Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 2023

Pre-Agriculture and Fisheries Council: Discussion

Deputy Mac Lochlainn is substituting for Deputy Kerrane for the first session of the meeting. I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones.

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 a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse that 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 giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside 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 the committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts and any attempt to do so will result in the member having his or her online access removed.

The purpose of the first session is to discuss a pre-Agriculture and Fisheries Council engagement. In the first session of the committee, we will hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue. The Minister is accompanied by the following officials from his Department: Ms Sinéad McSherry, assistant secretary general, and Ms Anna O'Sullivan, principal officer. He is also accompanied by Mr. Dominic Rihan, director of economic and strategic services at Bord Iascaigh Mhara, and Mr. Ciaran Kelly, director of fisheries ecosystems advisory services at the Marine Institute. They are all very welcome to the meeting.

The Minister's opening statement has been circulated to members. He would normally have around five minutes to read it but I think it would be beneficial to members if he goes through the full statement.

I thank members for opportunity to present the sustainability impact assessment of fishing opportunities for 2024 to this committee. I am joined by Mr. Dominic Rihan from Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, Ms Sinéad McSherry, assistant secretary, Ms Anna O'Sullivan, principal officer, and Mr. Ciaran Kelly from the Marine Institute.

The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union has led to significant changes to the processes involved in setting total allowable catches, or TACs, for the majority of our commercial stocks.

Approximately 40 of Ireland's fish stocks, which were previously exclusively EU resources, are now shared resources, most shared with the UK. The Commission has sole competence to negotiate with third countries on behalf of the EU on the setting of fishing opportunities for shared stocks, and that now includes the UK. The bilateral negotiations between the Commission on behalf of the EU and the UK began yesterday in London, and I will go into more detail on those consultations in a moment. The online opening plenary session for those negotiations was held this morning. Member state officials and stakeholders, including Irish stakeholders, were able to attend virtually and hear the opening statements by the UK and the Commission negotiators.

Based on the experience of the past years post Brexit, and the subsequent changes in the procedures for setting fishing opportunities for the EU, I again decided to commence this sustainability impact assessment process at the start of September. This sustainability impact assessment is an essential step in Ireland's preparation for the total allowable catch setting process, and I wanted to have the process completed in time for the EU-UK negotiations. The benefits of carrying out the process at this stage is that it allows for input from stakeholders, analysis by BIM and the Marine Institute and the views of the Oireachtas in time for the start of the TAC setting process. I decided to again use the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, scientific advice as the basis for this year's sustainability impact assessment, ICES being responsible for the scientific advice internationally with regard to the health of fish stocks. That ICES advice forms the basis of the scientific advice used by the European Commission and, therefore, the advice for the relevant stocks provides suitable guidance for the TAC figures which would normally be proposed by the Commission. This allowed for a meaningful public consultation and realistic engagement with our stakeholders. It also allowed for the Marine Institute and BIM to produce the biological and socio-economic assessments.

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. My Department, along with BIM, continues to work together with fishers to adapt and to develop the most selective and sustainable fishing methods. The continued efforts and commitment of our fishers in this matter have been very important. Progress is being achieved in respect of the sustainability of the fish stocks. For 2023, 39 stocks of interest to Ireland are fished at or below the maximum sustainable yield. Fishing at maximum sustainable yield, MSY, is the largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. In 2013 only 20 stocks were fished at this sustainable level. The number of stocks fished above MSY is 17 in 2023, and this move towards sustainability is improving over time. 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 will now touch on the EU-UK consultations. As I mentioned earlier, the bilateral consultations with the UK for next year for shared stocks began yesterday. The sustainability impact assessment process and the committee's input today will help to develop Ireland's position during these upcoming negotiations. The negotiations will be led by the European Commission, and my team and I 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 and decided at the fisheries council on 11 and 12 December and to feed into the total allowable catch and quota regulation for 2024. I will be insisting that the Hague preferences are applied at the December council for the relevant fish stocks. If an EU-UK agreement is not secured, a contingency plan is in place to ensure that fishing can continue at the start of next year. Under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, in the event that agreement with the UK cannot be reached by 20 December, each party may set provisional total allowable catches applying from 1 January at the level advised by ICES. In previous years, the Commission developed a plan for provisional TACs for the first three months of the year. That saw TACs for most stocks set at 25% of the previous year's total allowable catch level, with the full total allowable catch applied for coastal state stocks such as mackerel and blue whiting. While this situation is not ideal, if needed, it provides certainty and continuity for our fishing industry in the new year.

With regard to coastal states, management arrangements for three migratory species in the north-east Atlantic in which Ireland has an interest, namely blue whiting, Atlanto-Scandian herring and mackerel, 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 which have normally had a track record in fishing them. The annual coastal states negotiations for 2024 took place in London earlier in October. The coastal states agreed on setting the TAC for mackerel at 739,000 tonnes, in line with the ICES advice. The ICES advice is based on the MSY and represents a reduction of 5% compared with the 2023 TAC. The TAC for blue whiting was set at 1,529,000 tonnes, again in line with ICES advice. This is a 12.5% increase on last year. Agreement was reached on the setting of the TAC for Atlanto-Scandian herring at 390,000 tonnes. This is a 24% decrease on last year. The EU and Ireland have a relatively small share of this stock. There are currently no international sharing arrangements in place for these three coastal state stocks. Discussions among the coastal state parties on new sharing arrangements continued throughout 2023. I have been clear on the need to agree on sharing arrangements that respect the EU's and, in turn, Ireland's proper share of the global TAC for these stocks. We continue to oppose the setting of unacceptably high unilateral quotas for mackerel by a number of third countries. I have articulated our serious concerns on this issue at the EU fisheries council and directly to Commissioner Sinkevičius. If this unacceptable behaviour continues in 2024, the EU must redouble its efforts and use all available tools in order that there are real and effective consequences for such behaviour.

In order for the sustainability impact assessment to be carried out, the ICES scientific advice for the stocks has been 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. From 1 September past, an online web portal, fishingnet.ie, was activated to enable the transmission of electronic submissions for consideration. Three submissions to the public consultation were received and will be published on the fishingnet.ie website.

In addition to the written submissions, I convened a meeting of stakeholders including fishing industry representatives and environmental NGOs on 17 October. The purpose of that meeting was to give a further opportunity to stakeholders to outline their positions on the many aspects of the communication and the scientific advice. I thank all the stakeholders for their contributions to this 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 all, I consider, have the same objective of sustainable fishing and the protection of our fishing resource and our marine ecosystem for future generations. There is a clear call for adherence to the advice on setting total allowable catches in accordance with fishing at maximum sustainable yield. We must also make use of the provisions of the western waters multi-annual plan to deal with stocks where scientific advice indicates that 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 complimented by remedial technical measures in the Celtic Sea, west of Scotland and the Irish Sea. The Marine Institute and BIM have 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 wish to set out briefly the findings contained in that assessment.

With regard to the biological assessment, from a purely biological perspective, the Marine Institute's view, which coincides with the ICES view, is that there has been an improvement in the status of some fish stocks. Others, however, remain a concern. In the impact assessment, the Marine Institute summaries the pressure on the 74 stocks which will be dealt with in the 2023 stock book and compares this assessment with the same evaluation presented in previous years' stock books. The number of sustainably fished stocks for 2022 is 39. This is 53%, the same as last year.

The number and percentage of stocks fished above MSY is currently 17 or 23%. The number of stocks with unknown status has decreased to 18. It is good to see the general improvement in stocks over time. The work being carried out is showing results. It must be remembered that there were only 20 sustainably fished stocks as recently as 2013 and we now have 39. Over ten years, we have gone from 20 sustainably fished stocks to 39. There are multiple reasons stocks have unknown status including short time series of biological data, conflicting input data, low catches or insufficient sampling data or 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 before the committee today. Further information on the fish stocks of interest to Ireland are available in the stock book, which is prepared annually by the Marine Institute and which is available on its website.

With regard to economic and social impact, as I indicated earlier, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, has based the socioeconomic assessment on ICES advice, where available. In cases where the ICES advice was not yet available or where ICES had provided zero catch advice, a roll-over of last year’s TACs was assumed so that the assessment of these stocks could be carried out. ICES advice for nephrops, also known as prawns, is expected to be released on 31 October. In advance of the advice, to assist consideration of the stocks in the Celtic and Irish Seas, different scenarios including reductions of 5% or 10%, rollover and increases of 5% or 10% were examined, as this is an important stock for our fishing industry. It is, therefore, important to highlight that BIM’s estimates may change depending on the final TACs agreed between the EU and UK.

As this advice is for single stock assessment, we can expect significant changes for stocks in mixed fisheries where a particular stock is depleted. This is the case for cod stocks around the coast and the TACs for demersal stocks where cod is a by-catch will be set to support the protection and rebuilding of such depleted stocks. If the TACs were to be agreed on the basis of the assumptions I have mentioned, we would see a net decrease in fishing opportunity of 0.1% by volume in tonnes but a reduction of 6% by value. This amounts to a direct income reduction of €12.4 million. For the demersal or whitefish sector, while this would mean a reduction of 15% in volume of fishing activity and a reduction of 8% by value, with a direct income loss of €9.2 million, this is mainly the result of deductions in Celtic Sea whiting, haddock, cod and pollock in all areas. For the pelagic sector, this would result in an increase of 4% by volume but a 3% reduction by value with a direct income reduction of €3.24 million. This is primarily due to the decrease in mackerel where ICES advised a 5% reduction in catches for next year. However, this would be partially offset by following the increases in the advice for blue whiting, an increase of 12.5%, and boarfish, an increase of 20%.

With regard to processing and ancillary sectors, in addition to the direct losses to the fleet from quota reductions, income would also be lost from the processing sector as a direct 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 and BIM further estimates, on the basis of the most recent employment surveys of the seafood sector, that, if the TACs were set in accordance with this single stock advice, it could impact 268 full-time equivalent jobs. This could occur either through reduced incomes, partial layoffs or redundancies in the sector.

The Hague Preferences are additional amounts of quota that Ireland claims for important whitefish stocks when the TACs fall below set levels and are negotiated annually at the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council. However, as I have said in previous years, we cannot take the Hague Preferences for granted as they have to be negotiated at the Council each and every year. Many member states object strenuously to their application as the additional quota for Ireland comes off their allocations. These objections are intensifying in the face of quota reductions in other member states arising from both the post-Brexit trade and co-operation agreement and reductions due to scientific advice. Ensuring that the preferences are applied will be a key political objective for me in the negotiations.

To conclude my opening statement, the sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment provides a good picture of the state of stocks and possible implications for 2024. I thank and acknowledge all those who contributed to the production of this assessment. While the assessment is based on the ICES advice rather than the TACs proposed by the Commission, it highlights the potential for significant impacts on the Irish fishing industry. There are some stocks where ICES has issued advice for zero catches. 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 UK previously established specific TACs for by-catches of these stocks. They highlight the difficultly of fishing all stocks in a mixed fishery at MSY at the same time. We need to strike a balance between the potential for severe socioeconomic impacts and the need to achieve good environmental status for stocks. I will support a similar approach to that taken in previous years for these vulnerable stocks.

I again thank the Cathaoirleach and all members. I thank them for their patience in facilitating this opening statement. As they can see, given the range of content and issues involved, it is important that a full explanation be given at the outset so I appreciate the time given to it. I look forward to engagement and to answering questions.

I will give members 15 minutes each in the first round. If they want to come back in a second time, I will facilitate that.

I thank the Minister and the officials accompanying him. The sustainability impact assessment of fishing opportunities states the waters surrounding Ireland contain some of the most productive fishing grounds in the EU and that we have a duty of care and a national self-interest to protect our biological riches and, as such, they must be managed responsibly and sustainably. No one will argue with that. The problem is that we have not managed that in respect of Irish fishermen. Our waters are basically being raped by every nationality. They are taking our fish out of our country and they have our quotas, the quotas of good hard-working fishermen. Unfortunately, Irish fishermen's quotas are being swept out. We can see this in Castletownbere. There is a flow of Spanish lorries leaving Castletownbere every day of the week, travelling through west Cork to take Irish fish out of our waters and sweep them across Europe, which is sad in its own right. Our problems began prior to Deputy McConalogue's appointment as Minister but, especially since Brexit in 2020, Irish fishermen's problems have gone from bad to worse. It is a nightmare. We are kicking the can down the road to 2024 but perhaps the Minister will argue differently from me and will be able to prove that we can get increased quotas in our own water and a fair share. Instead of decommissioning, we should be look at building our fishing industry and encouraging our young people to take up fishing instead of running away from the job their parents worked for decades and decades.

I have a few questions. I respect that the Minister is talking about 2024 but I am worried about today for most of those who are finding things difficult. I have a couple of questions. On the EU fuel relief scheme for fishermen, the French and Spanish have taken it up but, while the Irish can take it up, we are refusing to do so. What is the reason for that? I raised this question with the Minister 12 months ago and I keep getting told by fishermen that they cannot take up this fuel scheme made available through European funds. They cannot be misleading to me. Surely to God, they are not lying to me. Why are Irish fishermen the only ones who cannot seem to take this up? They blame the Minister. He can deny that and tell me I am wrong. Perhaps there is something to be announced next week. I would be delighted if there was.

We also need to look at the fish weighing crisis. These are issues and problems that can be resolved today to help fishermen. I would love to think that things will be better for fishermen in 2024 and I sincerely hope they are but today is the biggest problem. The system for recording how much of each species of fish is landed in Ireland is illegal, flawed and not fit for purpose. Ireland biggest fish processor claims that it is reducing Ireland's quota, the amount of each fish species the EU says Irish fishermen can catch, by as much as 3%. This is because of a recording system introduced by the fisheries watchdog in December 2022. It is generating what the fishing industry says are inaccurate statistics on the species of fish landed. Detailed records seen by the Irish Examiner and other independent observers show that, since the new random weight and species sampling system was brought in, both fishermen and processors now record two different sets of figures, which is astonishing. There are two different sets of figures in the one country. One set is what processors say are derived from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority's, SFPA's, sampling system, which regards each sample as a representative extrapolation of the entire catch.

The newspaper article continues:

The system operates either on the pier on landing or - if the fish producer has a special SFPA permit - inside the fish factory after being transported there from the harbour.

It is this set of figures that a number of fish producers are filing alongside a statement that they are only being filed “under duress” ...

The second set of figures being filed to the SFPA is what processors say are the accurate figures based on a system that has operated for decades.

The European Commission has said that it wanted the system reformed and better regulated. The article continues:

Issues with the SFPA random sampling system arise when pelagic fishermen land a mixed catch containing their target fish and what is known as their 'by-catch', made up of species they did not intend to catch. Mixed catches can account for around 70% of all catches.

That is all landings of Irish fish in Ireland but the article continues by saying that the industry that:

... when the by-catch is made up of a much smaller number of white fish than the SFPA system records, a disproportionate amount of white fish is being “unfairly” recorded as having been caught by pelagic fishermen.

Analysis of catch data by the industry and shown to the Irish Examiner claims that 40% of by-catch sampling could be out by as much as 80%.

That is an astonishing figure. It is out by 80%. This has a knock-on effect of leading to cuts to the level of whitefish quota and the number of whitefish species the EU says fishermen can catch in any one year. The article continues: " ... the pelagic sector is predominantly based in Killybegs" and Greencastle in County Donegal, and "the white fish sector - which targets species such as cod, haddock, and hake - is based mainly in southern ports including Castletownbere and Union Hall in Co Cork and Dingle in Co Kerry." The article continues:

The fact that the species of fish being landed in Ireland is not being accurately recorded is a huge problem for the industry,” said Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association general secretary Brendan Byrne.

“We have told the SFPA their system does not work, and we have told Department of Agriculture officials.

“Our members believe they are being forced to make illegal statements to comply with the SFPA’s current sampling system.

“We believe the system is illegal and wrong and we are calling for an independent review of what is going on to not only stop it but also find out why it is being allowed to carry on.

Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation CEO Patrick Murphy said: “The fact that the SFPA sampling system is crediting pelagic fishermen with catching far more white fish than they have is very worrying.

“Ports like Castletownbere, which predominantly rely on white fish quotas to survive, are already struggling but what is happening in Killybegs is affecting us in Cork.”

Irish Fish Producers’ Organisation CEO Aodh O’Donnell said the success of the Irish fishing industry is being “hindered by a flawed and misguided set of control protocols”.

The fact is an independent review must be set up. The Minister has mentioned figures on the sustainable impact assessment of fishing opportunities in 2024. The best of luck to him in 2024 but the problem we have today is in 2023. In 2023 fishermen are going out of business. Decommissioning was set up and many fishermen felt like a gun was put to their head so they had no choice but to take that in 2022 and yet they still struggle in 2023. Will the Minister establish an independent review? He cannot be held responsible but an independent review would allow us to look at its findings which would be a move in the right direction. I also ask the Minister to establish a fuel relief scheme for fishermen. As I said, other countries are kicking up and we are afraid to kick up.

We need answers. The clock is ticking when it comes to the fishing industry in this country. I am not a fishermen but I am surrounded by fishermen and support them. Quite a lot of speakers here speak a lot about farming. I come from the farming sector and I respect colleagues for what they say but we need stronger voices in the Dáil when it comes to fishing. On budget day, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste spent 45 minutes speaking in the Dáil but never once mentioned the word "fishing", which is astonishing. Leo Varadkar and Micheál Martin showed total and utter disregard to Irish fishermen by talking about everything any anything for 45 minutes. There was a tiny bit about agriculture but nothing was said about fishing. What is wrong? Why has the Government turned against the fishermen of this country? They need to turn that around.

I ask the Minister to establish an independent review of the weighing crisis. A review would be a start in the right direction. A review would mean people would feel that the Minister is fighting for them, backing them and working on their behalf. I would dearly appreciate if the Minister would do that and I ask him to talk about a fuel relief scheme for fishermen today.

My key objective, and what I work for all the time, is to support the fishing sector and fishers in every way I can, particularly when it comes to negotiations to try to get the best possible outcome for fishing allocations year to year. Obviously, as the Deputy outlined, Brexit has had a very significant impact on our fleet and other fleets across Europe but Ireland suffered more of an impact than anyone. We fought that battle as hard as we could and tried to protect the sector as best we possibly could.

On the negotiations, which I am here to discuss again, we must engage both in terms of the December Council meeting as well since Brexit in terms of working with the Commission and the Commissioner around the UK negotiations and the Norwegian negotiations to make sure that we get the best possible outcome. We have had improvements and gains in the last three years. For example, with the outcomes in the Norwegian negotiations, we have increased our blue whiting quota and restricted the access available from outside of Irish waters to fleets from outside of the European Union. That is my objective again this year.

Within the European Union each country has different percentages of stocks in terms of the share of the total viable catches, which was set in the early 1980s when the Common Fisheries Policy was established. On oversight in each country, and particularly Ireland in terms of weighing and the policing of those quotas, oversight is carried out by the SFPA. Ireland has a legal structure in terms of the role of the Minister and the SFPA. Under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, I, as Minister, am specifically and legally precluded from becoming involved in operational matters. However, under that same Act, Deputy Collins, as a member of this Oireachtas committee, is empowered by the committee to engage directly with the SFPA and discuss those matters directly with the SFPA through the committee. Therefore, the Deputy, as a committee member, has been awarded more powers than I have under the Act in terms of engaging with the SFPA around those issues. It would be opportune, if the Deputy wishes, for him to discuss these matters directly with the SFPA through the committee.

We will have negotiations early in the new year.

Yes. On trying to get a strong outcome when it comes to the total fish that we can catch, there are an important couple of months coming up.

I take the point made by the Deputy about the challenges around fuel. We are seeing that across the wider society and it particularly has an impact on the fishing sector. The fishing sector differs from most other sectors of the economy in that there is no excise attached so there is no excise charged on marine fuel. There is VAT but that is reclaimable. No State taxes are collected. The price of fuel does have a direct impact on the wider market.

Recently I met representatives of the fishing industry. I have asked my team to conduct an assessment and review on fuel prices so that I can assess the situation. Over the last couple of years I have taken steps to address the cost of fuel by putting in place temporary tie-up schemes so that boats have more opportunities to catch more fish when they are fishing and, therefore, make it more profitable for them and help address the fuel challenges they faced last year and the year before.

Last year and the year before, regarding the inshore sector, we had a scheme in place that paid out €2,500 to boats under 10 m and €5,500 to boats under 18 m to help support them. I am conscious these supports existed and significantly were significantly put in place as a result of the pressure around fuel. I am assessing the situation now, Deputy Collins. I have asked my team to do a full assessment which I will consider very carefully in a very short timeframe in terms of existing challenges.

I am very disappointed with the Minister's response to my suggestion that he set up an independent review. My suggestion is fair and I did not point a finger at him or anybody else. Earlier I read out the facts. There is a massive difference between what has been recorded officially and the reality on the ground.

The Minister cannot in any way, shape or form turn this around and say that we, as a committee, can do this. We can question but the Minister can give instruction under section 46 of the 2006 Act, where it states that the Minister has the power to give general policy direction in respect of the SFPA's functions. Section 42 also states that one of the functions of the SFPA is to advise the Minister about policy and effective implementation of fishery laws.

This is not effective implementation of fishery laws. There is something wrong here and it needs to be put right. Will the Minister, in the name of God, stand by the fishermen for once, and say, "To hell with this, I am going to give to give an order"? I am not asking the Minister to say that the SFPA is wrong but I am asking him to set up an independent review? That is all I am asking him to do, to support that request and for that to happen. That is all I am asking here with 27 seconds left to speak. Fishermen's livelihoods are on the brink and the Minister is at the head of the ship. I ask him not to let it sink.

Every day, in working on behalf of the sector, it is my objective to support it in every way possible. That is what I have been doing and is what I will be doing over the next two months with regard to fishing allocations and maximising fish quotas for next year.

The Deputy mentioned the Act, which I mentioned before, and how the Minister provides general policy guidance to the SFPA but what the Deputy is talking about here is operational. That same Act precludes me from being involved in operational matters. It would be worthwhile for the members of the committee to act in the following way because the Act provides for the committee of the Oireachtas to be the actual oversight mechanism for the SFPA. It would be good for the committee to exercise that capacity to engage with the SFPA directly.

I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

There are a number of issues I wish to raise with the Minister and I would ask that he might note them. There will probably be about four or five issues. The first one is a Dutch corporation, Parlevliet & Van der Plas B.V., which is a major international fishing corporation. It is the owner of three of the largest fishing vessels in the world. Annelies Ilena is 145 m long and the Margiris is 136.1 m long. These are the two largest fishing vessels in the world. These were joined by the Helen Mary, with all three vessels under the one company. Two are registered in Lithuania and I am unsure as to where the Helen Mary is registered. The reason I mention all three vessels is that all three regularly fish around the coast of Ireland. They do so legally under Common Fisheries Policy rules and access quotas from various member states legally. It is very hard to take a presentation like the one the Minister has given today, where he talks about sustainable fishing, which I agree with, and applying International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, and science rules, which I also agree with, because we must sustain our fisheries.

We are asking our fishing industry, which, as the Minister knows is struggling and much of which has been forced to decommission in recent times, to play by those rules, while the Common Fisheries Policy allows vessels of that size, all owned by the one company, to literally hoover up fish in the sea in very questionable circumstances. I want to get a sense of what Ireland is doing to challenge the utter double standards of that being allowed to continue, where the Common Fisheries Policy allows a company to buy up quota from various countries and industrialise fishing, while we are asking fishermen in Ireland and, in fairness, in other member states to fish sustainably. How is that allowed and how is that double standard, which is staring us in the face, allowed to continue? What is our Minister doing to challenge that? As the Minister knows, the presence of those monster vessels off our coast has been publicised again and again in the Irish media. That is my first question.

My second question is on Eurostat, which is the European statistics website for accessing statistics on catch. Looking at that, from 2018 right through to today, one cannot see on that website figures for catch landed by Irish vessels. It is marked "C" and when one checks what "C" stands for, it stands for "confidential". Will the Minister check to see if there is a reasonable explanation as to why that is the case? I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer today but I want to raise it as it has been raised with me. I ask that he has that checked by his Department officials to see why that is the case. There may well be a benign reason for it but I would like to get an explanation for it.

The third issue I wish to raise is the coastal states negotiation. The Minister will know that major fishing interests - I am thinking here of Norway, in particular, but also of the Faroe Islands and Iceland - have been building up a mackerel industry without any reference to ICES. Here we are in this presentation, and I believe rightly, asking our fishing communities to play by the science and to sustain our fishery, but we know that is not happening with regard to the fishing industries in Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. Indeed, the Norwegian pelagic industry has done a deal with the UK for access to its waters, where the numbers and the tonnage are absolutely eye-watering. Apparently, 65% of the Norwegian mackerel fishery was caught in UK waters, which is just over €200 million worth of mackerel caught in UK waters this year. I know the Minister has been challenging this but I want to make a clear statement again that this is just madness. We trade with Iceland and Norway. The Faroe Islands have independent status but are under Denmark, which is a member state. How has this been allowed to happen? As the Minister knows, mackerel is a migratory fish and this is having a profound impact. As he knows also, they are looking to secure access to the Irish exclusive economic zone to fish while they are not playing by the rules. Can I have an up-to-date position on all of that from the Minister and how we intend to challenge that robustly? The Minister has worked with the Irish fishing sector, and I appreciate that, but I want an up-to-date position from him on that.

I also want to take the opportunity to reiterate the point around the fuel subsidy. I strongly urge the Minister to look at a fuel subsidy for the entire fishing sector. In our alternative budget in the past two years, we have demonstrated how this could be done where it would not place a very significant burden on the overall budget which is there.

On inshore and offshore, the Minister referred to this when we raised it with him before and to the tie-up schemes. Those are tie-up schemes which are under the Brexit Adjustment Reserve fund. Those are separate issues entirely but the inshore sector was never able to avail of tie-up schemes. I strongly urge the Minister to see if something can be done. I am hearing this from all sections of the fishing industry, so I ask the Minister to give me an up-to-date position on what can be done. I cannot urge him strongly enough to put something on the table.

Finally, I raise with the Minister a related issue which is the budget for 2024. He will have heard me speaking about this in the Dáil. This budget allocation has essentially been halved. I believe the Minister will acknowledge that last year’s budget allocation was essentially Brexit Adjustment Reserve fund expenditure, which was a redundancy payment for the loss of quota and the further decommissioning and erosion of our fleet. It is greatly disappointing that we are now back to the 2022 budget allocation and if one allows for inflation, we face a cutback.

At a time when the Minister acknowledges the millions of euro lost to our industry due to the projected ICES impact with regard to numbers, and acknowledges the definite loss of jobs, with further lay-offs and further redundancies, how can we stand over a budget that is going backwards? This is an industry which is crying out for support and I would argue that one of those is a fuel subsidy. When one looks at the figures, at the job losses, where 268 full-time equivalent jobs will be lost if this is goes through, and at a €12.4 million loss, a €9.2 million loss and a €3.24 million loss, this amounts to over €20 million. It is almost €25 million of a loss, with hundreds of further jobs lost.

How can we stand over a budget that is being reduced?

I take the Deputy’s point on the 100 m trawlers off the west coast. I do not like the sight of either but it is within the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Common Fisheries Policy is not based on the size on the boat but on restricting the amount of fish any country can catch. We talked about the SFPA earlier and other countries also have their oversight and enforcement authorities and have rules and regulations in place to make sure no one is catching more than their quota. Those large boats are still restricted to catching no more than what they have quota for. Regardless of whether it is one large boat or three smaller boats, they can still only catch the same amount of quota. I would much rather see more medium-sized boats with more local ownership from any country availing of that country’s quota. That is the system we have here in Ireland because we did not allow national quota to be sold or privatised. It is still a national resource. It is still held by the State and that is important because it means we have not seen it being gathered around large trawlers like that, as happened in other countries where it became a private asset. I am open to the Deputy’s suggestions. Obviously, people can make submissions in respect of the Common Fisheries Policy but ultimately, it comes down to the same amount of quota per member state regardless of the size of boat catching it. We have seen this to some extent in Ireland over the past number of decades where boats got larger while fishing the same national quota, that is, fewer boats fishing the same quota. It is on a different plane on some other countries where it has become privatised and the quotas are in private hands rather than the quota being a national resource.

On the Eurostat catches and it being available on the website, the information is there but not to the extent that there is granular detail such that particular boats can be identified. It can get more detail but that is my understanding in that regard. On Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, what we have seen with the unilateral setting of mackerel quota by those countries is scandalous. They are not engaging in a way where we are sensibly co-operating and managing the sustainable fishing of the stocks. It is a reckless approach. It is irresponsible and unacceptable. I have been forthright and adamant at European Council level in calling that out and in seeking to have it addressed. We need to continue to do that in every way we can. Europe is setting its total allowable catches in a sustainable and responsible manner but we are not seeing that from non-EU countries that share those stocks. As we know, mackerel spawns off the south coast of Ireland and travels all the way to the north of Norway and makes its way back down. We catch most of our mackerel off the north coast of Scotland in British waters because that is the point of the year where it is at its most valuable and it is the most sensible time to catch it. Iceland also catches some, as does Norway and the Faroe Islands, and they have been setting unilateral catches. That is simply not sustainable and it will reach a very bad end unless they cop on and start acting responsibly and sustainably. Europe has provided good leadership in this regard and will continue to do so and I will continue to call out the need for other countries to act in a similar manner and for us to try to work in a way towards a sustainable approach on how we manage that stock and an approach where everyone takes the same sustainable approach that we all have at EU level.

I have answered in respect of the issue regarding fuel subsidy. Last year and the year before, I put in temporary additional tie-ups as a more sensible way than doing a direct fuel subsidy. That worked in such a way that instead of three boats going out to fish the same quota, one boat was paid to tie up and was given an income for that month equivalent to what it would have got had it been at sea meaning that the other two boats could go out and catch the same fish that all three would have got. That was the way I delivered that funding. It made more sense than paying everyone to go out, which would use more fuel, time and effort to less avail. That worked well. It is not in place at the moment and we have seen increased fuel costs over the last while. I met the fishing representatives and have asked for an assessment or report for my consideration on that.

Is that including inshore?

I will look at it across. Last year and the year before I did do the inshore schemes where smaller boats got €2,500 and large boats got €5,500. I was very conscious of the fuel impact in putting that in place too.

On the budget for next year, over the past two years, we know Brexit has had a real impact. It was a very unfortunate thing which we all worked hard to avoid. It did have an impact on our fishing fleet. Coming out of that, I worked to try to make the best of a very difficult situation by trying to draw down funds in every way possible to support and develop the sector; to support fishers and fishing communities and to build for the future. I put together a task force, including fishing representatives, and it put together many different schemes. I think there were 12 suggestions put to me for different schemes. I do not recall this happening before, but each and every proposal which the sector itself came up with, I backed and accessed the funding through the Brexit adjustment reserve fund for that and put the structure in place to try to find every way we could to pull down funding. By the end of this year, every one of those schemes will have been rolled out and implemented. That meant, thankfully we were able to get a significantly increased budget over the last two years. If I could find any other way of drawing down money I would do that. I took every opportunity possible. It means we are back to more normal budgetary lines next year, which means significantly less of a budget than was there last year because the Brexit adjustment reserve fund is extracted out of it. If you look at any party’s pre-budget submission, Sinn Féin’s included, every party’s budget would be reduced by a similar amount, given that every party is recognising that the Brexit funds are now out of it. They would all have been landing at a similar level, which was more normalised. That reflects the fact we have drawn down exceptional funding over the past couple of years.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, here this evening. He has an unenviable task. I have been involved in politics for about 39 years. I remember back in the mid-1980s on the coastal management committee for Cork county and whatever. From what I read here, in many ways the Minister is caught by a straitjacket and there is little wriggle room. We cannot expect him to work miracles because the constraints that are there have gradually built up over the last three decades. They have not happened overnight. I have no doubt that the Minister wears the green jersey when he goes to Europe or when he goes to negotiate with the UK. I absolutely agree that Brexit was an unfortunate event that caused extra problems for the Irish fishing fleet.

I will not go over ground which others have dealt with; repetition is of no value. I have a few questions. On decommissioning, I live in Schull out of which eight or nine trawlers were fishing 20 years ago but now, there is one small vessel of about 65 ft. which is roughly 21 m or 22 m. I am being told by three or four of these trawler owners, some of them coming up to pension age who would like to get out and maybe their sons or nephews or whoever may not be that keen or interested in taking the baton, that they are not too enamoured by the decommissioning scheme that is there. One guy who I sat down with for a while said he was interested but he found the rules surrounding it were very complex and that his conclusion, after a lot of deliberation by himself and his family, was that he was as well off staying in fishing and working away on his 60 ft. or 70 ft. boat which is about 25 m.

As he is getting older, I reckoned he would grab the decommissioning with both hands, saying it was something for him at the end of 45 years of fishing and that he would like to move on. Why is the scheme so complicated and unappealing to average punters? I do not think these three trawlermen or fishers that we might ask are exaggerating. In my view, they would get out but they are not enamoured with the scheme.

We are dealing here with the total allowable catch. I am concerned about the Atlanto-Scandian herring, where there was a 24% decrease in 2023. Ireland has a relatively small share of the stock. The Minister also mentioned the way in which the mackerel spawn off our south-west coast and move north. As someone who grew up on fishing boats, more or less, I believe the mackerel shoals have diminished substantially over the past two or three decades. I was out this year hobby fishing. There was a time when if you went out in September, you could fill the small boat with fine mackerel. I now find that there are only small minnows. I read recently that, particularly off the Scottish coast and up north, they never envisaged such catches of mackerel and herring in quantities. I raise that because the Minister obviously cannot control that. Do the Minister and his officials believe that global warming has an impact on how our fishing stocks are going? There is a view that even a half percentage point rise in sea temperature can have a great impact on several fish stocks. Is that something the Department is cognisant of? What are the Minister’s views on that? I do not wish to make this into a big green issue. I am just going by my observations and my understanding of the industry, in my own tuppenny-ha'penny way, over the past three or four decades.

I realise the Minister is also restrained by advice from ICES and total allowable catches but each year - I have noticed this well before this committee, back in my old days as a councillor - it seems the share of the pie for Irish fishers is narrowing. My colleague mentioned the massive factory ships from eastern Europe that are 140 m long. They are extraordinary. How are those massive trawlers monitored? These vessels can go out in force 8 or force 10 storms and are not impacted. Most other vessels would pull into Dunmore East, Castletownbere or Dingle on the south coast. How are these vessels being monitored? In this instance I may perhaps be paranoid but I doubt it. These massive trawlers are difficult to control. Are they ever boarded? Where do they land their catches? What controls has our little nation within the European Union to monitor what they do in Irish waters and indeed in any waters within Europe? That is a worrying issue.

The fuel subsidy was mentioned earlier. I would be more concerned that this has a greater impact on small inshore fishers, fishing for crab, prawns or scallops, than on the bigger boats. I am not saying that in any way to divide the issue. Is there any possibility that this fuel subsidy could be retained? It reduced and fell away because it was brought in on a short-term basis but there is an argument that this subsidy could be allowed to continue, not to the same capacity but in some measure that would give the fishers a real chance to survive.

I would also like to hear the views of the Minister and his officials on smaller ports such as Schull where I live, and Union Hall to a certain extent, where traditional fishing boats that fished out of there created a lot of employment over the years. Some was seasonal but there was reasonably good money made and many a mouth was fed from the income from fishing in these areas. These smaller ports are now being absorbed by the bigger boats. Unless replaced by a substantial-sized trawler that can fish anywhere off Europe, these relatively small vessels might be curtailed in going 80 or 100 miles off the coastline and have a battle to survive. Unless a fisher has a powerful oceangoing vessel, it is going to be more and more difficult to survive.

I came across an interesting issue recently. I grew up on the shores of Bantry Bay. We sometimes had issues with the British authorities, going back to the 19th century. The biggest fleet that the mighty kingdom ever produced was able to shelter in Bantry Bay because of the depth of the water, its width and its size. In about 1850 or 1860, they imposed a rule that no fishing or trawling was allowed between sunset and sunrise. I am sure it applied to more ports other than Bantry Bay. Recently I was doing research. I was perplexed by the fact that some big trawlers can go into small inlets fishing for sprat, which in essence are not valuable fish. However, the big trawlers annoy many of the smaller fishers who are being pushed onto shore. This was contested and apparently went to the EU. I am not sure whether it was the European Court of Justice or the EU. The rule that was there for possibly 150 years was set aside and the EU decision was that these guys can go up into the Lee Valley and the river estuaries. What was the common sense behind that? Members may not be aware of it but if that is the type of indication we get from Europe, whether in its courts or by the Commission, undoing sensible provisions that already existed for many years, long before my time, it begs the question about the sustainability of inshore fishers and about what their future is.

I wish the Minister well. He has a difficult job. As Minister, apart from health and housing, he has the toughest portfolio in the Cabinet.

I thank Senator O'Donovan. I will go back over the key points raised. In regard to the decommissioning scheme, he questioned why it is so complex. It has to operate within the wider Common Fisheries Policy and adhere to the rules in terms of how decommissioning schemes can happen in any one country. It has to be compliant with that in order to meet state aid rules in regard to making payments. In response to Senator O'Donovan, we also took much of this guidance from the actual sea fisheries task force that I established in terms of advising on. Coming from that, the stakeholders and the fishing representatives themselves recommended that we should do a scheme in order to resize the fleet. Coming out a decommissioning scheme, our national quota stays the same. It does not impact on our national quota but obviously it was in response to an impact on our national quota as a result of Brexit. However, decommissioning in itself does not impact our overall national quota.

It stays the same. Whenever you remove vessels from the fleet it means that the remaining vessels have more fish, in that there is more quota available to each vessel and they are more economically viable as a result. For example, 39 vessels have availed of the scheme and €53 million has been paid out at this point. That has freed up between €25 million and €30 million of quota, which then gets reallocated among other boats that do not avail of decommissioning, so it is a benefit to those boats that remain in the fleet.

A number of other member states across Europe have now also gone and done a decommissioning scheme in response to Brexit but we were the first. That came on the back of the advice to me from the task force which I set up with the fishing representatives as a key part of the process.

I have no doubt global warming is impacting on our seas in the same way it is impacting on land. The impact on the sea is impacting on our weather patterns on land as well. It is no doubt impacting on the migratory patterns of fish as well. I do not think anyone has a full understanding or assessment of what exactly it means. Dr. Kelly would be more of an expert on this, as much as anyone can be expert in it. He might want to come in on this. In response to Senator O'Donovan, it is definitely another reason we should take steps to reduce emissions and try to minimise the global warming that we see.

In regard to the share of the pie that is narrowing, Senator O'Donovan has a long experience with the fishing sector, having represented it in both the Dáil and the Seanad. He was born of and is from a fishing community and he has an understanding of it. He is right that while the percentage shares of fish was set at the start of the Common Fisheries Policy, because of the fact that we are moving away from a situation where there was undoubtedly overfishing in the past, which led to the depletion of stocks, and getting to a stage where we are now only fishing at a yield that is sustainable and that does not deplete stocks, that has meant that annually there has been a shrinking of the total amount of fish being caught. It also means that we are coming back around the other side in that because some fish stocks were closed, we are starting to see them reopen again because we started fishing them sustainably and giving them the space to recover. Last year, for example, the spurdog, which was an important one in the inshore sector, reopened for the first time in ten or 12 years. North west herring moved, which is very important in my part of the world, from being a scientific fish to having a catch again for the first time. By fishing it sustainably ultimately we see better catch in the long term but it has led in recent years to a narrowing of the pie, as such.

In regard to monitoring and control, the large boats, as well as medium and small boats, are subject to the SFPA, but also the European Fisheries Control Agency has jurisdiction across all European waters as well.

Regarding the six-mile inshore limit and the larger vessels coming in fishing sprat, which has been referred to, the previous Minister to me, Deputy Creed, prohibited the large boats coming inside the six-mile zone. That was challenged in the High Court rather than in the European Court. A case was taken to the High Court by fishing boat owners that were affected, who contested it. The High Court found in their favour on a technicality, which means there is no longer a ban inside the six-mile zone and the large boasts can come in. I have restarted the scientific assessment to start the process and to look at that again. I assure Senator O'Donovan that I am looking at that again, but that is the background to it. Does Dr. Kelly want to make a point on patterns of global warming?

Dr. Ciaran Kelly

No, but from the point of view of perspective, the Minister's story about fewer mackerel being available in local waters, if we look at that over a longer time period, even before larger fisheries, we see exactly the same pattern. It is not the case that just because of global warming the fish have moved north. It is much more complicated than that, but the Minister's story is true. Mackerel distribution has changed. While some stocks are less abundant in our waters, other stocks like borer fish and blue whiting are more abundant, so it is a very complicated mix of what is going on.

Before I conclude, a Chathaoirligh, I rarely impose any kind of stricture on you because of my absolute perfect attendance and annoyance to members here, but would the Minister have a look again at the decommissioning situation? I fully agree with him that it frees up more quota for other boats so they can survive. It is more economical. It does haunt me a little that these three guys who are in their 60s would love to get out but one guy said that it is not all that it seems and he backed away from it. If at all possible, could that be revisited?

Could the Minister give a brief answer?

Unfortunately, there is not any possibility to revisit it because the scheme was launched, approved, and the applications closed. The scheme is closing out now and all the funding must be spent by the end of this year. We are down to the last four or five boats completing the process so there simply is not the scope to do what Senator O'Donovan asks. I outlined the situation with regard to having to comply with the regulations, but there is not the scope left now to change it.

I thank the Minister and call Deputy Mythen.

I do not envy the Minister his job. I know it is a tough one but we are here to represent the fishermen. In my county, prawns, mackerel and monkfish are very important to the area. It is very sustainable. It is worth about €60 million. We are talking about serious money. We must realise that this industry is a wealthy one. It is lucrative. Why are the other countries so much involved in it? We cannot run down our own.

We just got this document about an hour and a half ago. I will go through some of the information. The Minister says there are no other national sharing arrangements. The Minister says discussions have been going on throughout 2023 but there are only two months left in the year. What is the exact situation with the coastal agreements?

The Minister admits the high quotas for mackerel for third countries is unacceptable. Fair play to him, he said he raised the issue, which is fair enough, but do we have anyone backing us in that way in the European Union? The Minister made a reference to what will happen if the behaviour continues but it is going to continue. There is no point in saying it will not continue. He admitted to us that it is unacceptable.

Fishermen are looking at the meeting today. There is a reduction on every page we look at. Mackerel has reduced by 5% and herring by 24%. The Minister says that the reduction per tonne for the industry is 6%. There are references to €12.4 million, €9.2 million and €3.2 million. It is down again by about €24.6 million. These are serious jobs. We must remember that for every one job at sea there are four on land. It is a serious issue. Restaurants are affected and delivery men must be taken into account as well, apart from engineers and others. It is said that 268 full-time equivalent jobs are at risk. I suggest there are far more because other people are involved in this as well.

The Minister spoke about the extra quotas and the Hague preferences. That is vital. We cannot go in hoping that we will get it. This is not a game, it is people's livelihoods and it is a very valuable asset to our country. If the Minister could answer those few questions I would be quite happy.

I thank Deputy Mythen for his contributions and perspective. I agree with him about coastal states. It is very difficult to force people to act responsibly when we do not have control over them. Within the European Union all member states take a responsible approach. We have seen the maximum sustainable yield of a number of fish increase significantly in recent years, and that process continues. Fish are a migratory stock and that is why the European Union manages the waters of the various member states collectively, because fish do not know boundaries and different member states can fish what is in their waters if they have direct access to them but in order to maintain the fish and not have them overfished and done away with, we must co-operate in order to make sure that they are fished in a way that ensures they are there and can continue to be fished in the future.

The situation with mackerel, the coastal states and the agreements with Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, is not sustainable and will lead to the depletion of those stocks and everyone biting off his or her own nose. I have been strong on this issue at Council level, as have other member states. We are looking to see what tools we can bring to the table to try to bring a sensible and sustainable approach to managing this. The situation has been frustrating, most of all for the fishers in Ireland and the rest of the EU, who are acting responsibly while watching others not do the same.

We have seen some stocks reducing and some increasing. Overall, though, there has been a reduction in volume and value. During the negotiations at Council meetings, I will do my best to get a strong outcome for Ireland. We must work in a way that recognises what a sustainable yield is this year, as we want to see fisheries every year and the recovery of stocks, which will lead to improvements. We have already seen it in some stocks. We are following the scientific advice across the stocks. It is important that we do so.

I agree with the Deputy about hake preferences. They are important and we cannot take them for granted. It is always a possibility that other member states could step in and prevent them being applied, as we need the fisheries Council’s agreement on the preferences every year. My team and I are working via our relationships with other member states to ensure the preferences will still be applied and respected. We must continue working on that, as the preferences are not something we can take for granted.

What is our position on super trawlers? I did not realise how large they were until someone described the nets being pulled behind them as being as big as Croke Park. They wipe out species. Some species might only appear once every three years, yet the super trawlers pull them in. A boat might get a phone call on the day and be told that cod or herring prices are up, and the rest of the catch goes out the chutes. That is disgraceful. Apart from that, super trawlers fish off Africa and deplete the stocks that small fishers fish to feed their families. It is causing hunger and so on. Is there anything we can do about them? Can Ireland or the EU take a stance on them and push the issue?

There are restrictions within the Common Fisheries Policy on the amount of fish that can be caught by any one boat. They are based on a boat’s quota, not its size. There are also rules and regulations about the types of net and the fishing equivalents that can be used to do that fishing. Those rules and regulations can be altered to take steps that respect the sustainability and maintenance of stocks into the future.

In some countries, those boats have grown very large – I touched on this issue earlier – but the Common Fisheries Policy restricts their quotas and they cannot catch any more than that. As with boats of all sizes, ensuring that the rules and regulations are fully applied to them is key.

With respect, I am not trying to be argumentative, but how many have been boarded? If we brought one of those boats into port for a week, its owners would not be long changing their tunes because of the cost involved. Let us be honest about this. The Minister mentioned quotas, but no one, not even the SFPA, knows what these boats’ quotas are.

The quota for all boats is known. That is well monitored and regulated in terms of the quota that each boat has. Across the EU, it is monitored whenever boats are in Irish waters. For all boats, but particularly larger ones, it is essential that we have proper controls in place to ensure that they are operating within the quotas allocated to them and within the rules and regulations that are required for the proper fishing of stocks.

Not one has been boarded.

I am not sure what the figures are, but those boats are subject to monitoring. Ireland has taken an approach whereby quotas are not privately owned and are instead a national public resource owned by the State. Other countries have not taken this approach, though, and over the years, we have seen quotas there becoming privatised into a small number of hands. This has resulted in very large boats having large quotas fishing stocks that used to be fished by many smaller boats. We have taken a different approach and it is one we are committed to maintaining.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister for attending and answering our detailed questions so comprehensively. We will now suspend for five minutes to allow the witnesses for the next session to take their seats.

Sitting suspended at 6:56 p.m. and resumed at 7.03 p.m.
Top
Share