Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Tuesday, 25 Oct 2022

Sustainability Impact Assessment: Discussion

Chairman

Deputy Mac Lochlainn is substituting for Deputy Carthy and Deputy Pringle is substituting for Deputy Fitzmaurice. Before we begin, I remind all witnesses and those in the Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. Members are requested to ensure that for the duration of the meeting their mobile phones are turned off. The purpose of today's meeting is to hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the sustainability impact assessment, SIA. All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19. Two members of our secretariat are out this evening with Covid-19, so it most definitely has not gone away. I wish Christie and Rebecca the best and I hope they will be back to work soon.

Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and they may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside the proceedings held by the committee, of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in the context of participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts. Members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

On the sustainability impact assessment the committee will hear from the Minister who is accompanied by Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary; Ms Josephine Kelly, principal officer; Mr. Dominic Rihan, director of economic and strategic services, Bord Iascaigh Mhara; and Dr. Ciaran Kelly, director of fisheries ecosystems advisory services, Marine Institute. I call the Minister to make his opening statement.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank the Chair and members of the committee. I welcome this opportunity to present the SIA to the committee today. As in previous years, a rigorous assessment has been undertaken to examine the implications for Ireland of the potential fishing opportunities for the year ahead. The past few years, as we know, have been particularly challenging for our fishing industry. In addition to the continuing fuel crisis, the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the quota transfers under the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement, TCA, are still having an effect. I assure the Chairperson that I as Minister and the Government continue to keep the focus on the disproportionate quota reductions for Ireland under the TCA and to use any and every opportunity available to seek constructive solutions that would help to alleviate this unacceptable position. I am keeping a strong focus on the matter within the Fisheries Council and making it clear that the TCA transfers must be addressed within the EU.

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU has also led to significant changes to the processes involved in setting total allowable catches, TACs, for the majority of our commercial fish stocks. Approximately 40 of Ireland’s fish stocks, which were previously exclusively European Union resources, are now shared resources, most shared with the UK. The Commission has the sole competence to negotiate with third countries on behalf of the EU for the setting of fishing opportunities for shared stocks. Unfortunately, the UK now counts as a third country. The bilateral negotiations between the Commission, on behalf of the EU, and the UK are due to begin in November and I will go into more detail on these consultations in a moment. Based on the experience of the last year post Brexit and the changes, this has led to in the procedures for setting fishing opportunities for the EU, I decided that the SIA process should commence at the start of October rather than later to be as relevant as possible. The SIA is an essential step in Ireland’s preparation for the TAC setting process and I want to have the process completed before we commence the EU-UK consultations. Carrying out the process at this stage allows for input from stakeholders, analysis by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, and the Marine Institute and the views of the Oireachtas in time for the start of the TAC setting process. As the Chair outlined, I am joined by two representatives, Dr. Ciaran Kelly from the Marine Institute, who is a scientific expert, and Mr. Dominic Rihan, a socioeconomic impact expert from Bord Iascaigh Mhara. As the Chair outlined, Ms Josephine Kelly and Dr. Cecil Beamish from my own team are also in attendance.

I decided to again use the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES's, scientific advice as the basis for this year’s SIA. The ICES advice forms the basis of the scientific advice used by the Commission. The ICES gathers scientific advice; its advice for the relevant stock provides suitable guidance for the TAC figures which would normally be proposed by the Commission. This allowed for a meaningful public consultation and for realistic engagement with our stakeholders. It allowed the Marine Institute and BIM to produce the biological and socioeconomic impact assessments to inform us. The waters surrounding Ireland contain some of the most productive fishing grounds in the EU. We have a duty of care and a national self-interest to protect their biological richness and, as such, they must be managed responsibly and sustainably. The landing obligation, which aims to eliminate the wasteful and unsustainable practice of discarding fish, has been fully implemented since 2019. The practical application of the landing obligation has been challenging for operators, requiring changes in fishing practices and behaviour. However, my Department along with BIM continue to work together with fishers to adapt and develop the most selective and sustainable fishing methods. The efforts and commitment of our fishers in this matter have been and remain important.

Another key feature of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, is the setting of TACs and quotas to deliver maximum sustainable yield. Fishing at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY, is the largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. Of course, in the past, a failure to fish at FMSY and a failure also to have the scientific assessment that we so rely on led to overfishing in some instances of stocks and a depletion of stocks. It is important for sustainable stocks every year going forward that we do not take any more from that stock than would undermine its health and the size of the stock so that the fish will be there next year and the year after. Progress is being achieved in terms of the sustainability of fish stocks. For 2022, 38 stocks of interest to Ireland have been fished below maximum sustainable yield. In 2013, only 20 stocks were fished at this sustainable level. It is now up at 38 from 20 back in 2013. The number of stocks overfished is 15 in 2022, down from 22 in previous years. This is a significant achievement and Ireland will continue to work with stakeholders, the Commission, other member states and third countries to build on this tangible progress to achieve our objectives of healthy fish stocks and sustainable fishing.

I would also like to take this opportunity to update the committee on the upcoming report by the European Commission on the functioning of the CFP. Under the CFP regulation, the European Commission is required to report to the European Parliament and the European Council on the functioning of the CFP by the end of this year.

The Commission has indicated that its report on the functioning of the CFP will take the form of a communication, analysing the dimensions of the CFP and looking at the interaction between fisheries management and the objectives of the European Green Deal. In addition, the communication will address the social dimension of the CFP and consider how to improve the delivery of the CFP policy objectives. I have consistently made clear the Government’s assessment that the substantial changes brought about in fisheries policy as a result of the TCA, requires that a comprehensive review of the CFP be carried out within the EU to support changes to deliver a fair and equitable policy.

Earlier this year, I established a national Common Fisheries Policy review group, bringing together relevant stakeholders to examine the issues that arise for Ireland in the context of the CFP review; to advise me on priorities for the negotiations; and importantly, to identify strategies most likely to influence the outcome of the review. The group was chaired by Mr. John Malone, former Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine who was assisted by a steering committee comprising Mr. Micheál Ó Cinneide, former director of the Marine Institute and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA; and Mr. Donal Maguire, former director of BIM. I thank the three of them and all stakeholders for their work.

The group involved representatives of all key stakeholders, including industry representative groups, fisheries representatives and the environmental NGOs. That review group submitted its final report to me on 5 August 2022. The stakeholders have set out a number of recommendations on aspects of the CFP that need to be addressed to adapt to the monumental changes of recent years and ensure a sustainable future for the sector.

I have forwarded a copy of the report to the EU fisheries Commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius, who is responsible for the CFP review. I have made clear that I am fully satisfied that our stakeholders’ report demonstrates the need for legislative changes in the current policy to address the disproportionate impacts of the TCA on Ireland in the context of the new environmental challenges we are facing. I have asked him to review the report's findings and recommendations and consider how these can be taken forward to support a fair and balanced CFP.

I will now touch on the EU-UK consultations that are a key step in moving forward the quota negotiations for next year. The bilateral consultations with the UK for 2023 for shared stocks are due to begin at the start of November. The SIA process and the committee's input today will help to develop Ireland’s position during the upcoming negotiations. The negotiations will be led by the European Commission on behalf of all member states. I and my team will be fully engaged at EU level to ensure that Ireland’s interests are recognised and pursued with Commissioner Sinkevičius and his team. We are hopeful that agreement can be reached in time to allow the outcome to be discussed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 12 and 13 December 2022 and feed into the TAC and quotas regulation for 2023.

I will insist that the Hague preferences are applied at the December council for the relevant fish stocks. However, if an EU-UK agreement is not secured, a contingency plan is in place to ensure fishing can continue at the start of 2023 without interruption. Under the Trade and Co-operation Agreement, in the event that agreement with the UK cannot be reached by 20 December, the TCA provides for each party to set provisional TACs applying from 1 January at the scientific level advised by ICES. In previous years, the Commission developed a plan for provisional TACs for the first three months of the year. This saw TACs for most stocks set at 25% of the previous year’s TAC level, with the full TAC applied for coastal state stocks such as mackerel and blue whiting, which are seasonal, at the start of the year. While this situation is not ideal, it will provides certainty and continuity for the fishing industry in the New Year, if needed.

I will turn to management arrangements for three migratory species in the north east Atlantic in which we have an interest. They are blue whiting, atlanto-scandian herring and mackerel. The arrangements for these are negotiated by means of a coastal states framework between the parties in whose waters significant concentrations of these stocks are to be found and that have normally had a track record in fishing them. The coastal states negotiations for 2023 commenced last week in London. Agreement was reached on setting the TACs for atlanto-scandian herring at 511,000 tonnes. The EU, and Ireland, have a relatively small share of this stock. It is also likely that the coastal states will agree on setting the TAC for mackerel at 782,000 tonnes in line with the ICES advice, although this has not been finalised yet.

The ICES advice is based on the FMSY approach and represents a reduction of 2% compared to last year's TAC. The TAC for blue whiting has not yet been agreed. ICES calls for an 81% increase but the coastal states are continuing discussions as there is divergence of opinion as to whether all the increase should be applied. The 2014 sharing arrangement for mackerel between the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands expired at the end of 2020. Discussions aimed at reaching a new agreement on a new sharing arrangement for mackerel began earlier this year and are ongoing. I have been clear on the need to agree a sharing arrangement for mackerel that respects the EU and, in turn, Ireland’s proper share of the global TAC.

We continue to oppose the setting of unacceptably high unilateral quotas for mackerel by a number of third countries. I have articulated our concerns about what has happened over the past two years, in particular at the EU fisheries Council and directly to Commissioner Sinkevičius. If this unacceptable behaviour is continued in 2023 by these countries, the EU must work together and use all available tools to ensure real and effective consequences for such behaviour. The coastal state parties have also committed to begin discussions for new sharing arrangements for atlanto-scandian herring and blue whiting early in 2023.

I will move on to the SIA. In order for the SIA to be carried out, the ICES scientific advice for the stocks was used as a basis for the assessment. As part of the assessment, an open consultation process was initiated, whereby stakeholders were asked to submit their comments and observations on the ICES advice for fish stocks for next year; and on the European Commission’s communication, Towards more sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2023. and its accompanying staff working document. An online web portal at www.fishingnet.ie was activated on 12 October to enable the transmission of electronic submissions for consideration. Two submissions to the public consultation were received. The full content of all the submissions received by the deadline will be published on the website. In addition to the written submissions, I convened a meeting of stakeholders including fishing industry representatives and environmental NGOs last week on 20 October. The purpose of the meeting was to give a further opportunity to representatives to outline their positions on the many aspects of the communication and on the scientific advice. I thank all the stakeholders for their contributions to the impact assessment.

The stakeholders set out a range of positions. However, there were also many commonalities. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed through the consultation process, which, as a whole, I consider to have the same objective of sustainable fishing and the protection of our fishing resource and our marine ecosystem. There is a clear call for adherence to the advice on setting TACs in accordance with FMSY. We must also make use of the provisions of the western waters multi-annual plan to deal with stocks where scientific advice indicates the stock is in poor shape. In recent years, to reduce catches of depleted stocks in mixed fisheries, TACs were set as by-catch only, at levels that help the biomass of these vulnerable stocks to recover to sustainable levels. These were complemented by remedial technical measures in the Celtic Sea, the west of Scotland and Irish Sea. The Marine Institute and BIM made invaluable contributions to the assessment of the ICES advice, which is contained in the sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment before the committee today. I will briefly set out the findings contained in that assessment.

From a purely biological perspective, the Marine Institute’s view, which coincides with the ICES view, is that the status of some fish stocks has improved, which is welcome. However, others remain a concern. In the impact assessment, the Marine Institute summarises the pressure on the 75 stocks that will be dealt with in the 2022 stock book and compares this assessment with the same evaluation presented in previous years’ stock books. The number of stocks being fished in a sustainable manner has increased to 38. In terms of percentages, this is an increase to 51%. The percentage of stocks overfished is currently 20%. The number of stocks with unknown status has decreased to 22 because of increased and improved scientific advice and research. It is good to see stocks continue on an upwards trend for next year. It must be remembered that there were only 20 stocks fished in a sustainable manner as recently as 2013 and we now have 38.

There are multiple reasons stocks have unknown status, including short-time series of biological data, conflicting data inputs, low catches or insufficient sampling data, or indeed missing catch information. Over time, the percentage of stocks with unknown pressure and state indicators has declined. The specific details for all stocks are available in the sustainability impact assessment, SIA, which will be laid before the Dáil. For further information, the fish stocks of interest to Ireland are available in the stock book which is prepared annually. This is a large piece of work by the Marine Institute and is available on its website

Regarding the economic and social impact, BIM has based the socioeconomic assessment on the ICES advice, where available. In cases where the ICES advice was not yet available or where ICES had provided zero-catch advice for stock, a rollover of last year's TACs was assumed so that the assessment of these stocks could be carried out by BIM. ICES advice for nephrops, or prawns, as we know them commonly, is expected to be released on 28 October, so we do not have that yet. In advance of the advice and to assist consideration of the stocks in the Celtic and Irish seas, different scenarios of a 10% reduction, a straightforward rollover, and a 10% increase were examined as this is an important stock for our fishing industry. It is our second most valuable stock across the sector. It is important to highlight that the estimates of BIM may change, depending on the final quotas and the total allowable catches agreed between the EU and the UK. As this advice is for a single stock assessment, we can expect significant changes for stocks in mixed fisheries where a particular stock is depleted. This is the case, for example, for cod stocks around the coast, and the total allowable catches for commercial stocks for cod as a by-catch will be set to support the protection and rebuilding of the depleted stocks.

If the TACs were to be agreed on the basis of the assumptions I have mentioned, we would see a net increase in fishing opportunity of 2% by volume in tonnes but a reduction of 6% in value. This amounts to a direct income reduction of €13 million. For the demersal whitefish sector, this would mean a reduction of 12% in volume of fishing activity and a reduction of 6% by value, with a direct income loss of €6.2 million. For the pelagic sector, this would result in a reduction of 5% by volume and 7% by value, with a direct income reduction of €6.9 million. This is primarily due to the decrease in horse mackerel where ICES provided zero-catch advice for next year. This would, however, be partially offset by following the significant increase in the advice for blue whiting, which has a recommended increase of 81%.

In addition to the direct losses to the fleet of quota reductions, income would also be lost from the processing sector as a result of reduced catches and in a number of ancillary industries such as net making, chandlery, engineering and refrigeration. This would obviously have a knock-on effect for employment. Bord Iascaigh Mhara further estimates, on the basis of the most recent employment surveys of the catching sector, that if the TACs were set in accordance with the single stock advice, it could impact 400 full-time and part-time jobs. This could occur either through reduced incomes or partial layoffs or redundancies in the seafood sector.

The Hague Preferences, which are the additional amounts of quota that Ireland can claim for important whitefish stocks when the TACs fall below set levels, are negotiated annually at the Fisheries Council in December. They cannot be taken for granted. Many member states often strenuously object to the application of the additional quota for Ireland. Ensuring the preferences are applied will be a key political priority for my Department at the December meeting.

The sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment we are discussing here today provides a good picture of the state of stock and possible implications for 2023. I thank and acknowledge those who contributed to the production of the impact assessment. While the assessment is based on the ICES advice rather than TACs proposed by the European Commission, it does highlight the potential for significant impacts on the Irish fishing industry. There are some stocks where ICES has issued-zero-catch advice. However, with the implementation of the landing obligation and the requirement to land all catches, including by-catches from such stocks, this would lead to choke situations in mixed fisheries. The EU and the UK previously established specific TACs for by-catches for these stocks to avoid fisheries being choked. This highlights the difficulty of fishing all stocks in a mixed fishery and a maximum sustainable yield, MSY, fishery at the same time, so it is challenging. We need to strike a balance between the potential for severe socioeconomic impacts and the need to achieve good environmental status for the stock. I would be supportive of a similar approach as was taken in previous years for these depleted stocks.

I look forward to hearing and answering any questions members have.

Deputy Michael Collins

My questions are based on the Minister's opening statement. He said these past few years have been particularly challenging for our fishing industry. In addition to the continuing fuel crisis, the impacts of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the quota transfers under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement are still having a very negative effect. These are the Minister's words but what has the Government done to provide our fishermen with a fuel subsidy? The French and the Spanish fishermen have received fuel subsidies from their governments. Why has this Government stood back and not done the same for our fishermen? This Government has given away to foreign fleets the rights of our fishermen to fish in Irish waters. You would think the Minister and the extremist Green Party would at least have given a fuel subsidy to our fishermen.

I was at the recent Irish South & West Fish Producers Organisation AGM. It was good hear the head of the organisation, Pat Murphy, put his case. The members are the people at sea. They know exactly what is going on. They ask about things like the recent announcement giving some people a bit of help with their energy bills, whether it is businesses or ordinary individuals. Fishermen also have energy bills. Was there anything in the budget for them? Recently I was speaking on the Finance Bill and I asked the Minister the same question in relation to fishing. What was the delivery for fishing in the budget? I see zilch. Fishermen have severe energy costs and they are asking me anything can be done about these costs. The Spanish and the French are getting a subsidy so why are the Irish not getting it? All we get is the decommissioning and the tie-up schemes. I was totally opposed to them, as was the Irish south west organisation, but still, unfortunately, fishermen in south-west Cork and other areas are saying it is the only way out now of a sad situation.

The Minister said the waters surrounding Ireland contain some of the most productive fishing grounds in the EU, that we have a duty of care and a national self-interest to protect their biological riches and, as such, they must be managed responsibly and sustainably. That is great, but where in the world does it make sense to give away our fishing rights to foreign fleets? The Minister may say it is so, that we must be responsible etc., but where does it make any sense that a boat fishing out of Castletownbere or Union Hall or Killybegs should be tied up at the pier while foreign counterparts can fish away to their hearts' content in some of our waters? It is no wonder fishermen are very frustrated. I attended that AGM and there is a sense of massive frustration. I was the only elected political figure who attended it but it would be educational for any politician to attend the AGM because each year they find the hill is getting harder to climb. This is nothing personal, even if it always seems like it is, but the Minister got a poisoned chalice with this. It is what it is, however, and we have been led down this road. The fishermen are angry and the Minister and the Department need to stand up and fight for our fishermen. This is why they were elected and we were elected: to get the fishermen a fuel subsidy and improved quotas. It is an absolute disgrace what has happened to this industry. It was one of the finest indigenous industries in this country and this Government and the Department officials have driven it to the shore with no prospects of a future for many.

Will the Minister again try to get some of our quota back and provide a fuel subsidy to the industry? We welcome the proposed 81% increase and I sincerely hope it will happen. Decisions have to be made around that increase in blue whiting. However, this will only benefit a club of 23 vessels in our fleet under the current application of the policy.

The Minister's opening statement also says that the waters around Ireland contain some of the most productive fishing grounds in the E.U. It also says that we have a duty of care and a national self-interest to protect their biological riches and as such, they must be managed responsibly and sustainably. That is great but where in the world does it make sense to give away our fishing rights to foreign fleets? One can say we must be responsible but where does it make any sense that a boat fishing out of Castletownbeare or Union Hall or Killybegs should be tied up at the pier while their foreign counterparts can fish away to their hearts' content in our waters? It is not wonder that fishermen are very frustrated. There was a sense of massive frustration at that AGM that I attended. As the only elected political figure that attended it. I think it would be educational for any politician to attend because each year they find that the hill is getting harder to climb. It seems like it always is but this is nothing personal. I think the Minister got a poisoned chalice with his appointment. However, it is what it is and we have been led down this road. Deputy McConalogue is the Minister and the fishermen are in agreement that the Department needs to stand up and fight for our fishermen. This is why we were elected, to go out there and get them a fuel subsidy, try to improve our quotas. It is an absolute disgrace what has happened to this industry. One of the finest indigenous industries in this country and this Government and the Department officials have driven it to the shore with no prospects of a future for many. My questions are my repeat statement over and over again. Will you try and get some of our quota back and again, as per my question, will the Minister and the Government provide a fuel subsidy. We welcome the proposed 81% adn

Will the Minister revise the policy so those other pelagic vessels that lose their scad mackerel fishery will get a fair share of this national fishery? As I mentioned, the scad mackerel stock is estimated to have 805,000 tonnes of live fish. Knowing this species lives to a good age and there are good results from the egg survey two years ago, surely we can agree to adopt the rebuilding plan accepted by ICES to be precautionary. I am sure the Minister knows I am not going to end my contribution without once again asking why are we not approaching the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT, for a small bluefin tuna quota? If you want to know why cod and herring stocks are so low I think the sea is full of these fish. It could be a significant contribution in their eating of this fish, flattening here to be caught by everyone but us. Even the Japanese fleet lands in to Killybegs when coming to catch them. I know they also do it in international waters but the bluefin tuna are only a mile from our shore and we cannot catch them. I would appreciate if the Minister might answer some of those questions. Thank you.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank Deputy Michael Collins. First, on the fuel subsidy, the Deputy pointed out that in my opening statement, I outlined the real challenges we have had over the past couple of years. Biggest of all has been the Brexit challenge and the impact that has had on quota. Of course, we fought in every way we could to try to protect the sector from any impact. Unfortunately it was not possible to protect it fully, given that in terms of full outcome of the trade and co-operation agreement, a no-deal scenario would have been really damaging for the fishing sector. We know that because we discussed it here on many occasions. One third of the fish we catch is caught in British waters and access to those waters was really important, so it was really difficult. That has been a challenge and one we have worked hard with our fishers to deal with. Since the start of the year, as with many other sectors of society, we have had the fuel challenge emerging from the illegal invasion of Ukraine. That led to an immediate spike in fuel for fishing vessels. Marine gas oil is different from a lot of other fuel, in that there is no Revenue tax applied to it and the VAT is reclaimable. There is no capacity to reduce the Revenue tax because it is not there. It spiked from around 60 cent per litre before the invasion to more than €1 per litre very quickly afterwards. It has gone up and down since then. Shortly after the illegal invasion, I met the fishers at their request to discuss that challenge. All of the fisher representatives coming together made the request to me for a second-month tie-up scheme to try to address and help with the impact on fuel. The sea-fisheries task force, which I set up last year, had recommended that this year, there would be a one-month tie-up available to every boat and that was in play. I had that progressing but they asked for a second month, specifically because of the real challenges the fleet was experiencing from fuel. I moved and delivered that, and implemented it. That meant an extra €12 million to the whitefish sector. When you look at that in terms of the financial allocation to our fleet, it is similar to the financial allocation France and Spain have applied to their fleets. That has been in place since June and is running until the end of November. I stepped in and delivered that much-needed €12 million to support the sector. The sector has been requesting that I do something on top of that measure, similar to what France and Spain have done. However, I have been assessing how the measure put in place has been working. Other member states did not do that. They took a different approach but with a similar level of investment relative to the size of their fleets. That runs until the end of November. We have seen a spike in the past couple of weeks. It has gone down again in the last week but it spiked to over €1 in terms of the international benchmark between a week and two weeks ago. It has come back down to the mid to high 80s in the last few days. That is the international benchmark price. It would be higher than that in terms of the actual pump price for vessels because of transport etc. I am assessing the situation again in light of that and looking at the challenges because I am keen on ensuring that we have appropriate supports in place for our fishing sector.

Some have indicated there is a fund available at European level that I am simply leaving behind by not applying such an additional support scheme. However, what the European Commission has done is provide flexibility for member states to use some of their unspent or future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund money to pay out in terms of reduced fuel costs. It is not that there is a separate fund. It would mean using funding that is allocated and earmarked for the industry and investment in the industry. It would mean using that instead as a direct upfront payment to deal with the pressures at the moment. I have never ruled that out. I have said that I have been continuing to monitor the situation and continuing to monitor the impact of the €12 million that I have already put in place. I am looking at that afresh because none of us know where we are going with fuel. We had all hoped it would taper off and reduce but that has not been the case and prices have spiked again. I am looking at and assessing that afresh again.

The Deputy also indicated there that this Government has given away the right to fish, to foreign governments. That is not something this Government has done. As he is aware, there has been a Common Fisheries Policy established since the early 1980s, whereby the percentage share each country has of various fish stocks was set and allocated. The percentages were based on the amount of catching different countries were doing at that time. Some countries got higher percentages of stocks, some countries got lower percentages, based on how much they were fishing at that time. That was in the early 1980s. That was done as a management tool to manage the waters generally, because as we know whenever you do not manage waters or manage stocks, they get depleted and they get fished out. It was set in the early 1980s and despite many reviews and many tugs of war at European level since, that overall allocation key for various stocks between countries has stayed the same. In order to change it at European level you have to get a qualified majority vote at a European Council meeting. The one big impact to that allocation key has been Brexit, because the UK has left. That has disrupted the allocation key in a way that has been unfair to us. That is something I am looking to get addressed and I am raising it at each and every Council meeting and every engagement I have with my colleagues. The point I am making is that it should be addressed in terms of the Common Fisheries Policy review that is to conclude over the next number of months. The unfair burden we have should be addressed as part of that. It is a system that has been in place since the early 1980s so it is not something this Government has done. In fact everything I have done as Minister has been to try to improve our fisheries situation and to try and get more quota for our fleet. I have been battling for that and have voted against many things at European level in order to assert and follow that objective.

The Deputy has also mentioned the decommissioning scheme, which he says he and the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation oppose. The Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, along with every other fishing representative organisation, would have been part of the sea-fisheries task force group, which I set up. Post Brexit and its massive impact on our fisheries, I brought all of the fishing voices to advise me on how I could best support the sector and how we could respond to that challenge. They unanimously put forward their task force report to me.

One of their asks was a decommissioning scheme to address the size of the fleet to make sure their boats were economic and viable. That was their request and all the fisheries organisations unanimously signed up to that. It is not a situation that any of us want to be in. I wish I could bring about a situation where we gather more quota and, as I said, I am trying to do that all of the time. All of us, both politically and the fishery representatives, know we have to deal with the situation as it currently stands and as we try to change it. As I have said, one of their recommendations was a decommissioning scheme. That is why I have come forward and followed through in relation to their request to me.

Deputy Michael Collins mentioned boats being tied up while foreign boats fish. The request was that I do a tie-up scheme. The task force asked me for that, that is, all of the fishing representatives I brought together. They asked for a one month tie-up scheme for 2022. They subsequently asked for a second month tie-up scheme to respond to the fuel challenge, which I addressed earlier on. The way a tie-up scheme works is that one out of every three boats ties up in any given month. It does not change the level of quota we have. We still fish our full quota. It is not that other countries are in fishing our national quota. Our national quota still gets fully fished but it means that instead of there being three boats out fishing the quota, there are two boats out fishing the same quota. One boat ties up at the pier side and that boat gets paid to tie-up at the pier side. It gets paid the equivalent of what it would have made if it had been out fishing. That means that the two boats that are still out fishing have in theory an extra 50% fish to catch to make their trips to sea more viable. That is how the tie-up works. One boat ties up and instead of three boats going to sea, two go to sea. They catch the same quota the three would have caught and, therefore, they are catching extra fish. It is about making them more economically viable. I was asked to do that. It is not that others are fishing our fish because the boats out fishing, which are not tied up, are catching the full quota. It is not that others are catching the fish and we are leaving the fish behind.

On the issue of the scad mackerel, Deputy Michael Collins asked for a reallocation between boats. That is always challenging and contested between various sectors of the fleet. Within the fleet everyone wants more quota. They want a reallocation of it that leaves individual boats with more quota so while they will always those be in favour of that, there will be as many against it.

As regards the EU negotiations for bluefin tuna, they are conducted by the European Commission with International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICAT. I do not negotiate directly with ICAT as that is something the European Commission does on behalf of all member states. It is something I have raised at Council meetings but because it is a fish we did not traditionally have, achieving a quota is very difficult. However, it is something that I continuously try to make progress on.

Deputy Michael Collins

Okay. I have just one other question. There is an energy rebate for ordinary households and businesses but the fishermen see no way forward for a rebate. Is that being considered because-----

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

So-----

Deputy Michael Collins

-----their energy bills are far more than most, to be quite honest?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The energy bills apply to the fishing industry but it is to gas and electricity. For the processing sector, for example, I made sure it was eligible for the schemes in place. In relation to fishing boats themselves, they use marine gas oil so the measure I have had in place for them has been that second month's tie-up scheme, which has delivered €12 million to support the sector through that. It is asking for additional support such as what is in place in France and Spain. It is different, although similar, from what I have put in place here but that is something I am revising and reconsidering.

Chairman

I call Deputy Martin Browne.

Deputy Martin Browne

I have a couple of quick questions. Under the coastal states structure and the blue whiting, the Atlanto-Scandian herring and the mackerel, the Minister said last year that Norway and the Faroe Islands had set unacceptably high unilateral quotas for mackerel 2021 and that he had concerns on that matter back then. He even called on the Commissioner to completely reject their unilateral and unsustainable actions. The Minister has more or less repeated this in his opening statement. What soundings is the Minister getting from Norway and the Faroe Islands on that?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The behaviour by members of the coastal states structure has been disgraceful, setting unilateral targets which in no way resemble the capacity of the stock to be fished. Some are setting massively high stocks, saying they are going to fish them and going off and trying to do that. They are not coming to an agreement, which is about sustainably managing the stock. For example, mackerel spawns off the south-west coast of Ireland, travels all the way north to Norway and then travels back. Therefore, it goes through lots of different member states' waters so they all have to come together to agree how it is fished, if it is to be fished sustainably. They all have to agree but they have not been agreeing. Some have been basically putting their arm in and trying to set their own total allowable catch, TAC. That is completely unacceptable and I have been very strong in calling it out as have other ministers in the EU. It is also completely unsustainable. I might ask Dr. Beamish to give a bit more of a flavour in terms of how the issue has been evolving and where it is at.

Deputy Martin Browne

Just before Dr. Beamish comes in, has the Commissioner taken any action in relation to that?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

He has made his views strongly on it too but Dr. Beamish will elaborate on that point.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

As the Minister said, mackerel is wide-ranging. It comes from the north coast of Spain, up to Norway, then to UK, Faroese, Icelandic and international waters and a little bit over to Greenland. A huge area is covered. We catch 24% of our mackerel in our own 200 mile zone and we catch the rest of it in UK waters, so we fish internationally. As the Minister said, it does a big migration from spawning in the south-west of Ireland up over all of those areas in a feeding migration. It hibernates in Norway at the bottom of the fjords in the middle of winter and then migrates back down again. It is fished all along the migration route.

To manage this, countries in whose waters this happens have a duty to co-operate under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, it is only a duty to seek to co-operate. We had an agreement governing mackerel between most of the parties from 2014 to 2020. Iceland was not a party to that but there was an amount set aside for Iceland, Greenland and Russia. That agreement came to an end in 2020 and coincided with the UK leaving the EU and no agreement has been capable of being put in place for the last couple of years. Norway then set a unilateral total allowable catch, TAC, increasing it by 55%. The Faroe Islands followed suit. The EU and UK stayed with their share of the advised global TAC. The result of all that is that the amount of fishing has substantially exceeded what is the scientifically advised amount of catch each year. The concern is that the stock will react to that and we will see a downturn in the stock this year. Our TAC is advised at minus 2% and if fishing remains at its current high levels, we are going to see much more significant reductions.

These are all sovereign countries, so they have to agree to a deal as sovereign parties. There is no mechanism to force a deal. The negotiations have started to try to get a new sharing arrangement in place. There was an initial round in Iceland and the next round happened last weekend in London. The EU is represented by the Commission which is supported by and works with the member states involved. Clearly Ireland is the largest stakeholder in terms of the EU.

What has happened is that Norway and the Faroe Islands have increased their share unilaterally and the UK is now an independent state. We are trying to hammer out an agreement between all those parties and to protect or even improve our share within that. Clearly failure to reach an agreement is not a good omen in terms of the future direction of the stock. On the other hand, the parties have to be willing to compromise in order to reach an agreement.

Clearly a failure to reach agreement is not a good omen in terms of the future direction of the stock. On the other hand, the parties have to be willing to compromise to reach an agreement. It is a process. There is another round set for a couple of weeks to see if an agreement can be reached this year and going into next year.

Deputy Martin Browne

Is there any indication that we are in any way near coming to an agreement with them?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

All the parties keep their own counsel. They go as far as they go around the negotiation and then they take it away and see. You do not know and cannot foresee. It is a negotiation. There are big stakes involved in terms of fisheries. The fisheries is probably worth about €1.5 billion collectively to all the parties on the basis of the current catch. It is a big resource and it is worth more downstream with processing. It is always the way with fisheries that straddle. The parties have to agree to sharing arrangements and then there is what the out-take should be. In recent years we agreed what the scientifically advised catch should be but we have no way of limiting the parties to taking what was their traditional share. It is a work in progress and is very complicated but it is in everyone's interest to try to find an agreement.

Deputy Martin Browne

The Minister said there is an improvement in the status of some fish stocks but that others remain a concern. There reasons why stocks have unknown status, including the short time series of the biological data, the connected input data and no catches or insignificant sampling data. Why is this? What measures are being taken to address this? Are figures available on the impact that any of the restrictions are having on the sector in Ireland?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

A very important process is under way to get to a stage where we are fishing all stocks at maximum sustainable yield and where we do not see them depleted and overfished and a situation where they cannot be fished or are disappearing. The science and its assessment of them is central to that. I will ask Dr. Kelly, our scientific expert in the Marine Institute, who knows a hell of a lot more than I do on this, to outline who leads out on this at national level and pulling together the Marine Institute's assessments.

Dr. Ciaran Kelly

On the resource assessments that feed into the figures in the sustainability assessment, the fish stocks, as the Minister said, are fished by multiple different countries and they are also assessed by multiple different countries. The information that leads into the assessment of a stock contains not only the Irish data from the Irish catches but also that from the French and Spanish and the UK, for that matter. In the case of the international stocks, it also contains the catch and survey data from other international parties such as Russia, Norway and Iceland. It is a large international collaborative effort that is used to do that assessment. One of the things that has impacted some, although not all, of the assessments in the past two years is Covid and the ability to be able to get sampling data from vessels. One of the factors was that we put in a mechanism to get the fishing industry to collaborate with us to do self sampling, and Ireland coped very well in this regard. They were bringing samples of the catches ashore so that we could biologically assess them but some other countries did not have that scheme in place and, therefore, the data became poorer during Covid. It was during the Covid period, when the data got poorer, that impacted the assessments that are now coming through. That is one reason some of the assessments have got poorer recently. That should be rectified in time. An international sampling agreement is in place in the EU called the data collection framework. All European countries participate in that. Everyone puts their shoulder to the wheel to collect the data and put it through into the assessment. That short-term situation around Covid should be ameliorated. In the longer term, there are always stocks for which there is simply insufficient information. These are stocks that are caught as a by-catch. The information on those is not good enough to do the assessments from which we give figures for maximum sustainable yield, MSY, for example. Those stocks are assessed and advice is given on the precautionary approach. Sometimes the MSY stocks status would be unknown but in relation to the precautionary approach, a precautionary advice would be given to manage those stocks.

Deputy Martin Browne

Last year, the Minister said that if tax was set in accordance with the single stock advice it would impact on 248 jobs, full time and part time. Now we are hearing about 400 jobs. Yet we also hear of an increase in sustainable fish stocks of 51%. We all appreciate the importance of sustainability. It is vital for the planet and for the industry into the future. Where is the pay-off for the fisheries sector? What are our projected job losses compared with all the countries? Who is faring well and who is losing out?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The economic and social impact assessment being put together at the moment is based on the scientific advice because we do not have the total allowable catch agreements at Commission level yet. The negotiations with the UK have not commenced yet. As Minister, my objective in how the process evolves is to ensure we get the best possible outcome and that we have a situation where the economic sustainability of our fishing sector is also considered for next year. We do the sustainability impact assessment to inform us and to have it fully discussed in advance and tease out its implications. Bord Iascaigh Mhara is central to putting that together. I will ask Mr. Rihan to comment on that.

Mr. Dominic Rihan

As Dr. Kelly said, on the economic side we do something similar to what is done on the biological stocks. We do an annual economic survey of the seafood sector and one indicator we look at is employment. Our survey looks back a year so it is retrospective and not forward looking. In the past few years, the employment situation has been remarkably stable. It is at 16,000-odd jobs. It has been at that level for the last couple of years. Other member states do similar economic surveys of their own. Again, it is a mixed picture. Some of the Baltic states which have had a very serious situation with cod stock have had a decline in the fishing industry. In the North Sea stocks have been relatively stable. Prior to this year and the current fuel crisis, countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium were in a fairly stable position. Spain and France have seen a decline in the past three to four years. That has also stabilised in the last couple of years, similar to our own position. It is a kind of mixed bag. It is not just Ireland which is feeling the pain and it is not just Ireland which is potentially impacted by the changes here. It is a mixed bag. What the projections will show next year in the context of the crisis we face now may show a completely different picture.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

These are paragraphs from a statement issued by Aodh O'Donnell, the chief executive of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation, IFPO:

Belgium has a 67k coastline, while the Irish coastline is 4400k, representing 12% of the EU waters. Yet Belgium’s fish processing sector had a turnover of €961m in 2019 compared to just €622m for Ireland,”he says, drawing figures from Eurostat. Germany has a coastline of 2389km, [that is substantially less than Ireland] yet in 2019 their fish processing sector turnover was €2,196m. [That is multiples of Ireland] Furthermore, over the last eight years, the Irish industry has fallen from 3rd highest in Europe to 10th place. The decommissioning scheme will reduce the whitefish fleet to a third of its 2006 size.

That is the scale of the scandal of allocation of resources to our own fleet in some of the richest fishing grounds in Europe. When one looks at the comparison in respect of coastline and the scale of the resources versus the return, and the devastating impact it is having, can you imagine the number of jobs that have been lost to coastal communities because of this repeated failure to get justice?

In the Minister’s presentation today, even the Hague preferences are not certain. I will proceed now with my questions.

In the second paragraph of his opening statement, the Minister stated, “In addition to the continuing fuel crisis”. At the outset, the Minister acknowledged the impact of the fuel crisis on our fleet, yet we are an outlier in Europe in respect of introducing an emergency fuel subsidy. Obviously, I will question the Minister in the Dáil Chamber on this point and we will have a more substantial interaction in a little while there, but I am completely shocked. I understood a number of days ago that there was an expectation in the industry that something would be announced given the scale of this. I was speaking to inshore fishermen from different parts around the coast again in recent days and this is a real crisis. The tie-up scheme is entirely separate. That is a Brexit adjustment reserve fund matter to compensate for the loss of quota and is an unrelated matter. We are talking here about the impact of the fuel crisis and the failure of our Government, an outlier in Europe, where resources are available and states are being actively encouraged by the European Commission to do something, and nothing is being done. I trust, now that the Minister has highlighted this issue in the second paragraph of his opening statement, that there will be action on that and perhaps we will receive a response to that in a moment. I have three questions and then afterwards I will have a final three questions to ask, with the leave of the Chairperson.

My second question is on the Common Fisheries Policy. The Minister proposed to extend our exclusive zone to 20 miles. Can the Minister give the committee an update as to why that has not been accepted and where it all stands at the moment? This is of particular importance to a number of sectors.

As I have said, I have a number of other questions to wrap up when I hear the Minister’s response, but my third question relates to the EU-UK consultations. On these, the Minister talks about the sequencing and the involvement of the industry, which I welcome. The Minister wants to get to the point where by the time there is a EU-UK approach to that, the input of the industry can be maximised into that, and getting the feedback based upon the scientific data. The one thing that is missing and that stand out like a sore thumb is Rockall. What has happened here is completely outrageous. As the Irish Government has stated, this is an uninhabited rock. You cannot put an exclusive limit around an uninhabited rock. I want to receive some assurance from the Minister today that in those negotiations, he will assert the traditional fishing rights of our industry. As the Minister knows, from Greencastle, Killybegs and down to Castletownbere, this has cost over €7 million per year. This is completely outrageous.

My criticism is that in the middle of this process of negotiations with the British Government, the Irish Government made something that had been unconstitutional constitutional by ratifying the 2013 agreement by way of incorporating it in the Maritime Jurisdiction Act That was a significant mistake because, as the Minister is aware from the Barlow Supreme Court judgment in regard to the voisinage agreement, while an agreement may have been made at government-to-government level, unless such an agreement is passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas, it does not have a constitutional footing. We allowed a situation where we confirmed in our law, in line with our Constitution, that by passing that Bill in the Oireachtas, we conceded that territory. Even though we did that, which was a huge mistake, we should still have access into those grounds under the justice of reciprocity. There can be no justification for Britain putting an exclusive zone around an uninhabited island. It has no basis for that under international law. It would be repudiated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, for example.

I want to know, therefore, what is happening in respect of Rockall and will it form a robust part of these negotiations when our Government engages with the British Government? I know that this is EU to British Government level, but will our Government insist that the EU asserts the right of our fishermen in that regard?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for his questions. First, on the size of our fishing or processing industry, as I outlined to Deputy Michael Collins earlier on, the percentages of each of the stocks were set in the Common Fisheries Policy and the allocation key back in the early 1980s. That position had remained constant since then until the impact of Brexit. If one looks at what we catch in our waters, in value terms, we catch €128 million of the fish caught in our waters. Non-Irish boats catch €254 million value of fish in our waters. We then catch €122 million worth of fish in non-Irish waters, that is, outside of Irish waters altogether. If one looks at what we catch between what we catch in Irish waters and what we catch outside of Irish waters, that is €250 million in total value in respect of what our fleet caught last year. Non-Irish boats caught €254 million worth of fish in Irish waters last year. That is €254 million versus our fleet total catch value of €250 million.

When one looks at it from a tonnage volume point of view as opposed to value, value-wise we catch approximately half the value of our waters. If one then looks at it in respect of the volume of tonnage, it is much more disjointed and imbalanced, primarily because of the impact of blue whiting, because 70% of the total volume of fish caught in our waters is blue whiting, that is, not looking at it from a value point of view.

Again, the challenge here goes back to the early 1980s and to what various countries were catching at that time. That percentage of the pie was set then. If one then looks at how that has evolved and if one takes Greencastle, for example, my own and the Deputy’s own port, this port will still catch as much fish now as it would have 20 or 30 plus years ago but there is a much smaller number of boats catching this fish. If one had walked the pier in Greencastle 20 to 30 years ago it would have been very busy with a great many smaller boats with many more people fishing from it, whereas now it is a smaller number of larger boats that are making the catch but a similar level of fish to what was being caught, compared to whenever the pier seemed a great deal busier because of the number of people who had been employed then and the size of the boats. The overall catch allocation and value has remained consistent, Brexit aside, and we in government and I have been consistently trying to ensure that the impact of Brexit, and in particular the fact that we are the country that is most impacted by that event, should be addressed at European level.

On the issue of the Hague preferences not being certain, that has been the case ever since the Hague preferences were put in place. These have to be agreed at each EU December meeting of the Council. This is often resisted but has always been applied and, likewise, it is something that I will seek to ensure happens again.

On the question of Ireland being an outlier in respect of an emergency fuel subsidy, as I explained in detail earlier on, the sea-fisheries task force report recommended a one-month tie-up for every boat for this year. As the Deputy knows, the seafood task force I put together had all of the fishing representatives involved. That is what their report asked for, that is, one month for 2022.

After the invasion of Ukraine and the impact on fuel, the fishing representatives sought to meet with me again and asked for a second month’s tie-up scheme specifically to address the fuel challenges there because of that new impact. That second month has delivered €12 million into the sector and is similar to the investment that would have been made by France or Spain into its fuel subsidies. I have never ruled out the fact that I would step in to take further action and I have been monitoring the situation very closely.

The funding in the EMFF is still there. It is earmarked for other purposes but I can still step in and spend that now. It is an investment into the sector and will be for other things within the sector. However, Europe has allowed for the facility to spend that now as a cash payment to support the fleet.

We had hoped that the fuel situation would be more short lived and that it would dissipate. Over the last few weeks, it had come down somewhat, but it has spiked again. We have seen that. I am reassessing the situation and I am also very much bearing in mind that the tie-up scheme, which has been in place since June, is due to run out at the end of November. I am considering that and I am looking at it afresh.

We have responded to it, to be fair. That has been clear. It was a response that was sought from me by the fishing representatives, and I responded to that promptly. That often does not get mentioned in the discussion. Deputy Mac Lochlainn never mentions it and he disputes it as well, but that is the position. The funding that was invested through that has been similar to what France and Spain have done, for example.

In terms of the 20 mile review, at the moment, under the Common Fisheries Policy, which was established in the early 1980s, we have exclusive access to our 10 mile zone. Other countries, depending on historical fishing activity, have had some access in some parts to our 10 mile to 20 mile zone. I saw it as part of the Common Fisheries Policy review access arrangements to gain complete access and control of our 20 mile zone. That is something that I pushed hard for at European level. I travelled specifically to Paris to meet with the French Minister for the marine, Annick Girardin, to press this. I met with many other member states at EU level as well. However, I was the only fishing Minister in Europe who was seeking to change that. There was not support from any other Minister who was seeking to access arrangements anywhere. I was seeking to change that. As with most things at European Council level, it requires a qualified majority vote to bring about change. That was not achieved, and I voted against the proposal to move on without delivering that. That then went to the EU Parliament, where it was discussed because all three of the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament have to agree on the approach. The renewal of the access arrangements under the Common Fisheries Policy has to be completed by the end of this year because if it is not agreed by the end of this year, the default position would be that every member state would have access to the shoreline of every other member state. Therefore, it had to be dealt with by the end of the year. I sought as part of that to try to push ours out a bit further, but that was not successful. At a European Parliament level, there was not the support to qualify for majority support there for it, either. The outcome of that is that it will be reviewed in three or four years’ time, but it is to be renewed now before the end of this year.

In relation to Rockall, as the Deputy knows, Rockall has always been in British waters, but we dispute the right of Britain to an exclusive 10 mile zone around Rockall. The right to a zone is defined under international law, but we have recognised their right to any 10 mile zone around it or their right to any sovereignty of the rock of Rockall. However, it has always been in British waters. That agreement to which the Deputy referred in 2013 did not change that. Rockall was always in British waters even prior to that. The dispute that we have with them, and what we have totally dispute, is that they have any right to that exclusive, 10 mile access zone around Rockall. We have never agreed to that, and we still hold that position strongly.

What happened when Britain left the European Union is that Rockall is now part of British waters and not part of European waters, while it was all part of European waters previously. British waters, our waters and all other waters were European waters. Now there are European waters and British waters. Because Rockall is and always was located in British waters, it is now within its water. There is now a licencing arrangement under the Brexit agreement for European boats, including Irish boats, to be able to access British waters. That has made the situation more challenging, but we continue to hold a position that there should not be any 10 mile zone. We are continuing to engage to try to achieve diplomatic progress in relation to that and to assert our historical fishing rights in that area, which is an important fishing ground for boats from Greencastle and from Donegal in particular. Boats from the south-west coast go to fish there too.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I will not speak further about Rockall. It has been two and a half years and almost three years. It is an outrageous position that the British Government is taking, and I would ask that it would be dealt with. It has to be on the agenda as part of these negotiations. It is extreme bad faith.

The next number of questions will address the part of the Minister’s presentation that dealt with the coastal states, as well as the difficulty with the non-coastal states. I particularly refer to this issue around Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. The approach that they have taken unilaterally in defiance of the science that we all have to operate within is outrageous. The concerns are in terms of this 2% reduction in macro. There are the law abiders who are saying that there would need to be a 2% reduction based on the science. This is happening in the context of the behaviour by the Norwegians, the Faroese and the Icelandic. Iceland has built up a huge fishing industry that was not there before. I want to get a sense of how this has been allowed to continue. There is a fear that some of the corporations that have invested in these fishing opportunities and companies have too much of an influence at European Commission level. Some of them are based in the European member states. How can the Minister stand over asking Irish fisherman to play by the rules as they are based in science - which is fair enough and as he says in his presentation that is what they want to do - while on the other hand tolerating the situation with the Norwegians, Faroese and Icelandic? This is backed by huge investment from corporations, some of which are based in the European member states and some of which are availing of quota under the Common Fisheries Policy. Can the Minister make more comments on that?

My final couple of questions relate to the issue of the Hague references. We asked for what was called burden sharing, and some of the fishing organisations have recently spoken about levelling up, rather than burden sharing. The Minister might have heard that terminology in his engagement. This is about a fair share of the impact that comes from Brexit. That just cannot go away. The Minister has provided information on landings. Whatever way he presents the issue of what percentage of the fish we get from our own EEZ, whether this is value versus tonnage and that debate will go on, the fact is that if one looks at the wealth of our seafood sector, which is indisputable, we have gone down the league table. We have less of a value of a country like Belgium, which has a fraction of our coastline. We have a fraction of the wealth of the German seafood sector, even though we have a much bigger coastline. That cannot be stood over. We can debate back and forth on this.

I thank the Chair for his forbearance, my point is that this is a profound injustice. We are seeing our seafood sector decline. We are seeing the loss of thousands of potential jobs in coastal community. I just do not get a sense of anger towards this injustice at an Irish Government level. That is just the sense that is there.

The Minister has said he pushed for extending the 12 miles to 20 miles and that he was the only voice in there. At some point there has to be some challenge to the injustice of this. How is this based on environmental best standards when we have huge corporations investing in member states' quota and being rewarded while our own fleet is decommissioned to one third of what it was in 2006? I want to get a sense of the outrage of what is happening here and how it could be in line with the more admirable principles of the European Union. The stated principles are certainly admirable but the actions do not follow. I see corporations being rewarded that are investing in multiple member states. Anti-environmental practices are being rewarded. It is very hard to ask Irish fishing communities to step up when they do not see the same rules being applied either within the European member states or outside. We are partners with Norway, Faroe Islands and Iceland. These are strategic partners and we are tolerating this type of behaviour and abuse. I just do not feel the outrage about it.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

It is not tolerable and it is not being tolerated. It must change. Just being outraged does not change it. We have to work hard to change it. It speaks to how complicated and challenging it is to get agreement at international level on how fisheries are managed. If people do not come together and agree on managing fisheries sustainably there is only one inevitable result, which is the fishery disappearing over time. It is not sustainable, nor is it tolerable. We need to see it change. Every effort I can make and every effort the European Union and the Commission can make will be crucial in doing that. Negotiations are ongoing at the moment.

On the management of our fisheries, within the European Union there is a consistent policy in respect of rules and so on. That is what the December Fisheries Council meeting is about. In the absence of the UK it is what the negotiations with the UK are about. A lot of it happens now at UK level in that regard because we share a lot of stocks. On the stocks we share, we come to a Common Position on how they are going to be managed for the year ahead. Did the Deputy have another point?

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I think that covers it. I was going to make a final point about offshore wind. The Minister has talked about Brexit, the issue of quotas and the issue of the fuel subsidy. We agree that offshore wind has a very important role to play in our responsibilities as a State. We need to make sure the fishing communities are consulted. I have seen some really strong contributions in recent days about looking at floating turbines that are further out and are not on the fishing grounds. I want to put the request on the record that this be considered as part of the Minister's deliberations. The Minister does not need to respond, he has been more than good.

Senator Tim Lombard

I thank the Minister for his very competent responses and his presentation this afternoon. Regarding where we are going with the Faroe Islands, Norway and Iceland, regarding the mackerel quota, the Minister mentioned that there was a 2% reduction in the stocks. According to the papers, the negotiations on this issue have not been very fruitful. If there was a continuation of fishing at 55% above where the science is, where does the Minister predict the stocks will be in a few years? How bad will the issue get and what impact will it have on the entire industry in Ireland? It is worth a considerable amount of money in the south west and in other parts of the country. Where are we going to end up in a few years if this continues?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I will ask Ciaran Kelly of the Marine Institute to give his perspective on that.

Dr. Ciaran Kelly

The situation with mackerel is that because there is not an international agreement, the catches are above the advice from ICES in respect of a sustainable level of catch. It means the fishing pressure on that stock is above what is sustainable in the long term. The outcome is very clear over the long term. It will reduce the productivity of the stock. The stock will ultimately decrease and ultimately will become at risk of having reduced productivity. At the moment there has been luck. The advice that ICES gives is based on productivity on average over a period. Recruitment in mackerel has been relatively good for a relatively prolonged period. We are living in a period of luck by taking those high catches at the moment. If we run out of that luck, sooner or later those levels of catches will decrease the stock size.

Senator Tim Lombard

I am trying to work out whether the 2% applies to this year or last year. We are talking about the same percentage, I assume, in the coming year. That would be the continuous spectrum of decreasing the stock. Would that be fair to say?

Dr. Ciaran Kelly

At the moment the ICES advice is for a decrease in catches of 2%. They advised a similar level of catch in the previous year. That level is based on an average harvest rate applied to the state of the stock including the incoming year classes or recruitment that comes in. It is a calculation exercise that is done looking backwards. The stock is still relatively high at the moment and in a good state. The levels of catch are being maintained by the high levels of recruitment that we have. If the recruitment coming into the stock were to decrease back to what the scientists would say we should expect on average, the stock will decrease more rapidly. At the moment there is only a small decrease in the stock.

Senator Tim Lombard

From the Minister's point of view, these states are outside the European circle in many ways. We are dealing with sovereign nations, as the Minister previously stated. We do not have any real power in trying to enforce powers on Iceland, the Faroe Islands or Norway. How confident is the Minister that we can have an agreement on this? We are helpless.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

It is very challenging. The capacity to force an outcome is limited. It does require people to engage and agree. Whenever we are involved in international negotiations, that is what is required. As Dr. Kelly said, if people do not agree and if everybody does not take a responsible approach, the result is inevitable and nobody wins. There is a saying that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. The stock would be reduced. I hope we can come to a successful outcome. It is important the European Union takes a very hard line, maintains its position and gets a fair outcome. It is not acceptable that we would be ones taking the pain to have an overall sustainable situation. Everybody has to step up and it has to be fair. Everybody has to play their part proportionately. All we can do is keep pushing to try to get a good outcome.

Senator Tim Lombard

Regarding the tie-up scheme, it has been quite successful and the feedback in my part of the world has been positive. The extension into a second month was welcomed. What are the plans for that scheme going forward? It has been an important part of the industry for the past eight or nine months. The Minister mentioned the fuel issue and how he intervened in the second month in that regard. The fuel issue has not gone away. Are there plans to consider the scheme going forward? What would the timeline be for that announcement?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The fishers themselves had asked for those schemes. Almost all of them have availed of it in the whitefish sector. As the Senator says, they have found it to have made a positive contribution. It has made fishing and going to sea more economically viable because it has made more quota available to those who are at sea while those who are tied up for one month are able to avail of an income from the tie-up funding. The sector's representatives are asking for a further tie-up scheme for the start of next year.

That request has come forward in recent times and it is something I will consider.

The rationale and logic behind the tie-up scheme has been as an interim measure pending the decommissioning scheme. The objective behind the proposal for the decommissioning scheme is to ensure the boats that fish are viable and make a good income. The way the decommissioning scheme works is such that if boats decide not to continue, the quota they would have fished is redistributed among the remaining boats. The quota is still fished, therefore, but fewer boats fish it. I raised the example earlier of Greencastle, near my home village, where the number of fish being caught is similar to what it would have been 20 or 30 years ago, but the number of boats catching it is a lot lower and the number of fishers who work on catching it is lower because the capacity catch is much higher. It is no different from my experience growing up on a farm, or from that of the Senator, I am sure, where the machinery was much smaller, and the man hours much longer, to do the same work.

What I and the industry want is a greater quota to make our ports even more viable. That is a fight and a battle with which we will continue but, as I said, that has not changed since the early 1980s, when the percentage carve-up was decided based on the fishing activity of member states at the time. While we will continue to fight that battle at European level, the proposal is in place in regard to the decommissioning scheme to ensure that the boats that fish will have a quota that makes it economically viable to do so. Once the decommissioning scheme comes into place, the idea is that the need for the tie-up scheme will be removed because the boats that fish will have a greater quota to fish.

Senator Tim Lombard

I might just follow through on the Minister's logic for a moment. His statement about additional months to help with the fuel was positive. If there is not the tie-up scheme and there is the issue with fuel, he is stuck in a scenario whereby he can do something with the tie-up scheme or with the fuel, given he introduced the tie-up scheme competently into the marketplace. What other intervention does he propose if he is to eliminate the tie-up scheme?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I used the tie-up scheme as a means of delivering finance to the sector to help address the fuel scheme, whereas other member states, such as France and Spain, used money from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF. I have used fresh funding to avoid having to use that EMFF funding, so that is still an option and it is the option I have been keeping under consideration. The tie-up scheme is due to run out at the end of November. Obviously, we hoped fuel would have come down in price by now but that has not been the case, so I am assessing the situation to see what assistance is required.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Many of my questions have been dealt with. The document the Minister submitted to the committee was interesting because of the lack of detail and specifics, whereas much more useful detail has been revealed during the discussion. On the coastal states aspect, he stated, “We continue to oppose the setting of unacceptably high unilateral quotas for mackerel by a number of third countries [which we have been discussing here].” He went on to state, “If this unacceptable behaviour is continued in 2023 by these countries, the EU must work together and use all available tools to ensure real and effective consequences for such behaviour.” What are the available tools to ensure real and effective consequences?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The EU and those states have many trade inter-relationships. Norway is part of the European Economic Area, EEA, and has access to the European markets. It has relationships with the EU outside of mackerel and, therefore, that wider political discussion leaves open possibilities. The UK is also a party in this regard. It is now outside the EU and it is a large mackerel-fishing nation as well. The EU and the UK are aligned in their position in trying to reach an agreement. This is a political issue and perhaps I should not speak further on it. The 2014 agreement took about three years to be reached. These issues are not quick or easy. As Dr. Kelly said, everybody has been lucky with the degree of recruitment into mackerel but that could change. That has at least afforded some time.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Regarding the 2014 agreement, what effective consequences were imposed by the EU or were there any?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

That agreement was reached after a long process of negotiation that gradually moved towards it. At that time-----

Deputy Thomas Pringle

There were no consequences, basically.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

At that time, the stock was moving north and west into the Icelandic waters. A significant portion was set aside for Iceland at that time and that helped us reach an agreement, but the stock has been retreating from Icelandic waters in recent years. It is increasingly being fished in international waters and Iceland’s position is weaker. That is one of the areas for the EU to focus on.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

It went on for three years without any additional effective consequences for the behaviour. We are facing into the same issue again.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

As one of the members said earlier, these are all sovereign nations and agreement has to be reached. There is no easy mechanism.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The EU is supposedly a confederation of sovereign nations, of which we are supposedly a part, and it supposedly has real and effective consequences it can impose on other sovereign nations for non-compliance or a non-willingness to deal with the issue. In reality, however, it does not do anything. Can Dr. Beamish point to anything the EU has done in respect of other trade agreements with Norway, the Faroe Islands or Iceland that put pressure on them to deal with this?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

A lot of detail of what goes on in negotiations would not be shared-----

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Dr. Beamish cannot do so.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

In other areas, when we previously had a problem with Norway in regard to salmon farming and the below-cost selling of salmon, the EU took anti-dumping measures, working closely with Ireland at the time, against Norway, which brought an end to that practice.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The EU did not do anything in respect of mackerel.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Not on all those different issues.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

We are an equal part of a European Union that is negotiating in respect of these matters and we are not getting anywhere. Surely the strength of the European Union is in trade and so on and it can be used as leverage to ensure countries comply with the agreements, but it is clear that is not happening and it is probably not going to happen.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Is the Deputy referring to trade sanctions and so on?

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Yes. Why not? Surely that is what this is about and that is what we should achieve. I contend that this is not done probably because ours is the only country that is affected by this, and I wonder to what extent we get a hearing on fishing issues at a European level whereby we can raise the importance of them. This is a very important issue for us and for the entire mackerel stock, as was outlined by Dr. Kelly. In terms of environmental issues and economic issues for the west coast, for example, there are significant implications but, in the overall scheme of things, it does not have big implications as far as Europe is concerned.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Mackerel constitutes a very significant stock, including for France, for example. I assure the Deputy that at European level, including at Council level, it is an issue on which we put a lot of emphasis. The challenge is that these are sovereign nations and they are required to come together and agree, and that can be difficult.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Is the Minister referring to EU nations?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

No, the coastal states such as the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway.

It does speak to the challenges in relation to fisheries management and how difficult it can be. It is something that we and the Commission take very seriously.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

It should also be noted that the other member states have not taken a responsible position in relation to the management of fisheries. Something that has been going on-----

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Is that EU member states?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

No, other coastal member states, not EU member states. As we discussed in detail today, a responsible approach is being taken within the EU, which includes moving to maximum sustainable yield, managing fisheries well and the control around that, which is important. That will ensure we have sustainable fisheries into the future. That is what is happening at the EU level. Unfortunately, we are not necessarily seeing the same responsible approach being taken by some other members and other countries outside of the EU in relation to the stock.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

We are also not seeing the willingness of the EU to enforce it with other nations as well.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The Deputy is suggesting that we introduce full-blown trade sanctions in relation to this one issue. Obviously, that is a tool which the EU would have at its disposal, but it would be a big decision to make to do that.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

It is not going to do that.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

We want and need a responsible approach by all parties to the issue in the engagement and negotiation. It is something that the European Commission is taking very seriously. Certainly, it is something that I am raising, along with other member states, ardently at Council meetings in trying to a successful outcome

Deputy Thomas Pringle

So, there are no real effective consequences for the behaviour. There is nothing that is going to force it to happen.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

In terms of how countries engage with one another and come to agreements, there are different engagements happening at different times. If countries are not engaging in a fair way with others, then that has repercussions. It is important that the issue continues to get the priority that it has been getting in the approach that the EU has taken. Ultimately, there are a number of players involved in it that need to agree. The EU is working closely with the UK on the issue, and is taking a similar approach in relation to the other countries involved. Hopefully, we can get a positive outcome.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Up to now, basically there have not been any repercussions for it, except----

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

What has been in place for the last two years is not sustainable.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Regardless of that, up to this-----

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

As I outlined before, it took two or three years to actually reach an agreement on the previous occasion.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Up to now, there has been no effective reason for it, except they have caught extra quota, and that has been factored in. There has not been any comeback for them in relation to that.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

What we need is an outcome which respects the historic fishing patterns of the various participants in the industry.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Definitely.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

That is what we want to achieve.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

What is the EU willing to do to ensure that happens?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I will certainly listen to any suggestions the Deputy has. It is a challenge.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

They are plundering the resources of people who they are doing trade with.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

It takes a number of countries to come together. There are a number of sovereign actors in the negotiations, which makes it very difficult.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The EU is the main negotiator in this and it has not been willing to-----

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

There are others as well.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The Minister said there are real and effective consequences, but the EU has not been willing to use any of the tools at its disposal. I will move on.

The Minister also mentioned the Common Fisheries Policy review group in his submission. Perhaps it is my own fault and I should have been aware of it, but when I looked at the report I noted for the first time that the actual Common Fisheries Policy is not up for review this year. I think it is the first time there has not been a review of the policy. I wonder why that is the case, and why the European Commission has not done that. In saying that, we are looking for a review of the Hague principles as part of the recommendations here. Surely that opens up a very dangerous avenue for us. If the EU opens up those negotiations on the Hague principles, it is time for the review. There has to be a quid pro quo in relation to it. We cannot say that we do not want to do this now. We cannot just turn round and say that we have made our submission to the Commission, which sets out what we are looking for. If the Commission states it will negotiate on that, what happens?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

We obviously want to improve our position. That is our objective. I have been asserting that at various European Council meetings. The Deputy is right; there is not an appetite among the Commissioner and many other member states for a full review. In fact, I have been the only one really pushing hard for that. Indeed, I took a very hard line in relation to the access arrangements as well, which were discussed over the last number of months, as I outlined earlier. Brexit has had the single biggest sideways impact on the relative stability since it was put in place in the early 1980s. We sought to avoid any impact in the first place, but throughout the Brexit negotiations and afterwards our position was that if there was to be any impact as a result of it, there should be fair burden sharing. That is something that member states were generally agreed on in principle. It is something that was agreed by industry representatives as well, including fishing industry representatives here in Ireland, who worked with their counterparts. Of course, everyone worked closely together. I worked closely with our fishing industry representatives and other member states in determining how to tackle the Brexit challenge. The other member states likewise worked with their industry colleagues across Europe as well. There was a general perspective that there should be fair burden sharing coming out of Brexit, if a burden was to be applied.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Did that happen?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

That is not what happened in the negotiations. It has not happened yet. It is something that I strongly believe should happen. That is my view. However, as the Deputy is aware, it is subject to getting sufficient support to be able to bring about the change. That is absolutely my objective and mission here.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Does the Minister think it is a coincidence that after Brexit it was decided not to have a review of the Common Fisheries Policy?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Out of all the member states, we are the one looking to change and bring about this perspective.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The review of the Common Fisheries Policy was there already anyway. It had happened on a number of occasions.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The challenge here is that it is like everything. In advance of an event, people are agreeable to something being shared equally, but once there is an outcome and it has different impacts on different people, it is much more difficult to get agreement on how that should be addressed. It is very hard to find fishers in other member states who are of the view that they should give up some of their fish in the same way as we always want more fish, and our fishers want more fish. That is the challenge. That is why there has not been any change in 40 years to the allocation key in the relative stability that was established back in the early 1980s. Everybody defends ardently what they have. Everybody will always be looking for more, even those who we feel have a lot more than we have. It is our job to be ardent in trying to improve our position and trying to ensure we get fair play. That is my objective in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy review. I brought the fishing representatives together to advise on how we go about doing that and to fully assess the strategy that can best achieve that. I will be taking that approach.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Is the Minister saying that the review document that has been produced has been agreed with the fishermen, the fishing industry and the Minister?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Yes.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Does the Minister think that represents a good ambition for the fishing industry?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I am new to this role in the last two or three years. There are fishing representatives whose livelihood this is and who have years of expertise. There are fishing representatives who have been in the industry for 30 or 40 years. I brought everybody together to assess what is the best possible strategy and the strongest possible leverage that we can bring to the table. I felt that was the way to ensure we most strongly assert our national position. Having brought all of our key influencers, thinkers, representatives of our fishing sector and our fishers across the country together, that is the approach and strategy that we are going to adopt and which I will be following.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of our fishing industry.

It is ironic to think that it was the English who taught us the value of our fishing around our coast back in the 1600s. In the early 1970s, a fisherman with an average size fishing boat was deemed to be as well off as a person who owned a farm and it is ironic to think that we have lost most of that. We all can picture in our minds the fishing fleet that came up the River Liffey and the display they gave across the way from the convention centre, and the organised way they made their request clear to us and to the Minister who was present on that day. It is sad to think that nothing has improved except decommissioning. The Government has failed the Irish fishing industry. In fact, previous Governments have completely and utterly failed the fishing communities in coastal communities.

Behind every boat and vessel was a shop, butcher shop, local restaurant or whatever which all depended on those vessels and their catches. The spin-off is so important and vital as well as the income for fishermen. The current situation adversely affects coastal communities on the periphery of the Atlantic Ocean. We have so many miles and grand places but I will only talk about places in County Kerry. There are places such as Dingle, Portmagee, Sneem, the Oysterbed Pier, Blackwater, Kilmackillogue, Glounaguillagh, Tuosist and all the way back to Castletownbere. A lot of fishermen in Kerry use the facilities at Castletownbere.

I liken decomissioning to the eco schemes being offered to farmers to get them out of farming. I hate the word "decommissioning" because I know that once someone decommissions and gets out of an industry then that livelihood is lost and many more livelihoods are lost within the community.

I have listened to what the Minister said about the tie-up policy. He repeatedly said in his presentation that there is a fund in Europe that has not been touched yet. I ask the Minister and the Government to go after that fund. I do not know what they are waiting for because there is a risk that boats and fishing fleets will go out of business with the cost of fuel and everything and, therefore, we need to use that fund now.

I welcome the 81% increase in the TAC for blue whiting but it will only benefit 23 vessels out of the total fleet around the country. I ask the Minister to revise the policy so others may benefit from this allowance and mackerel fishery as well in order to get a fair share of this national fishery.

I have heard complaints that mackerel is very scarce from Kenmare, out the Kenmare river and out to the mouth of Kenmare Bay. Who knows anything about that and why is that the case? I have also got complaints of massive trawlers coming in at different times and sweeping up everything. No-one knows who they are but they have cleaned out every type of fish. I have heard that complaint on the side of the county which I represent. Who knows about that and is the Minister aware of the situation? I ask because the issue is very serious. In the past there were people who fished along the bay but caught so much mackerel, even though they caught them a good few miles away, they gave them to the people inside in the bar or on the street. Those fishermen are not be to found at all this year whatever has happened. I have been asked several times to find out what is the reason for the changed situation.

It is late at night but I am very interested in discussing Brexit. I do know that we did not do well out of the Brexit talks and it seems that the French gained. I do not know whether we had adequate personnel at negotiations to fight the case for us. I have been told by fishermen that in their hearts they believe that we lost the battle because we did not put up a reasonable and fair fight which is a shame. These fishermen and our fishing industry have always been an integral part of coastal communities. The farmer or the farmer's son or family went fishing in order to keep food on the table and we will lose many of these people with the way the thing is going. Can the Minister do anything more than what has been done?

Long ago my father had a Ferguson tractor that he used to bring a load of rushes of all things into the village of Kilgarvan. On one occasion a farmer wanted him to drive in between two houses but a load of rushes fell against the gable of the house and the man who had ordered him to come with the load of stuff asked him could he do any better. To which my father replied, "Sure I am doing my best" and the farmer said that his best was not good enough. I say to the Minister that his best so far has not been good enough. Therefore, I ask him to do better and not allow the entire fishing fleet to disintegrate.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Anything and everything that can be done to support the sector is being done. That is fighting and battling at European level and, indeed, working with the sector domestically to support it as well.

In terms of the fund at European level, that funding is earmarked for other things in the fishing sector but it can be turned into immediate liquidity. As I outlined earlier, I have a scheme in place for the whitefish sector, which ran from June until the end of November. I am assessing the associated challenges and pressures. If one draws down the funding then that means drawing funding which had been earmarked for other purposes and can go to other purposes in the fishing sector for immediate support now so it is means there is no funding for something else. That is a decision one must give strong consideration to before doing so.

Overall, fishers in the sector are really important to coastal communities and are really important for the coastal community in which I live. We must ensure that that situation continues and that is certainly my objective. If the Deputy has any proposals, policies or suggestions on ways to continue to support fishers then I am all ears. My approach has been to work with those who know and understand the industry best to develop shared and common strategies as to how we put our strongest effort forward to better the industry and support it.

I will continue to do that.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I have a question about the mackerel. Is there any explanation for why our stocks seem to be nil this year along the Kenmare River?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I will ask Dr. Kelly to come in on that.

Dr. Ciaran Kelly

One of the things about mackerel is that it is widely distributed. It is distributed all the way from the coast of Portugal right the way up to the coast of Norway. The Marine Institute has looked at this. A great scientist, Mr. John Molloy, was one of the people who looked back into the historical period, for example, the 1800s, when we saw see the exact same patterns of mackerel appearing and subsequently disappearing, particularly in the coastal area, which was a mystery at that point. Those are what we call juvenile mackerel, which are small and immature. Their distribution varies. They do not just live in a place like we do on a farm or in a house; they follow food. If there is little enough food available for them, depending on what they are hunting, they move into a different area. The distribution of mackerel the Deputy sees around the coast is just based on the distribution of food the mackerel are hunting. That is why they are there sometimes and not there other times. That can happen from one year to the next. Just because juvenile mackerel are not present in a bay in one particular year does not mean they are gone from the stock or gone from the bay. They are just gone from that bay for that year because they are in another bay.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

The Minister might comment briefly on the big trawlers that are cleaning out everything.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

A decision was taken and a process put in place approximately three or four years ago by my predecessor, Deputy Creed, with regard to preventing large trawlers from operating inside the six-mile zone. That was challenged in court. The court initially put a stay on preventing those boats coming within six miles but removed that stay in a decision a number of months ago. We are awaiting the final judgment and decision of the court in that regard. The objective behind the decision was to prevent large trawlers coming in and particularly targeting sprat inside the six-mile zone, which is an important feeder fish for other fish that feed off them. At the moment, however, it remains in the courts. Once I receive the final judgment, I will consider that.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I thank the Minister.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and his officials for participating in today's meeting. The next meeting of this committee will take place tomorrow evening at 5.30 p.m. when we will have three issues to deal with, namely, flooding at Lough Funshinagh, a presentation on the vision for the future of Irish farming by Macra na Feirme and resumed pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the veterinary medicinal products, medicated feed and fertilisers regulation Bill 2022.

The joint committee adjourned at 9.14 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 October 2022.