I welcome Dr. Cecil Beamish who will be taking us through COM (2004) 166. His presentation will be followed by a question and answer session. I draw 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. While it is generally accepted that witnesses should have qualified privilege, the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, 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 in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Dr. Beamish to begin his presentation.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
Dr. Cecil Beamish
I thank the committee for the invitation to present on this proposed Council regulation. COM (2004) 166 is a proposal for a Council regulation fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fishing areas and fisheries in the western waters. This proposal is the final step in a rather long series of legislative initiatives that have taken place since 1985 regarding limiting fishing effort in the waters around Ireland, west of France, west of Spain and out to the Azores. When Spain and Portugal joined the Union, a set of transitional arrangements were agreed which applied from 1985 to 1995. These were encompassed in the acts of accession at the time. They were subsequently replaced at the end of their accession period by two Community regulations, No. 685 of 1995 and No. 2027 of 1995, which set the framework which operated in the period 1995 to 2002.
The 1995 arrangement was known as the western waters regime. It is a fisheries management regime and reflected the end of the transitional arrangements to which Spain and Portugal had been subject from their time of accession. The 1995 arrangements provided for restricted access to Community waters, including the Irish Box. In the case of the Irish Box, which was an area established around Ireland approximately 50 miles from the coastline, 32 Spanish vessels were allowed at any one time in Area VII, which is the southern part of the Irish Box, and eight vessels were allowed at any one time in Area VI, which is the northern part of that box, off Donegal. There were also special reporting requirements at that time for vessels fishing in that area.
At the end of 2002 when the Common Fisheries Policy was being reviewed and the interim period for Spain and Portugal was passing, the Commission proposed to eliminate the Irish Box completely. That gave rise to strong opposition from Ireland and on the other side a strong position adopted by Spain which felt the period for which the Irish Box and the transition arrangements were applicable had now passed. Discussions took place throughout the end of 2002 and early 2003. Ireland presented a detailed scientific case to argue why there was a sensitive area to the south and west of Ireland which needed special protection. The culmination of all those discussions was the framework regulation which was agreed in October 2003.
That framework regulation, No. 1954 of 2003, established the principles for a new fisheries management regime in the western waters and it established that there was an ongoing requirement for such a regime. The essence of it was the agreement to cap fishing effort levels for all member states fishing in those waters by reference to the actual level of fishing in 1998 to 2002. Effectively these established ceiling levels of fishing effort and that would set a framework for each of the areas to the west of Ireland. This particular fisheries effort regime is applicable to demersal species, sometimes called whitefish species in common parlance, edible and spider crabs and scallops.
The framework regulation also established what is termed in Community legislation as the biologically sensitive area, BSA, to the south and west of Ireland, also known as the new Irish Box. The effort in that area was also to be determined on the basis of the average track record over the 1998 to 2002 period. The overall principle was to cap fishing effort on the basis of current activity at the time that this was agreed and there are additional special control provisions for this BSA.
The map in the presentation shows where this new BSA or Irish conservation box is located. It is effectively to the south and west of Ireland which is where the richest fishing grounds are. It tallies in broad terms with areas defined for recovery plans for hake and is an area of intense fishing activity. There are also fishing effort caps set for areas VII and VI independently of the BSA.
The importance of this BSA is that it contains rich fishing grounds for hake, monkfish, megrim and a range of other species. It is recognised - the case was made strongly by Ireland to the Commission when it was proposed to abolish special protection for the area - that this was a nursery area for juvenile fish. Work was done with the Marine Institute and the Department presented the case that the area was particularly important from a juvenile fish perspective. The Irish whitefish fleet is heavily dependent on this particular area which is of particular importance to Ireland. It is one which, Ireland argued, is sensitive and vulnerable to any increased fishing activity which might happen in the future.
The proposed framework does not contain all the fisheries management instruments that are required to maintain sustainability. It is simply an outline framework to stop fishing effort increasing in the various areas concerned. Additional fisheries management measures are clearly required within that for particular species.
The proposal, COM (2004) 166, covers the western waters but has a wider geographical scope. The whole area concerned is from the Faroe Islands to the Azores. While Ireland focuses on the Irish Box or the BSA, other people are looking at other areas in the Bay of Biscay or the Azores. It has a wider remit than just the west of Ireland.
The main elements of the proposal are as follows. This is simply a technical implementing regulation for the framework regulation agreed in 2003. The effort levels, which are presented here by the Commission in its proposal, are proposed as per the framework regulation, that is, the annual average of the 1998 to 2002 fishing effort for each member state in each area. The sea areas are divided into what are known as International Commission for the Exploration of the Seas, ICES, areas. ICES has mapped the sea areas. Each area has a particular fishing effort ceiling and the new BSA has a specific fishing effort ceiling. As I stated earlier, it covers demersal fish, crabs and scallops. The methodology pursued here was that once the principles were agreed, the Commission invited member states to submit the data on their actual fishing effort for the period 1998 to 2002 and that process was pursued through the Commission. Both the areas defined, that is, the new BSA which is different to the old Irish Box and the scope of the regulation, differ in that a significant number of smaller vessels are included in this effort limitation than were previously covered by the earlier framework regulations, which only went down to 18 metres. That, from the perspective of freezing fishing effort, is a positive element in that it is more comprehensive. Some of the terminology and methodology is aligned with that which had been adopted in the interim years for fish stock recovery plans.
The proposed effort levels may not mean a great deal to a person who is not involved in this. It is a measure of the size of the fishing effort and the duration of time spent there. The effort levels are calculated by multiplying the engine size of the vessel by the time the vessel is in the fishing area. This gives a number of units known as kilowatt days, a terminology used in fishing.
The table in the presentation shows the proposed BSA fishing effort levels, which are listed in thousands of kilowatt days, applicable in each member state. These figures represent the actual fishing effort in the period 1998 to 2002. There is a particular ceiling for the BSA. There is a ceiling for Area VI, which is Donegal and north. The table for Area VII in the presentation is incorrect. It shows the fishing effort in the part of Area VII outside of the BSA, not the combined fishing effort in Area VII as the title suggests. The relevant figures for all of Area VII, on which people will probably focus, are: Spain, 23 million kw days; France, 50 million kw days; and Ireland, 15 million kw days. Where the table for Area VII in the presentation has a figure of 17,958,000 kw days for Spain, it should be 23 million kw days. The figure in the table is a sub-set of the 23 million kw days figure. That table is a little misleading. It shows the effort in Area VII, excluding the BSA.
In effect, we have a technical regulation implementing the principles agreed in 2003. The regulation, if adopted, would set a cap on fishing effort levels in each of the areas and in the BSA on the basis of current activity, as in 1998 to 2002. Particular protection is applied to the biologically sensitive area, which incorporates vessels down to ten metres. A data verification exercise has been central to this, and the Commission has had the role of taking the data from member states and verifying it. The proposal is on the agenda of the Council for next Monday for possible adoption, so we are discussing this at a relevant time. I am available for any questions committee members might want to ask.
I want to tease out one issue if possible. We have had discussions in the past in regard to the new Irish Box area as a biologically sensitive area, BSA, as it is referred to. However, it is the area to the west and north coast, outside of the new BSA, that I am very concerned about in terms of verifying that the new kilowatt days, or fishing effort, agreed in that area is based on a fair measurement.
The concern within the industry currently seems to be that there is a significant net increase of effort in the area outside of the new Irish Box and we need some reassurances in that area. The BSA has been examined in much detail and it is good we have that area which is considered biologically sensitive, but the other areas are somewhat exposed.
The ICES areas are new in the sense they are now the areas where effort is being measured. The lines of those areas do not correlate with the lines of the old Irish Box. Therefore, fish that have been caught outside of the old Irish Box are now being used as the base for the new figures being agreed around the west and north west coast in terms of the fishing effort being allowed to France and Spain in particular. The areas are now much bigger than the old Irish Box, for example. Thus, when we got assurances from the Minister that in no areas of Irish water would there be significant increases in fishing effort, I took that to mean the old Irish Box area, 50 miles right around our coastline, would not have an increase in fishing effort in it. The Irish Box is gone, apart from the south and west coasts, where the new biologically sensitive area is located. The other west and north west coast area seems to be exposed now because figures based on fish caught outside the old Irish Box or on the margins of it are being used as base figures for the whole area. Are my concerns valid or can Dr. Beamish allay them?
Dr. Beamish
The new box area is the area of most intense fishing and the ceiling which has been established in this area seems to be lower than that which could have been achieved under the old arrangements from 1995. Defacto, the capped level that has been established in the new Irish Box is well below the level of fishing effort which the relevant member states concerned might have prosecuted under the limits system in place in 1995.
I accept that.
Dr. Beamish
The system that was there in 1995 also established fishing effort ceilings in the ICES areas outside of the old Irish Box. Under the old system the ceiling was established for the ICES area and there was simply a provision that no more than 40 Spanish vessels could fish within the Irish Box. In the old arrangement there was no effort ceiling other than what 40 vessels could fish, so whatever they fished inside the old Irish Box was a subset of an overall ceiling.
Now there is a specific ceiling for the biologically sensitive area, but there is also a ceiling for the ICES areas outside of that. Under the 2003 regulation that was agreed, the principle is that this ceiling is to be established on the basis of actual fishing effort in the period 1998 to 2002, and it is the job of the Commission to put together those figures and verify them with member states. Under the new arrangement, therefore, there are specific ceilings for each ICES area, as there were in 1995, and additional ceilings for the biologically sensitive area. The figures are to reflect the actual fishing effort in the 1998-2000 period.
The point I am trying to make is that if one looks at a naval chart of the fishing area, with the old Irish Box, and at where they have spotted, for example, Spanish fishing trawlers, one will see a huge density of Spanish fishing boats right on the border of the Irish Box, along the west coast. All of that calculation is being used as the base figure for fishing that will be allowed because the Irish Box does not exist anymore and it is the ICES areas that we are looking at.
Essentially, a fishing territory 50 miles off our north and west coastline has no protection now because the average figures that were caught in the ICES areas, which go further out from our coastline, are being used to make the base calculation. That is my concern because the net result is that more foreign fishing vessels will be fishing closer to Irish shores, where most of the fish are, along the west and north west coasts. The concern of the fishing industry is that this is a significant increase, not a minor one. Is that a valid concern?
Dr. Beamish
The main areas of Spanish fishing activity are illustrated on the map, and one can see the areas in which there has been relatively little Spanish fishing activity. Under the new arrangement there is a specific fishing effort cap based on what was happening from 1998 to 2002 in the areas indicated. The ability to move fishing activity from where it was happening before is limited by the fact that one has specific caps in each of those areas. One can move within that area but not between the areas.
Deputy Coveney said the Irish Box no longer exists and that there is therefore some possibility for more movement. The new box encompasses more of the intense fishing ground. It goes further south than the old box, and because it puts a specific cap on the activity in the yellow zone displayed, it is actually more constraining in that southern area than in the past.
Yes, one can fish within Area VII up to the cap level - what we had in 1998 to 2002 - and that cap was the total activity in Area VII, which is now divided between two areas. Thus, there is more delineation in terms of which area one fishes in. One cannot move around. In the past there was a cap for all of Area VII, so one could take one's fishing effort inside or outside the box. Now there is a specific defined cap inside the new box and outside it, so the potential for movement is reduced to that extent and is more restricted than was the case under the old system.
I thank Dr. Beamish and Mr. Kelly for attending today. When I got the agenda for this meeting, I met the fishermen in Howth to establish how they felt about the issue. They said it is a done deal, that they met the Department on numerous occasions in regard to various issues and it did not listen to them.
I asked some of them to come here as observers and they declined to do so because they said there was no point. However, they put a few questions to me. For example, if one looks at the proposed effort levels, why is France 9,560 and Ireland 7,154? The other question they asked related to the big mesh in Kilkeel. For example, they can fish 14 days per month while we can fish only 12 days per month and the 70 ml net can fish 22 days per month. The point the fishermen made was that the bigger mesh can fish only 12 days per month, so why should everyone not go for the smaller mesh?
They also raised the question of compensation for fishermen, which has not been discussed in detail. The visit I paid to these fishermen was worthwhile because they opened my eyes. They are on their uppers and their income has diminished substantially. It is an awful indictment on us that we are so over-regulated in this country with regard to everything and anything, a point which was borne out in the local elections. However, I will not dwell on that.
BJ Marine, which was in Sir John Rogerson's Quay, has now moved to Howth where it will install 15 berths. There was no consultation between the fishermen and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on the issue. The Department said it would go ahead with the move whether the fishermen liked it or not. However, they must get an offshore licence.
The general point I am making is that fishermen believe they are not getting a fair hearing. I would like an answer to the specific questions I have asked in regard to Kilkeel, the proposed effort levels in France and Ireland and the smaller nets and bigger nets. If everyone switches to smaller nets, we must do something about it because we must ask if it is wise to go down that road.
Dr. Beamish
On the question of France and Ireland's proposed effort level in the biologically sensitive area, the principle agreed in 2003 was that the fishing effort level would be set on the basis of what member states were doing during 1998-2002. The Commission put together these figures and presented them as a reflection of what the member states were doing in the period 1998-2002. These figures are intended by the Commission as a reflection of the actual fishing effort levels in that time period.
What counter-argument did we make in that regard?
Dr. Beamish
This regulation is not about principles, it is a technical regulation whereby the effort levels duly recorded in log books by fishermen were simply amalgamated and contributed by the member states and compiled using methodology to come up with a figure. It was not a philosophical argument about what one country should or should not have. It was a technical exercise about compiling data.
The debate on the principles was settled in the framework regulation of 2003. As a member state, France has a very high level of quota and a very large fleet. Therefore, it is not surprising that France comes out with a relatively high figure. This is the reality of the fishing industry in Europe.
The question of specific days effort in the Irish Sea is a somewhat different issue. This proposal is a framework arrangement for the whole western waters, which simply sets ceiling levels. It does not address specific species or recovery of specific species. The fishing effort levels to which the Deputy referred are the fishing effort levels associated with the Irish Sea cod recovery programme. This is a targeted programme for recovery of the cod stock which is in a very bad state in the Irish Sea. Within that people catch cod while doing different things. Some are doing targeted cod fishing and some are fishing for prawns.
Depending on the catch composition and the type of fishery, one is permitted to use different gears. Essentially, the small mesh gears are used for fishing for prawns, with a maximum permitted by-catch of cod. The larger mesh is used for targeted fishing on round white fish such as cod, haddock and whiting. That is the logic of setting different days for types of gear. The objective here is to protect and reduce the targeted fishing of round white fish - cod, haddock and whiting - while permitting prawn fisheries to continue in the Irish Sea. Therefore, there are more generous allowances for the smaller mesh prawn fisheries than there are for the larger mesh round white fish fisheries. It is a separate matter from this, which is a broad framework regulation for the whole western waters. That is a targeted programme for a particular stock in a particular area. We will still need these kinds of targeted programmes even when the ceiling arrangement is set.
On the issue of compensation for fishermen who are having a difficult time, the object of the exercise is to try to move towards a position of stock sustainability and stock recovery and to keep moving in that direction in order to avoid stock collapse. There needs to be a fisheries management system in place if we are to avoid a situation of total stock collapse, which is the worse scenario possible for the fishing industry. One cannot just talk about regulation and having a difficult time. To some extent there must be a fisheries management regulatory system in order to protect stocks in the long-term interests of the fishing industry and those dependent on the stocks.
I am not sure whether it is appropriate to go into the case of a specific company and their specific application in the case of Howth. Perhaps this issue can be dealt with elsewhere.
I thank Dr. Beamish for his answers, but it is appropriate to deal with the issue whereby fishermen's organisations say that adequate consultation did not take place. Can Dr. Beamish explain to the committee what consultation took place with the fishermen's organisations?
Dr. Beamish
Throughout 2002 and 2003, when the whole debate on the Irish Box was taking place, there were fortnightly meetings with the fishing industry, and certainly many day long meetings. As late as this morning, we spent two or three hours together debating issues. There is a standing committee with the fishing industry, which meets every month. We flag up everything that is coming down the line and try to debate it with the fishing industry. Of its nature, it does not mean we reach agreement on many issues, because there is a distinction between the regulatory role and the role of the industry representatives.
There is a strong culture of having liaison between the industries and the representative fishing organisations. Clearly we cannot meet every fisherman but we meet all the national representative organisations on a regular basis. No issue was as intensely debated as the Irish Box issue. It was the subject of intensive consultation and debate, not least in this committee, before the framework regulation was agreed in 2003.
If further conservation measures are needed for recovery plans or other reasons, will the reductions that have to take place in certain areas be based pro rata on the national allocations or is it possible for them to be on the basis of fishing technique or method, given that the fleets of certain countries may not suit certain recovery plans? In other words, is there flexibility in the conservation plans that might have to be introduced whereby the quota allocation of some countries might vary on that basis?
With regard to conservation, specifically the conservation of fuel, whatever about the allocation to the French fleet in area VII, the take of the French fleet in area VI - the Donegal north-west box - is remarkable given the distance from what is presumably the home base of the French fleet. Is there any Commission preference about where that stock is landed? Are there any proposals from the Commission to encourage shorter journeys for fleets, which would tend to favour fleets based in Irish waters? Is some of that French fleet based in or serviced by some of the Irish ports or is it operating from French ports?
Dr. Beamish
The first question dealt with the fact that this is a framework ceiling arrangement and that other measures might be needed to target particular stocks or areas for sustainability and conservation. Article 3.2 and 3.3 of the framework regulation deals with this issue and makes it clear that while this is a ceiling arrangement, it does not prohibit reduced fishing effort being applied in the context of recovery plans in particular areas. It is not a guarantee for anybody that they will have this level of fishing effort in an area. It is simply an outer limit because it is the nature of fisheries that as the science is produced we will learn something new about a particular stock and whether it has increased or decreased significantly. It is always in flux so it is necessary to have a fisheries management system that is capable of responding to that change to ensure that if it is necessary to reduce fishing effort dramatically to maintain a stock, it is possible to do that. The framework regulation provides specifically that these levels do not cut across any more detailed arrangements that are required for stock recovery.
It also does not preclude conservation measures which might, as a side effect, favour one fleet against another.
Dr. Beamish
The individual recovery plan or conservation measure will have to be worked out on its merits. There is nothing that guarantees the proportionalities or anything between gears because different member states' fleets fish using different gears and target to a greater or lesser extent certain species.
Fuel conservation is a topical issue. What amazed me when I became involved in this area was that distance means nothing in the fishing sector. There are Community fishing fleets in every ocean in the world. It is amazing but distance does not make a great difference in this sector. For the last 300 or 400 years, for example, there have been European fishing fleets off the east coast of the US and Canada. They are still there today. There are Irish vessels in the Arctic. Distance means nothing.
On the general principle, however, there is a freedom of establishment and the Community does not impose a preference in terms of landing. The rights have been established historically under the quota system. Member states already have the rights, depending on the management area for the stocks, and they can land stocks where they wish. Ireland, from a national development perspective, would take the view that as fossil fuel prices remain high or continue to increase there is a comparative advantage for Ireland in that it is closer to the fishing grounds.
All things being equal, therefore, we should be able to attract more landings into our ports from vessels which are operating proximate to our coastline and pursuing legal fishing possibilities. That is something we should be conscious of in future in terms of our development policies for the west of Ireland. People are less likely to burn a great deal of fuel returning on the water to their home base if they can land, be serviced and be transported from a port nearby, albeit in a different member state. This is an issue and perhaps it is an advantage Ireland could take from the situation.
I am conscious of the fact that a presentation is to be made by the fishermen's organisation and that the ESB officials are waiting outside. I hope to conclude this session by 4 p.m. and then bring in the ESB officials. We have a heavy schedule and I hope members will be aware of that.
Most of the questions I intended to ask were raised by Deputy Brady. I have one question on the proposed effort, which is to be decided at the Council meeting next Monday. Is it the case that as a result of a deal that was previously done on the Irish Box, all that is being done is setting down in figures what that agreement meant? If that is not the case, is there some flexibility available and, if so, what is our position on it? Are we accepting this proposal on Monday or do we intend to produce our own proposal?
Dr. Beamish
It is essentially a technical exercise, implementing the framework regulation that has been done. The Irish Presidency has been seeking to ensure that the Commission has done as thorough a verification exercise on the figures as possible. It has been given the time, space and encouragement to do that. The hope is that it can be concluded before the Council.
The Commission is essentially the guarantor of the figures, and the principles on which the figures are established are clearly set out in the framework regulation. From that point of view, if the process has been followed, it is a technical exercise to adopt it. There are some technical amendments to be made which have come to light during the course of the process and may have to be addressed before next Monday. However, they are technical in nature. The principles are set.
There is also the fact that in some non-quota fisheries which have been developing over the period fishing effort has been increasing and was not frozen by a quota. There might be some issues to be pursued even after this regulation is adopted with regard to fishing effort on some of those non-quota species, particularly the crab fisheries. However, that is an issue for another day. This one is fixed on the basis of what was done from 1998 to 2002.
Could we have tried to achieve some legislation just dealing with the BSA and the adjoining areas mentioned by Deputy Coveney? Did we have to go with this western waters regime? Would it have been more beneficial to us to have had specific legislation on the new Irish Box?
Dr. Beamish referred in his presentation to better controllability and data verification. What can we expect on that after COM (2004) 166 is passed? What will be different from the last five year period?
Dr. Beamish
The debate on whether one deals with a specific area or takes in the entire area took place during 2003. The fishing industry and those involved at the time said that if we were to argue for, and get, a new sensitive area with special protection, we would also need a degree of guarantee that there would not be movement of fishing effort between areas. It was thought to be desirable, therefore, from a national perspective that we had a comprehensive system which set limits in each area because that gives wider protection that effort will not be brought from the Bay of Biscay to the west of Ireland. It is more desirable to have specific caps in each ICES area than a system that deals with the biologically sensitive area. The committee will recall that member states, Spain in particular, were opposed to the biologically sensitive areas. That is the issue.
The position on control is evolving all the time. It is recognised in the new common fisheries policy and by the majority of member states that controls on fishing activity must be strengthened in respect of the various conservation measures. There is a debate at the Council next week on the establishment by the Commission of a new fisheries control agency. On the one hand the Commission and other member states recognise the need for a strengthening of control for fisheries if a European fish stocks collapse is to be avoided. The technology is improving and satellite monitoring is being extended to all vessels down to 15 metre vessels. The reporting of the location of vessels and where they are spending their time is increasingly automated. That proves the potential for tracking fishing activity to ensure what is reported is what happens in an area.
I acknowledge the significant contribution of the fishing organisations to the debate on the Irish Box and the new biologically sensitive area. Lest people are under any illusion, an enormous effort has been put in by the organisations in conjunction with the Department's officials who have become extremely professional. I wish to record my appreciation of the significant work they have done because the biologically sensitive area is far more beneficial to us than we had envisaged two or three years ago when we thought we would be wiped out. Nevertheless problems remain.
Dr. Beamish referred to the issue of monitoring and policing the areas we have got. I am not convinced by the point made by Deputy Coveney in regard to the answers received. I appreciate Dr. Beamish cannot give definitive answers. The figures given by the French and others on the periphery of the old Irish Box can be easily manipulated or massaged. I am not convinced that has not been done but that is a matter outside our control.
Apart from the scientific methods, does Dr. Beamish envisage assistance from the EU in monitoring and policing the new biologically sensitive area? I come from an area where, for the past 30 years, I am satisfied beyond doubt, that the Spanish, and to a lesser extent the French, marauded, harassed and raped some of our fishing waters. If that were to continue to the detriment of the Irish fishing fleet there could be serious problems in the area of conservation. I am concerned that a lack of monitoring and controls in the new biologically sensitive area may pose difficulties for the whole area of conservation and fishing stocks in the near future. Let us forget about the foreseeable future because we cannot predict 20 years down the road.
Has Dr. Beamish a final observation?
Dr. Beamish
I agree with the Deputy's comments in regard to the fishing organisations. The Department and the Minister worked closely with the fishing organisations in getting the agreement arrived at in 2003. It was very much a national effort.
I agree with the Deputy on the issue of control. Without control it will be difficult to avoid continued stock decline. There will have to be a strengthened control. Most of the BSA comes within the Irish zone. The primary responsibility for control and enforcement rests with the member state and as the area where there is the most intensive fishing activity it is also the priority area for attention in regard to white fish fisheries for the Irish Naval Service which has a good record in this area. With the technology and the satellite monitoring it is easier to see who is fishing in the area, whether it is all being reported in terms of fishing activity.
There are other issues of control and the actual out takes which probably are not finalised. The satellite monitoring reports of fishing activity come also from the boat to Haulbowline so that the fishing activity can be aggregated in Haulbowline. That is relatively new technology. The Naval Service is building new databases to gather and collate this information and to use it more effectively. Progress is being made in that area.
May I make a short observation? As one who comes from a constituency which depends much on fishing, I am not happy that the efforts of the Naval Service and monitoring fleet are geared towards conservation. Too much effort goes into chasing fellows with a few lobster pots or a few salmon fishermen along the inshore. Greater efforts should be made in policing the areas that have been abused historically. I have said this day in day out. I am not happy that the naval fleet, coming out from Haulbowline, is chasing around the coastline ten or 12 miles out, rather than policing the areas 50 miles offshore. Unless there is a change in policy I remain pessimistic about the future of some of our fishery stocks.
Is Dr. Beamish satisfied that in the area of the old Irish Box, outside of the new biologically sensitive area, fishing effort will not increase? In other words, on the west coast and north-west coast and in the old Irish Box area - if it were to be put on the map again - will the fishing effort increase, under the new arrangements, especially that of the Spanish and French?
Dr. Beamish
The principle agreed in 2003 was that the actual activity 1998-2002 would create the cap. In regard to area VII on which the Deputy is focusing——
I am not. Area VII moves outside. I am talking about the 50 mile imaginary line around the west coast and north-west coast that no longer exists. What fishermen on the west and north-west coasts want to know is whether effort will increase in the old Irish Box area given that the base figures used for the ICES have changed. Will it mean increased fishing effort levels up to 50 miles off our coastline on the west coast and north-west coasts? That is the question I was trying to put earlier but perhaps it was not pointed enough.
Dr. Beamish
I hope I can communicate an answer. There are two areas, area VII and area VI. Some of area VII is inside the biologically sensitive area and some is outside. Under the old system there was a cap on areas VII and VI and a certain number of vessels could go inside the Box. They could take the fishing effort levels, either all of it outside of the Irish Box or whatever the 40 vessels could take inside the Irish Box.
Take it in.
Dr. Beamish
No. Under the old system one could take it all outside if one wished, or one could take that portion inside it which the 40 vessels allowed into the Irish Box could take. Under the new system there is a specific cap inside and a specific cap outside. The sum of those caps is what was going on in 1998-2002. There is less flexibility because the effort that is in the BSA under the new system is ring-fenced into the BSA and the effort which is outside the BSA, the biologically sensitive area, is ring-fenced outside it. Under the old system the member state could move it inside or outside subject to the limit on the boats inside. Is that clear?
I do not want to hog the debate and perhaps we can get the views of the fishing industry on this issue.
Regarding the diagram on area VII concerning the promised effort levels, I take it Dr. Beamish's corrected figures include both caps that apply to the area, or do they?
Dr. Beamish
When I was presenting this I apologised for the table on area VII which is incorrect. The table which shows area VII is reflecting the effort outside the sensitive box; it is not the total effort for area VII.
It is in line with gross totals Dr. Beamish gave when responding to Deputy Coveney.
Dr. Beamish
There is a specific cap inside and a specific cap outside. The two of them make up the total effort in area VII. That is subject to the verification of the Commission that the figures it has put in the table represent the fishing effort under the size limits and new methodology for the fleet.
Nobody disputes the provision regarding the effort inside the biologically sensitive areas.
We will not pursue this any further. The fishermen's organisation will probably have something to say about these aspects which Dr. Beamish has teased out. I thank him for his presentation.
I invite the representatives of the fishing industry to make a presentation on COM (2004) 166. I welcome Mr. Jason Whooley, Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide, Mr. Sean O'Donoghoe, Mr. Frank Doyle and Mr. Michael Walsh. The format is that we will hear one presentation followed by a question and answer session.
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. While it is generally accepted that witnesses should have qualified privilege, the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, 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 in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Mr. Sean O’Donoghoe
I thank the Chairman for inviting us to attend the committee to speak on a subject that is critical to the Irish fishing industry. A joint presentation will be made by representatives of three of the organisations, namely, Jason Whooley of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, Lorcan Ó Cinnéide from the IFPO and by myself representing the KFO. We each will make a short presentation which will take approximately two minutes.
We want to cover a number of specific issues, some of which have arisen in previous discussions. I wish to give a brief background to them, refer to a map and cover a major problem that exists regarding effort in terms of the crab fishery from an Irish point of view and from the points of view of the UK and French effort. Jason Whooley will cover the problems with the white fish effort in terms of the new regulation and Lorcan Ó Cinnéide will cover the outcome envisaged on Monday.
Our three organisations accepted the new Irish Box as a good deal secured by the Minister and the Department. We are now dealing with the detail of deciding the effort that is to be transferred into that. One of our guiding principles, which is enshrined in the regulation, is that there should be no increase in fishing effort. We would not have fully supported the new Irish Box if that was not enshrined in it.
I hope this is a pretty clear map. The old Irish Box is shown in yellow. There is a line going through Donegal Bay at 54:30, which divides area VI from area VII. Under the old arrangements prior to what was agreed last year, special provisions applied to Spain regarding the Irish Box. It was allowed to have eight vessels in the north-west and 32 vessels in the south and south-west, excluding the Irish Sea.
An important point to remember is that effort restrictions were imposed on all member states other than Spain in respect of the bigger area. I refer to the area outside the yellow box, all the area covered by Vb and VIIc. All the other member states have effort laid down in respect of them. Spain must have argued strongly in regard to the new arrangements. Why should it have a vessel restriction when provisions regarding effort are imposed on all other member states? Part of the new arrangements is that the Spanish effort has been transferred from vessels into effort.
This diagram shows the two boxes and I hope it is clear. The new Irish Box which is to the south and west is shown in blue and the old Irish Box, which was in yellow in the other diagram, is shown in a red line. Members will note that the new Irish Box is approximately one third of the size of the old Irish Box.
In terms of the proposal we are considering, I want to deal specifically with the effort which relates to the crab fishery. We were all away yesterday and were not in a position to circulate this document, but I will e-mail it to the Chairman this evening for distribution. In terms of the crab fishery, I have examined the old effort which was laid down in 1996 and the new effort that was laid down in the new proposal, the COM document to which the Chairman referred.
We are being dealt a double whammy in this regard in that in the respect of the old effort we had just under 600,000 kw days while in the new proposal we have just under 400,000 kw days. Therefore, we will have a loss of 200,000 kw days. I must emphasise that this is a fishery not subject to a quota which could take the extra effort. If it transpires that an amendment is not made to this proposal on Monday or subsequently, our dedicated crab vessels will not have enough days to be able to fish for crab.
Our competitors in this market are the UK and the French. I refer to the north-west areas V and VI. Under the old effort, the UK had 110,000 kw days, while under the new effort the figure has increased to 702,000 kw days, which is almost a sixfold increase. I seriously question how that effort can be justified on a no increase in effort basis.
The French did not have effort in area VI, therefore that is not relevant in the new regulation. When I originally saw the figure for the French effort, it was in area VII and it was 407,000. I then checked the new proposal and it was just under 2 million kw days. I genuinely thought there was a decimal point missing and I contacted the officials and was informed that I was right. The French have 1.9 million kw days. It is incredible that there is an increase of 1.5 million kw days for the French in respect of the crab fishery.
I said I would be brief and I will now hand over to my colleague.
What explanation were you given for the incompatibility with regard to the negative difference on the Irish side as opposed to the massive positive on the UK side?
Mr. O’Donoghoe
On the French side, we have been told that the French got it wrong in 1996. This is the effort they should have had put in, but they did not. There is a major question mark over the French effort.
What about the effort in respect of the UK?
Mr. O’Donoghoe
We have not got an explanation for the increase in effort in respect of the UK in area VI. I hope that with new data there will be an upward adjustment on the Irish one. It needs to be at the original figure or else we will have vessels tied up which will not be able to fish crab, which is a non-quota species.
Mr. Jason Whooley
In simple terms, next Monday's Council will attempt to set an effort ceiling for every member state inside and outside the blue area. Essentially the larger area outside the blue area runs from the Bay of Biscay to Donegal Bay. We are satisfied that inside the blue area the effort ceilings per member state are satisfactory and that a good job has been done. We congratulate the Minister and his officials on copperfastening a biologically sensitive area. We do not have a difficulty with that.
Mr. Sean O'Donoghoe outlined our major difficulties in the crab sector and I will outline our major difficulties in terms of demersal - or whitefish - species. The regulation clearly states that each member states has a ceiling and that ceiling should not exceed 1996 levels. The slide in my presentation shows figures for thousands of kilowatt days. It shows a 1996 ceiling for Ireland and a proposal which we are to discuss in Brussels next week. The Irish figure increases from 11,493,000 kw days to 15,058,000 kw days. As there are smaller vessels included in the new proposal and many of our smaller vessels would obviously be operating close to our coast, it is understandable that the Irish figure increases. In simple terms, that is the justification for the bulk of the increase in the Irish figure.
We have a major difficulty with where the Spanish and French figures are coming from. We are seeing an increase of 10 million kw days for the French and of almost 4 million kw days for the Spanish. We do not accept that those figures are justified. We are very concerned that it will have an impact on the fishing stocks off our coast. We do not believe that the Spanish can justify those figures. How are those figures being verified and how is the European Commission standing over those vast increases? Otherwise we are satisfied with the blue area, the area running from the Bay of Biscay to Donegal Bay known as area VII. The Spanish and French average figures between 1998 and 2002 for each fleet are gross exaggerations. That essentially is our argument on whitefish.
Why is the British figure going from 37 down to 25?
Mr. Whooley
There is a variety of reasons. They had a decommissioning programme which made a large contribution.
It looks like a big drop.
Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide
I do not expect the committee to be able to read the slide in the presentation. It is a copy of the press statement issued by the Minister when this decision was made in principle and the framework regulation came out. It was on the basis of the categoric assurances by the Minister that there would be no increases in fishing effort in the waters around Ireland that there was support from the three organisations making this presentation. The press statement stated that the agreement reached guaranteed that there would be no increases by foreign fishing fleets in waters around Ireland. That is fairly black and white.
The regulation itself states in preamble No. 4 that in order to ensure there is no increase in the overall levels of existing fishing effort, it is necessary to establish a new fishing effort management regime. What seems to have happened in the proposals is that certain states are now telling "porkies" by magnifying tenfold their effort in 1996 and rewarding countries which mis-stated by a factor of two or three. These are enormous magnitudes. It is inexplicable to us that countries which have considerably less quota than Ireland in these waters are having their kilowatt days increase, both in terms of crab and whitefish.
There is a question mark over the Commission's role as the guarantor of the system if countries can be allowed to indulge in this sleight of hand. We are calling on the Minister, and particularly on the Commission, to vindicate the position of this country. We, both the industry and these organisations, have co-operated closely with the Department. Our organisations have supported what has been achieved to date. It is vital that defeat is not snatched from the jaws of victory by the detail because the devil in this, as in all fisheries regulations and negotiations, is in the detail.
It is a serious concern for me and for many members that while Ireland is hosting the Presidency, there should be a serious situation which would have implications for the Irish fishing fleet. I invite the members to respond.
May we hear from the other representatives first?
They may contribute to the question and answer session. I am conscious that we arranged too busy a schedule for today. We are also to meet representatives of ESB who have been waiting for a considerable period. Although I am conscious of that, we will adjourn for five minutes to assess the situation before proceeding to the ESB module. I would ask those present to be conscious of this during the question and answer session. I will not inhibit the other representatives from answering questions.
I take from their reaction that they are happy enough to have been addressed in that presentation and we do not have go through a similar second presentation.
Mr. Frank Doyle
I would have liked to say something but I will be led by the Chair.
I am not allowing any further presentations at this stage unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the previous presentation on which you have a different interpretation.
Mr. Doyle
It is probably not a different interpretation but I have some comments to make on it. I can make them during the course of the question and answer session.
I will allow you do so at that stage.
This is a matter on which I was trying to focus. As I stated earlier, perhaps my questions were not pointed enough but I did have concerns.
I do not think anyone has concerns at this stage about the new Irish Box area. Everyone seems to be reasonably happy that restrictions on fishing effort are in place there. It is the other areas that are now not as specific as they used be when one considers what used be there, that is, the old Irish Box.
The two presentations were somewhat different, to put it mildly. If the figures we were given today are true, there is potential for a dramatic increase in fishing off the Irish coast, and on the west and north-west coasts in particular, for both whitefish and crab. That must be of concern. When one looks at the dramatic increase that the French and British are supposedly justifying, particularly in the crab figures, one must raise this issue. This is an Irish coastline and by and large we have a responsibility for policing. We must raise with the Commission the justification for the very considerable increases in the crab sector Mr. O'Donoghue outlined.
If the reduction in the UK effort in the whitefish sector has happened on a voluntary basis, that is good news and I welcome it. It means there is less pressure on stocks and perhaps more potential room for expansion for other fleets. Is it not correct that the French are looking for an increase of approximately 10 million kw days and the Spanish are looking for an increase of 4 million kw days?
Ireland can explain the reason that our application for kilowatt days has increased. It is because of the increase in the number of small boats fishing off-shore and the consequential increase in kilowatt days. Have the French and the Spanish provided similar justification for their increase and, if so, what is it? The increase that the French are seeking is almost the equivalent of the total the Irish fleet has been given.
Before the committee can support this proposal, it must be satisfied that the claim for increase in effort from the French and Spanish in particular is justified. I do not think it is acceptable and it is a shame that the officials from the Department are not present to explain the reasons. If the explanation is that the French and Spanish did not get it right on the last occasion, we could use that as an excuse as well. During the past 30 years the Irish fishing industry has not got many things right in regard to its aspirations for the size of the fleet that it as an island nation should have.
I am quite concerned that the assurances we were given, and I have been given in the Dáil on numerous occasions, that there will be no increase in fishing effort off the Irish coastline, in other words there will be no increase in fishing effort in what was the old Irish Box and slightly outside, will not be fulfilled. If so, then either we have been misled by the Minister or the goal posts have shifted somewhat in the build up to the potential agreement on Monday.
I concur with Deputy Coveney's remarks. It is bizarre to say the least that this type of increase in the catch of crab and whitefish from some of the other EU states clearly indicates that there is not a level playing pitch. Without over-stating it, I have serious concerns and reservations. I implore the Minister and the officials to address this issue on Monday. If something similar happened in agriculture, there would be a hue and cry - the EU would nearly collapse. Because it is happening in fishing, we seem to plod along and accept it. I personally do not accept it.
It is unbelievable and unacceptable that this can happen and it must be questioned. If the truth were told, I believe the French figures, similar to the British, should show some decline. If the figure was 10%, that would be acceptable, but I am astounded by the figure.
It is hard to reconcile the comments of the three speakers on their satisfaction with the achievement of the Minister and the final point of the presentation today which suggests that the French and Spanish were telling porkies. What is that based on? Are there figures, which I presume the then Department of the Marine accepted on the basis of the verification available? The points made by the Deputies are of grave concern and I hope the Minister will take them on board. I would like to hear what both Mr. Doyle and Mr. Walsh have to say on the matter.
What is the chance of having those figures reduced on Monday?
In fairness to Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide, he said that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, said that guarantees were given, but I think he also expressed his disappointment that those guarantees had not been sustained. I think the views of members are strongly on your side, but I would like you to respond to the different points.
Mr. Whooley
I mentioned that the Minister and his officials did a good job and I stand over that in the context of the fishing effort ceiling within the blue area, which is the biologically sensitive area. We are satisfied that the figures being proposed for member states within that area are not in excess of what they have fished on average between 1998 to 2002. However, the overall picture is different.
Will one member of the delegation elaborate on the overall picture?
Mr. Ó Cinnéide
In response to Deputy Broughan who asked how the figure arose, the figures from 1996 were published, recognised figures. I can safely say that it never occurred to anybody in the industry or to the Minister and his officials that figures completely contrary to those published figures would be produced in this context. The technicality on which they are being introduced is the assertion that these are the actual levels, not the official or proposed levels.
Our argument with this assertion is that the Commission is to be the referee in this and we question how it will be allowed to arise on Monday that countries will be rewarded for having such a level of inaccuracy in their figures. That explains our incredulity on the one hand. As Mr. Whooley mentioned, we give credit where it is due, but likewise we have to point out the inconsistencies.
Let me add to a remark made by Deputies Coveney and O'Donovan. We acted in good faith and accepted what was written in the regulations, that there should be no increase in fishing effort. When the then Minister gave the guarantee, both he and everybody else agreed with it and we did not expect to see the figures that the French have now produced. One cannot explain the crab figure. The only possibility is to accept, as they say, that they got it wrong and it should have been much higher. They had six years to correct it, from 1996 to 2002, and they never corrected it. They cannot be allowed to get away with that. They are in competition with us.
I am not sure what point the UK is making about crab fishing in area VI. To have almost doubled it is not acceptable and is against what was laid down in the regulation, that there should be no increase in fishing effort. One cannot justify some of the figures.
Similarly, Spain revised its effort during the period. I find it hard to see how it can justify the increase in effort. In fairness there is no increase in Spanish effort in the new blue box, but there is outside it. The Commission is the arbiter of whether this is fair and reasonable. One does not have to be a genius to know that the figures cannot be explained by the difference between 15 metre and 18 metre vessels or the excuse that they got the figures wrong. That is not acceptable.
Mr. Frank Doyle
I do not want to go over the ground that was covered, other than to say that to some extent we have been caught by the regime we introduced to deal with the Spanish fleet after the Act of Accession, when the original effort limitations schemes came into play. We have effort on both quota and non-quota species, with the implied limitation or even stoppage on any form of development.
There are situations where people have been trying to move to the development of non-quota species only to be told that they could not do so. Some vessel-owners have been arrested for fishing non-quota stocks on the basis that they were in the wrong area. We are in the extraordinary situation that every December we agree tax and national quotas for particular areas but we do not then have access to some of the areas for which tax was agreed. I refer specifically to area VIII, the Bay of Biscay, and areas IX and X which are more distant but to which we have a technical entitlement that we are unable to claim in practice because of an historical lack of effort. We are caught in a vicious circle whereby if we did not have a track record in the reference period 1998-2002, we are forever locked in that situation of non-entitlement.
The reliability of the figures is questionable - the French figures in particular. The figures in the biologically sensitive areas are probably overstated as well. As Dr. Cecil Beamish observed, it is difficult to deal with this in a manner that does not put the pluses and minuses together. We all recognise that regulation is necessary but the problem is that in reaching regulation we are depriving ourselves of the legal entitlements for which we have fought long and hard.
What is being proposed may be in our long-term interests but we need to know where we stand on our future entitlements and whether, for example, we have entitlements in areas VIII, IX and X. If not, then those entitlements should no longer be written into the annual tack and quota regulations.
Mr. Michael Walsh
My perspective is different from that of my colleagues as I am from the south-east. The abolition of the first Irish Box was a disaster for the Irish South and East Fishermens' Organisation because from our perspective effort can increase in the area east of Dunmore East. The French or the Spanish in particular can now come up further than they ever could. The protection afforded us by the Irish Box, which allowed us to fish in any apart of area VII, including the Bay of Biscay, is now lost.
Regarding agreeing an effort on scallops, we had a meeting with the French organisations recently where they stated that they need permits to fish scallop. Although we have never witnessed a French scallop vessel fishing off the south coast of Ireland, the French are claiming a massive effort both inside and outside the biologically sensitive area. They could not give us a direct answer when we questioned them on this point. Although we probably got the best deal we could under the circumstances on this new biologically sensitive area, we are seriously concerned that if the figures go against us in the future, we will be overdoing what we originally intended and end up with a massive increase in effort out there.
It is a very serious matter. Perhaps Dr. Beamish would like to explain how these figures were arrived at and what negotiations are taking place at the critical meeting next Monday in order to retrieve this situation.
Dr. Beamish
It is a rather technical issue which is difficult to reduce to simplistic conclusions. The principle set in the 2003 regulations is that the fishing effort ceilings in the future will be based on the actual fishing effort in 1998-2002. The Commission's role has been to take the data on the basis on which the methodology has been set out from the member states and to draw up the fishing effort ceilings based on actual fishing efforts in 1998-2002. That is what the Commission says it has down in its proposal.
On specific points raised today, one cannot simply compare the figures in the 1995 regulations and the figures in the current Commission proposal. That is comparing apples and oranges. The areas have changed, the sizes of boats that are included in the figures vary; more boats are included in the new proposal. In the case of the biologically sensitive area, the boat sizes go from 18 metres in the old system down to 10 metres, and from 18 metres down to 15 metres in the wider area. The Commission is the referee and the verifier of these figures.
Regarding the French effort in area VII, this area now includes the English Channel right up to the French coast. If one includes vessels in the 15 to 18 metre category, it is a very large French fleet with many vessels operating in that area and a lot of fishing effort. French fishing effort in area VII will increase significantly because of the inclusion of these smaller vessels and the methodology for calculating the effort for those vessels. One is not comparing like with like therefore. The principle is that it is the same effort but we just happen to be measuring a lot more effort than was the case in the old system.
The Irish fishing effort has increased by 31% relative to the 1995 figures but that incorporates the smaller vessels, the steaming time and certain boundary calculations that had to be done regarding the new biologically sensitive area. One cannot draw any conclusions from simply comparing one set of figures that were measuring a particular set of data in 1995 with the new set of figures that are measuring different things in 1998-2002.
Regarding the crab fisheries, the new figure for the French effort is indeed much higher than that in the 1995 calculation. France claims that this is the figure for its actual fishing effort in 1998-2002. If that is the case, this figure is now effectively being capped. The question is whether it is desirable to set a cap on what was actually happening. For example, Irish scallop figures are almost 200% of the level that was set for 1995, an 84% increase. The overriding fact is that we are reliant on the Commission to verify each member state's data and it has been working with them both individually and collectively to this end.
The Irish Presidency has held a series of meetings during which there has been opportunity to debate this matter and to take forward the date of verification to the greatest extent possible so that the figures reflect the principles that were agreed in 2003. The Commission played the central role in this process.
I shall leave the final word with the fishermens' organisations regarding their concerns and what is intended to happen between now and next Monday to allay those concerns.
Mr. O’Donoghoe
Unfortunately our concerns are not allayed by anything we have heard from the departmental officials. There is a huge problem with crab fishery; it cannot be explained away by the difference between 15 metres and 18 metres. It appears the French put in whatever figure they wished in 1996 and have decided now to significantly increase the figure. I am particularly concerned about the UK figure in the north-west and I would request the officials to examine crab figures.
Dr. Beamish referred to comparing like with like. When evaluating the effort in area VI outside the new Irish Box we completed a detailed analysis of the Spanish effort and I cannot justify the figure. Taking into account that there are differences between the old and new systems, there seems to have been an additional effort in area VII for Spanish vessels on which we have completed an exercise. It is difficult to conclude that the difference in the extra 10 million kw days for the French is related to the difference in vessel size.
There is principled regulation in place which sets out quite clearly that there will be no increase in fishing effort. As Mr. Ó Cinnéide said, the devil is in the detail. We need to get this last detail right on Monday, 21 June. If the right figures do not appear out of the melting pot then, it could have a significant bearing on the future of the Irish fishing industry.
Can Dr. Beamish tell me whether there are further meetings scheduled before Monday, 21 June, or is this the final information?
Dr. Beamish
Before replying to that question, I would like to correct a misunderstanding. Mr. O'Donoghoe said that I had justified the French crab figure on the basis of 15 metre and 18 metre vessels. That is not what I wanted to convey. The issue regarding French effort on crabs which are non-quota species is that France is stating to the Commission, which is the arbiter, that this is the actual fishing effort that took place in 1998-2002. Whether or not that is an increase on stated figures in 1995 is a separate issue. It is the actual fishing effort and that is what the agreement of 2003 is trying to cap - the actual activity in 1998-2002.
The Commission proposal came out in March 2004 during the Irish EU Presidency. The Presidency has provided every opportunity at working group level and at COREPER to have questions raised regarding these figures, to pose questions to the Commission, to have dialogue with member states, and also to work bi-laterally with the Commission encouraging it to carry out a verification exercise ensuring that the data reflect the principles established in 2003.
The Commission holds the data and is obliged to verify it. All the Department can do is encourage the Commission in every way. The Commission is currently finalising that verification exercise. There are technical amendments, even in the case of Ireland, which must be incorporated in the final agreements. The conclusion of that exercise will reflect what happens in the Council on Monday, 21 June. In the event that it does not happen on 21 June, the old regulations will fall at the end of July. That would clearly create a lacuna. Therefore it may be beneficial from a national perspective to have this matter concluded.
This has been an informative session. Concerns were expressed by members of the committee and of the fishing industry.
Mr. Whooley
As Dr. Beamish said, the Commission is the final arbiter. The big question is whether they are going to do their job and, when we get the figures, if we will be satisfied that they have done their job properly. Will the figures be properly verified? That is the key issue of concern.
Can Dr. Beamish allay their concerns?
Dr. Beamish
I cannot speak for the Commission. I can say that the Presidency has given the Commission every opportunity, time and space to carry out any additional required verification. The Commission must have carried out detailed verification before putting forward the proposal. We await what the Commission has to say on Monday, 21 June.
I thank everybody for an informative session and for their time. I apologise if I cut off anybody, but we have another session to begin. We possibly took on too much for one day.