Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 2003

Vol. 1 No. 25

Fish Stock Assessment: Presentation.

I welcome Dr. Connolly from the Marine Institute. Before he addresses the committee, I wish to point out to members that this committee has the widest remit of all Oireachtas joint committees. Our workload this year has taken in most sections of the Department of Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources. I am sure members will agree that the marine sector is one of the most strategically vital elements of our economy. From talking to the Minister, his officials and members of the committee, I am aware that it is one which takes up most of the Minister's time and it is of immense importance to us as a committee. I understand from press coverage that the Minister's deal in respect of the Irish Box received all round praise from fishermen's groups and the wider sector. When the Minister appears before the committee, we would welcome his comments on the creation of a new conservation area of more than 100,000 square kilometres, which is larger than the size of Ireland. In addition, we will hear from the Marine Institute on the state of fish stocks around our coast. We will also hear from the fishermen's organisations about their efforts at conservation. Today offers us a good opportunity to uncover the true state of fish stocks and to question if we are doing enough in terms of conservation.

The other issue the committee wishes to address is the TACs, the total allowable catches, and quota proposals for 2004 and the likely outcome of negotiations in that regard for Irish fishermen. I am aware that the Commission's proposals for TACs and quotas for 2004 have yet to be published. However, there is scientific advice on this from the International Council for Exploration of the Sea. I hope the representative from the Marine Institute will be in a position to summarise that advice for the committee and that the Minister will indicate the likely outcome of negotiations on TACs and quotas at the December meeting of the Fisheries Council. I am sure the industry's representatives will have a number of major concerns regarding them that members of the committee would like to hear.

I ask the Clerk to invite in representatives of the fisheries organisations to sit in the gallery.

It is a good idea to invite such representatives to listen to the presentation from the representative of the Marine Institute.

Is it agreed that we will try to finish by 5 p.m. Agreed. It has been agreed that we will ask each group two questions to confine the discussion and finish on time.

I welcome Dr. Paul Connolly, director of fishery science services at the Marine Institute to this meeting of the committee. I draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. It is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege but the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. 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 House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome Dr. Connolly back to this meeting of the committee. He appeared before it only a few weeks ago.

I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to talk to members of the committee about the current scientific advice on this area. In the next ten to 15 minutes I hope to deal with fish stock assessment, how scientific advice on it has evolved, the concept of mixed fisheries and area based advice, which is new this year. I will examine the critical stocks in the Celtic Sea area, the Irish Sea area, the Donegal and Rockall area, and mention briefly the pelagic stocks and industry initiated programmes, which will be an important component of the advice for next year.

In terms of scientific advice, the sea areas around Ireland are divided into a number of boxes that are ICES divisions. The important ICES divisions around Ireland are area six off Donegal and Rockall and area seven off the west and south coasts and into the Irish Sea. In each of these boxes cod, whiting, haddock and all the commercial species are assessed. The reason those boxes are there is that it is easy to collect landing statistics from them.

The fact that cod is in the Irish Sea, or in "7A" as we call it does not mean that a stock is confined to one box. In the Irish Sea cod is confined to 7A, but in the Celtic Sea cod covers a number of boxes. In some cases there is a box associated with a stock and in other cases there are a range of boxes associated with a stock.

In terms of how this scientific advice works and the annual cycle, members will note from the chart on display that in the case of cod in the Irish Sea each national fisheries laboratory collects data, carries out research surveys and collects all the information it can on the cod stock. These are then summarised in each national laboratory to give us an indication of the cod stock; how much cod was caught in the survey and the age profile of the cod species caught. All these figures give us an indication of the health status of the stock.

It is no good Ireland doing national stock summaries on its own. We cannot access cod stocks on our own because fish do not recognise international boundaries. We need to work with our international colleagues and pool all our data. All such data is pooled and when that process is complete we need an international forum where all the scientists can meet to carry out their stock assessments. The international forum we use is ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Scientists meet at meetings of ICES, which is based in Copenhagen. They bring all their data and carry out assessments on the various stocks to give the latest indication of the state of the stock. They try to project, as in the case of forecasting the weather, what will happen in a year or two years' time based on the information they have.

When these assessments are carried out the scientific advice is then formulated by two groups. One is an ICES group called ACFM, the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management formulates the scientific advice. There is also another group that the EU Commission uses, the STECF, the Scientific Technical Economic Committee for Fisheries. It also examines the advice and formulates it own advice. This advice goes to the European Commission which then formulates proposed TACs. These are debated at the European Council in December, the outcome of which is the annual TACs. Out of those annual TACs we get our national quotas and technical conservation measures, which could be proposals on closed areas or increased mesh size. In a sense, they are allied measures with the national quotas.

With regard to where are we in the process this year, I draw members' attention to the two bright yellow boxes on the map on display. The advice from ICES's ACFM and the EU-STECF has gone to the Commission, which is examining it and formulating its TACs for next year as we speak.

How do we evaluate the state of fish stocks? Through data scientists collect, we look at four main issues. The first is how much has been taken from the stock in terms of the fish that are landed and those thrown back into the sea as discards. This gives us important information. The second is, fishing mortality and how much of the stock is removed by fishing by both Irish and international vessels. One of the most important signals scientists look for is recruitment. This is effectively the number of baby fish that are born in a certain year which are the commercial catch of the future. It is critical that we get a handle on recruitment. The other important issue is the spawning stock biomass. We have to ask, what is the size of the mature fish and what is its tonnage as this has big implications for recruitment? We are noticing now that as stock size declines, we are getting impaired recruitment in several critical stocks. There is a strong relationship, therefore, between recruitment - the number of fish born - and spawning stock - the number of mature fish in the population.

A big dilemma has come to the fore this year and was present last year. Cod is not caught on its own, as there is no clean fishery for it. We must remember that during fishing, many stocks are caught. In the Irish Sea, cod, whiting and sole are known as red stocks because scientists are concerned at their levels. Other stocks such as haddock, nephrops and plaice are also in the Irish Sea and they are not in such a bad state. The dilemma, however, is that if one wants to protect cod, how does one allow fishing for haddock and nephrops without endangering the cod stocks? This has exercised scientists' and managers' minds. It has come to the fore this year in mixed fishery analysis and area-based advice. In these mixed fisheries, there are a number of driver stocks that are in a critical state which managers must preserve. Fishermen get annoyed when they see plenty of haddock, but the dilemma is that the cod stocks must be protected and therefore they are not allowed fish haddock. This will have implications on the advice for next year.

The Marine Institute assesses more than 40 stocks around the Irish coast. Rather than going through them all individually, I wish to pick on demersal stocks which are in a critical state. The three areas that I wish to highlight are the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea, which includes the west of Ireland, and the Donegal-Rockall fishery. In the Irish Sea, cod and whiting stocks are the two that are in a critical state. Scientists are not so worried about the state of haddock and nephrops stock. The state of the former stocks will drive the agenda on advice for next year. The dilemma is that haddock and nephrops are okay, but if we want to protect cod and whiting, the former stocks will suffer. In the Celtic Sea, the situation is very much the same. Cod, whiting, hake, sole and plaice stocks are in a critical state and need to be protected. However, there are stocks there that do not need that protection. Again, the dilemma is that it is a mixed fishery. It is similar in the Donegal fisheries area. Cod and whiting stocks are the drivers that will formulate the advice for next year.

When scientists attempt to appraise the state of the stock in the Irish Sea, they check landings, fishing mortality - what is taken out of a stock - recruitment and the state of the spawning stock biomass - the number of mature fish. In fishery stock management we have various safe thresholds for fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass, based on FAO codes of conduct and various international agreements. In the Irish Sea the safe threshold for fishing mortality currently stands at 0.72. However, since the mid-1980s, the fishing mortality for Irish Sea cod stocks has been way over that safe threshold while spawning stock biomass has been below its threshold. More alarming is the number of baby fish coming into the cod population in recent years which has been very low. The prognosis for the stock is poor because of this low recruitment. This will drive the advice for next year. If we want to protect cod, we have to take note of the low stock size, the high fishing mortality rate and poor numbers of juvenile fish entering the stock.

For the whiting stock, the statistics are very similar. The stock is well below the threshold for a safe line in spawning stock biomass, while fishing mortality is very high. Landings have declined and the recruitment figure has been low in recent years. As stated, there is a relationship between the stock size and the number of baby fish born. Given the state of the cod and whiting stocks, the TACs for next year will be reduced. In order to protect them, other stocks, which are regarded to be in a healthy state, are also going to take reductions in TACs. The sole stocks in the Irish Sea are also in a poor state. The number of baby fish coming into the sole stocks is at its lowest ever.

In the Donegal-Rockall-west of Scotland fishery area, the state of the cod stocks will drive the advice on TACs. The cod stock size has plummeted since the 1990s and is well below the optimal threshold. Fishing mortality is high and well above the threshold for safe fishing. The number of baby fish among scientists coming into the population is causing more concern among scientists. The stock size is so low that recruitment has been impaired. Measures are needed to rebuild this stock and this will drive the advice for this fishery area. The whiting stocks in this area, though not as bad as cod, show a high fishing mortality. In this fishery, discarding of catch has always been a problem. Industry initiated programmes can decrease these high rates of discarding and these will form management plans for next year.

The driver for the advice for the Celtic Sea fishery will be cod stocks. Recruitment in cod stocks are at their lowest ever. Spawning stock biomass is well below the safe threshold, with a high fishing mortality rate. It is not as critical as the Irish Sea or the west of Scotland, but it remains bad for cod. The haddock stock figures in this fishery emphasise the dilemma we have. The fishing mortality rate is high and the spawning stock biomass, relatively so. However, the incoming recruitment in the stock for 2002 is very high. Fishermen then ask why they are not allowed to fish haddock. The reason they cannot is that we must protect the cod stocks. If haddock is caught, it increases fishing mortality rates of cod stocks. This is the mixed-fishery dilemma we have.

As there are time constraints, can Dr. Connolly summarise the other graphs at this stage? Deputies Broughan, Coveney and O'Donovan indicated that they have questions on these issues.

I will finish on northern hake stock figures. It is another stock at critical levels in the Celtic Sea fishery. Spawning stock biomass is below the threshold of the safe line while the fishing mortality rate is high. However, the main emphasis is on poor recruitment coming into the stocks. There are similar pictures with other stocks. I have given a pen picture of those stocks in the critical states in the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and the Donegal fishery.

I hope I have given the committee a feel for how the fish stock assessment and advisory process works. I wish to emphasise how important mixed fisheries and area based advice are this year. We are not simply giving advice on cod stocks but for the Celtic Sea. Pelagic stocks are not as bad and are dealt with under international agreements, I have emphasised how important industry-initiatied programmes to stop discarding will be in the advice for next year. I thank members for listening.

I thank Dr. Connolly for his usual excellent presentation. A number of members met the pan Irish Sea alliance on the recovery of fish stocks in the Irish Sea. The representatives of that organisation seemed to make the case that granting a privileged position to one species such as, for example, cod, based on scientific advice - some of which they challenged - did not seem to provide an adequate basis for the development of the industry. Will Dr. Connolly comment on that matter?

A presentation was previously made to the committee in respect of the cod and hake recovery plans and targets for the Irish Sea and the west of Scotland. How are targets for minimum stock sizes arrived at?

Does Dr. Connolly accept that, by and large, Irish fishermen are doing a good job in terms of the conservation of fish and the protection of particular species? To what would he attribute the fact that stocks in the Celtic Sea are much greater, even though they are probably still in danger, than those to be found off the coast of Donegal?

I acknowledge the tremendous work of the institute, particularly in trying to secure the future of the next generation of fishermen. Are other European countries of like mind with Ireland on the conservation and protection of stocks? What, if any, knowledge does Dr. Connolly have of the Spanish fishing industry and how it is coping with these matters? Is Ireland on a par with or better than, for example, Scotland or England on conservation policies? There is no point in Ireland, as a small island, doing all the right things if our neighbours do not follow suit.

Some of the statistics make for depressing reading, particularly for the fishing industry which is trying to argue its case to avoid significant reductions in TACs. In Dr. Connolly's view, what measures could be taken to reduce the number of discards? Are there technical conservation measures that can allow for that or is the only approach the imposition of a blunt, simplistic measure to reduce fishing effort? A significant problem appears to be developing in respect of spawning and the number of juvenile fish in the key stocks of cod and whiting in the Irish Sea and elsewhere. Does the Marine Institute accept that there may be other ways of improving the number spawning and those of juvenile fish through the introduction of technical measures such as the use of mesh slides or the creation of set-aside areas? A number of experiments of the latter were carried out on a voluntary basis by the fishing industry. Does Dr. Connolly accept the data that has emerged from these experiments or is it simply the recommendation of the Marine Institute that we should reduce fishing effort and total allowable catches?

When Dr. Connolly has dealt with this set of questions, we will take a final raft of questions. The Minister will join our deliberations immediately thereafter.

If I miss any of the points raised, I ask that members bring it to my attention.

The first question related to the Irish Sea and why we are trying to protect cod above everything else. The situation in the Irish Sea is critical in terms of cod stocks. However, there are now also difficulties with whiting stocks. How many more species do we allow to join the list before taking action? We must implement the necessary measures now. We previously had an Irish Sea recovery plan which was initiated in 2000. As a scientist, I believe that said plan was watered down because there were too many derogations involved. I am often asked whether we would be in our current situation if those derogations had not been put in place in 2000.

The second question relating to the Irish Sea asked how we reached the current position in respect of the spawning stock biomass. For a long period scientists have been warning that things in the Irish Sea were not good but their advice was not followed. That is part of the system in which we are involved in the EU. What happens is that we have a December Council where the scientific advice only forms part of the decision-making process. There are other factors, such as economics, politics and socio-economics, which play on the final decision. However, in terms of the science, scientists have been saying for some time that discarding should be reduced in respect of whiting. I hope that answers the question asked on this matter.

The next question related to Irish fishermen, stocks in the Celtic Sea and why there is a difference. We believe that stocks in the Celtic Sea are very different to those in the waters off Donegal and in the Irish Sea. The Celtic Sea stocks are fished differently and there is a different rate of fishing mortality. If it were a matter of climate, one would expect movement from south to north. I do not believe it is a matter of climate, although the latter is a factor. I do not honestly know why the situation in the waters off Donegal and the Irish Sea is different to that which obtains in the Celtic Sea. All I can say is that there are different environments involved, different fleets operate in the three areas and there are different fish stocks. When these factors are taken into consideration, one arrives at a different state for the stocks and there are different management regimes. That is why things are different.

Is it possible that those who fish the Celtic Sea are better at what they do than those who fish in other areas?

That would be difficult to prove because there are so many factors that influence the state of fish stocks. The fishing practices in the Celtic Sea, the countries that prosecute the fisheries and the gear used are completely different. It is a case of trying to compare apples and oranges. It is extremely difficult. Does that answer the Deputy's question?

In terms of like-minded countries and the EU, scientists work together to perform the assessments in question. In a sense, therefore, scientists are of like mind. We might disagree on the advice but ultimately it takes the form of a consensus advice that comes from a group of scientists debating the state of the stocks. Countries have argued previously about the state of the stocks and there were discrepancies, in the view of certain countries, in this regard. However, in recent years, countries have come to realise that matters have reached a critical state and that action must be taken. I do not believe such a consensus existed previously because there were always one or two countries that did not agree. Most countries now accept that we have reached a critical stage regarding fish stocks and we need to take severe management action. In answer to the question that was asked, like-minded consensus has come about between EU countries.

The next question related to industry initiated work programmes. The scientific advice is strong in terms of commenting on industry-initiated programmes. The advice on cod, for example, is that there should be a zero catch of cod in the Irish Sea. If industry initiated programmes can show that in, for example, the nephrops fishery cod is not caught, those fisheries should be allowed to proceed. There is a great opportunity for the industry, with the advice for this year, to develop a plan which shows that we can fish on the nephrops but we must also show, independently, that we are not catching cod or whiting. This will not be easy to achieve. I will provide an example.

Nephrops fisheries occur on the whiting spawning and nursery areas in the Irish Sea. This has always been the reason that there are high discards of this species of fish. This technical conservation must be implemented so that the whiting can escape through the nephrops trawls. BIM has done a great deal of work on this and all the information is available. It is time for the scientists and the industry to come together to develop these industry-initiated programmes.

Technical measures have a part to play but they are not the only solution. Severe cuts in TACs, allied to technical conservation measures, will have to be taken to rebuild our stocks.

I thank Dr. Connolly for attending. Will he clarify the relationship between haddock and cod? Haddock stocks are healthy but because cod stocks are not the catches of haddock and cod must be reduced. The Canadians banned fishing for cod off the Newfoundland Bank a few years ago but reports from scientists indicate the cod stocks are not recovering.

Dr. Connolly mentioned the collection of data on the number of fish caught. Is the quantity of fish caught and not recorded factored into his equation? Everybody knows this is happening but a blind eye is turned to it. When replying to Deputy O'Donovan's question, Dr. Connolly stated there is a consensus between Ireland and other states. As a scientist, he attends various meetings and outlines data from Ireland. How does he know the data his counterparts present is collected properly and presented objectively? Perhaps they present it in a certain way to strengthen and boost their fisheries.

Discards is a major problem. A system must be put in place. It is absolutely ridiculous to discard a fish after it is caught. A balance must be struck where one quota is set against another similar to the Norwegian system. Is something similar proposed in Ireland?

I thank Dr. Connolly, who has presented an incredibly bleak picture of an unfolding disaster. The figures for the cod catch in the Donegal area, and those for recruitment in future years, are shocking. I agree with him that there has been a crash over the past 20 years as people ignored the scientific advice such as he has presented and a crisis has been reached. Following his presentation to the committee last year, I thought I was safe buying sole and plaice in the shop. He said those stocks had not reached a critical level but they have now in the Irish Sea. Is that a recent phenomenon?

What advice will issue from the ACFM and the STCF to the Commission this month? Will these scientific committees recommend the widespread closure of fisheries in Donegal? What will the Commission decide before making recommendation to the Council of Ministers?

There are three sets of questions. The first relates to mixed fisheries and the cod and haddock dilemma in the Irish Sea. The problem is cod and haddock occupy the same area. They live together but feed on different organisms. A trawl catches both. Cod has failed in its environment in terms of recruitment but for some reason, based on the type of beast it is and the part of the ecosystem haddock occupies, it is thriving. The problem is haddock generates a significant spike in terms of recruitment and then there is nothing for years, which is then followed by another significant spike. Haddock experience periodic outbursts because of mother nature and scientists cannot explain that. This is a feature of the haddock stock and when there is a haddock outburst in the middle of the cod stock, which is in a critical state, managers are in a dilemma in terms of how they protect cod and how they permit fishermen to catch haddock. I have no answer to that.

Deputy Fitzpatrick's second question related to Canadian cod fisheries, which have been closed for more than ten years and have not recovered. Haddock has recovered and lives with cod. There have been major changes in the oceanography of eastern Canada, which has played a big part in the demise of cod and its inability to re-establish itself. Haddock has filled the niche cod occupied off the Canadian coast and whether it recovers is still open to debate.

The second set of questions relates to catch data and black fish or unreported landings. When scientists conduct assessments, the landings of stock are a critical input to the assessment and in the past, particularly when there were problems with a stock and black fish landings, scientists made their own estimates which are fed into the assessments. A lack of estimates of unreported catch from particular fisheries is a major problem and it has been a dilemma in the past. That is why we are moving towards more independent methods that do not rely as much on catch. However, we try to make estimates, although it is a major problem.

Deputy Hogan also asked a question about data integrity and scientists attending meetings with agendas. The retention of credibility is important to a scientist. If he loses his credibility, he will not be listened to at international meetings and what he says will not carry weight. Scientists who attend meetings with agendas are flushed out quickly. I do not say scientists attend such meetings without national agendas but it is an impartial, unbiased process. It is not taint free but it is important to retain credibility and it is still there.

The third set of questions concerned sole and plaice. The advice, particularly for sole, has changed because one of the lowest recruitments of sole has been witnessed in the Irish Sea. That has implications for the future of the stock and that is why the advice this year is different. The state of sole is not as critical as cod and whiting. We are not as worried about sole as we are about cod and whiting.

I would have to go through all the stocks and areas to explain the advice from the ACFM and the STCF. The state of the cod and whiting stocks is driving the Irish area. We are extremely worried. ISES and scientists have advised zero catch unless industry programmes can show cod and whiting are not caught. This highlights the importance of industry-initiated programmes working with scientists and managers to formulate a plan for next year. The plan will incorporate reductions in TACs.

How can there be a zero catch of cod and whiting while catching haddock and other species?

It can be done through technical conservation measures. Some argue that a zero catch of cod means closing all the fisheries but the advice is that if industry-initiated programmes can show cod is not caught, then the fisheries should remain open. The advice is there should be no catch of cod but if other species are to be fished, it must be shown there is no catch of cod in those fisheries and they will be allowed to proceed. I do not know how the Commission will bite on that advice as it is formulating the policy now.

I thank Dr. Connolly for his comments. The Minister is present and he is anxious because he must meet Jurgen Holmquist.

How did Dr. Connolly conduct his survey and what was the average amount of fish surveyed? When did it take place? Is his survey accurate?

We conduct ground fish surveys to assess the health of the stock at this time of year. We survey with the Scottish to the north and the French to the south. We do this to get a picture of the whitefish stocks from the west of Scotland down to the Bay of Biscay. We do not need to catch a large commercial volume of fish to signal the state of the stock. Last week we fished off Donegal for more than 40 tows, or 40 hours of fishing, and we caught 11 cod. That implies that the cod population is in poor shape and it is not at odds with the assessment. Our survey is very valuable. It is not a commercial fishing exercise, just an indicator of the state of the fish stocks.

I thank Dr. Connolly for sharing his scientific knowledge with us. His presentation has given us an insight into the policies and Government policies on fish stocks and their conservation.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I apologise for being 20 minutes behind schedule but we started late and we also had to deal with private business. The Minister must leave at 3.45 p.m. because he must meet Jurgen Holmquist from the European Commission.

I thank the committee for allowing me to speak at this juncture. I listened to some of what Dr. Connolly had to say. Obviously I am keenly aware of the advice from him and other members of the International Council for Exploration of the Seas.

Today's meeting comes at a critical juncture between two issues of crucial importance for the Irish fishing industry. First, the concluding of negotiations on the Irish Box and, second, the opening of negotiations on the fishing quotas for 2004. Obviously, the committee's deliberations are very important because all concerned, particularly the fishing industry, keenly looks at them. These are very difficult and challenging times. The evidence given to the committee earlier illustrates that.

Recent scientific advice has indicated that many commercial fish stocks are undergoing a steep decline. This trend must be stopped and stocks rebuilt as a matter of priority. Although there is a general consensus about the key importance of this objective there is some debate about how it can be achieved. There is also debate on how to achieve a balance between sustaining stock while sustaining people that derive a livelihood from it. That is the key critical issue.

I wish to concentrate on two issues, the Irish conservation box agreement and the developments on 2004 TACs and quotas on which decisions shall be made in the coming month.

In general, there are two main elements of the deal agreed on the Irish Box. First, a new conservation box comprising an area of more than 100,000 square kilometres has been established. Second, specific effort limits will apply to all foreign fishing fleets operating in the waters around Ireland, not just in the new conservation box. The main implication of this agreement is the guarantee that there will be no increases in fishing effort by foreign fishing fleets in waters around Ireland and sensitive waters off the south and west coasts. They will be given special protection. The agreement also ensures that the current balance between northern and southern waters will be maintained, thus ensuring that there will be no transfer of effort by Spain from waters off its coast into Irish waters where fish stocks are over-exploited. One of the key issues that the industry representatives asked for, and we insisted upon, was to be included with the Commission officials.

I voted against this agreement from a tactical point of view. I also did so because I had consistently expressed the view that the Irish Box in its existing format should be retained in full. The new Irish conservation box, which has been welcomed as a good deal by the Irish fishing industry in general, went a significant way towards meeting my demands to protect vital spawning and nursery areas for many key stocks. However, I was not prepared to depart from my position of principle when it came to a vote. If anyone speaks to other countries participating in the debate, particularly Spain, they will discover that it was regarded as a significant Irish victory.

I am confident that this deal will provide stability in the future and will greatly help to guarantee the livelihoods of fishermen around our coast who are dependent on these waters. At Council I was faced with outright opposition from Spain to any special protection measures in our waters. In the new regulation I secured protection for the waters around Ireland under the greatest pressure from Spanish vessels. I ensured that strict control measures were put in place in the new Irish conservation box. To that extent the outcome must be viewed to be broadly satisfactory.

I will outline developments in the 2004 total allowable catches and quota process. As members will be aware, every December TACs for the various fish stocks are established as part of the Common Fisheries Policy by the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers. It takes account of scientific advice provided by fisheries biologists on the state of stocks. The process is now moving into its most critical phase following the recent receipt of scientific advice from ICES and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. The European Commission will table detailed proposals before the end of the month. Quotas for 2004 will then be subject to detailed discussions and negotiations up to and at a meeting of the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers from 17 to 19 December.

As outlined by Dr. Connolly earlier, the scientific advice for this year indicates that there is a serious concern that certain stocks are well outside safe biological limits. There is particular concern about key whitefish stocks such as cod, hake and whiting. The Commission requested the scientific bodies to adopt the precautionary principle in preparing their advice for this year, which provides that uncertainty about, or lack of data, on stocks requires the application of conservative management measures. The Commission is likely to seek the reduction of the TACs in accordance with the advice for stocks in need of recovery and to reduce all of the stocks caught with recovery stocks, or stocks outside safe biological limits, irrespective of the scientific data on the latter.

The cuts for a whole range of species are expected to be driven by the scientific advice on the most vulnerable species. In this regard, the Commission has indicated that its approach will be driven by the need to recover cod and whiting stocks in the Irish Sea, the cod stock west of Scotland, and hake, cod and plaice in the Celtic Sea. My Department and the Marine Institute are examining, in detail, the scientific advice on all of these stocks within this context.

In tandem with the upcoming TAC and quota proposals earlier this year, the Commission proposed recovery plans in respect of cod and hake in areas including the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and the area west of Scotland. At present these proposals are being examined by member states and are set to be agreed at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in December. The overall objective is to ensure the recovery of these stocks within a timeframe of five to ten years.

My chief concerns about these recovery plans relate to the cod stocks in the Irish Sea and in the area west of Scotland. The implications of the proposed recovery measures, as currently formulated, would have a significant effect on the Irish fishing industry. They would also have a major impact on the family owned fishing enterprises that form the backbone of our mixed fisheries sector. Furthermore, the current approach is primarily based on effort reductions. I am not convinced that this is the best solution available to us in all cases. I find it difficult to reconcile regional differences with the blanket approach to effort reduction being advanced by the Commission. As is always said at the Council of Ministers meetings, the one size does not fit all when discussing recovery plans. Notwithstanding these reservations, we must ensure that fish stocks are exploited on a sustainable basis. In respect of the cod fishery off the coast of Scotland and Ireland, Ireland has taken the unilateral step of closing an important spawning area off the north-west coast, something that will have a positive effect on cod stocks. I thank the industry representatives for their initiative and assistance in this respect.

At the most recent meeting of the Council of Ministers, a few days ago, I was able to show again how far Ireland was prepared to go when dealing with recovery plans. The recovery plans developed in close association with industry, using the most appropriate instruments available, stand the best chance of delivering balanced and effective measures aimed at the recovery of the stocks. With this in mind, I have proposed to the Commission that the existing cod recovery plan in the Irish Sea should be strengthened - Dr. Connolly gave evidence in this regard earlier - with improved technical measures such as the mandatory use of separator panels in the nephrops fishery and a strong control regime, rather than being replaced with a simplistic solution based on fishing effort limitations, which will not, in my view, deliver sustainable fisheries stocks but will have a greater social and economic impact on fishing communities and probably will not gain the universal support of that community. It is important to note that my proposals have the support of our industry, and accordingly have a far better chance of success than the Commission's approach.

We must now await the Commission's formal proposals on TAC and quota for 2004. When the proposals are received, I will consider them in the light of the scientific advice and in full consultation with the industry representatives who are apprised of the situation to establish a national position. While there is a pressing need to recover stocks, there is also a concern to protect, to the greatest extent possible, the needs of coastal communities dependent on fishing for their livelihood. Obviously, balance is what is required in this area. My objective in the December negotiations will be to strike an appropriate balance between these two considerations. We do not under-estimate the difficulties of delivering on our objective of maximising sustainable fishing opportunities for 2004 while ensuring the long-term future of fish stocks in our waters.

I would also like to advise the joint committee that I have today laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas a new licensing policy for fishing vessels. The key objective of the new licensing policy is to create a new open and transparent policy that will facilitate the achievement of a sustainable and viable livelihood for fishermen operating in the various types of fisheries taking account of available fishing opportunities and fishing resources. In addition, the introduction of a transparent, settled policy will, I believe, give stability and certainty to the industry.

I hope my address provides a satisfactory overview of the key topics facing the Irish fishing sector in the run up to the December Council. I will be happy to respond to members' questions.

Thank you. The committee wishes the Minister well in his deliberations today with officials from the EU.

I would like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for the excellent and substantial work he has undertaken in defending the Irish Box. He boxed above his weight and has obtained an excellent result given the problems with which he was faced. He did an excellent day's work in that regard.

I also wish the Minister well in his negotiations on TAC and the quota for 2004 bearing in mind there is widespread concern within the industry about cod, hake and whiting stocks. This committee must never forget that not alone must we consider the sustainability of the industry today but we must also consider a plan for future generations. Many of the stocks referred to are in serious danger.

Will the Minister address the issue of the two vessels built by fishermen in Castletownbere that appear unable to obtain a licence? The industry has expressed serious concern in this regard. Prior to this meeting I received a telephone call from a correspondent in the Irish Examiner asking many questions about this matter. What is the current position? Will these vessels have to be re-sold? Is this the end of the line for them? This is a serious matter that affects a few families and is a serious blow to the Irish south and west.

For the past two decades - I know it is not the fault of the current Minister - the Irish south and west has played second fiddle to the northwest. I wish good luck to those in Killibegs which is the Dublin 4 of the fishing industry. We in the south and west have been sucking hind tits in this respect. I am gravely concerned about this matter. I know the Minister was obliged to pursue the licensing issue and that he inherited a problem not of his making. This matter is very parochial to me and perhaps the Minister might provide me with a considered reply.

I again thank the Minister for the excellent work he did on the Irish Box. I am glad the industry has also recognised this Minister's work in this area.

While I have given Deputy O'Donovan a great deal of latitude I would appreciate if, in future, he could keep his questions brief.

It is seldom the Chair allows me to speak.

I will be in trouble with Deputy Coveney and others.

A number of fishing families in southwest Cork will be close to a state of despair as a result of the publication of the new fish licensing proposals which the Minister said are aimed at stability and certainty for the industry. The situation provides anything but certainty for the two vessels concerned. Is the Minister aware of any other EU country that is taking the approach of dry storage rather than tank storage for catching pelagic fish species which he has confirmed in the new licensing policy adopted this morning? Does he think it is a progressive or regressive measure that fishermen who have permission to catch pelagic fish, albeit smaller tonnages of pelagic fish than the bigger boys from Killibegs and other parts of the country, are required to store such fish by methods, which they termed as "yesterday's technology", that are inefficient and produce poor quality fish as opposed to allowing them to store fish in cold water storage tanks? That is the key issue to which Deputy O'Donovan referred. It is also the reason the two vessels concerned may well have to be sold as opposed to being offered stability and certainty.

I welcome the opportunity that the Minister's early appearance before the committee has given us to discuss this matter before negotiations on the fish quota begin. I thank the Chair for his latitude.

The Minister stated that he wants to strengthen existing cod recovery plans. What specific case will he make to other European countries? Will he, in his considered opinion, obtain agreement on the technical conservation measures of which he spoke, such as separation panels? What kind of increased control regime does the Minister propose? Are we talking about more boardings, more inspections on the dock or increased fines if people break the rules? To what type of increased control measures does the Minister refer when he speaks of tighter control regimes for fishing while still protecting cod?

I was not as complimentary as others on the outcome regarding the Irish Box. Is it not the case that in effect the Irish Box is now one third of the size it used to be and is now off the south west coast? I welcome that development which should secure future fish stocks off the south west coast. How can we ensure that there will be no transfer of effort from the south west, for example into the north west fisheries area? How can we ensure this in the medium to long-term? Has the Minister received a verbal or written assurance that there will not be a change in fishing effort? The Minister has also stated there will be no increase in fishing effort by foreign fishing vessels anywhere around the Irish coastline. How far does this extend - as far as the old Irish Box or further out?

If we impose more restrictions on the Irish fishing fleet around the Irish coast, will those restrictions also apply to foreign fishing vessels or will foreign fishing vessels have the same fishing entitlement as they now have? Will Irish fishermen be asked to reduce fishing effort into the future - in effect increasing the ratio of fishing effort that foreign fishing vessels will have in the future? This is a very important issue. Will we be able to keep the ratio of fishing effort between foreign and Irish trawlers outside the new conservation box area?

I call Deputy McEllistrim, after which the Minister will speak. Two further Deputies and two Senators are offering after that.

How is the outcome of the Irish Box a very good deal when the size has been reduced by two thirds? What arrangements are in place for the Irish Box before the implementing rules are decided next year? What will happen if the implementing rules are not decided during the Irish Presidency next year?

I will speak about the licensing policy. I have been in this job for about 18 months. When the Government was formed, we committed ourselves to introducing a new fleet policy that would ensure equity, transparency and an independent appeals process. I particularly wanted to try to get away from personalising licence applications. I wanted to bring a common approach to the granting of fishing licences without fear or favour and without even the perception that it is easier to get a licence in some areas than others. Members will agree with me that it is preferable to have a much more open and transparent system so that the people applying can have absolute confidence in it. So, I introduced the policy.

It was not as though I was starting from a green field site. While it was a pity this was not the case, unfortunately I had to take into account the existing rules. The vast majority of people complied with those rules. Both in my time as Minister and previously there have been reports of new boats coming to our shores without any prospect of a licence either under the old regime or any purported new regime. I would not build a house if I did not have planning permission. It defies logic how this can be done. I was trying to make sure that from here on people in the industry would have absolute certainty that these rules would be applied without fear or favour in an open and common way and that there would be no perception of favouritism on either side. I believe I will achieve that.

I accept that it may cause difficulties for some people. However, there are possibilities for people who are in difficulty and who perhaps brought in boats in the full knowledge that they did not strictly comply with the previous regime. There is a possibility that some of the boats, which do not comply with the new regime, will be able to enter the pelagic sector, provided they have 100% replacement which is an absolute requirement in that sector, as others have done to get into that sector.

I was asked about the new smaller Irish Box. More important than the Irish Box is the fishing effort in the overall areas of our waters. I was accused by the Spanish Minister of continually referring to "our" waters and was reminded by him that these are EU waters. I can use that term here, as I know I am speaking to the converted - this was not the case when I was at the Council meeting. In Area 6 and 7 and in the new Irish conservation box the fishing effort will be fixed at the annual average between 1998 and 2002, which is exactly what we sought to keep. Even the fishing industry representatives acknowledged that nearly more important than the area of the Irish Box, was the fact that in the entire area the fishing effort was capped at those levels.

The 2004 tack and quota system will present many difficulties. We have already had discussions with the majority of the industry representatives about introducing technical measures and strengthening the existing recovery plans in order to convince particularly the Commission that we can work with our industry in tandem with the idea of conservation of stocks. The proposals on control have yet to be discussed. However, having spoken to Mr. Fischler privately and having listened to him at the Council meetings it is clear he is adamant that control needs to be strengthened and issues such as designating certain ports for landing, giving advance notice of landings, etc. may well be examined.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his concise outline of the current position on fisheries matters. I again wish him well in negotiations in the coming weeks. When considering those two very impressive vessels in Cork south west, it seems extraordinary that we got to this point and have not had a chance to have a full debate on this matter. Representations were made to the members of this committee about safety tonnage, polyvalent vessels, etc. We seem to get bits of information through industry publications like the Marine Times, The Irish Skipper, etc. There has been very little information from either the Department or through the committee. However, this is a vital area of the administration of the Department.

Did the Deputy table parliamentary questions on this matter?

While I tabled questions, I got no information. I know we have very little time and the Department is vast. Submissions on licensing policy closed on 31 October. Is the document the Minister placed in the Oireachtas Library today final or is it possible to review that? With regard to the Irish Box, I note the comments of the industry in that regard. However, we have to look at the broader picture of the overall implications for the economy. It is quite remarkable to hear a Fianna Fáil Deputy being critical of the Minister when asking how something can be presented as a victory in a situation where we end up with a box which is one-third the size of the existing Irish Box. I accept that the Minister did well in the context of the "track record" period and the exclusion of 1995.

Deputy Broughan, in fairness to Deputy McEllistrim, his question was as to how it was a good deal and, indeed, in what way——

He sounded very critical, in my view.

No, he asked the Minister a specific question as to how it would affect——

The question remains as to whether the Minister has thrown a very bad hospital pass to his successors in the Department, perhaps in the run-up to 2008, who will have a very difficult job when the review period arrives. There will only be a four year operational period and the question arises as to exactly what will happen. As the Minister said, he will be in the chair for EU Council of Ministers' meetings next year in connection with the implementation rules. What does he expect to be in a position to do in this regard and on the question of entry and exit by foreign vessels to the Irish Box and, indeed, to all of our waters. How will that be implemented?

On the face of it, from a national perspective, I believe the result with regard to the Irish Box was something of a disaster in overall terms for our industry. In the long-term, it puts us in grave difficulties, despite what the Spaniards may say. If we did not have weighted voting on fisheries policy matters, I am not sure we would ever have agreed to the present type of decision on a vital national resource.

Finally, I welcome what the Minister said about the upcoming negotiations on technical conservation measures and the other elements of the negotiating strategy which he outlined today.

The Minister said the new licensing regime would be operated without fear or favour and there would be no favouritism. Does he consider there was favouritism in the recent past in the manner of awarding licences? On the Irish Box, I take the point that the real issue is about fishing effort being restricted to the level which had applied in 1998 to 2002. However, I have two questions in that regard. Is the Minister happy with the situation, having regard to the scientific figures presented today to the effect that the fishing effort over the past five years has led to a catastrophic collapse in stocks of many fish species? Obviously, that level of effort will have to be reduced. The real question is, how the shares of that reduced quota will be allocated under the new regime? As the Minister sees the situation, how will the share of the Spanish, French, Belgian or others be allocated?

With regard to the main issue in hand, the upcoming negotiations, the Minister said he does not agree with the Commissioner's approach on the question of reduced effort. Having heard the presentation from the Marine Institute, is it not the case that we are now dealing with a changed situation? It is not a question of reduced effort but, rather, of no effort if fishing is seen to affect the particularly critical stocks - cod and whiting. Has the Department a view on fishing techniques for stocks such as haddock which would have a zero effect on stocks of cod and whiting?

Will the Minister insist on an approach whereby any fishing effort that is allowed will have no effect on the remaining cod stocks? The Minister referred to the closure, which is very welcome, of spawning grounds off the north west coast of Donegal as being a unilateral decision by the Irish Government and industry. However, is there not a cause for concern that, in that same area last week, a fishing boat caught only ten cod in the course of 40 tows? We need more radical measures to try to restore those stocks.

The Minister said his proposals have the support of the industry and, accordingly, have a far better chance of success than the Commission's approach which, inevitably, would not be supported by the industry. Is it not the case that the Commission's approach is largely based on scientific advice? On the basis of the figures we have seen today and the disaster which is unfolding because scientific advice has been ignored, should Irish Government policy not be largely based on scientific advice at this stage, rather than on what the industry is telling the Minister? Otherwise, there will be neither any stocks nor industry left in five years time. Is it not time we began to side with the scientists, rather than saying we have to side with the industry because it has a greater chance of succeeding?

Senator Kenneally is next, before the Minister replies. Senator Finucane also wishes to intervene and there were some unanswered questions from Deputy Coveney.

I compliment the Minister on what he has achieved with regard to the Irish Box. Everybody, except Deputy Broughan, who seems to be on the side of the Spaniards on this matter, is in agreement with the Minister. All of the fishing industry organisations are quite happy with the Minister's achievement. I consider it a marvellous job of work.

That is a ridiculous remark - a typical Fianna Fáil attitude. I am on the side of Ireland. By all appearances, the Senator is on the side of the Spaniards.

That is not so.

(Interruptions).

This committee has worked very well for more than a year, without having difficulties between members.

The Chair should speak to the Senator.

I am trying to ask a question. The Minister seems to have solved the issue, to a certain extent, with regard to the reduced quota that we can expect for 2004. If he is as successful in that regard as on the Irish Box, we will benefit as well as we can from that. My main question is on the licensing system. Deputy O'Donovan referred earlier to the south western part of the country playing second fiddle to the north west. If there is such an expression as "third fiddle", that would best describe our position in the south and east, in that we have been very badly treated in this whole state of affairs. I was delighted to hear the Minister say - I underlined it in his script - that he wishes to create a new, open and transparent policy.

That is not before time and I hope it will come to pass. Nobody can stand over what happened in the past and which still seems to be continuing to a certain extent. Various types of boats have been referred to in this debate. Does the Minister wish to give a view as to whether the people concerned were aware that they were taking a gamble in bringing in such boats, without, perhaps, having replacements for them? If I may be more specific, I was not aware of what the Minister had laid before the House today until his statement was shown to me subsequently. I am delighted he is going for 100% replacements. There had been mention of a 2:1 ratio but, as I understand it, the Minister is now saying it will be 1:1.

In my area, one individual purchased a boat six or seven months ago. He has 100% replacement tonnage and got a verbal understanding from the Department that there would not be a difficulty with regard to a licence. However, that boat is still tied up, despite having 100% replacement tonnage. Will the Minister say whether that individual will now get a licence, or will he have to wait until the proposed new body is put in place, thereby placing further hardship on him by having his boat tied up while he is waiting for the paperwork to be sorted out?

I thank the Senator. I invite the Minister to respond to the three sets of questions from members.

On Deputy Broughan's reference to the Irish Box, I appreciate that he has to make the best case he can from his position. He has to issue the occasional statement to keep his end up. However, the reaction of the Spanish media to the outcome on the Irish Box is very telling. The Voice of Galicia newspaper said: “The fishing sector blames Spanish political weakness for the creation of a new Irish Box”, and went on to decry the Spanish Government for its efforts, saying it had no political clout at EU level. Reports in the Irish media confirm what I have said, more or less. The “No” vote was a tactical one, as I explained on my way home from the EU meeting. Ireland could not be seen to vote for the proposal while Spain was voting against it. I believe I do not need to comment further in that regard. Ultimately, the fishing industry representatives approached me, at 12 midnight on the night before the Council meeting, on two issues. I went to the meeting and succeeded on those two issues. They were the two significant issues which the people who understand this matter wanted to be addressed. I do not accept any criticism in that regard.

The Government is the first one to have brought forward a licensing policy which represents a line in the sand. I accept there is a perception that one area was favoured above another, but that was not the case. Some people felt that licences were given more easily to those who shouted the loudest or got the ear of the Minister, but I do not accept that was the case. I appreciate that such a perception existed, as I encountered it regardless of where I went or to whom I spoke. I decided to adopt a similar attitude to that I displayed when I was Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. I do not believe it is the job of a Minister, or any politician, to intervene in individual cases. It is true that representations are sometimes made, but when one is in charge of a Department one should be involved in making policy. Civil servants or those working in the agencies are responsible for implementing such policies thereafter without fear or favour. If anyone has a query in that regard, they can ask for a judicial review of the decisions made.

I was asked about what are known as "tank boats". Senator Kenneally asked if people were aware that they were breaking the rules or chancing their arm. People were fully aware - they became involved in this matter with their eyes wide open. They knew the difficulties in obtaining approval. They argued that additional tank boats were needed in the polyvalent sector for reasons of quality. It is all about getting more fish. If one wishes to make these boats economical one has to catch many more fish, but sufficient levels of fish are not available within that sector. The quotas dictate that there can be no expansion of the fishing quantities. Many of the arguments in favour of the potential for "tank boats" relate to the fact that such vessels have a much better capacity.

Deputy Eamon Ryan asked about the Irish Box, which will not conserve fish on its own, although it is one of the instruments that will help to do so. In the first six months of this year, the Commission vehemently opposed the idea of an Irish conservation area but, as a result of the evidence put forward by Dr. Connolly and others from the Marine Institute, it became convinced of the case in favour of an Irish conservation area. Although it had not previously seen any merit in the idea, it started to argue in favour of such a system of conservation. It is clear that this is an area in which the evidence of scientists was used to our advantage. It will ensure that fish stocks, particularly in the spawning areas, will be preserved and not over-fished. If there is no effort, there will be no recovery plans. It is obvious that scientists such as Dr. Connolly are pushing for recovery plans. Any move by the Commission or the Council of Ministers will be based on scientific advice. The Council of Ministers and the Commission will decide the type of instrument to be brought forward to preserve the stocks.

Senator Kenneally asked about boats. I do not want to personalise the matter. I appreciate that many people want to get on with their business during the moratorium on the licence issue. I cannot say whether any individuals will be given licences as a result of the policy because it will be a matter for the independent licensing authority. This will relieve the logjam that has existed, generally speaking, and which has caused people difficulties. I had to consider fully all the aspects that this policy might engender, including the negative aspects.

When does the Minister expect the new body to be in place?

It is in operation already.

Does the Minister wish to answer some of the other questions that were asked?

Deputy Eamon Ryan wants to speak.

Bearing in mind that there will be a set quota within the Irish Box area, will there have to be a reallocation of some of it to the Spanish? In other words, how will the Commission or the Minister redistribute the fishing effort in Irish waters other than those in the south-west?

It is based on the annual average between 1998 and 2000 for each country.

May I ask a second question?

I want to give Senator Finucane an opportunity to ask a question.

Does the Department believe that methods are available for catching fish such as haddock that will have no effect on fish such as cod or whiting? If no effort will be permissible in respect of cod or whiting stocks, does the Department believe that fishing techniques are available to the Irish fleet to catch demersal fish other than cod or whiting?

I am trying to conduct the meeting in a way that means we will be finished by 5 p.m., as we agreed at the start. We have yet to hear from many organisations.

I welcome the openness in respect of licensing policy, but I hope the Minister will admit that it has taken a long time to come to pass. It was sought quite some time ago. There was always a perception that the issuing of licences was shrouded in some kind of mystique. I welcome the new policy. I appreciate that some difficulties were mentioned earlier, but I would be dishonest if I said that I do not welcome the new arrangements. The fishing industry wanted this to happen. It seems to me that there is a predictable script in this regard, because one could have written the same type of script or Dr. Connolly could have delivered the same type of presentation at any time over the last ten years. The issue of depleted fishing stocks is a not a new one. The script for December is also predictable - ICES will recommend certain quotas and Ministers will fight to get an improvement in what has been recommended. The fishing stocks will remain depleted.

I wish to ask about mixed fisheries. The Canadian experience - cod had not returned after ten years, despite being sealed off - has been mentioned. Dr. Connolly painted a very depressing picture. What guarantees, if any, do we have that cod stocks will return? In that context, where will fishermen fish? I remember that we spoke about the conservation of haddock some years ago, when it had become a depleted resource. Dr. Connolly said afterwards that nature is a funny thing because haddock stocks have increased. Haddock is found in the mixed fisheries zone, which means that although haddock is plentiful, one cannot fish for it as a result of the decline of cod stocks. There is an inherent gamble in respect of fishing. What reassurance do we have that cod stocks will be revitalised? A product similar to cod has been sourced from New Zealand waters in recent times to make fish fingers. The producers of such products appear to have accepted that cod stocks are depleted and may not recover.

Did Deputy Coveney indicate to me that the Minister did not answer his questions properly?

Yes. I would also like to clarify a number of matters.

Has Senator Kenneally's question been answered?

I wish to return to some of the comments the Minister made about licensing and the questions I asked. This is an issue over which he has direct control and he does not have to persuade his European colleagues. I welcome the fact that we are trying to introduce a licensing regime that relieves the Minister of the need to make political decisions on an individual basis.

The Minister said that it is his responsibility to determine policy. How can he justify a policy whereby we cap the amount of fish polyvalent boats that are entitled to fish pelagic species? The fleet concerned is entitled to catch up to 7,000 tonnes. We are forcing vessels, many of which are brand new, to use outdated storage technology. They have an inefficient storage mechanism that produces lower quality fish. Is it a fact that we have taken a policy decision and enshrined in a policy document, which will remain in effect in the medium to long-term, our intention to prevent polyvalent boats with pelagic species fishing entitlements catching too many fish? Even if the catch is below quota entitlements we are limiting their capacity by forcing them to use dry storage that is far less efficient in producing a quality product than tank storage. At the same time, we are promoting a pelagic sector that we are rightly allowing to use the most modern storage facilities available.

Are any other EU countries adopting this approach to boats that are entitled to catch pelagic species? We are forcing them to use cold storage facilities to control the amount of fish they catch. As a result, we are making an impact on the quality of the fish being landed and exported.

I thank Senator Finucane for his remarks on the licensing policy. He is correct in what he said.

The issue of mixed fishing and whether cod levels would revive was raised. As Dr. Connolly said, nature is a peculiar thing. Previously, we had a difficulty in the Celtic Sea when herring levels collapsed. The sector was closed, but it has now come back. The policies work and there is a guarantee. The difficulty with mixed fishing is the knock on effect it has. We make this point time and again. To be fair, Mr. Fischler and the Commission understand the problematic impact of a blanket approach on other stocks that are not in danger. They are trying to grapple with it and the matter will form part of our negotiations with them.

Deputy Coveney asked how I can justify the policy on polyvalent boats. It is very simple. There is a quota of 7,000 tonnes. Unless his tongue was firmly in his cheek, nobody in the industry would say the number of boats, which could come in if I made the policy decision Deputy Coveney and others want me to make, that would be viable if they adhered to the quota. Everyone acknowledges that if more boats were let into that sector, there would be a huge amount of black fishing.

I am not saying more boats should be allowed in.

The fish would be landed outside this country and the law would be broken. I cannot be seen to facilitate that.

The issue of quality is always thrown up at me, and others. There are valid arguments to be made about the quality of the fish stored in a dry hold boat as opposed to a tank boat. BIM produced evidence which demonstrated the quality of fish stored in dry hold boats was as good as that coming out of tank boats. Ultimately, the issue centres on the fact that tank boats have the capacity to fish far more fish than other boats. The quota is not available to meet capacity.

Can the Minister answer the technical question I asked about catching haddock with cod?

We will get that answer another time. We may be able to get the Minister to return to the committee at some later stage. I am conscious that we have gone half an hour over our time.

Previous experience has shown that it cannot be done. We would like to introduce technical measures that would make it possible.

We thank the Minister for attending the committee. We wish him every success at the Council meeting in December. We will be asking industry members if they are pleased with the Minister's work this year. We await their reaction. The committee is delighted the Minister has appeared before us and that he achieved what he has this year.

We are now joined by Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide, chief executive of the Irish Fish Producers' Organisation; Mr. Jason Whooley, chief executive of the Irish South West Fish Producers' Organisation and Mr. Sean Ó Donoghue, chief executive of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation. The delegates are to make a joint presentation and will speak to us for approximately five minutes. We will then take questions from members. I ask the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association to be patient with us, as these proceedings tend to run on. I am afraid I might lose my job for failing to be efficient enough for the members.

Mr. Jason Whooley

I thank the Chairman and the committee for providing us with another opportunity to address them on a couple of key issues for the fishing industry. It is most unexpected. I will begin by speaking on the Irish Box and the science on the Celtic Sea stocks. Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide will speak about the Irish Sea stocks and Mr. Sean Ó Donoghue will speak about pelagic and north west stocks and days at sea. If there are other issues on which committee members would like to question us, we do not object to responding to them.

The Irish Box has been the subject of much debate and 12 months ago it was probably the most significant issue on the fishing industry's table. We were particularly exercised about it in the south west. The matter made for a very depressing Christmas in our area as it represented a major issue for us. Up to 40 Spanish vessels could enter the old Irish Box at any one time and eight of those could enter an area to the north west - area 6. The Commission proposed to do away with that. The slide I have prepared for the committee shows the new Irish Box. I have superimposed in red the outline of the original Irish Box. The area of the new box seems to be much smaller even though it extends further south than the previous Irish Box. The industry, particularly the sectors represented by my colleagues, has adopted a very pragmatic approach to this matter at all times. We have called this issue as we have seen it and we are fairly well immersed in all its details. This is something in which our fishermen are very interested. We are calling this as we see it, without fear or favour. We intend highlighting the key issues. When we met the Minister we had it down to two key concerns. The first of these was that there would be no increase in fishing effort. The media and the industry had picked up on the potential for a massive influx of Spanish vessels in particular into the Irish Box, right up to the six mile limit, which would have a devastating impact on our coastal communities.

The second issue was enforceable controls. What we did not want out of these negotiations was a pretty map, namely, something that looked good but meant nothing. It was crucial that we got controls that could be enforced by the navy. One without the other would have been useless.

The new regulation, Council Regulation (EC) 1954/2003, came into effect on 5 November. The wording is important and clears up any ambiguity. The regulation states that, in order to ensure that there is no increase in the overall levels of existing fishing effort, it is necessary to establish a new fishing effort management regime. This refers to the biologically sensitive area off the Irish coast with which we are primarily concerned. It is part of an overall western waters agreement that is catered for in the regulation. Member states will assess the level of fishing effort exerted by vessels equal to or less than 10 m. in length from 1998 to 2002. At the outset I mentioned that 40 vessels could enter the Irish Box at any time. On a given day in the period 1998 to 2002, if there were 30 vessels as opposed to the 40 allowed this would count towards the fishing effort. If the Spanish fleet operated to the maximum during that period, we could potentially have less effort. It looks like we may have less effort rather than an increase in effort, which is cause for concern. The original Irish Box covered the east coast and up towards the north-west. Effort in area seven can potentially be moved from the north-west coast into the Irish Sea. The quotas are not there and overall effort cannot increase in these areas. This is clearly stated in the regulation.

The Council will vote on the effort levels by 31 May 2004 during the Irish Presidency. We are confident that the Minister and his officials will pull off the required deal for us. If that does not happen, the deadline will move to August. We are confident this will happen, given the level of negotiation that has taken place. The Minister and his officials are to be complimented on the outcome of the negotiations on the Irish Box. We say that without fear or favour. We disagree on certain issues, perhaps even some of those that have already been raised. In spite of that, the three organisations present compliment the Minister on the outcome he achieved. Seán ÓNeachtain MEP, and his colleagues in the European Parliament also deserve credit for the overwhelming vote in the Parliament. Perhaps Deputy Eamon Ryan will explain why his Green Party colleagues abstained from that vote?

As I said earlier, concerns exist that increasing the effort will lead to disaster.

Mr. Whooley is making my job very difficult. He was going well when he praised the Minister but now my job is becoming extremely difficult.

I apologise Chairman, I have to leave to chair a meeting.

Mr. Whooley

The entry-exit catch reporting which was part of the original Irish Box regime has been reintroduced for the new Irish Box. This is crucial. Every time a vessel enters or leaves the box it has to hail in, inform those concerned that it is coming into the box and say what it has on board. This is a tight control and it is important that reporting to the Irish authorities continues.

I have a chart of Irish territorial waters that is effectively broken down into three areas. I will talk about the area shown in green on the slide, which is the Celtic Sea. The scientific picture that has been painted thus far is bleak but this is not necessarily the case. Certain stocks may be in trouble but others are not in such difficult circumstances. On the basis of scientific advice, the figures for monkfish in the Celtic Sea for 2004 are plus 38%. Earlier this year scientists recognised that they got the stock wrong last year and gave us a mid-term increase in monkfish that is a hugely important stock in commercial terms to the Irish fleet. Whiting is minus 56%. The fishing industry would never have agreed to a whiting quota as high as the existing one. We failed to catch our whiting quota for the past number of years. It is an exaggerated quota primarily driven by French concerns.

A recovery plan for cod in the south-east is focused primarily in the 7 B to K area. This is totally unjustified. Cod is being tied up in the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the north-west of Scotland. It should not be treated in the same fashion on the south-west coast. There is no problem with cod in this area due to certain issues that we cannot explain. We have extensive fishing stocks for a period of the year which then disappear, which I put down to climatic reasons. As far as we are concerned there is no problem with cod stocks in the south-west or south-east. Megrim is plus 25%. This is another stock of huge commercial value that is mainly exported. We also have a proposed increase in stocks of hake. It is not all doom and gloom. The message here seems to be that we are in a crisis. This happens every time I go to the December Council but it is not as bad as is being made out. Certain selected stocks may look bad but, in general, this is not the case.

Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide

I will deal with the Irish Sea situation. We would not concur completely with what Dr. Paul Connolly said earlier about the dire straits we are in, in regard to the Irish Sea. The matter can be approached in different ways. As I stated in a circular sent to members, which I am using as a basis for discussions with other organisations, the urgent question now is, does the fishing industry in the Irish Sea put forward a programme of proposals to deal with the challenge, mindful of the lack of any guarantee as to success or does the fishing industry say to hell with the science, the advice and the proposals and let them do their worst? This is obviously a loaded question. Regardless of the fact that we do not agree with it, it is time for us, as industry leaders——

I forgot to draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. It is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, but the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, 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 House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I have to caution witnesses in this regard. As a Member of the Oireachtas, the Minister has privilege.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

I do not want to direct personal criticism at anybody.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not inform witnesses of this.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

We had a briefing from the Marine Institute which also made a presentation to the committee earlier. It pointed out that it is accepted that the European Commission will not propose a total ban on fishing. A mixed fisheries model has been developed using STECF, which is a filter for ICES advice. This system has been largely put together by a group of scientific experts. They make it clear that the manner in which these problems are addressed needs to be scientific. Moreover, they claim it is a question of certain value judgments and the weight accorded to different objectives. These objectives can be social, economic and, of course, resource-driven. We in the industry take heed of the fact that it has been very clearly stated that serious and credible industry-led proposals that make a significant contribution would be a significant part of the overall approach, as stated by Dr. Connolly.

Mindful of these caveats, and bearing in mind that we are only at discussion stage, I differ slightly from the Minister in saying that the proposals are being developed by the industry and not by him or his Department. The proposals require minimum mesh sizes to be increased for the nephrops fishery, which is the single most important directed fishery in the Irish sea; the use of separator panels in all nephrops trawls, thus allowing for an escapement of the cod and haddock, which are not the target species; a strengthening of the cod recovery areas; observer programmes to ensure that the technical measures are being complied with, and extensive voluntary catch and discard identification. These are among the measures being discussed and we hope to formulate them at an early stage in an agreement with other organisations and the fishermen involved. They would allow us take a hand in the future survival of our industry, bearing in mind that we have to play the game on the Commission's and ICES's side of the pitch, and they would be part of a serious contribution to meeting conservation objectives and ensuring the economic and social survival of an industry that is vital to the coastal communities along the Irish Sea.

On the Pan-Irish Sea Alliance, a lobby group involving east coast organisations from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and west coast organisations from Britain, who share the waters of the Irish Sea, has been trying to encourage the United Kingdom to adopt a more flexible approach than it has hitherto. Although we agree on many issues, we are mindful that we differ on others. We will certainly consult the relevant UK organisations on our proposals but we intend to push them regardless of what they choose to think about them.

Have we had informal introductions to the members of the organisation recently?

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

We have had them.

It might be wise for the committee to consider a meeting with the alliance when we have the opportunity, perhaps next year.

Does Mr. Ó Cinnéide share Mr. Whooley's views on the work of the Department and the Minister this year on behalf of Ireland Inc. and the fishing industry?

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

I agree with him regarding the Irish Box. I would be less than honest if I did not state that, in general, we have found that while the Minister has had success in respect of the Irish Box, the relationship between him, his Department and us is capable of a great deal of improvement in terms of the overall priority that is seen to be given to marine matters. There were times when the relationship was better.

Is the Chairman glad he asked the question?

I remind members that that was the only question I asked today.

I will be quite concise. I wish to deal with three issues, the first of which concerns the draconian days-at-sea regime in the northwest in 2003. It was meant to assist in the recovery of cod stocks but certainly did not have this result. Members will note from the relevant slide a large red area stretching from the Donegal coast to the Scottish coast. This is the area in which a days-at-sea regime was introduced for 2003. We made it very clear to the Minister at the December Council that the agreed document pertaining to the regime was badly drafted, illogical and anti-conservation.

The difficulty we have with the regime is that if one fishes with a commercial trawl with a large mesh size, one is allowed only 11 days although there is no cod in one's catch. However, if one fishes with a commercial trawl with a smaller mesh size of 70 mm to 79 mm, usually known as an 80 mm trawl, one is allowed 25 days. We had worked very hard to ensure that our fishermen could move up from the smaller mesh size to the larger one, only to find that a Community regulation penalised those who used a trawl with a larger mesh size. The fundamental issue is that the fishermen in question have had no cod in their catches, yet they are still being penalised in the name of a cod recovery programme. Unfortunately, not only will area six be included next year in the northwest, but the Irish Sea might also be included.

We have made an alternative proposal, which the Minister mentioned in his speech. We are at one in terms of our approach. The industry has agreed to a codling closure off the Greencastle coast, which is off northwest Donegal. All the vessels that fish there have agreed this. It is a very significant step because it implies the closure of that area for all types of fishing from September until February, during which time the codling fishery is in operation. The closure even applies to shell-fisheries, which very rarely catch a cod in one of their pots. Nevertheless, there was a consensus that the area should be closed for everybody. We are asking the Community to make the closure mandatory. The measure will only affect Ireland and will go some way towards recovering the cod stocks in the northwest.

Dr. Connolly spoke of the scientific dimension, and he recognises that we need enhanced scientific advice on the cod stocks. Much has been done in this respect this year, including tagging experiments and egg and larvae surveys. These measures, combined with the closure, mean we have something decent on the table. Given that this is the case, the red area on the map I displayed needs to be reduced significantly because there have been no catches of cod in a large portion of the waters represented thereby, or else there have been none for at least 20 years. Therefore, it is ridiculous to include this portion of the red area in the proposal.

We need enhanced technical conservation measures. The industry is prepared to adopt such measures, as is evident from its having increased mesh sizes. The industry accepts that if it takes the measures on board, with the support of the majority of players in the industry, as will be the case, there will need to be very strict controls in place. We have to be certain that the measures are being implemented in full.

I cannot really speak on behalf of my colleague Ms Patricia McKenna in Brussels but I understand she voted against the proposal because, as I stated, there is an assumption that maintaining the status quo would lead to a huge success. In light of the scientific figures coming through, the Green Party believes the status quo, in terms of fishing effort, is actually responsible for a wipeout of certain stocks. This summarises Patricia McKenna’s position in a nutshell but I do not want to speak for her because she is more than able to speak for herself.

Will Mr. O'Donoghue explain his statistic that boats with a larger mesh size were allowed 11 days at sea while those using a smaller commercial 80 mm mesh size were allowed 25 days? Will the delegation explain why boats with a larger net mesh size are allowed 11 days at sea, while those using smaller commercial 80 mm mesh size are allowed 25 days? I am amazed by this because last year I asked the Minister whether the question of the number of days allowed at sea would favour boats with larger net mesh sizes. What is the Commission's reasoning behind this?

Does the delegation think commercial fishing of, for example, haddock stocks can be carried out without catching cod and whiting as a result? Are there any particular measures whereby this problem can be avoided? On the waters outside the new Irish Box in the south west corner, we have been told fishing will be restricted by next year in terms of effort based on what happened between 1998 and 2002. That seems to favour the French, British and Belgian fleets, which were traditionally strong in the early 1970s. Has the regime in recent years been based on those fleets' historic catches? If they were using up their effort in that time, it appears we are instigating a system that will perpetuate an advantageous position, particularly for the French fleet. Did the French fleet use up much of its quota and how will it balance out?

I will bank some of the questions because of the time constraint.

Why did the producer organisations support the deal on the Irish Box? Is it a good deal?

I welcome the industry representatives. As always, their contributions are extremely informative and valuable.

Mr. Whooley was reported in the Marine Times as having said that the proof of the pudding in regard to the Irish Box would be in the eating. Does the industry have any concerns about the new entry and exit implementation rules as they develop in 2004? Could we be in a difficult position when our Presidency passes, possibly the last one for a generation, and will we be left struggling for the fine print of the agreement? From what we can gather from valuable reports from Brussels, and those which the organisations gave us on issues such as the measurement of effort, the Spanish got their way on the use of the kilowatt days measurement rather than the straightforward tonnage measurement, which we wanted.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide made some valuable points about technical conservation measures, but does he remain critical of many aspects of the Department's approach not being strong going into negotiations on areas such as the achievements of the industry around the coastline? I welcome Mr. O'Donoghue's remarks on the Greencastle fishery and the work being done by the fishing industry on other parts of the coast to try to develop conservation approaches.

What does the Minister expect to get out of the negotiations in 2004, particularly on the days at sea issue? What is the ideal from our point of view and will we have to strongly represent Greencastle and the other ports over the coming months?

Mr. Whooley

Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to French quotas in the context of the Irish Box. It is the case that each country's quotas will remain the same, whether inside or outside the box. Historically, where the French have had a huge surplus in certain stocks; they will retain that surplus. That is relative stability and has nothing to do with this particular deal. Therefore, the French will continue to be treated in the same manner.

In response to Deputy McEllistrim's question, this is a good deal. We were potentially faced with the Spanish Armada on 1 January 2004, and that has been averted. On Deputy Broughan's question, there will be an issue until the implementation rules are finalised, which will be decided during the Irish Presidency. We have issues in black and white in the regulations which were published last week and we hope and believe those issues will be followed to the letter. However, until the final deal is done, there are reservations because the track record on fishing issues in Europe has not been the best.

There is some confusion as to what will happen in the new conservation area or box. It has been stated today that in waters around the coastline there will be no increase in fishing effort that will be set based on an average between 1998 and 2002. What is the difference between that restriction and what is happening in the new conservation box area? What is the difference between the rest of the water around the coast - if the restriction is there - and the box, which is protecting waters off the south west cost and which I welcome?

Mr. Whooley

Essentially, there is no difference. Only the actual track record inside the new box can be carried forward. A track record from outside that area cannot be utilised inside the box. In effect, there are two distinct areas. The track record will be calculated for the new Irish Box and the area outside it separately. Collectively, that track record cannot increase either inside or outside the box; there is an overall ceiling.

Is there extra protection in the box? Where is the protection outside the box in order to keep it intact?

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

There is an overall effort ceiling. The alternative is an effort increase and I agree with Deputy Ryan that we should keep the level of effort the same. At least that level did not increase, which is what we were faced with. The overall effort ceiling is in all of the areas, specifically in the conservation box itself. There is a specific entry and exit regime and catch reporting for vessels, which is over and above that which applies to the rest of the area.

The rest of the area will be covered by means of VMS satellite monitoring, which is mandatory on all vessels of a size which would be entering the box from outside Ireland. There will also be patrolling. That is not to say that everything about this is perfect. There are dangers and weaknesses, particularly in regard to the shellfish provisions that France managed to stitch in. There are also possibilities for limited increases or displacements of effort within the overall area, although not into Area 6 in the north west, because that is another fishing area entirely.

In that context, what is the position in regard to the Irish Sea?

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

That issue must be acknowledged. However, one must be balanced. If we were being asked if we were in favour of this deal or not, taking everything into account, we would say, "Yes". That is not to say it is a bed of roses. It is a reasonably good solution given the issues we faced.

Does the delegation envisage enforcement problems outside the new conservation box area since there is no real border to police? I am particularly concerned about the north west coast, just north of Galway.

I do not think the Deputy is correct in this regard. I am certain there will be no increase in effort in the north west coast area. Eight vessels were permitted in the old Irish Box. However, there will be less in the new box. There will be a satellite monitoring system and the number of vessels will be checked by it. Satellite monitoring is coming down to 15 metres from 24 metres. With this I am certain there will be no increases in fishing efforts. The three fishing organisations asked the Minister to secure no increase in fishing efforts and, in the case of a reduced Irish Box, proper controls were put in place. The Minister delivered on those two issues. We have to be up front in that we asked him to do this; he delivered on it and it is a fair deal.

Deputy Eamon Ryan asked me to explain the difference in the position between the net mesh sizes of 80 mm and 100 mm. I find it difficult to explain this because it is illogical and the north west coast got sacrificed on the altar of the North Sea. There are different fisheries in the North Sea to the west of Scotland, the Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea. We were lumbered with a situation where while we use 80 mm mesh sizes in the northwest fisheries, the mesh size for nets in the North Sea is 100 mm. However, we asked our members to move from 80 mm mesh sizes to 100 mm even though they were not catching cod. When this proposal came in, the only option if they were to fish in that area was to move back down to 80 mm mesh sizes. This is an anti-conservationist measure. What we are proposing is a step forward in protecting the juvenile cod stocks. From the forthcoming quota negotiations, we want this illogical and anti-conservation measure for 2003 to be changed. We want to see the incorporation of what we are proposing into conservation measures. We may still have days at sea, but give us days that make sense in terms of the mesh size.

It must also be recognised that when cod is not fished, there are no constraints in fishing other species. This was a disaster for us in the northwest fisheries. If we do not get to grips with it this year, we will have the same disaster in the Irish Sea as we had in the northwest fisheries last year. At least, this year we are getting a chance to voice our concerns before the Council meeting. This regulation appeared at the Council meeting last year without ever having gone through any scientific assessment or appraisal by technical working groups. This year at least we have the chance. I am hopeful that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources can deliver a significant and radical measure for us on the days at sea issue.

What is the position of the fishing organisations on the new licensing policy as announced today by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources?

Mr. Whooley

It is something that we have not prepared any response to and we do not have a collective position on the issue. There are regional differences in the licensing issues. Our organisation would have deep reservations about today's announcement, so much so that we will have a special directors' meeting to discuss it. It has massive implications for the fishing industry in the south-west region. It is a regressive proposal that will set the industry in our region back by 20 years.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

Notwithstanding the fact that the document and it implications will cause significant problems and hardship for some people, I welcome the overall approach of it. Notwithstanding rough justice, I believe a reasonably good job has been done on it.

Our organisation supported the overall principle of the document for a time. Unfortunately, there are elements that are unfair and not equitable, particularly the safety tonnage one, built into it. It is useful that those who have had licences held up for four to five months can now progress. It is a step forward in my book, but we have a number of reservations, particularly about safety tonnage. We support the idea of what is in the document in terms of segmentation and recognising that we were not starting from a greenfield site. We expected to hear a good story from the scientists on the pelagic species. However, matters have occurred outside of the science remit that will result in reductions in mackerel stocks and even make the pelagic side difficult in 2004. The safety tonnage issue was an inequitable one.

I thank Messrs. Whooley, Ó Cinnéide and O'Donoghue for appearing before the committee. I now invite the Irish Fishermen's Organisation——

Chairman, I indicated I have another question to ask and you said you would come back to me.

Deputy Coveney, it is 4.55 p.m. and other members agreed that we would try to finish the meeting by 5 o'clock. Are you insisting on asking a question?

I want to ask Mr. Ó Cinnéide one specific question. What is the fishing industry's reaction to the reduction in the recently published Book of Estimates in the budget for the development and upgrading of harbours for fishery purposes by 27%, from €30 million to €20 million?

Are we discussing those issues today?

We are discussing the fishing industry, Chairman. You asked the question as to how they thought the Minister was performing.

We will not have the industry representatives here when we are discussing the Estimates.

It is rare enough to have them at the committee. We have not even mentioned the Estimates today. In my view it is appropriate to raise this. If the Chairman is ruling it out of order that is fine with me.

I am merely going by what members agreed in private session at the start of the meeting. We still have two other groups to make presentations.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

We very much regret the serious cut in capital funding, the same as we regret what the Minister concluded on harbour dues where there is a 300%-plus cost increase. There is a general lack of engagement, apart from occasions such as this, with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Notwithstanding certain successes, there is great deal more that can be achieved at this level for the fishing industry if the Administration gives it greater priority and believes in it.

I thank the representatives for appearing before the committee. We will be returning at a later stage to some of the issues raised.

I welcome Mr. Joe Maddock and Mr. Frank Doyle from the Irish Fishermen's Association and Mr. Tom Geoghegan from the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association. I remind witnesses that members have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Further, 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 House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. We will take a five-minute presentation from the Irish Fishermen's Association first, followed by one from the Irish Fish Processors' and Exporters' Association. Then we will take questions from members. If it is agreed, we will try to finish by 5.30 p.m. at the very latest. There is one other matter to be dealt with in private session before they conclude.

(Interruptions).

I am sorry, but people in the public gallery must remain silent. If the gentleman wishes to make something known to the committee, I will send the assistant clerk to speak to him.

Mr. Frank Doyle

I thank the Chairman and members. We were asked for a contribution on issues for discussion at the December meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. The first matter we had to deal with there, as at every December meeting, was that of total allowable catches, or TACs, and quotas. Those are set annually, based principally on scientific advice on the strength of the stocks involved. In that regard, the present position is somewhat mixed, with some stocks showing signs of improvement and others more or less holding steady, while there is scientific concern about the state of several species. In those latter cases, the Commission is likely to propose very low or zero TACs and quotas for 2004. Should that occur, several issues arise. What type of operational regime will be applied? Will it be through fishing effort reduction, through decommissioning or a reduction in days at sea? Will it involve closed or semi-closed areas, technical measures which involve mesh size adjustment and so on, or a combination of those things?

Reductions in TACs and quotas bring socio-economic considerations. How will vessels and crews remain financially viable, in the short-term at least, until stock recovery occurs? The accuracy of scientific data is also a question. In some cases at least, it seems clear that the basic data in the process are less than desirable, producing advice that fishermen suspect is often inaccurate and not reflective of the actual state of stocks. In many fisheries, it is probably the case that scientific advice is based more on guesstimate than on hard fact.

Displacement of fishing effort has already been mentioned. That is practically certain to occur should reductions be imposed. Vessels will simply move to other areas where fewer restrictions apply, distorting the effort level there and, possibly, creating a problem too. The Minister has totally anticipated me on fishing licensing policy, but I must comment on it. The review group on fishing licensing was set up to advise the Minister on fishing vessel policy. We now find, as members of that review group, that the Minister has pulled rank on it, declaring a policy before it had come to a unanimous view on what policy should apply, particularly in the long run. In fairness, the question must be asked, what is the point of a review group if the Minister does not give it time to consider its position, but instead files a report on future policy which jumps the gun? Matters have been left in the air.

Should Irish fish quotas be caught by a smaller number of, probably bigger, vessels, or by the existing fleet working for a shorter period? That is particularly relevant in the context of reducing TACs. In our opinion, since the quotas are a public resource, they should not become the private or semi-private property of any group. They should provide employment for the maximum number of participants. Fishing vessel policy - which I was going to say was under review, but which seems no longer to be so - is a critically important issue, and it is essential that it be got right, however long the process might take.

I now come to the Irish Box. In its original form, it was due to expire anyway at the end of 2002 under treaty obligations. Thereafter, the aim was to find something to replace it. The new arrangement, which is defined as a biologically sensitive area, goes some way towards dealing with the potential influx of Spanish effort. However, it has some serious deficiencies. First, it does not protect the south-east, some of the west, and possibly the northwest coasts, thereby creating the likelihood of an increase in Spanish fishing effort in those areas with an associated risk to stocks. Second, it allows Spanish vessels to operate up to 12 miles from the baselines within the new box, although that may be alleviated to some extent through the application of the fishing effort regime involved.

Control will be a major element in ensuring compliance with the new regulations. Fishing effort regimes have been in operation for some years for the pelagic and beam-trawl fleets. It was introduced to the demersal fisheries under what is known as annex 17 last December. In Ireland's case, it was confined to the area northwest of Donegal. It will also apply in the new box, that is, from Waterford Harbour to Cleggan. It is now being proposed for the Irish Sea, which is area 7a, which stretches northwards from Minehead up to Belfast Lough. No indication has been given of the number of days per month that might be allowed, so it is difficult to comment on it beyond that. In general, the concept of fishing effort restrictions has been heavily resisted by the European catching sector. In some cases, the resistance is difficult to understand, as the interests concerned have used fishing effort to protect their own active interests over the years. In the specific case of the Bay of Biscay, the French brought in a regulation through the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in 1985 prohibiting all others, Ireland included, from ever having access to non-quota species such as scallop and crab. It is remarkable that France, which introduced that, and now wants to bring it into the English Channel, is totally against the concept of fishing effort and all that it implies. There is a large element of doublethink in all this.

I will briefly mention the autonomous tariff quotas, which allow products to be imported into the Community. There is constant pressure to allow more and more imports into the Community for processing. That is particularly the case with continental processors. The trouble is that it drives down the price of the local product. It is extraordinary that much of the effort aimed at increasing autonomous tariff quotas applies to species such as herring, which we have great difficulty in selling on the local market in the first place. Why they cannot buy the local product but need more coming into the Community is something of a mystery.

Technical conservation measures have already been mentioned, and I will not go back over them. Control and enforcement essentially involve checks at sea and in port, log books, satellite vessel monitoring systems and entry and exit control and catch reporting. Control is the central link that holds fisheries or any other policy together. Without it, that policy, no matter how good, cannot be implemented. It is essential that the control system work, and be seen to work, fairly and evenly in all Community waters and for all member states. Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart.

I now come to the fishing industry's future prospects. Provided that the right fleet policy - whether the current one is right is arguable - and effective stock management are in place, fishing has the capacity to provide a high and sustainable level of employment around the coast. It has many advantages. It provides a pure, unadulterated food with beneficial dietary properties. It will probably always be in short supply relative to market requirements. It is a self-renewing resource, and Ireland is in close proximity to most of it.

I thank Mr. Doyle for that very informative presentation.

Mr. Tom Geoghegan

I thank the Chairman and committee for the invitation. It will be quite a job to précis what I had meant to say in a few minutes, but I will do my best. I represent the Irish Fish Processors’ and Exporters’ Association. I have sent in a submission, which members have probably received. However, I will try to synopsise it. The quota determinations every year have an effect on fishing and fishing communities, as we have discussed. As the Minister hinted, the effects of pelagic quotas over the past two years and the cod and hake recovery plans on availability in the home market are already causing severe problems of supply. I will deal first with the supplies of white fish, a category into which prawns fall, for the home market. I will outline a proposition I have in that regard later. The pelagic species are a bulk commodity. Those species account for approximately 40% of employment in the fishing industry and by value they represent approximately 40% of all fish exports. Fish processing plants within Ireland are experiencing problems in getting sufficient supplies of raw materials. That difficulty must be taken into account as one of the economic factors in terms of the efforts we need to make to secure the best deal possible on quotas at the next Council meeting.

I appreciate that scientists have their jobs to do, but I am concerned that there may be a change of direction at this late stage in the way ICES and the STECF are moving to try to get support for the recovery of cod and whiting on the one hand and trying to put pressure on the green box type of varieties. I am talking of haddock but principally of demersal fish, which includes white fish and Dublin Bay prawns because the same fishermen fish those stocks. I will deal with that concern later.

We cannot discount the employment derived from shore processing and the retail and export sectors. I have given employment figures in my document. Approximately 12,000 people are engaged in part-time and full-time employment, including approximately 6,000 fishermen on the fishing fleet. Approximately 25,000 people are engaged in ancillary employment, be that in the sale of fishing gear or the manufacturing or transportation sectors. The social dimension of the numbers in employment in this sector who depend every year on the determinations of TACs and quotas is rarely taken into account, but they must be taken into account. It is not sufficient to have only one or two variant methods used by scientists to determine the TACs. We must be innovative to try to maintain the framework of the industry. If we want a reduced amount of landings in the Irish market, we can open the door to more imports and they will readily come in from elsewhere in the EU and outside it, whether it be in the form of Alaskan pollack or some other species. Therefore, we must be careful in regard to social, commercial and economic aspects. The Minister hinted at striking a proper balance between the science and the social and economic aspects.

We must have regard for employment ashore, which is of a massive scale and for maintaining markets that were dearly fought for and secured. Total exports in the sector are valued at approximately €430 million. Exports of pelagic fish alone, which is currently the most threatened species in terms of exports - exports of shellfish are not threatened because they are not covered by such quota determinations - are valued at approximately €170 million. Fisherman have performed greatly in terms of their exports to world markets, but they have already been engaged in short-time working towards the end of this year due to the fact that that the quota regime introduced two years ago was reduced substantially for horse mackerel and blue whiting. Such fishermen have suffered badly as a result of cutbacks. The commercial and economic dimension must come into play in the negotiations. I gave a copy of our submission to the Assistant Secretary in the Minister's Department and we will take up the proposals contained in it with the Minister.

I have put forward an interesting case in our submission that I will take up with the Department. A Commission proposal to the Council is currently being considered on a U-turn in regard to scientific advice which was fought for by Cornish fishermen through the offices of their Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Whitehall. On the evidence of skippers, and as confirmed by the national government, considerable good stock that was available was being thrown back into the sea. A review of the stock position was carried out and a Commission proposal for a moderate increase in TACs and quotas, which would benefit Ireland as well as Cornwall in sea area 7, went to the Council. There is a problem in getting that proposal through by the Council. I am not sure of the difficulty or whether the issue is mixed up with the question of anchovies. We need to ringfence the area in regard to mixed fisheries. That can be done by way of separator panels and so on.

Dublin Bay prawns or the prawn stock must be at least maintained, if not increased, because not alone are prawns an income earner for fishermen who are earning less and less from their catches of white fish but they are also the bulwark for maintaining a home market base for the industry in terms of fishermen and those employed ashore, whether in the catering industry or for consumers at home. I have a suggestion in regard to specific key species, such as angler fish or monk fish, which might get messed around in scientific manipulations that go through either ICES or STECF, and I respect those for what they have done but there is a bigger dimension. In that context, where we have evidence of healthy stocks, and there are healthy stocks of those key species, there is a joint industry-Government proposal by skippers and others that there is a case beyond what the Commission sees. The Commission is minimalist. It says that, at best, fishermen might maintain the level of their catches but there is a case for increasing them. That case should be made on the basis of Government vetting and agreement, and the Government and the industry coming closer together in that regard.

Mackerel does not suffer as regards the mixed fishery problem, but I mentioned in my document that a review by the top man in ICES stated that mackerel was a healthy stock. As the KFO representative said, we are now faced with a possible decrease in this stock, which is beyond belief. That is another case where the industry, the Department and the scientists here had better proceed to secure at least the maintenance, if not an increase, in catch levels for this species. Any further reduction in the pelagic area, after the heavy reductions of the past two years, will have a serious effect on employment and on processing plants throughout the country. It will also have a ricochet effect on our export performance.

I understand Mr. O'Keating, the chairman of the Irish South and East Fishermen's Organisation, interjected from the public gallery. Did Senator Kenneally indicate that organisation should have been invited to appear before the committee?

When we were in private session I asked a question as to why it had not been invited. I fought a battle here previously to get it recognised and it has been recognised. I do not know whether it was invited. I was out of the country last week and a message was left to the effect that the Clerk to the committee was trying to get in touch with me about who he should contact but he was told by my secretary that Michael Walsh, who is the secretary of that organisation, was the person to contact. I am not aware of what transpired subsequently.

Deputy Coveney, I am in the members' hands in this matter.

It was my understanding that we were going to invite all the fishing groups, including the south east——

The Clerk has advised me that they did make efforts. Perhaps they had the wrong phone number but efforts were made——

It is important to state for the record that the intention was not to snub any one fishermen's organisation.

Are members agreeable to hearing a short presentation from Mr. O'Keating?

I support that. We have to follow protocol for these meetings but it is regrettable that we did not make contact with the South and East Fishermen's Organisation. I know we are stuck for time, but I would support——

We have discretion under the Standing Orders.

I propose that we allow that organisation to make a presentation.

I ask Mr. O'Keating to join us formally. I will give him a few minutes, and I apologise to his organisation for not inviting a representative. In the new year, we can meet again.

Mr. John O’Keating

I have been a fisherman for 38 years. Listening today, there were times when I wondered whether I was part of what was going on.

Before Mr. O'Keating speaks, I must caution him regarding privilege and draw his attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege here, but that same privilege does not apply to Mr. O'Keating or any other witness appearing before the committee. It is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, but the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, 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 House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. That also applies to witnesses.

Mr. O’Keating

As I said, I have been a fisherman for 38 years. Following much of what I heard today, I am beginning to wonder whether I am part of this industry at all. We fish predominantly in the Irish Sea with a beam trawl. Plaice has been much better this season than for years. There has been a great deal of take-up on our tonnage of plaice in the north-east Irish Sea east off the Isle of Man this year. There are significant signs of things improving on black sole, which is predominantly targeted in the Morecambe Bay area near Liverpool. For the past three years, since the cod closures came into effect, we have not participated in that. Without the part of the box in which we normally fished, it was not worth taking part. We have therefore suffered severely through cod closures over recent years. Sole is in no way endangered, since as it grows it shifts west in the Irish Sea into deeper water. What we catch on the western side is very good quality sole. Two years ago we sent one up to the Marine Institute. That phenomenal, 21 year-old fish was 52 cm long. That stock is not in any way endangered.

Do we have all the details of the Irish South and East Fishermen's Association? We failed to contact it. Perhaps it might send us a submission. How did it hear about today's meeting?

Mr. O’Keating

The chairman of the organisation rang me last night and asked me to attend. Our trawler broke down last night, and at 3 o'clock this morning I received a fax. I decided not to go but changed my mind later, thinking that I had better show my face and say something.

It is a pity that we did not know at the outset that Mr. O'Keating would be here. However, I am sure that he understands the procedures that we must adopt. Perhaps he might give us a submission on behalf of his organisation. That way we will know exactly whom to contact when we are having such meetings in future. I recall, as the Clerk has reminded me, that we had difficulty contacting Mr. O'Keating's organisation. Senator Kenneally made a very strong protest regarding it in private session today before the meeting started.

I thank Mr. Doyle of the Irish Fishermen's Association for an excellent and very brief overview of the problems facing the industry. Regarding what he and Mr. Geoghegan, in an equally impressive submission from the Irish Fish Processors' and Exporters' Association, have said, is it time that the industry had independent verification? Mr. O'Keating has just been telling us about working trawlers. We heard of that a few weeks ago in our meeting with the Irish seamen. Should we have independent verification of the scientific advice that feeds into the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, or ICES? Have we done anything of the sort? Other industries have their own scientific advice. For example, transport representatives were arguing that the Minister must increase the size of the port tunnel. They have their own scientific advice in addition to that of the Minister regarding transport.

Many other important and interesting points were made, which we can consider and try to transmit to the Minister. A good point was made concerning autonomous tariff quotas. Given the amount of fish - I believe that it is heading for five million tonnes or more of Nile perch and monkfish - coming from outside, what would Mr. Doyle like to see happening in that regard? The Irish Fishermen's Association's contribution, along with that of Mr. O'Keating, was the first to give us a more hopeful view, stressing the positive possibilities for the industry, whereas the scientific evidence heard today has been very negative.

Does Mr. Geoghegan share the concerns that we have heard from IASC and other bodies regarding the transfer of the marketing section of Bord Iascaigh Mhara to An Bord Bia? Should that happen? He made the point very well about Dublin Bay prawn and mackerel. As I said, there seems to be a difference in what we are hearing scientifically and from people working in the industry.

Perhaps Mr. Doyle, Mr. Geoghegan and Mr. O'Keating might bank those questions for a moment.

I will try to be brief. I thank Mr. Doyle, Mr. Geoghegan and Mr. O'Keating for their presentations. I am glad that they made the effort to come along. I will ask one or two questions that do not require long answers. Mr. Geoghegan is representing many people exporting fish. Is there a quality problem regarding the pelagic species coming out of fishing vessels without tank storage facilities? I would like to establish the truth of the issue. Is there a problem marking that fish and with the quality of the fish concerned, or is it a spurious argument that there is a quality problem if pelagic species come out of dry storage instead of cold water tanks?

Mr. Geoghegan referred to ring-fencing of the mixed fishing sector. Perhaps he might clarify that, since it went over my head. Is Mr. Doyle satisfied that the control measures in Ireland are on a level playing field with those in Britain, France and Spain, for example, or do we still have some way to go to have even control among EU neighbours?

I have one or two questions for Mr. Doyle. He mentioned that much of the scientific advice was based more on guesstimate, and I agree with him. He may have heard me putting that point to Dr. Connolly regarding the number of fish landed. They are guessing about what is landed and using that as part of the basis for their advice. However, what possibility is better than the present situation? Mr. Doyle was critical of the Minister to a certain extent regarding his decision on a new licensing policy, saying that the review group had not completed its deliberations. Obviously, the Minister will have been aware of the review group's deliberations hitherto and taken those on board. However, ultimately it is the Minister's decision. He will take advice, but he must make the ultimate decision, and perhaps some of that has come about because of the huge logjam which my colleagues and I have been putting pressure on him to eliminate. I am aware of fishermen in Dunmore East and Wexford who had to wait six or seven months for a licence. It is important that the logjam is freed.

Does Mr. Doyle agree with the new policy on licensing put forward by the Minister earlier? I put the same question to Mr. O'Keating.

Mr. Doyle said the Irish Box does not protect the east and south east and there will be an increase in the Spanish fishing effort. Previous witnesses did not envisage such an increase. Will Mr. Doyle elaborate on his view? Mr. Geoghegan referred to prawn and mackerel stocks, which are healthy. If so, why have TACs not been increased? Has there been a trade off with other countries in regard to other species?

Mr. Doyle

Deputy Broughan asked about independent verification and collection of data for scientific purposes. Some countries, for example, Denmark, do it but it is an extremely expensive, time consuming and expert operation. It costs a fortune to collect fisheries data because of the number of stocks involved, the areas to be covered and other variables. The only way to improve data is by getting those who collect data to travel on fishing boats in real time so that they collect the data as the fishing takes place. It is likely to be more accurate than the trials described by Dr. Connolly earlier because fishing boats catch fish and they are run highly professionally. The results are more reliable if one travels on board a fishing boat and that is the way to go to improve matters.

Imports are important because the more imports there are, the more of an impact they will have on Community production. More than 50% of the Community's fish requirements are imported because production does not meet demand. The problem is the Community wants an increase in imports of certain species such as herring while there is significant difficulty in its own market. That does not make sense given that one can hardly give herring away. One must live in hope because if we do not, we might as well pack it in. Ireland has a good product and base and the fishing industry has a future if it is properly looked after and managed.

Senator Kenneally referred to the scientific estimates, to which I have referred, and the new licensing policy. The new policy is tricky. The fishing policy review group was set up to advise the Minister on this matter. It has met three times and was asked to produce a position paper almost overnight, which it could not do. This is a highly difficult subject. The group had not met for almost six months, when there was a sudden flurry of activity. Various positions were put to the Minister following the third meeting and he announced a policy. The group has not agreed a policy and has barely begun to discuss a long-term policy. The Minister has seriously pulled rank on the group and one must ask what is its function. Is it to clean up after the Minister has made the main decision to structure medium to long-term policy?

We do not agree with the methodology and, based on what we heard from the Minister, we have question marks over its content. However, it is dangerous to comment on an oral presentation by a Minister because one does not know what one is talking about until one sees the fine print.

Senator Kenneally referred to an increasing Spanish effort in the Irish Box. There will be an increase in the Spanish effort in the Irish Box and east of Waterford harbour because until recently, no Spanish vessels could fish there. The box extended halfway to Cornwall. However, they have free range east of Waterford Harbour and extending to Belfast Lough within the limits of the fishing effort agreement. There is a possibility, if the Council agrees a fishing effort regime in the Irish Sea, that area will be excluded but the Spanish would still have access to the south east waters which contains a significant effort relative to previously. It may be slightly different in the northwest because there was only eight boats in operation and they could not make much of a case. However, there is a threat to the south east and east coast.

Is Mr. Doyle happy with Irish controls vis-à-vis other European countries?

Mr. Doyle

They are probably better than most. Our fines are much higher but that is a different day's work. The problem of control remains the critical problem in any policy.

Mr. Geoghegan

Deputy Broughan referred to Bord Bia. As the shore-based association whose members account for 80% of all exports, whether those are shellfish, salmon, pelagic or demersal, we made our position clear. It would not be in the best interests of the industry if the market development function in BIM were transferred to Bord Bia. I worked in CTT and, prior to that, in the Irish Export Board and this issue was raised frequently. Many representations have been made to the Minister on this but it is on ice but ice can melt.

Will Mr. Geoghegan submit replies to questions he may not be able to answer?

Mr. Geoghegan

Yes. Deputy Coveney referred to ring-fencing mixed fisheries. We would not want a healthy resource such as prawns to suffer by providing a dividend to recovering cod and whiting in the Irish Sea. That can be done through technical measures and closures. There are interceptor panels for prawns and there is minimum risk to whiting but scientists can determine that. I am worried that there are different scientific approaches. Scientists must make up their minds. There is more social content coming into the equation but I do not want a basic resource in the demersal area weakened from a fisherman's or trade point of view. That is what I meant by taking what is important from each area. Mackeral, for example, is the main quota element in terms of pelagic resources.

Does Mr. O'Keating wish to respond to any of the questions?

Mr. O’Keating

I am not aware of what the Minister said this morning about licences and, therefore, cannot comment on them.

I thank Mr. Joe Maddock and Mr. Frank Doyle, Irish Fishermen's Organisation; Mr. Tom Geoghegan, Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association, and Mr. O'Keating, Irish South and East Fisherman's Organisation for attending today. Mr. O'Keating has promised to give us information on his organisation.

I request all the organisations that appeared before this committee today to supply the Clerk to the committee with an up-to-date profile of the membership, organisations and areas represented by them. The information will be useful to us.

The committee may meet next week to conclude discussion on a number of matters raised during a private session.

Will a meeting take place next Wednesday?

We will meet for a few minutes to approve a number of small matters rather than do it now. I have been told that it is formal procedure to put it on our agenda.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.41 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share