the trawlers, we will have the wrong perception for the next ten or 15 years for the fishing industry. We must consider any way to create jobs, preferably within Ireland. I would also like to see more processing within the Irish industry.
I will not say anything further but there is an ongoing fight about the Hague preferences. In my 12 years of experience since 1997 in the Houses, almost every year there is a Minister of the day wearing the green jersey in Europe and supported fully by the Federation of Irish Fishermen and the fishing industry. He or she negotiates and there is always a worry coming up to the Christmas period when the discussions take place.
If I am wrong the Minister of his officials will correct me but my experience is that, by and large, people compliment the Minister of the day on successful negotiations. I will not mention names from Killybegs and the south west but I have heard that from people there. The delegation would have stood firm in many areas but may have had to give on others. By and large, in the past decade such negotiations by Irish Ministers have been done well. I compliment the Minister of State and wish him luck, as he is doing an excellent job in difficult times. Financial constraints are hitting the fishermen just as much as anybody else in society. It is a tough battle in Europe and I wish the Minister well. United we will stand but divided we will fall.
There is a vote in the Dáil but I will bring in Senator McCarthy. There is an official waiting outside the door to tell us when the bell stops. There is another meeting in the room later so we must be out by then.
My contribution will be brief. I apologise for my late attendance but we have been in the Seanad all morning for various reasons, including votes. I welcome the Minister of State and Dr. Cawley, as well as my constituents, Mr. Cecil Beamish and Ms Josephine Kelly.
The Icelandic accession is by no means guaranteed and there is no political consensus on its impending application from a domestic perspective, so what role would fisheries have in that context? Will there be opportunities for Irish fishermen to get access to Icelandic waters and will there be access to fish stocks there? On the other side, would there be implications for our fish stocks if Iceland is successful in its application to join the Union? Will there be implications for Irish fishermen with regard to their own stocks and territorial waters?
There are a number of other points. With regard to discards, I urge the Minister of State to ensure common sense prevails, as it is absolutely immoral that it is being allowed to carry on in this day and age when we consider how many people on the planet go hungry. There are agencies working against poverty and yet people are obliged to dump fish. It has a knock-on effect on the preservation of stocks.
State control on quotas is absolutely essential. We do not want a case where a Spanish multinational could get access to them. There is also the issue of Hague preferences. How confident is the Minister of State in retaining them? The issue is detrimental in terms of our current quota. Is it realistic for us to have more quota? How serious will the negotiations be in that regard and can we realistically expect the delegation to bring back such a result? We should and can have a bigger quota.
I was surprised to see Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, in the McCarthy report, given that there is no marine expertise on the panel which compiled the report. Other organisations have jumped on that. I raised in the Seanad how a pre-budget submission from Social Justice Ireland advocated the abolition of BIM as well in order to save money.
That misses the point as not only is the body located in west Cork — on one of the few arms of decentralisation that is partially successful — but if it was to be merged with another organisation, it would have consequences for our fish products and affect those depending on fishing in the coastal communities, especially those on lower and middle incomes. There is an issue for the organisation that jumped on that aspect. What is Dr. Cawley's view on the McCarthy report and will BIM survive the recommendation that it be merged with another body?
We should bring to the attention of the Minister of State that we have unofficially agreed a pairing arrangement. Those remaining in the room are covered and we will make it official shortly.
Before the Minister of State concludes, a couple of points come to mind. The European affairs committee took a very keen interest in the fishing industry 20 years ago and pursued it at the European level. Its representatives came back to the Houses without a great deal of success. The points raised by Senator O'Donovan on the development of the domestic fishing industry are very important. Although my constituency is not a coastal county, Dr. Cawley knows we have elements of the industry and we are doing well in the area. There is much scope for development and we should focus on that.
The depletion of stocks has been referred to by several members and there is no doubt that small countries like Ireland have not been the cause of such depletion of stocks internationally. It could not be possible because these countries did not have the fleets to do it. How many of the large "hoover" fishing boats have been decommissioned globally and within the European Union? My information is that ample scientific and technological evidence is available to predetermine, to the half tonne, the exact catch being taken across the globe currently.
Deputy Sheahan referred to my next point. An element of that catch is later treated as discard. The Common Fisheries Policy, as it stands, has been a disaster and caused the depletion of fish stocks and diminution of the fishing industry. It has weighed heavily against the small coastal communities dependent on fisheries, and it will continue in this fashion because I do not foresee change.
There has been a total failure in conservation; if this was not so, we would not be discussing the issue. This failure is down to two elements which have already been referred to by members, including overfishing by those powerful enough to do so. There is a notion that fishing without restriction outside the European Union is all right but it is a major factor in stock depletion.
The European interests should be told that what has gone on heretofore is not working, whether we like it or not. We can try to reassure ourselves about it as often as we like but it will not work. If the present policy continues, in another ten or 15 years there will be no fishing industry in the country or in the UK. From my small experience and knowledge of dealing with the European institutions and listening to submissions from fishing organisations, my conclusion is that the presentation made to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the Irish Fishermen's Organisation a few days ago was important, well rounded and well laid out.
If the overall structures in terms of conservation and fishing are not correct or fair, the system will not work in any event, because there will be a reaction to the unfairness by the various member states and their fishing interests and as a result it will fail again. I appeal to the Minister, based the little knowledge I have — I reiterate that although I do not come from a maritime county, I have seen this evolve over the last——
I thought the Chairman came from Mayo.
I am originally from Mayo, but I am like a wandering minstrel. I have wandered around.
These are big issues and I have no doubt the Minister of State is fully aware of their magnitude. We wish him well but we know there are problems.
Deputies Creed, Aylward, Doyle and I met Commissioner Borg a couple of months ago in Brussels. Does the Minister of State think the Commissioner will be reappointed? He seems to have a good grasp of the situation. He met with us for an hour and 15 minutes, which we did not expect, and he seems to have a good working relationship with the Minister of State. Would it be good for Ireland if he was reappointed?
We would have our own Commissioner from Galway there if I had anything to do with it.
A Member
She would understand it.
I thank the Chairman for the arrangement that allows us to continue the meeting because it will facilitate the completion of our business. I am sorry the Senators were excluded due to the way their House was operating; they have missed some of the answers I have given, but I will go back over that part.
Deputy Sheehan gave an outline of the historical background and used what is probably the most accurate measure, the cod equivalent measure, in trying to achieve a balance. However, there are historical difficulties even behind the story our colleague told with regard to the declared catch levels of various countries. One country in particular appears to have claimed it was landing much more than it was and had comfortable quotas, while others took a converse view, which has affected us negatively in historical terms. However, that is in the past; there is not much we can do about it.
The Deputy made a point about scientific advice which many other members have also made. The two elements I mentioned in this regard are important. The fact that fishermen are so centrally involved now is a considerable advantage. It is a recent development and the committee is only a year old, but some good work is being done. What really worries me is the point mentioned by Deputy Creed in his question about the Greencastle area, namely, the precautionary principle which is employed by the Commission in the absence of solid scientific advice. The precautionary principle is sometimes invoked when there are fears about stocks and that has done some damage in that area. I am not aware of any issue such as this which is about to be discussed in December and I am hopeful there will not be, although this time last year I did not know about that issue.
The issue of discards was mentioned by Deputy Sheehan and a number of other members. Almost every common-sense solution that has been put forward has turned out to have some downside. There is a particular concern in our whitefish mixed fisheries about some of the proposals for discards. Let us imagine a fisherman operating in a mixed fishery who has fished his quota for one stock but has remaining quota for three or four other species. Although he is obliged to bring everything in, he is de facto not allowed to because he has already fished his quota in one stock. That element is proving particularly difficult.
A few initiatives have been taken. We have been giving out about Norway all day, but it has an operation for bringing in all of its fish which has some merit and is being considered by the EU. It may be possible to adapt this. The Danes are going with a different initiative which involves CCTV cameras on fishing boats so that everything is recorded. The Danish fishing industry, having initially been doubtful about the initiative, has come on board quite positively. The carrot that was being dangled — although this has not been agreed — is that those who agreed to operate the system would receive additional quota and fishing time. That is something we sometimes overlook — there is not necessarily a close correlation between the level of quota available and the time available to fish it. That creates particular difficulties in the Irish Sea and elsewhere by complicating matters even further. However, I take Deputy Sheehan's point, which was also made by others, including the Co-Chairman, about discards. There is an urgent need to come up with a solution that addresses all these issues.
Deputy Sheehan also asked about Iceland and the Department of Foreign Affairs has a particular role in this regard. I should have mentioned initially that I met some of the Irish MEPs last Thursday and a number of the others have asked for a briefing on this issue, on which I intend to follow up. I welcome the meeting between Commissioner Borg and Deputies Creed, Aylward and Doyle and the Chairman, Deputy Brady. I will come to that question at the end.
Deputy Sheehan made a point about territorial waters which was also made by a number of other people. It is an historical issue with which we have difficulty. He also mentioned a point made by Deputy O'Sullivan about the role of the SFP and the naval service. One aspect of progress is that the new control measures, allied to major technological advances, will result in improvements in this area. The concept of the level playing field will move forward several paces in October. We must see it in action. Almost every initiative, as members know, throws up some unintended consequence that becomes a difficulty and we must try to deal with them as they appear.
Deputy Tom Sheahan made a number of other points to which I might give a robust answer if he were here, but I will not do that in his absence. Deputy O'Keeffe asked about prawn quotas. The area of difficulty in this regard is the Porcupine Bank. A complete exclusion is proposed and we must oppose this. We and the industry are satisfied that we can achieve the same result with a seasonal closure. There is also a proposal for a 25% reduction. The Irish Sea and the Aran grounds are not affected. I acknowledge the tremendous work done by the regional advisory council, with which we are working closely. There is a strong input by Ireland and also by some other countries which are our fishing competitors in that area for certain species but are actually very supportive on this point.
Senator O'Donovan made a point about the CFP, saying that if one took the line that one intended to ignore the science, one would make no progress. Of course this is the case. If we want to have any credibility we must advance science-based arguments in response to the findings of the scientists. That is not beyond our ingenuity and we have done it with considerable skill up to now. The Senator also made the point that if the scientists do not err on the side of caution, the Commission certainly does, and that creates particular difficulties in terms of principle and also in terms of outcome.
Senator O'Donovan also asked about the unilateral approach by Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Norway. Unfortunately those coastal states and the EU-Norway negotiations are operated on the basis of voluntary co-operation. There was a particular flashpoint incident which set the Norwegians off on a particular line of retaliation. It is complex and involves blaming another member state — I do not want to get into it, but that is what caused the decision to move in that direction.
The Senator also made a point about aquaculture and the operational programme, which was also mentioned by Deputy Sheahan. The Deputy remarked that in September of last year I mentioned that progress was being made. Progress has been made pretty much every second month, if not every month, since then, but it has been extraordinarily slow and very difficult to deliver on. Deputy Sheahan stated that the operational programme was not in operation. The parts that were excluded were the aquaculture and processing sectors. We have already spent all our money under the operational programme for fisheries, most of it on decommissioning. I cannot claim credit for being the initiator of any round of decommissioning. The last round was at an advanced stage when I was appointed and the previous one was two or three years prior to that, so Deputy Sheahan is wrong in commending me for overseeing two rounds of decommissioning.
Before we get involved in robust exchanges, the Minister of State might deal with the Hague preferences.
I have not come to Deputy Creed's points yet.
I thought the Minister of State had passed over me.
The Deputy is on the next page. I shall come to him.
Regarding Senator O' Donovan's point on the aquaculture issue, considerations other than the operational programme and the Natura 2000 considerations have created difficulty. The recreational fisheries and tourism lobbies in this country have a strong view concerning elements of the aquaculture programme. There are also historical issues with regard to losses of stock and other difficulties which arose for practitioners in the aquaculture area that put them out of business at a point when they might have developed legally. Through loss of stock and various acts of God or nature, issues arose that created difficulties. We always gloss over such matters but for the people involved, some of whom I have met, these were huge issues. In some instances people were put out of business and in others they were set back very considerably. We sometimes neglect to mention that factor in the context of the Natura sites.
I welcome Deputy Creed's statement that there will be a submission from the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I also welcome that the Joint Committee on European Affairs has always had an involvement and engagement at European level that is difficult to have in any Department, whether Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or any other. It is really useful and I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk to members of that committee, particularly its Chairman. Sometimes there are bits of information floating around that we all think everybody else knows but they do not.
That is one of the points we established with the fishermen. Deputy Sheahan may think we are only humouring each other but in their various organisations, Irish fishermen are involved at fairly senior level with European partners. Sometimes information comes to light from that source that we might not have found out quite as quickly. I ask the Joint Committee on European Affairs to consider fisheries issues sometimes when it engages with MEPs. It has access the rest of us do not necessarily have.
Deputy Creed also made two points about the Hague preferences, one of which very much impressed me. What has come up occasionally, though not forcefully, in the discussions, is a proposal for a system to standardise or regularise the Hague preferences for the ten-year period of the new Common Fisheries Policy. We are very interested in that and are trying to pursue it in a useful manner.
Deputy Creed made an even more important point in respect of regionalisation and its associated risks. There are considerable risks and if the Hague preferences are not guaranteed — if that is the best term — there might be some risks in the RAC. Our western waters rack, if it were to include all interests, from Gibraltar to the north of Scotland, would not leave Ireland in a very strong position, if decisions were to be made on the basis of the voting strength of countries, for example. A system would have to be devised whereby decisions of a certain kind were made at Council level openly and with the involvement of the kinds of countries Deputy Creed suggested. That would be strategically helpful to us because they are smaller and might share our interests. There is a role for regional decision making and the RACs that were set up in the last CFP review, namely, the regional advisory councils, have played a very constructive role. Any fears we might have had about them were ill-founded because our involvement at both industry level and official level has been very positive. There is a positive indicator that should lead us to consider this as successful.
Deputy Creed asked about area VI south which I dealt with already. Regarding compliance, control measures, electronic logbooks and so on, undoubtedly an element that contributed to the improvement of the level playing field was the improvement of the technical equipment. The Deputy also asked about the Fine Gael Bill on administrative sanctions. The current advice I have is that in order to introduce the kind of sanctions envisaged in that Bill it would be necessary to create new offences which would meet constitutional and European requirements in respect of having sanctions relevant to the level of the crime. I shall discuss the advice from the Attorney General when I have time to peruse it. It came when I was away at the Council meeting in Brussels last week so I have not had a chance to examine it in detail. I shall report to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on that as a courtesy in view of the fact that he has a Bill before the House and shall meet with him formally or informally in that regard. It is argued that our measures are not in line with practices across the EU. A difficulty that has arisen is the EU measure allows either the EU or the national state measure to prevail. If the EU measure were the obligatory one that would rescue us from the constitutional difficulty that arises. I shall brief Deputies O'Keeffe and Creed in that regard.
Regarding mackerel, the EU-Norway negotiations and the decision on the additional quota last year, I said privately to Deputy Creed that the worst bit of news last year was the increase in the mackerel quota. It set off many rows that had not arisen when there were reductions. The fact that there is a risk of a reduction this year — to which we have not conceded — creates an entirely different situation. I know the Deputy's party colleagues in the northern area of the country would not share the Deputy's view on the decision made last year.
No more than those in the Minister of State's constituency would regarding his decision.
It is important to point out that last year's decision was arrived at before the level that had applied in the previous agreement was reached. The change made was to the advantage of the south and west rather than of the north. It might not have been to their advantage to the extent that they wanted but was substantially so.
Deputy Christy O'Sullivan made points on the levels of boardings and inspections of the Irish fleet. With regard to boardings and inspections on the one hand, and the outcomes of court proceedings on the other, the international view is that none of our European counterparts fares well by comparison with the Irish. In the new control regime that is likely to be even more markedly the case. The Deputy also expressed his disappointment about the operational programme. I have gone through the issues regarding that.
Senators McCarthy and O'Donovan missed some of the earlier points because of voting in the Seanad so I shall go through some of them.
It is not that we missed the point but we did not hear it. I say that for fear of more sinister interpretations.
The Department of Foreign Affairs is dealing with the Iceland negotiations. We have made it very clear to officials that we have strategic interests in that regard and have asked them to keep us abreast of developments. We made it clear there are fishery considerations which will come into play with regard to discards. I take the point made. Any progress towards having a sensible outcome is very slow despite some of the initiatives tried by member states. We made very strong proposals for a pilot scheme which did not find favour. These will gradually come into play.
Regarding the Senator's point on quotas, I agree very strongly. The quotas must remain a national asset, to the very greatest extent possible. They certainly must not be left floating around to be grabbed by the most powerful multinational. That is what would happen, inevitably, if matters went in that direction. By and large, that has been the view of the industry, perhaps to a greater extent than people would expect.
The Hague preferences were mentioned to which I responded in my answer to Deputy Creed. More quota is a very substantive point and I do not know how realistic it is. Obviously, we have to wait for Dr. Cawley to consider all the submissions before we see the shape of the eventual proposal that will go forward to Europe. I would be disappointed if we did not have an ambition in that regard. There are realistic considerations in the area of relative stability and so on, but at this stage I would be somewhere between open-minded and positive in that regard.
Until Senator McCarthy's colleague, Deputy Tuffy, raised the matter this morning I had not known that Social Justice Ireland also wanted to make an assault on Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM. Dr. Crawley answered those questions earlier. I see a continued and valuable role for BIM and I hope that will be our course in the future.
The Chairman of the European affairs committee, Deputy Durkan, made a number of points. I have dealt with the scope for development of aquatourism. He also asked about depletion of stocks, who was responsible and so forth. Historically, the information in that regard is mixed and is more anecdotal than science-based. Deputy O'Sullivan made the point that more accurate information for recent years is available but it is not always as positive as we wish to believe, so I will not go into the matter in great detail.
A question was put on the number of large boats decommissioned. Decommissioning programmes have taken place in most countries, including large-scale programmes in France and Spain. However, they employed somewhat different conditions. We set the decommissioning on boats rather than participants. People could decommission a boat and could buy back in with a smaller boat if they were in a position to do so. Some other countries did not do this and got rid of interests rather than boats. The scheme was not employed in exactly the same way here but it was employed to a significant extent. It is important to remember not only the Irish industry but the European industry is oversubscribed to the tune of 25% or 30% and this is an international question.
I refer to the point on conservation failure and stock from overfishing in other waters coming on the market. The Commission makes the point that the recovery in North Sea cod results from CFP measures and it argues the same applies for Celtic Sea herring, mackerel and so on. The most important point, which was made already by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, Deputy Durkan, is that whatever the measures, even if they are tough, it is essential they are seen to be fair by any standards. This has not always been the case but we are gradually moving towards a position where it becomes the case increasingly. However, it is a major challenge to get to the point where it is universally acknowledged that provisions in respect of control are completely fair. We have moved in that direction substantially, especially since October.
I refer to the question by the Chairman, Deputy Brady, in respect of Commissioner Borg. The information last week was that he might not be Malta's nominee for Commissioner, which would answer all the questions. Prior to that, the speculation had been that he would be the Maltese nominee but that he had a wish to move to another area of responsibility. However, if he is not proposed by the Maltese he will not be a Commissioner. I have not been able to confirm this but that was the word in Brussels on Friday. I believe I have dealt with most of the issues.
On behalf of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I thank the Minister of State, his officials and Dr. Cawley for coming before the committee and responding to the questions and concerns raised by the members. I thank the members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and its Chairman, Deputy Durkan, for their co-operation in holding the joint meeting.
It is fortuitous to have had a joint session and to have heard the contributions of the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, his officials and Dr. Cawley. It is illuminating for all of us. It is also fortuitous in view of the serious national emergency facing the country due to the serious flooding. I propose that both committees in joint session recommend that a major national application be made by Ireland to the European Commission for access to and support from the European Union Solidarity Fund to deliver increased humanitarian aid, business and farming aid, research funds to examine solutions, funding for flood alleviation measures and flood diversion programmes and water management systems for Ireland. We should do it in joint session.
I second the suggestion of Deputy Treacy of an application to Brussels which should be supported in every way possible. If funding is available from that source, it should be tapped immediately for the crisis in Ireland.
On behalf of all the members of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I state that full support will be forthcoming. We fully support the request of Deputies Treacy and Sheehan and the Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.
I assure every one that the entire membership of the Joint Committee on European Affairs are very supportive of the proposal of Deputy Noel Treacy, a member of the committee.
Will the secretariat convey the motion to the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and all relevant line Ministers as a matter of urgency, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs?
We will forward a copy to the relevant EU Commission offices and European institutions as well. In conclusion, I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, for appearing before the joint session, for being frank and for listening to the views of the committee. As the Minister of State set out, the interests of the European affairs committee include regular meetings with commissioners and European institutions and it is very important that members are fully up to speed on what is taking place. Often we experienced situations in which it has been too late to discuss certain issues. This is why the Minister for Foreign Affairs appears before the committee before the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. This is very beneficial in the sense that committee members can set out their views on a particular subject and we do not arrive at an embarrassing situation such as the issue to which I referred previously.
I thank Dr. Cawley. He comes from and lives in a very good part of the country and one cannot go wrong in such a case. Given his vast portfolio of experience in this area I am certain he will be very successful. Likewise, I thank Mr. Beamish and Ms Kelly. The deliberations of this meeting will be used by both committees to the advantage of the industry, which is very dependant on the institutions of the European arena, now more than ever before. The points have been made and this has been recognised by the Minister of State.
I thank the Chairmen and all the officials.
We wish the Minister of State the very best of luck at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council.