I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, to discuss the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament on the Common Fisheries Policy. The officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine accompanying the Minister are Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary, and Ms Josephine Kelly, principal officer. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.
Common Fisheries Policy: Discussion with Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine
I thank the joint committee for giving me this opportunity to attend. It will be concentrating on agricultural issues a lot in the next two years, given the review of the Common Agricultural Policy which receives a huge amount of media attention. There are very active lobby groups reminding the public what are the key issues. However, it is important for us to focus on another equally important reform process under way in the European Union, that is, the reform of the fishing industry in the Common Fisheries Policy review. Both review processes are under way with roughly the same timeframe and both are likely to be concluded or close to being concluded during the Irish Presidency which is to begin at the start of 2013.
It now looks unlikely that we will see a conclusion of a final compromise agreement between countries and between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy or the Common Agricultural Policy by the end of next year, which will bring Ireland centre stage in trying to secure an acceptable compromise from the point of view of fishing as well as agriculture industry reform. For that reason, this committee is hugely important in terms of the debate that will take place here. Both policy initiatives have been published in the sense that the starting position of the Commission has been made known - in the case of fisheries, it was published in July - and my Department and I are anxious to hear from all political parties on the issue. This is about setting in place the basis for future growth and sustainability, both of fish stocks and the fishing industry. If people have views, we need to hear them in order that they will be factored into the discussions as they develop.
There are views that are realistic in terms of what can be achieved. There are also views that have historically been held about fishing in Ireland that are probably not realistic in terms of the change it is possible to achieve in the Common Fisheries Policy. My focus will continue to be on trying to bring about change and reform that take account of the concerns of the Irish fishing industry and about fish stocks in EU waters which are Irish-controlled.
I want to make a brief presentation on the current state of the industry. There is an assumption that fishing in Ireland is dead but it is far from dead. This has not been a bad year. We would like more quota and we would like the industry to grow at a more rapid pace but it is important to remind members of the current position in the industry and why it is important to protect what we have in the context of the CFP reform proposals. These have positive aspects but they also contain threats to the domestic industry, to which I will refer later.
The second slide refers to the grounds where the Irish industry catch their fish or the exclusive economic zone. This is the 200 mile zone off the north, west and south coasts. A different zone applies to the Irish Sea. The fishing opportunities in that exclusive economic zone are immense. Approximately 1 million tonnes of fish valued at more than €1 billion is caught here annually. The Irish fleet has approximately 18% of the quota and this is worth €200 million. There always has been a mix of other nations fishing these waters. When Ireland joined the EEC, we moved from having a 12 mile exclusion zone to a 200 mile zone of responsibility. We are living with many nations fishing in the waters for which we have responsibility, including the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, the Faroe Islands, Norway and so on. There are ongoing negotiations and friction between all these countries to maximise their share. We will undertake negotiations again in the build up to the pre-Christmas TAC negotiations, about which I will happily answer questions later.
The next slide outlines the zone around the Irish coast, particularly off the south west and the north west. The share Spain has is in red; France, blue; the UK, green ironically; and Ireland, blue. The reason I showed these slides to the Commissioner when she visited Ireland and I am showing them to the committee is it is important to emphasise the point to other European countries that Ireland is different from most other nations in that we share a significant portion of the fish caught in the waters for which we have responsibility with other nations. In that context, we feel threatened by the buying power of some of those fishing fleets in the context of single transferable quotas and concessions, as proposed by the Commissioner.
There is also a significant enforcement responsibility on Ireland not only in regard to our own fleet but also in regard to all the other fleets that fish in the waters for which we have responsibility. That needs to be recognised in the CFP and in future allocations of funding to the fishing industry across the Union in the context of both the research that must be conducted into the most fertile fishing grounds in Europe shared by all the major fishing member states as well as enforcement of regulations in those grounds. The fact that we only have 18% of the catch means that we need all the support we can get in the gathering of scientific evidence, which is the basis for sustainable management plans for all fish stocks and enforcement.
Despite what some people say, the Irish fishing fleet is far from dead. We have more than 2,000 fishing vessels and 200 seafood processing companies, some of which are expanding, while seafood exports have increased this year. We have approximately 2,000 aquaculture sites. There is a great deal of frustration regarding aquaculture licensing, particularly in SAC or Natura sites, and we are doing our best to fast-track those applications by making the appropriate environmental assessments of the bays one after the other as quickly as possible. This industry employs 12,000 people, a not insignificant number, and it is not shrinking. It is viable and profitable and we all have an obligation to ensure it remains profitable and is given the opportunity to expand. That is my main priority.
The seafood market is valued at approximately €700 million. It is important, particularly for coastal communities, some of which are represented on the committee. In 2010, exports increased by 15% on the previous year and the indications are that they will increase again this year. I recently visited France, which is our largest export market. Exports to France will increase by 26% this year because both prices and volumes have increased for some species when shellfish and fin fish are combined. Salmon sales increased by 33% between 2009 and 2010. There is a slight decrease this year because demand has softened but we have plans for salmon farming which are exciting and which, I hope, will facilitate significant expansion over the next five to ten years. Shellfish sales increased by 25% in 2010 in comparison to 2009 and the indications are there will also be a large increase this year, again because of both price and volume increases. Sales in the pelagic sector will increase by 18% this year because the price of mackerel is incredibly strong. Long may that continue. It is a welcome development and it has led to a strong mackerel season this year.
It is not surprising that fish sales in the domestic market fell between 2009 and 2010 and it is expected they will fall slightly again this year. Consumer spend is down and fish is seen by some people as a luxury food, which should not be the case. However, some species are expensive and when prices are up and consumer spend is down, it is not surprising that the domestic market is decreasing. We need to work on improving demand. The value of fish in a person's diet is underrated and misunderstood by a large segment of consumers and we all have an obligation to change that.
Despite all the frustrations and limitations related to quota expansion, the industry has had a reasonable year. Prices are strong and they have increased. Fishermen, as is their right, will point to frustrations and problems because it is my job to resolve them as best as I can but we should not run the industry down. There are significant opportunities for growth. The Commission decided to survey a number of key fishing ports in the Union to measure how reliant communities were on fishing. Of the towns surveyed, Killybegs had the greatest reliance on the fishing industry of any fishing town in the Union by a long way. Those of us from Castletownbere, Killybegs, Dingle or any of the key fishing ports understand the economic imperative of maintaining and expanding the sector for local communities. When we confront the Commission with figures from its own surveys, it provides a strong basis for argument on the need to protect fishing communities and the fishing industry as a way of protecting coastal rural communities and keeping towns and regions intact economically. The percentage of income derived from fishing in Killybegs is extraordinary and without it the town would not survive. That is not to say, however, that Killybegs is doing particularly well at present. There is much that needs to improve there and we need diversification into other sources of income and employment in the town but without fishing, the town would not be viable at all. I have no intention of allowing towns like Killybegs that are heavily reliant on fishing to die on their feet.
The main priorities for Ireland must be spelled out clearly. We must avoid a mandatory transferability of quotas or TFCs. The Commission referred to quotas as fishing concessions in the context of transferring them. This is a shift away from the system we currently have whereby the State, with input from the industry, controls the allocation of quota to the fleet to ensure it is spread out appropriately, that fleet size is appropriate, that the different regions get a fair share and that we have a sustainable approach to fishing, with stock management schemes in place. With all of its limitations, however, the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, works. The idea that we would allow the market to decide who has fishing quota and who does not on the basis of who has the buying power to buy quota from other boats would be a disaster for Irish fishing.
The proposal is that instead of the State allocating quota, boats would have a long-term lease of the quota that they could sell on to other boats or operators on the basis of supply and demand. The reasoning behind it is that the Commission would like to see a consolidation of fleets, with fewer, bigger and more efficient boats. Those are easier to monitor and stocks are easier to manage with fewer boats.
The consequences, however, would be devastating for Ireland. We would have fewer ports and boats and those with the buying power would draw it in to themselves. The current structure in Ireland based on family ownership of a trawler or trawlers would be undermined. That is presuming we can limit the transferability of concessions or quotas to Ireland and that we would not see quotas leaking out of Ireland into foreign fleets. We cannot limit that. I have not seen any evidence produced by the Commission or anyone else to show they could guarantee the transferability of quotas would remain within a national fleet. In Ireland, because so many other nationalities and fleets fish in our waters and there is a huge demand for whitefish and pelagic quota, it would be impossible to stop the purchase of whitefish quota from Irish boats by the Spanish fleet. In England when a transfer of whitefish quota was facilitated, there was a significant transfer from the English fleet to the Spanish fleet, many of which are British registered trawlers that move between Irish waters and ports like Vigo and elsewhere. That is not what I want for the Irish whitefish sector.
Regardless of the supposed safeguards the Commission says it will implement to maintain quota within the Irish fleet, it would be very difficult, if not legally impossible, to stop non-Irish companies setting up in Ireland, buying Irish trawlers, using Irish quota and then not landing in Irish ports. Whether it is whitefish quota going to the Spanish fleet or pelagic quota going to the Dutch fleet, we have seen a lot of evidence of the buying power of both nations. That is not a criticism; it is a fact. If the Irish fleet had the scale and buying power of those nations in those categories, we would be doing the same thing. It is my job, however, to protect and defend the industry and keep national quota in the hands of Irish-owned boats and Irish fishermen where practical and legally possible. The current system allows for that and the system the Commission proposes to implement does not allow for it, in my view.
Fishermen say to me that the control and conservation measures and enforcement when fleets break the rules must be the same across the European Union and that legal structures must act in a consistent matter. The introduction of electronic log books and sharing of information between nations on where their fleets are and what they are catching will help when trying to correlate what there is a quota to catch in Irish waters with the amount of fish being caught. At present that is not a successful endeavour.
On the gradual reduction leading to the elimination of discards, I launched a document last week on measuring the level of discard that currently takes place in the Irish fleet, but it is also a reflection of the situation in other fishing fleets that catch whitefish in Irish waters. Almost 40% of fish that are caught are being dumped back into the sea dead. That is indefensible and fishermen do not want to defend it. Fishermen want to introduce new measures to reduce discard and have shown a capacity for doing it through stock management in certain areas. In the past, for example, they signed up to setting areas aside and not allowing any fishing within the biological sensitive area to try to protect Celtic Sea herring, which has been very successful. We are seeing that stock increase and they are looking at adopting technical measures, for example, using a Swedish grid mechanism to try to filter out cod that are being caught as a by-product of catching prawns in the Irish Sea. Cod numbers in the Irish Sea are under a great deal of pressure and there is a cod protection programme in place. They are looking at strategies, such as mesh size and shape to allow escape hatches for juvenile fish and the fish stock they are not targeting. The proposals from the Commissioner to outlaw discards and force boats to land everything they catch is too blunt a tool to deal with the very complex realities of mixed fisheries, as we have in Ireland. If one is trying to catch cod off the south coast of Ireland, one is likely to catch whiting and haddock in the same nets. If one has a quota to catch one stock and not the other two species, what does one do with the dead fish one has caught? The industry has been very constructive in the discussions we have had about this topic. We are dealing with the issue by technical measures, for example around the size and shape of the nets, the way in which we fish and the areas we set aside, and by trying to create a much more accurate targeting of the fish for which we have a quota to catch. We look at the way we use quota to ensure the fish that are caught as a by-catch can be dealt with, where possible, through appropriate quota management decisions. When we make significant progress on a species by species basis, to catch what the fishermen have a quota to catch, we should consider what we should do with the remainder. We can dramatically reduce that 38% discard figure by more targeted fishing and we can reduce it to single figures at some stage in the future.
It is at that point we need to decide whether to land everything, if so, where does the non-quota fish go, are the fishermen paid or are they fined for it. The approach we are taking is to try to convince the Commissioner, Ms MariaDamanaki, that she is correct to pursue the discards issue. Apart from anything else, it is immoral to catch food and then dump it over the side because the fish are dead. It is also damaging fish stocks in terms of the number of juvenile fish that are caught that should not be caught. However, we need to deal with discards in a much more sophisticated way than she proposes. We need a more targeted discard strategy for different fisheries and different stocks, rather than taking a one size fits all approach which she proposes. This is being driven by the right set of principles to end discards, but in its application it is not workable for the industry or for the development of stocks.
A priority is the retention of the Hague preferences, which are a really important element of the total allowance catch, TAC, negotiations every year. This means that when stocks fall below a certain level, Ireland through what is called the Hague preferences is given a higher allocation of the stock than it would otherwise have in recognition that if our percentage of the stock falls to such an extent that the volume of fish we catch does not make it a viable proposition for the industry, then there needs to be some understanding of it. Ireland and Britain battled to maintain the Hague preferences facility and will continue to do that. Other nations, such as France, Spain and others will continue to say this is unfair and preferential treatment. Considering the share out of quota, in the waters for which we have responsibility, the Hague preferences are more than defensible and we have managed to get a continuation of the status quo, which is not ideal but is a great deal better than some of the proposed alternatives in the Commission’s initial document on the Common Fisheries Policy.
The final issue is about the rebuilding stocks with a view to increased long-term sustainability of fishing levels. This is about a move towards a maximum sustainable yield, MSY, of stock. We are trying to get an accurate measurement, where possible, of the catch that can be facilitated to ensure that fish numbers remain sustainable into the future. If we do not have responsible management of stocks, we will have no fish in the years ahead. I do not think anybody wants that. The way we work toward a maximum sustainable yield needs pragmatism. There are stocks of many different species in Irish waters. Dr. Beamish confirms that we catch approximately 82 species of fish. We have small volumes of catch of some of these species. There are inshore fisheries. We will never have the level of scientific data available to us that we will have on larger stocks of mackerel and herring. To apply the same mathematical calculations on the same level of data collection for some of those small fisheries, as we demand for the bigger fisheries, is probably unreasonable.
The point we make to the Commission is that we need to make decisions on stock management on the basis of the science that is there. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence on stock management that can be the basis for educated decision making. Where possible, when we have the level of science and data required for maximum sustainable yield in its purest sense, we buy into that system. The questions to be posed are: how do we get there; how long it will take us to get there; and how we ease the industry into that new reality without putting people out of business and without causing lasting damage to our fish stocks. These are the key issues. I have probably explained why Ireland has serious concerns about transferable fishing concessions or transferable fishing quotas. This will not come as a surprise to anybody in this room. From the very first day this document was published and before it was published, I have been raising serious concerns about these issues and for very good reason.
I have made this argument very strongly to the Commissioner. The idea that every fleet in the European Union needs to be consolidated or that we need to reduce the number of boats in the fleets because current numbers of fishing boats are simply not viable does not hold true in Ireland's case. In the pelagic sector we have 23 vessels, along with a portion of the pelagic sector which is caught outside of those 23 vessels. It is a relatively small fleet in terms of the numbers of boats involved, even when the boats, in some cases, are very large and efficient fishing vessels. The pelagic sector in Ireland does not need further consolidation. What we need is responsible management of stocks. Through the decommissioning schemes introduced in 2005-2006 the whitefish fleet, in respect of which we have 2,000 boats, was reduced by one-quarter. As such, the Irish fleet has already been consolidated. People got out of the industry and have been compensated for doing so. We have deliberately down-sized the whitefish fleet in Ireland. The proof of this is the increase by approximately 27% in the landing per boat. In other words, down-sizing the fleet has resulted in more quota for allocation between the remaining boats leading to an increase in their volumes and the value of their catch. We have achieved the efficiencies of consolidation. To further shrink the whitefish fleet size and to do so in a dramatic way, as would be the consequence of privatising quota and allowing the market dictate who gets it, would have a devastating impact on many of the fishing communities we value and represent. I will do everything I can to ensure that does not happen.
For me, this is about ensuring the Common Fisheries Policy does what is was originally set up to do which is not to drive efficiencies into the fleet or to look at fishing on a purely commercial basis, in terms of how to catch fish as efficiently as possible, but about using a wild fish stock in a manner that is sustainable, in terms of how we catch it, so as to maximise its benefit for coastal communities in parts of the country that have little else . This is the reason the fishing concession issue is so important to us.
Another element of the Common Fisheries Policy not spoken about as much as it should be is the opportunities for growth in terms of aquaculture. There is a growing debate in the European Union around the contribution that aquaculture can make, be it fin fish or shellfish farming, to the deficit in Europe in terms of what consumers demand and what Europe produces from a fish point of view. We import into the European Union 70% of what we consume, in terms of fish. This presents countries like Ireland that have natural resources with an opportunity to expand and grow the aquaculture sector. However, we need to do that in a way that is responsible, properly licensed, sustainable and protects the environment, where appropriate. We are engaging in that process, which is being supervised by the Commission, and understandably so. We will try to facilitate that expansion when and where possible but only in the context of sustainable growth and development of this industry consistent with European directives around the protection of biodiversity, wildlife and so on.
For what it is worth, we are lucky in that Ireland will be in a position of influence because of the timing of the Irish Presidency. It will be my job throughout next year to try to build alliances around the compromises we seek and to ensure we get a Common Fisheries Policy that works for Ireland and with which other countries can live. That process has commenced.
I thank the two departmental officials on either side of me, who have been extraordinarily proactive with the Commission and our counterparts in other countries in seeking to find common ground around the major concerns Ireland has with the current proposals and in respect of the areas where we can support the Commission in terms of the sustainable and responsible management of stocks in areas such as for example discards and so on.
I look forward to hearing members' comments and will try where possible to take them on board.
Thank you, Minister.
I apologise to the Minister, in terms of my responsibility as Fianna Fáil spokesperson on communications, energy and natural resources, but there were two meetings happening at the same time this afternoon. These are the problems we face here.
I support the Minister's approach. He is faced with an enormous challenge. I particularly support policies on discards which are a wanton waste. Any action that can be taken to eliminate discards is welcome. I listened with interest to what the Minister had to say in regard to the size of the fleet. The Minister might clarify if, when speaking about the fleet, he is speaking about all registered boats from currachs upwards. Could the Department give us information on the approximate number and size of boats in each category? I have a suspicion that of the 2,000 boats in the whitefish fleet, 1,700 or 1,800 are under 26 ft. and others are under 30 ft. and that, as indicated in the Minister's figures, there are a few mega boats which are catching more than the hundreds of boats engaged in a little in shore fishing. Perhaps the Minister will obtain for us a table of what the Department is defining as the fleet so that we can have some sense of it.
This is not only about how many tonnes of fish Ireland can land or, even more frightening, that can be landed out of our waters. It is for many people about their livelihood and lifestyle. For many people inshore fishing is a part-time activity which supplements other income. It increases the income of people also involved in farming, which income on its own would not be sufficient to live off. This is particularly true along the west coast. Perhaps the Minister would also provide us with information on shellfish farming. I am a great supporter of shellfish farming and believe we produce some of the best shellfish in the world. We have clean water and many SAC bays which are protected and do not permit salmon farming because of environmental risks. My understanding is that environmental work will need to be carried out on our bays if they are to be licensed out for shellfish farming. We are sitting on a resource and should seek to have that work concluded.
Despite over fishing of mussels in Killary there is huge potential there. No feeding takes place there and everything occurs naturally. This could be developed with good farming techniques. Perhaps the Minister will outline what could be done in respect of shellfish farming, which fish is always landed in the local port and no one takes it away. Also, it has also led to micro-arts and other processing throughout the country, which is good for local employment.
I could never comprehend, as someone who initially opposed our joining the European Union, European policy that everyone's coal and so on, except fish, is their own. I have always been opposed to the Common Fisheries Policy and cannot comprehend the reason every country owns everything it has, except fish. At every meeting attended by an Irish representative - I accept my colleagues did not do this - our starting point should be, like the Greeks and the stolen property they continually seek at the arts meetings to have returned to them, that the current arrangement is unfair, inequitable and is leading to a situation whereby coastal communities are having to witness fish being taken from their seas and brought to foreign ports with no benefit to them. If one rubs a stone long enough it becomes shiny. We must ensure this fundamental issue of our having 18% of the waters of the European Union but receiving only 4% of fish landed, is raised at the commencement of every meeting. This is in the interests of big business only; it is not in the interests of other coastal communities in the Union. All it has led to is larger boats that can rape the seas and do huge environmental and ecological damage. When people were confined mechanically in what they could fish for, the damage they could do through overfishing was minor. Overfishing is a phenomenon associated with the modern super trawler. Therefore, even from an ecological point of view, the CFP has been an utter disaster.
I fully support the Minister on not giving up TFCs. The information provided by him, despite what the Commissioner said when she came to Ireland about this being fine and hunky dory, means he has read this issue right. If we were to go down the route proposed by her, we would find more of what I have opposed from the beginning, that is, large international companies using flags of convenience to take greater volumes of fish out of our seas, resulting in less of a return for our fishermen.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. I have a number of questions regarding the state of the fishing sector. I disagree with him that it is healthy in so far the opposite is the case in many of the ports I have visited. When the figures are analysed and broken down, there is a distortion in the perception of what coastal communities are taking in economically from the sector.
I refer to the map of fishing activities which the Minister says he uses consistently when negotiating with the Commissioner. It puts in context the value of fish taken out of Irish waters in comparison to the United Kingdom, France and Spain. It is a striking comparison and a good strategy. The Minister has said there are 2,100 Irish fishing vessels. I am open to contradiction, but that figure includes every registered boat in the sector - they could be involved in potting, oyster and mussel fishing, whitefish and pelagic fishing, etc. I spent the past week in Fenit with fishermen. I was putting an engine into a boat for one of my friends. A total of 80 boats are licensed to fish out of the port and they make an average of €3,000 each in the two-month season. This is due to the cost of fish and a slow market. Many other boats in the port have pot licences and so forth. The number looks good, but between 1,800 and 1,900 boat owners fish part time.
The Minister broke down the value of fishing to the economy. According to the figures, the salmon catch is worth €67 million. I assume this refers to farmed salmon.
Yes, no wild salmon are caught.
Draft nets are still being used in some areas and those who use them are going well this year, but drift nets are no longer being used and this took a significant income away from coastal communities. People who were involved in drift net fishing are involved in other sectors, primarily potting, which is putting pressure on that sector.
The shellfish catch is valued at €143 million, an increase of 25%. The bulk of the increase is in the aquaculture or farmed sector. The pelagic catch is worth €112 million, which looks good. Is it correct that there are 23 boats in this sector?
It is not because the whitefish fleet can also catch some of the pelagic quota, but it is predominantly caught by the 23 boats.
These boats are located exclusively at one port, which has a dependency ratio of more than 80% on this catch. I am not knocking the port. The fishermen did their homework, secured the quota, had the political support necessary at the time and were able to monopolise the sector. However, this means 23 boats out of 2,100 are taking in €112 million. That distorts the position in other coastal communities and the fishing sector overall.
The Minister has stated the value of the fishing opportunities in western waters, blocks 6 and 7, is estimated to be 1 million tonnes valued at €1.18 billion, which is worth €200 million to the Irish fleet. That puts in context the potential catch versus what is realised by the Irish fleet. I do not blame the Minister for this. A mistake was made 35 years ago as regards the fleet and the industry has been neglected by Governments. We cannot put the clock back; all we can do is hope we can rectify the mistake.
I agree with the Minister on discards. It is immoral that such a percentage of the catch is dumped over the sides of boats. It is difficult to justify in any circumstances that discards would be allowed to continue by the European Union. Prime fish are being dumped because of the restrictions.
On behalf of my party, I support the Minister regarding the CFP negotiations to try to get the best deal for the fishing sector. I live in a coastal community and was engaged in the industry at one stage of my life. I have witnessed its decline. There are only two whitefish trawlers fishing out of Fenit and the remaining boats are involved in potting or oyster fishing.
I concur with the Minister on TFCs. I will always argue that the quota system is a national asset as distinct from an individual asset. The quota given out and regulated by the Department is an asset and if it were traded on the market taking account of supply and demand, we would compromise a national asset. Therefore, we have to be firm, strong and unified in how we campaign for the retention of this asset which is of huge importance. We can tolerate transferring quota from one Irish vessel to another, but if vessels from outside the jurisdiction are permitted to buy our national quota and use it for their benefit, that will undermine the industry which has been badly undermined in the past.
I wish the Minister well. He has our support in his endeavours in 2013 during the Irish Presidency. I hope all of this will be done and dusted by then. Other sectors are involved, but aquaculture and fisheries will be affected in particular and the Irish Presidency will offer us an opportunity to ensure that existing levels are maintained or increased.
The Minister's officials might be able to answer my next question. Are flag of convenience vessels included among the 2,100 Irish fishing vessels?
We will get the answer.
If so, what is the percentage? Flag of convenience vessels are fishing, landing and so forth. Of the 23 pelagic vessels, what percentage of their catch is landed in Ireland? It is a major concern that people who have some of the Irish quota - a national asset - are benefiting but landing their catch outside Ireland. For example, what percentage of people involved in the tuna fishing sector are landing their catch in Irish ports? Are some of them landing their catch in foreign ports? It is a big sector.
I thank the Minister for his presentation on the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. I concur with the opinions of Deputies Ferris and Ó Cuív concerning the number of boats in the fishing fleet. Will the Minister provide a detailed breakdown of how many are inshore half-deckers, punts and so on and how many there are relative to the size of the fleet?
The view among the fishing communities is that fishing is not in a healthy state. There is a great deal of concern about what is coming down the tracks in the form of the CFP review. I was interested in the Minister's comments in that respect, especially those on transferable quotas. The committee attended the Commissioner's conference for the chairs of various parliamentary committees in Brussels a few weeks ago. From my reading of her comments, the Commissioner appears to be softening slightly in her view on tradeable quotas, perhaps to the effect that individual countries might be allowed to opt out. I am unsure whether my perception is correct. Will the Minister enlighten the committee as to whether he would view it as an acceptable outcome of the negotiations? Even if transferable quotas are introduced on a European basis and individual countries are allowed to opt out, it will only be the thin end of the wedge and the programme will become irresistible through time and subsequent reviews.
Enforcement is vital. Our fleet is enforced to the hilt. If one has a difficulty in getting quota information on foreign fleets, it is only natural not to examine what they are doing too closely, as one has little chance of verifying whether they are fishing illegally. There is interesting information about the species being landed in Ireland by Spanish boats in particular. When those boats land in Spain on their next trips, their hauls are of lower value. Given the species being landed there, it points to difficulties with enforcement and compliance with the CFP. It is important we have a level playing field. I met the Commissioner in Brussels three or four years ago when the implementation of information sharing was under discussion. To my knowledge, it still has not been implemented. Unless we have information sharing, we can never get a fair deal for our fleet.
The issue of discards is an important one. The technical measures and targeting of species is the right course to take. The Irish industry has taken the right view. We must implement a full suite of technical measures and targeting of fisheries to ensure we minimise the level of discards. However, discards will continue to some extent. At that point, a policy of landing everything that is caught will need to be put in place, as this would end discarding. As long as the fish caught are not juveniles and vessels have made the best efforts possible to ensure only appropriate species are caught, it is important that boats not be penalised for landing out of quota stock through no fault of their own.
The Minister did not mention small-scale fisheries, which form part of the CFP review. The Commissioner's proposals in this regard could be important for Ireland and, in particular, our inshore fleet in that it could be recognised as a small-scale fishery and allowed to operate outside the CFP so that the part-time fishermen in question could maintain their livelihoods and supplement their incomes. This recognition would also be important for those on the islands who are even more dependent on fishing for their livelihoods than Killybegs. We might be able to develop something in respect of small-scale fisheries.
The Minister mentioned that we are being forced to implement a review of aquaculture that is stricter than anywhere else in Europe. I have examined this matter and it certainly seems stricter. Other European countries are not required to carry out appropriate assessments for shellfish farming in special areas of conservation, SACs. We must make a case to the fisheries Commissioner to discuss this matter with the environment Commissioner or someone in order that we might have a level playing field and allow our industry to develop, as it presents considerable opportunities for the coastal regions.
It is important we highlight the historical situation. I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív, in that we did not lose out on our fishing resources, rather they were taken from us before we even joined the EEC. We need to highlight this fact as it is an historical wrong. We should put this matter on the table as often as we can. We might not be able to right the wrong at this stage but we might be able to get a fairer deal.
The Hague preferences have been left out of the review and the status quo is to be maintained. Can they be included or would the compromises required be too great?
I call Deputy Harrington.
Does the Chairman want me to answer some of the questions?
I will invite Deputy O'Mahony later, but I want one speaker from each group now. Members can ask supplementary questions if necessary.
It perplexes me that, despite the fact that Ireland is one of the EU's few island nations, fisheries do not get the same focus as other industries. It is difficult to understand. Our industry catches a certain amount of fish, most of which is for export. Unfortunately, the fish we eat is, by and large, imported. It does not make sense.
I am grateful that the Minister and the officials have taken the time to address the committee on the proposals from the Commission's office and the Common Fisheries Policy. The three underlying issues which deserve the most focus are: the individual transferable quotas, ITQs, or concessions; the Commissioner's proposals on discards; and the Hague preferences.
I have heard the Commissioner speak a few times on the ITQs and she holds the Danish model as being a perfect example of how consolidation in the industry is good. I am absolutely convinced that it is an appalling vista to have our assets modelled after the Danish experience, where the entire pelagic industry is in the hands of no more people than are now in this room. That is not the way it should be. We have already had an element of consolidation between decommissioning in the whitefish fleet, for example, and the way the industry has been segmented between the refrigerated seawater segments, the polyvalents and the sub-segments within those.
There is an argument in this. If there is consolidation and, for example, we go from three vessels to one with the same gross tonnage and increased kilowatts, the fishing effort and the capability of that vessel to fish would be proportionately more than the sum of the three vessels, which is significant. On the one hand the Commissioner speaks about sustainable fisheries in smaller family holdings or coastal communities fishing sustainably while she is also talking about consolidation, which will inevitably lead to something entirely different. I have not heard the argument yet but there is strong evidence in the way the case has been made by the Minister. In consolidating or amalgamating a fleet, because of better knowledge, increased power and improved detection the effort will be disproportionately increased. The Commissioner has called this efficiency but boats will catch much more fish for the same effort. There will also be fewer people working in the effort, which is important.
That is one reason to resist ITQs, and other members mentioned that the industry would be wiped out as we know it. We have seen what happened in the UK. We have met members of the legislative Assembly in the North. In the UK, the fishing vessels are essentially Spanish-owned, and their fishing effort is between the north-east Atlantic and the north west of Spain. Those vessels are not concerned with UK waters and would only go there to register. That country has lost its industry and we do not want to go down that road.
A second issue is the Commissioner's proposal for discards. This is an emotive issue and it has been highlighted in the international media. It is immoral that fishermen be left in such a position, as no fisherman worth his salt wants to throw dead fish over the side. As long as that fisherman will be hit financially because he has to land the fish, that is exactly what will happen. The solutions are complex. The Minister has published the Atlas of Demersal Discards but I have a suggestion for the pelagic sector, particularly with visiting fleets. It is a relatively clean fishery and the anecdotal evidence I hear is that in many cases, discards could amount to between 50% and 90% of the catch, which is astronomical. The vessels have the capacity to grade fish and it perplexes me as to why vessels are allowed, in a single clean fishery, to do so. That is done with one reason in mind, namely, to take out the juvenile fish and discard them.
A visiting fleet coming to waters we manage should not be allowed to grade fish; the graders should be taken out or sealed. Otherwise we can put a monitor on those vessels. There are not many such vessels but the capacity they have in the pelagic sector is enormous. That would be a good but easy start to the process of accounting for many discards.
There are different issues with mixed fisheries and there is a significant problem with fishermen catching cod with no quota, for example. There are issues with selective gear and although there may be solutions, they are further down the road. Nobody is addressing the problem and we allow the Dutch and French to come in and grade fish. Fishermen along our coast have come across such discards and take them in their own nets. They are appalled by what is going on. The idea of grading fish in a single fishery does not make sense.
We have spoken about the Hague preferences and I fully support those comments. It is a shame that every December we must go over to fight for the Hague preferences. I do not know why they are not enshrined in a Common Fisheries Policy and perhaps we should work towards that. We do not make much noise about it and we are quite happy to slip them into negotiations but we must still fight for them every year. Perhaps we should fight that battle at the start of the policy review so that fishermen can be secure in the knowledge that they will have them for four, five or six years. That would be very helpful.
Processing is one of the Cinderellas of the industry, particularly in the whitefish sector. I know great efforts have been made to attract visiting fleets to land in Irish ports. The problem is that the market for demersal fish is in Spain and France, and the market they want is whole fresh fish. The industry facilitates that by throwing the product into the back of a truck, putting ice on it and letting it off. We must face that problem and Bord Iascaigh Mhara has a particular challenge in that regard. It is doing much good work in its offices in Clonakilty, with seafood innovation departments, etc. We must consider how to get onshore jobs from the offshore demersal sector.
In the pelagic sector we would like to deal with every single fish, including mackerel and herring, landed in this country. Unfortunately, fish are landed in Norway and the Shetlands, for example, so we might consider introducing incentives. Fish are landed in such places because they fetch a better price, which is a challenge for us. We would create a significant amount of onshore jobs if we could find a way to process our demersal and whitefish such as hake, haddock, plaice and cod.
Perhaps the officials could provide some insight on the quota negotiations. I have heard stories that the French can never manage to achieve their monkfish quota, and this is a very valuable species for the Irish fishermen; many target this species only. The French have the largest allocation of monkfish and struggle to catch it but they are not penalised the following year. Tuna can be a difficult fish to capture and we did not achieve our quota over the past number of years. Our quota has been reducing since. This year has been a very good year for tuna and there has been a high demand. Why is a nation which does not reach a quota not penalised? I refer in particular to a species which is in great demand in the Irish fleet and vessels have been specifically designed and built to catch monkfish. The fishermen may find themselves without a quota.
We have fishery harbour centres throughout the country, and as many members have said, many of them have seen consolidation of effort, with fewer vessels and fewer people working. I would like to see commercial diversification in those ports but this would be a challenge, and it very much depends on who is on the ground in those areas. Killybegs has done it quite well and has diversified to wind energy. There are opportunities for increased economic effort in coastal regions if we can be imaginative with fishery ports and diversifying them commercially. Control issues are a very thorny matter. Our fishing communities have had to deal with them over the last number of years. Obviously, there has been pain and much confusion, and a perception that, like everything else, they are over-enforced. We spend many of our resources on enforcement.
The Minister mentioned a level playing field. It would be interesting to find out, and the Minister might not have the figures with him today, the amount of resources we spend on our enforcement effort compared with other major fishing countries in the EU, that is, their total value of fish landings relative to enforcement. This would give us an idea of what is involved. It is not a criticism but simply to enhance the level playing field idea that fishermen have to deal with in this country. They see visiting fleets coming in and landing vast amounts of monkfish tails while Irish fishermen might only be allowed to fish 1.5 tonnes of monkfish per month. It leads to hostility, which need not be there if there was a good understanding of what happens both in this country and in others.
The introduction of the electronic log books will be a positive step, but there is one condition. The Irish industry will accept electronic log books, reluctantly, only if they are introduced simultaneously, and that means in the same minute, in every other EU state that has a fishing industry. If we are seen to jump first again on this issue, there will be uproar. It will be seen as another effort to hammer our industry. They must be introduced simultaneously. It will not work otherwise.
Aquaculture is a sector that has huge potential. Again, there is the issue of the level playing field. It appears that other countries can go from conception to commission with aquaculture sites or fields far quicker than we can in this country, irrespective of whether there is a Natura site involved. Perhaps I am interpreting that wrongly again but Scotland, for example, appears to be able to do it. We should examine that and see if there is a resource issue or something else required to bring these to fruition more quickly. There is evidence that 1,000 tonnes of salmon farmed could create seven jobs in the most peripheral vulnerable communities, which is very important.
I note the Minister's proposals for greater offshore aquaculture effort. That is contingent on technology. I realise one might have to do it on the leeward side of an island; it would be very site specific, at present. However, it is very important to focus on what we can do with the technology available to us and where there is support to do it for sites around the country. We can look at the technology that can do it offshore and whether it can be done, but I am not convinced that the technology is available to have sufficiently secure cages in the worst conditions in the Atlantic. However, I welcome the proposal. It is an exciting time for fishing, and particularly for aquaculture. The Minister has a strong interest in developing it. I look forward to his response and to receiving continued feedback from him over the next 18 months or so on the review of the Common Fisheries Policy.
I will ask the Minister to respond. I will ask the other members to contribute later, if they wish.
I am aware other members will wish to ask other questions as well. I will reply to the Deputy in reverse order. First, with regard to offshore aquaculture, nobody is proposing that we build cages in the middle of the open sea. There is already a deep sea aquaculture site or deep sea salmon farm off Clare Island. That has been the benchmark that BIM and the Marine Institute have been asked to work from in terms of wave size, wave consistency, exposure and so forth. The technology is there; we are not talking about a hope value. We are talking about inviting a licence application by BIM which will have to go through a rigorous licensing process before it can be confirmed or approved. However, if it is approved, I do not see any reason that the sites being chosen at present cannot be developed in the immediate future.
I agree with the Deputy that the concept of putting large-scale salmon cages in the middle of the Atlantic, some of the most exposed waters in the world, is unrealistic. That type of engineering would be very expensive to put in place, apart from anything else. The risk value would be too high. However, the Clare Island facility that is being operated by Marine Harvest is profitable, functioning and has not broken up. My understanding is that any application will be at a site that uses the figures and exposure on that site as the benchmark for what is doable.
For the record, although I am a major advocate of looking at new ways of expanding salmon farming, other forms of aquaculture, finfish farming and potentially shellfish farming in deeper water, that does not mean we will take our foot off the gas in terms of trying to get the job done in assessing SAC bays and Natura areas so that people who have been waiting a long time for either a renewal of licences or the consideration of a first licence will be considered. It is important to point out that it is not one or the other. We can develop both.
In response to Deputy Ferris, the reason we must implement a gold plated system of licensing for aquaculture, which is hugely frustrating, is our own fault as a country. We did not go through a sufficiently rigorous process with licensing application, consistency of licensing templates and so forth and the European Commission took us to court. We lost the case. Now the Commission can go back to the court and seek the imposition of fines if it believes Ireland is not responding in a way it deems appropriate in terms of having policies that are consistent with legal directives we have signed up to, that is, the habitats directive. We are under pressure on this issue and that is the reason we put a new aquaculture licensing template in place over the summer. We have agreed that template so everybody will know the exact template expected of them when applying for a new licence. That was not there previously. That is a good development and it has been welcomed by all the main operators to whom I have spoken.
It is now our job to go through the process of assessing bays from an environmental and biodiversity point of view before we can accept applications, which will involve more assessments after that with environmental impact studies and so forth. This is a frustrating process, and I am as frustrated as everybody else. However, that is the reality. I spoke to the Commissioner about it and she was a little taken aback by the aquaculture story in Ireland. It is a frustrating story. To a certain extent we were the architects of our problems and we must resolve that. We are told by the Commission that other countries will have to implement the type of gold plated structures we are putting in place, but it is not nice to be the guinea pig. It is expensive, frustrating and time consuming.
We are trying to get through it as quickly as possible. We have assessed approximately four bays so far and we will proceed with the process. It involves not only my Department but also the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. We are trying, where possible, to put more resources into getting that job done. For the benefit of aquaculture operators who are waiting for licensing decisions, just because there is some excitement around deep sea salmon farming, it does not mean we are not prioritising their applications. We are doing that as well.
I agree with the Deputy on enforcement and a level playing field. The Commissioner said that by the start of November she wanted electronic log books to be installed on trawlers across the European Union. That process is under way, starting with larger trawlers and moving down through the fleet to get compliance and we will insist on other countries complying. We want real time data on what fish are being caught, where they are being caught and who is catching them so enforcement officers can board boats knowing what should be on board beforehand rather than trying to measure what is in a written log book versus what is in the hold, which did not always match in the past. People have pinned their hopes on the electronic log book, although it involves a Big Brother approach that fishermen do not like because they are essentially hunters out in the wild. The idea that they are supervised by a computerised data collections system makes them uncomfortable but they are willing to live with it if it means conservation of fish stocks and that enforcement is more accurate and consistent.
Monkfish quota is allocated on the basis of relative stability; everyone gets a share of the quota. If France's monkfish quota in Irish waters is to be reduced, its share of the stock must be reduced and that then has an impact on everyone else who also gets a share. Politically that is not easy. There is, however, a system of swaps and countries can swap quota with each other. If people cannot catch a full quota in a certain species, they can potentially swap if they are under pressure with another species. There is ongoing negotiation between countries to get people out of a hole when appropriate and that often happens in the case of monkfish.
A number of people asked about landings. The percentage landed in Ireland last year by the pelagic fleet for mackerel was about 80%. I would like to see a higher figure than that but we cannot stop someone from landing somewhere else if they get higher prices; we live in a common market. The idea that we might force boats to land in Killybegs but not in Derry is not allowed. Ports are designated, particularly in the herring fishing fleet, and I defend that approach. It exists to ensure the processing sector can survive but that exists within the Irish fleet. The vast bulk of the spring 2011 catch for mackerel was landed in Ireland and there is no reason to believe that has not continued. Herring are primarily landed in Ireland, except the Atlantic-Scandinavian herring fishery, which is landed close to where it is caught.
The tuna fishery was a major bonus this year that many people were not expecting. Around €8 million worth of tuna was caught this year, which was a great fillip, particularly to fishermen on the south coast. They are not an easy fish to catch. When we start talking about "our" fish, we must understand that many fish stocks are transitory, they move through different waters during different growth periods. Tuna is a classic example of that, it moves from northern Spain along the Irish coast and then returns south. We managed to catch them this year in Irish waters. Some were landed in France when they were caught near to there but the majority was landed in Ireland. I will get the detail of what was landed where and e-mail the information to members.
There is a difference between the pelagic and the whitefish sector in discards. The whitefish sector is a mixed fishery; it is much more complicated in terms of differentiating stocks with gear. Most of the discard from big pelagic boats is made up of juvenile small fish that are not marketable, although they are the same species, be they mackerel or herring. We can make progress on that. Large factory vessels that grade fish on board and dump fish that are not valuable so they can catch fish that are valuable are breaking the regulations. High levels of grading are illegal, although that does not mean it does not happen and we must figure out how to control it. It is abhorrent that huge volumes of juvenile fish would be killed and then dumped back in the sea. It might be welcomed by some seabirds but not only does it damage stocks for the future, it is wrong. We have the technology now to prevent that and we should be enforcing it. The discard issue is less complex for the pelagic sector than for the whitefish sector, which is why solutions are more easily found in that sector.
We all agree on internal transferable quota. My concerns are well known on this issue. I am trying to change the fact that this fishery does not get the focus it deserves but we are all trying to change that.
We must all understand the Commission's proposal on small-scale fishery. It proposed that for quota species, it would differentiate between large and small fishing vessels. The cut-off point was 12 m so for vessels larger than that, there would be single transferable quotas and for smaller vessels, we would allow a different system that would allow countries to maintain small fishing fleets. The problem in Ireland is that practically all of the quota species are caught by the larger boats. We do not have a fishery like that in the Mediterranean, where there are lines of relatively small fishing boats that are all out catching quota species. Generally smaller boats in Ireland are potting or they are catching non-quota species. While we will push hard for financial support for small fishing boats and communities that rely on them, we must be careful we do not allow our sector to be treated as a large boat sector, which is where practically all quota species are caught in Ireland.
We have the 23 refrigerated sea water, RSW, pelagic vessels and an estimated 250 larger polyvalent or whitefish vessels, some of which also have a pelagic element. The pelagic quota is split, with 87% going to RSW vessels and 13% to the whitefish fleet who are catching pelagic species as well. The vast bulk of that fleet is over 12 m in size. The remainder, boats under 12 m, mostly fish for lobster, crab, line mackerel, herring, pollock and shellfish, which are non-quota species. When we talk about that sector struggling, it is not struggling because of quota allocation - there is no quota allocation, it is struggling because of an absence of fish in some cases. In some cases we have overfished and we are suffering as a result. We need to find a way to allow that sector to grow again, to allow families top up income by having some potting for certain periods of the year and so on. I am very familiar with that industry, particularly in west Cork.
It is important to recognise that the Commission's proposals are designed to deal with a fleet structure that is not consistent with the Irish fleet structure. We need to change that to suit what our fleet structure entails. The solution for the smaller vessels that are catching quota species needs to be the solution for our larger boats, in terms of not moving towards ITQs or concessions.
The problem with the Hague preferences and getting them enshrined into the CFP in a more definite way - they are mentioned but not given the focus I would wish in terms of certainty - is that essentially Ireland and Britain are the only people who want them. These decisions are made collectively by the Council of Ministers so we can get voted down on that very easily. We worked hard to ensure that the Hague preferences, as they currently are, were protected; in other words, not done away with, in the currency of these proposals even though many countries would like that. One of the problems is that we always use up an awful lot of bargaining capital at the start of December each year when we are getting into the TAC negotiations - just getting agreement on the Hague preferences - before we even get into the stock by stock discussions, which is very frustrating.
If we could nail down the Hague preferences in the CFP and did not have to negotiate them each year we could use our bargaining capital, and the compromises we need to reach with other countries, more effectively concentrating just on stocks. Unfortunately, that is not the case at the moment. The position in regard to the Hague preferences could have been much worse in terms of the CAP document. It is not an ideal situation but it is not a disaster either.
I have dealt with small scale fisheries and electronic logbooks. In respect of countries opting out of individual transferable quotas, the commissioner will be forced to move towards some kind of compromise model that allows countries to tailor-make solutions for their own circumstances. For example, France has similar concerns to ours, as have other countries. However, a number of countries already have single transferable quota systems in place. The idea that this is being introduced to the European Union at this stage is not true.
For example, I took the Estonian Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to the match last night and asked him how his country views single transferable quotas and whether it allows trading of quota between boats. It does allow for that. He does not appear to be overly concerned about it but his country is in a much different position and does not have the same pressures on stocks that we have around the Irish coastline. Neither does it have the buying power, and wanting to buy up quota, particularly whitefish quota, that we have in Ireland. The idea that this principle does not exist and is being introduced for the first time is wrong.
Allowing countries to tailor a solution that makes sense for their industry would not be a bad solution if we could get it, so long as there is not a threat of a future imposition of ITQs. We need to ensure we nail down that issue. We will have the support of some powerful nations on this issue. Britain is split on this, given that England has one view and Scotland has another. We are working with the Scots as best we can and trying to bring on board the British Minister, who has an open mind on this issue.
There were the issues of tuna to France, CFPs and discards. I think I have dealt with the growth of salmon and shellfish. There is phenomenal potential in the market for demand for Irish shellfish and Irish farmed salmon and other fish stocks that can potentially be farmed in the future. It is about trying to meet the demand with supply as opposed to the other way around. There is some talk that salmon prices will soften a little in the coming months. Even if they do, the long-term play is quite straightforward. As agriculture struggles to produce enough food to feed the European Union and other parts of the world, fish will play an increasing role.
Compare the figures for the EU with other countries, such as China, which consumes 91 million tonnes of fish per year, 70% of which is farmed. The Commissioner is a strong supporter of promoting aquaculture, potentially financing aquaculture through CFP funds. I want to ensure Ireland is spearheading that growth and development and using our natural resources to full potential, both inshore and in deeper water.
I have given figures on the make-up of the fleet. There are approximately 250 white fish vessels, 23 pelagic, the remainder are split around potting and so on. Are there any questions that I have missed? If so, please remind me and I will try to answer them.
On the idea of adding more value on land in terms of chilled fish, frozen fish and prepared fish, I have sanctioned much grant aid through Bord Iascaigh Mhara this year for the fish processing sector in Ireland. We have created about 270 jobs in fish processing this year by grant aid to try to improve the capacity of the processing sector to not only grade but add value to fish, to vacuum pack, to smoke, to flavour, to prepare fish for the market in Ireland rather than export a commodity which is what we have done traditionally quite successfully. We need to do more of that, particularly if we are to expand salmon production in Ireland on the scale I would wish. We need the capacity to do much more value-added work, which is where the main employment lies.
Most people who are employed in the fishing industry are employed in the factories, not on the boats, although both are equally important and rely on each other. Approximately 140,000 tonnes of fish were landed into Irish ports last year. One million tonnes of fish are caught in the waters around Ireland. There is a great deal more fish that we can land into Irish ports, whether caught by Irish boats or somebody else, and we can employ people to add value and, thus, create wealth. I have already started that process for the French whitefish fleet, much of which is owned by large supermarket chains in France. If we can add value here by grading the fish we can get much of the value that is added to those stocks in Ireland. It makes sense for them to look at that now from a commercial point of view because of the cost of fuel. Every time one fills one's hold, one has to steam back to France for 48 hours. At the current price of fuel, there is an incentive to look at Irish ports for the purpose of landing and grading fish and, perhaps, packing and adding value here rather than in their home country. That is becoming a more persuasive argument and we need to work on that all the time.
What about flags of convenience issues and vessels?
A relatively small number of Irish vessels are foreign owned. I will have to get the exact figure for the Deputy but it is nowhere near the English fleet in terms of numbers. I am not comfortable with the fact that there are Irish registered vessels. A register of all vessels is available on my website which describes the names of all the boats, size, the licence attached to each and so on. The Deputy may get the detail of all the boats from the website if he wishes. It is less of a problem here than in England but it is still an issue. The big issue for me is that I want as many as possible of the fish caught in the waters around this island landed in Ireland so that we can maximise value. I also want Irish-owned vessels to be able to maximise their catch from the overall catch, but we must also be realistic about what is possible in terms of quota allocation and take account of what Deputy Ó Cuív has repeatedly said.
The historical story around fish being caught in and around the Irish coastline is one that began long before we joined the European Union, or the EEC as it was then. Spanish fleets have been catching fish off the Irish coastline for centuries. We should not forget that before we joined the European Union, we had a 12 mile exclusion zone around Ireland. It is now a 200 mile zone. As we move out, we are into waters that have traditionally been fished by other nations also. I am not happy about that, but it is the reality. Therefore, it is not all about joining the European Union, although that is part of the issue. That said, we are where we are and it is my job to try and get the best deal possible for the Irish fleet and to try and maximise the commercial return from fishing in Irish controlled waters and at the same time to protect fish stocks. I take that responsibility very seriously.
I recall that everybody used to have a 12 mile limit, in or outside the European Union, and this was progressively extended to 200 miles. In Iceland, it got out to 200 miles and we all know what the Icelanders did to protect their fishery. What happened in our case when the limit was extended to 200 miles was that Europe said it was its fishery, not ours because it was fishing there. It was fishing in other countries' waters, but it retained its rights in our waters once the limit was extended and it then got the exclusive rights. The limit relates to minerals and energy resources also, but we are not going to give away our rights to these - although 50 or 100 years ago we did not have the rights to the sea.
With the euro crisis, we are in a time of the greatest flux in the European Union, but with every crisis comes an opportunity. Europe will be looking for all sorts of major changes in things it said were settled and when those changes come, the whole basis of the Common Fisheries Policy should be thrown in the mix. If Europe is to save the euro, it will come to us looking for fundamental change and when it comes to us, we should say we want to add the Common Fisheries Policy to the shopping list. I cannot understand why any nation would not do that when there is so much at stake. In financial terms, if we had all the fish in our waters, we would not have such a significant financial problem as we have today.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending this meeting and I thank members for their positive engagement. There has not been as much of a focus as there should have been on this sector. The Minister can see from the contributions of members that everybody wishes him well with the work and that there is positive cross-party interest in seeing that their concerns with regard to the Common Fisheries Policy as it stands are addressed and dealt with. This is important for the potential of the sector. The Minister has outlined a positive vision and he has demonstrated that he sees the potential and will take the steps necessary within his Department to try and achieve that vision.
The clerk was here for the discussion and he apologises for having to leave before the end of the meeting, but he will read the transcript of the remaining responses and produce a report for the committee, because the Common Fisheries Policy is one of the two areas of EU legislation the committee must scrutinise. The report of today's meeting and a report on the Common Fisheries Policy will be circulated to members. Hopefully we will agree on that report in December and lay it before the House and, with the agreement of the committee, will forward it to the Commissioner as our considered response to the Common Fisheries Policy. Deputy Pringle, Deputy Harrington, Senator Ó Domhnaill and I met the Commissioner at the time and I agree with Deputy Pringle's perception of the Commissioner's stance, namely, that she was engaging in a way that wanted feedback from the member states as to their positions on key areas such as discards, the transferable fishing concessions, TFCs, and small vessels. We addressed the issue of the small vessels and advised that the 12 m provision did nothing for us. We suggested the size of the boats should be adjusted upwards. I do not have the figures to hand, but we demonstrated the impact if we went up to 15 m or 18 m.
This committee wishes the Minister well. We will invite him to return to the committee as progress is made. In parallel with the Common Agricultural Policy, it is vital that everybody with an interest in this area engages positively. There is a genuine willingness to see this through in the best interest of Ireland.
Before we finish, I would like to point out that next week we will have a Dáil debate on the sustainability impact of the total allowable catch, TAC, and quota negotiations in December this year. As part of the programme for Government, we promised an open debate in advance of the negotiations in December each year. This debate will take place next week in the Dáil and members may take that opportunity to make some points on either the CFP or the TAC negotiations. There will also be a questions and answers session for clarification.
I thank the Minister for that information. As there is no further business the meeting will adjourn.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 November 2011.