On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary, and Ms Josephine Kelly, principal officer, fisheries division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are here to assist in scrutinising the following proposal: COM (2007) 330, a proposal for a Council regulation concerning authorisation of fishing activities of Community vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters. Dr. Beamish will speak on the proposal. First, however, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. 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, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals: Discussion with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Dr. Cecil Beamish
A copy of the presentation has been circulated to members. The proposal is for a Council regulation concerning the authorisations given for fishing activities of Community vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country or non-Community vessels to Community waters. The Council and Commission committed to an action plan to simplify and improve the Common Fisheries Policy between 2006 and 2009. That is the context in which the proposal is presented. It is also relevant to the governance of the international fisheries agreements that the European Union enters into and is a party to. It is relevant to the overall thrust of the Council and Commission commitments to tackling international unregulated and unreported fishing, so-called IUU fishing, the regulation of fishing on the high seas outside the 200 mile zone, and the overall harmonisation of procedures across the different areas where Community fishing vessels operate or where non-Community vessels operate within Community waters.
The proposal deals with Community member state vessels fishing outside Community waters, in other words, outside the 200 mile zone of the member states, vessels fishing in third country waters, the waters of non-member state countries, or on the high seas. It also deals with vessels from non-member states fishing in EU waters. It deals with vessels fishing under agreements from the regional fisheries management organisations and their areas. The measures proposed in the regulation will apply to Community vessels no matter where they fish, non-Community vessels in our waters, and Community vessels engaged in fish farming activities outside Community waters. That latter point is not relevant to Ireland. We do not have vessels engaged in fish farming activities outside Community waters. It would have relevance in the Mediterranean Sea, particularly in regard to blue fin tuna catching and fattening.
The Community fishing fleet is present in almost all the oceans of the world. Fishing fleets are, of their nature, highly mobile. There are Asian fleets in the Atlantic. There are European fleets in the Pacific and all other areas. The catching of fish is a highly mobile business. In terms of EU vessels, the Community has what are called fee agreements, agreements with third countries, whereby the Community pays money in return for access to fishing rights and a range of other measures. Approximately 400 Community fishing vessels participate in these agreements. There are also agreements with third countries which do not involve the exchange of money but which involve the exchange of fishing rights, reciprocal fishing rights in the third country's waters and national waters. Approximately 850 fishing vessels participate in these agreements. The waters outside the 200 mile zone of any states, the high seas, are largely regulated under the regional fisheries management organisations which operate under a UN framework. Approximately 8,000 Community vessels participate under those arrangements on the high seas.
In terms of Ireland's interests we have three vessels fishing for Arctic cod under an agreement with Norway. We have three vessels fishing for Arctic cod under a Community regulation of an area known as Svalbard near the Arctic. We have pelagic vessels in Norwegian waters fishing for Atlanto-Scandic herring. We have the possibility for our pelagic vessels to fish for blue whiting in Faroese waters and the possibility for any of our vessels to fish on the high seas. In terms of the fee agreements, particularly the African ones, at the moment 11 pelagic vessels have an interest in participating in some of those fee agreements.
Currently there are 250 non-EU vessels authorised to fish in EU waters under bilateral and multilateral agreements. These are mainly agreements with Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. The first two are reciprocal agreements under which balanced fishing opportunities are given to Community vessels in Norwegian waters and to Norwegian vessels in Community waters, and the same applies in regard to the Faroe Islands. These are long-standing agreements which reflect the fishing patterns that predated the establishment of the EU and the Common Fisheries Policy.
The objectives of the proposal before the committee are to update and streamline the rules and conditions governing the authorisations of these fishing vessels, to align the rules that apply to Community vessels operating in those various external waters and to non-Community vessels plying internally in EU waters, to simplify and improve the overall procedures, to reduce the administrative burden on the member state, the Commission and the industry and to facilitate and improve compliance with the obligations that apply to the fishing activity, whether it be in third country waters or on the high seas, and to facilitate the enforcement of those obligations.
The proposal sets down the rules and conditions which will apply for all authorisations in respect of fishing in those areas. The legal framework is established for the electronic transmission of the data required to get an authorisation to fish in those areas and to report the activities in which the vessel participates in those areas. It provides for the closure of the fishing activity and the fishery where the opportunities which exist and which are made available to the vessels which are authorised are exhausted. That replicates the arrangements that apply in regard to internal fisheries within the EU. It provides for the suspension or withdrawal of an authorisation in the case of a serious infringement while engaged in the fishery or area to which the authorisation relates. It also provides for the temporary reallocation of the fishing opportunities the Community has in a case where an authorisation is received but there is an under-utilisation of the fishing opportunity.
The issue of refusing, withdrawing or suspending the authorisation arises. The Commission justifies this in the proposal on the basis that there have been serious infringements in the past carried out by Community vessels operating in these environments. There is also an overall thrust across the international organisations dealing with fisheries and at EU level to tackle the problem of international unregulated unreported fishing. There is a move towards establishing lists of vessels that are engaged in this type of activity. The proposal here permits the Commission to refuse to grant authorisation where a vessel is listed by the relevant regional fisheries management organisation. There is also a possibility for the Commission to refuse an authorisation where there is non-compliance with the conditions of the authorisation or where the fishery has been exhausted.
The proposal was published in June 2007 and referred to the Parliament at that time. There was one internal reading of it in the Council working group in the autumn of 2007 and a wide range of issues were raised. The proposal, while itself focused on a narrow area, links into many wider areas in terms of the principles that are relevant. There were legal issues raised which the Commission is re-examining. There were issues relating to harmonising the provisions for the electronic log book and catch reporting. These are not fully aligned with the electronic log book arrangements that were agreed for Community vessels generally reporting their fishing activity in Community waters. There was a forward-looking requirement to harmonise this proposal with what the Commission will propose on international unregulated unreported fishing generally. This is consistent with the action plan the Council had agreed.
Similarly there was a requirement to harmonise this proposal with proposals which the Commission is formulating to revamp the control regulations within the Common Fisheries Policy. Also raised was the issue of the relative roles of the Commission and the Council, particularly on the ability to reallocate the quota entitlements of member states under some of these agreements. This raised the issue of the Commission being able to interfere with relative stability, the system by which quotas are allocated to member states.
Given all of those issues, the Commission has gone back after the first reading to re-examine and possibly reformulate the proposal. It has not been confirmed when an amended proposal will come forward from the Commission. It is thought to be unlikely during the current EU Presidency. Given the need for consistency with the Commission proposals to amend the control framework in the Common Fisheries Policy generally and the need for consistency with the action plan on international unregulated unreported fishing, it is likely that the draft when it reappears may be substantially different from the draft that is before the committee at the moment.
I thank the officials for their presentation. I studied this issue yesterday. The last point made was that the new draft is likely to be quite different from the current one, which raises the question of why we are discussing it. Much of this is about regulation of vessels and international unregulated unreported fishing. We had a presentation on international unregulated unreported fishing previously. There is very little of benefit to Irish fishermen in this proposal. This is my personal belief having examined the proposal and its structure. There is little of relevance for Irish boats.
I was recently in the coast guard station in Valentia, which we are trying to keep open, and saw the facilities in place there. There are a phenomenal number of vessels around the country and it is possible to track every one of them. Through their experience, those working at the station were able to point out where boats had been and where they were going.
I have believed for a long time that we sold out our fisheries. Reference was made to quotas and awarding of quotas. When was Ireland last awarded a fish quota?
The point was made that Community vessels engaged in fish farming activities are not relevant to Ireland. Regarding the scale of fishing activities, there are 850 fishing vessels under quota exchange agreements. There is no benefit to the Irish Exchequer. It is my understanding that with many of the agreements we are giving rather than receiving but I may stand corrected on that issue.
If there are three Irish vessels fishing cod in Icelandic waters and another three Irish vessels on the high seas, how many pelagic vessels are fishing in Iceland? It was said that there were 11 boats with interests in the high seas. Does that mean we have 11 Irish boats fishing on the high seas?
When we look at our competitors, realistically they are made up of the Norwegian and Icelandic fleets. Many Irish boats would effectively be Massey Ferguson 135s as opposed to the John Deere 210 horse power Icelandic and Norwegian boats. This is my understanding, again I may stand corrected.
There are issues at the moment involving the suspension and withdrawal of vessels in cases of infringement. This is happening with small fishing boats where gear is being confiscated and hefty fines are being imposed. I am not a fisherman, but let us suppose a fisherman casts his nets for pelagic fish and pulls in enough for a box of cod after a couple of days fishing at sea. If he has one or two boxes of cod that he should not have, he is effectively supposed to return the excess fish to the water. I do not see that as a conservation issue, but if he brings the fish ashore he will be heavily fined. There is room for manoeuvre and it is an awful burden on some boats.
I asked when Ireland was last awarded additional quotas. Is there any input that we could make to the new draft? Is the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food happy with the proposal as it is, even though there are likely to be many changes, or is she looking for any particular changes to suit Irish fishermen?
I will not expound my theories on the vast potential of fisheries that this maritime nation squandered over the years because of political expediency. That is for another day. However, as I understand the submission it relates to the 400, plus 850, plus 8,000 boats that are operating in third country waters or outside EU waters. Do the legislative proposals place a greater regulatory burden on those vessels, on top of the existing regulatory framework, vis-à-vis reporting and other bureaucratic mechanisms? Will the proposal in any way limit the scope of Irish vessels to be able to fish in third country waters? Will the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’ agreements be limited by the European Union? If we are talking about third country or non-EU waters, if we can expand the scope for Irish fishermen to maximise their potential in those waters, that is what we should try to do. If legislation is proposed which seeks to limit that, perhaps the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should look at that issue. If I am missing the point of the legislative proposal in that regard then I stand corrected.
I thank both guests for their presentation.
On reading the proposed regulation I would welcome anything that simplifies the bureaucracy of it. I also welcome a uniform approach to communications, whether by e-mail or other methods that would give an outline of total catches, particularly in EU waters. We must be conscious of getting a structured approach to protecting countries currently being exploited as a result of greed on the part of certain elements within the wider industry. I speak in a global context.
The note we have indicates that the Government supports the principle of this draft regulation, but indicates at the end that the next draft may be quite different from the current one. A speaker raised the issue of our input into it and how we might try to maintain what is there, and at a future stage work towards a quota system that will do justice to Irish territorial waters. Deputy Sherlock mentioned the total area of sea available to Ireland and the minimum return coming back into the country under the quota system. I have concerns about Norway, Iceland and other countries that rank as experts in fishing and seafaring in comparison to most European countries. They will have access to our waters albeit in a limited way. How will this affect the quotas currently available to the Irish fleet? Will it have any negative impact? If I have a criticism it is about the ridiculous way wherein Irish quotas are so restricted. I am concerned about the decline of the sector and the effect of this on rural Ireland. We must try to protect the sector and reverse the decline.
Regarding rules and procedures the proposals appear fine on paper. That there will be feedback on-line of every stage of the authorisation process is welcome. Eligibility of client areas, sanctions and the enforcement of catch reporting are welcome elements. I welcome the proposed coming together of interested parties and the simplification of rules. I have other concerns about the industry which are probably outside today's remit. They inform my thinking on the merits or otherwise of the extension of EU waters, particularly of Irish waters, to other countries under a fisheries agreement that might have a detrimental effect on the industry on this island.
I welcome the delegates. I have met them before and it is good to see them in this House. I apologise for being late for the meeting.
I call for an examination of the way the quota is being implemented at the moment. We must address the current problems regarding its implementation.
Our fishing industry is overregulated. Deputy Sheehan raised the instance of net fishing at sea. When a boat casts its nets it is hard to know what will be caught. I have made the point repeatedly that fish, once caught, should be landed. God knows, it is costly enough to go to sea, taking into consideration poor weather conditions and the price of diesel, without extra expense because of the implementation of quotas. We must look seriously at the way these quotas are regulated and make some concessions for people trying to make a living from the sea. When fish is caught it should be landed and processed. Dumping it at sea does not make sense, as Deputy Sheehan remarked. What does such an action do for conservation? It does harm because some of those fish are being caught again by bigger boats and are then processed in some form. If fish are dumped at sea they probably end up in the nets a second time. It is a crazy situation and will have to be looked at.
I will not say more because I have not examined the issue in detail. I did not expect to be able to be here today. I welcome the delegates. I know they have the industry at heart and I am confident they can see both our point of view and that of the fishermen. I hope they will be fair in their assessment and in their judgment and that they will communicate as much to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I welcome Dr. Beamish and Ms Kelly to the committee. The new regulations are yet not agreed but Dr. Beamish has given us a synopsis of the nature of the regulations.
From being a prime industry here fishing is on the verge of collapse. Ireland has only three natural industries — agriculture, fisheries and tourism. We cannot contribute to the wine lake; we cannot contribute to the citrus fruit mountain. All we can rely on is our natural industries. However, if Irish fishermen are caught with an extra box of hake or monkfish they are brought ashore and treated as criminals. If they go to another state they will have a criminal record just because they tried to make a living. Sanity must prevail if the fishing industry is to be preserved.
The presentation today does not make sense to me. It concerns the authorisation of EU fishing vessels for fishing activities outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels into Community waters. We are all aware that the catch is small in these waters. In the Irish Box in particular it is hardly enough to maintain our fishermen. If it is plundered by other European fishing vessels, it will be a sad reflection on those who advise us on our fishing industry.
I was in Castletownbere on Friday evening. It is a ghost town compared with what it was 20 years ago. Every second business premises is closing down. The fishing committee in place for generations has disappeared. When I walked on the pier, I saw a hut being erected by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to cater for 27 fishery inspectors. The port of Castletownbere now has more inspectors than fishermen. This is red tape and bureaucracy. Fishermen are at their wits' end because of regulations.
How can fishermen segregate fish when trawling in these waters? How can they segregate hake from monkfish when they haul in their catch? The system should be tolerant in that regard. Fish caught in a trawl are dead once they are caught and should not have to be dumped over the gunwales of the boat because of the risk of heavy fines if they are brought ashore. How is conservation of stock served by dumping dead fish? There are millions starving in other parts of the world who would love to have the fish that is being dumped. Dumping prime fish makes no sense to me or any fisherman. It is no wonder fishermen are as they are.
Last weekend a fisherman came to my clinic in Schull. While fishing off Killybegs, County Donegal, recently he picked up €1 million worth of drugs in his catch. He radioed ashore to the fishery officers to inform them of the drugs find. He was told by them that they did not mind what was in the catch provided the fishing quota had not been exceeded. When he landed in Kellybegs, having informed Customs and Excise about the drugs, he was confronted by four fishery officers as well as the Customs and Excise officials. The fishery officers prevented the Customs and Excise officials from going aboard until they had examined the catch to make sure there was not one extra box of hake or monkfish in the catch.
With that approach to the fishing industry, it is no wonder fishermen are opting for the decommissioning scheme. We will end up with no Irish fishermen. In Castletownbere on Friday evening I saw Spanish boats landing their catch at Dinish Island and not one fishery inspector went aboard or monitored their landings. Their catch was put directly into a container lorry and shipped to Spain. I am informed that the catch is not inspected when it arrives in Spain. If there is to be a future for Irish fishermen in terms of the conditions being introduced, we should go back to Europe and demand a level playing pitch as far as every European Union country is concerned. Otherwise, we might as well forget about our fishing industry.
Furthermore, if bad weather and stormy waters off Mizen Head prevent a vessel from going to Dingle or Castletownbere and it is safer to land the catch at Schull Harbour, the fishery inspectors do not go to Schull but make the vessel travel 20 to 30 miles of treacherous coastline in the height of winter. Vessels give timely notice of landing their catch. Given the number of inspectors we have, why will they not go to where vessels have landed? Surely they have some type of transport to take them to any port in Cork or Kerry. I cannot understand why these regulations are being imposed on Irish fishermen when our fishing industry is disappearing.
Thank you, Deputy. I call Dr. Beamish. There were many questions that were not relevant to the issue under discussion so I will ask you to confine your answers to the issues that are relevant to these legislative proposals.
Dr. Cecil Beamish
Thank you, Chairman. I also thank the members of the committee for their comments. The comments were wide-ranging and go beyond the scope of this regulation which is somewhat narrow in its focus and does not change the basic regulations governing the Common Fisheries Policy. While it establishes the conditions that will govern the granting of authorisations into agreements and the granting of authorisations to non-EU vessels coming into EU waters, it does not set down the terms of agreements to be negotiated with the individual countries or with Norway or Faroe Islands in regard to the reciprocal access rights. Those negotiations go on largely on an annual basis. They result in the exchange of fishing rights annually. Multi-annual agreements such as the fee agreements determine the quantum of fish that will be available on the licences, and this is linked to the scientific advice on stocks. The agreements can vary. This is about the terms of how the authorisations will be granted and the follow-through in terms of the duties those who hold those authorisations carry when operating in the third country waters or on the high seas. The proposal is narrow in that sense. It does not deal with the quota system in the Common Fisheries Policy or change anything about it either at EU level or at national level.
Deputy Sheehan asked whether it had any implications for Irish fishermen, whether it was good for Irish fishermen. I want to try to stay within the terms of this proposal. It is in the interests of Irish fishermen, given the quantity of imports which feed the markets that our fishermen also serve, that the fish feeding into those markets is caught legally within the terms of the agreements, that it is not IUU fish or fish that is overfished in third country waters or elsewhere, because they are competing with those fish on the markets. If one talks to fishermen they will always say they want to be able to compete in similar regulated fisheries, and that they want the other fisheries to be also regulated. This is about regulating the activities in those other fisheries. To the extent that we compete on the same markets, this proposal is relevant.
To a large extent the EU market is fed by imported fish, many of which are caught in fisheries governed by this type of legislation. From that perspective it is in the interests of Irish fishermen that, at a minimum, external fisheries are regulated and operated within the terms in which they were negotiated. Fishermen will always say they do not want to have to compete with fish caught illegally in international waters.
This proposal does not address the national quota management or the quota management in EU waters, which are largely set down under the basic regulation. The quotas are negotiated on an annual basis and the total catch permitted is based on scientific advice. It is only when a new, additional fishery is regulated that new quotas are established. Otherwise there is an annual cycle of quota allocation, which occurs largely at the December council, where individual quotas for each member state for the following years are negotiated.
On the questions related to the national quota management, the approach taken by the Department and the Ministers, in line with the strategy defined by the Cawley report, has been to allow the industry to determine, to a large extent, how the quotas are managed and allocated. If the industry wants to set aside quota to cover the bi-catch of cod, for example, it is free to do so. It may set aside a portion of the cod quota to cover bi-catches which can then be allocated against those bi-catches when they arise. The allocation of quotas and the decision as to whether there will be a bi-catch provision are made in conjunction with the industry and, provided it complies with the State's obligations under EU law, it is for the industry to come to agreements on how to utilise the quota. All the main quotas are allocated — usually on a monthly basis, though pelagic quotas are seasonal — on the basis of negotiation with the industry. Sometimes there is broad industry consensus, but if there is not the Minister has to make a decision. The attempt is always made, however, to utilise the quotas in the way the industry wants.
Deputy Sherlock asked whether the proposals would increase the regulatory burden. The answer depends on what the question means. They make the process of gaining authorisation easier and more streamlined but create additional obligations on vessels in the fisheries in question to report catches. If that amounts to increasing the regulatory burden then the answer to the question is "Yes". The Deputy also asked whether it was a good or a bad thing. If it is in Ireland's interest and in the interest of developing countries to which many of the agreements relate that what is taken is that which is permitted in line with the scientific advice, then it may not be a bad thing.
I was asked whether the proposal would limit the scope for Irish vessels to fish under other agreements on the high seas. It will not, because the proposal follows whatever agreements are negotiated wherever they are negotiated. It simply means there will be a common approach to giving out authorisations.
Deputy Ferris spoke of the need for a structured approach to developing countries and that is part of this proposal. It ensures that the fish taken by the fisheries of developing countries are those authorised to be taken. There is now more transparency in that area.
Deputy Sheahan asked several questions on our vessels relative to the Norwegian vessels. Norwegian fishing in European waters relates mainly to pelagic fisheries. The access arrangements apply to straddling stocks, which spend part of their time in Norwegian waters, part in Irish waters and in the UK, and the rest in the North Sea and French and Spanish waters. They are migratory stocks so have to be managed across their area of migration. It is not possible to manage them without an overall agreement so that one can know what each party is taking out of the fishery. Irish vessels wish to fish in the North Sea for part of the year when the stock lands into Norway just as, for part of the year, Norwegian vessels will fish the mackerel further west. That is in the agreement between the EU and Norway for the share of the mackerel quota and does not affect the sharing arrangement.
The Irish pelagic fleet is comparable to any in the world and is possibly ahead of the rest in terms of size, efficiency and modernity. The fleet operates mainly in pelagic fisheries. The Deputy mentioned Massey Ferguson and John Deere but the Irish pelagic fleet can hold its head high in the company of any fleet.
I was referring to the factory ships.
Dr. Cecil Beamish
Norway does not have any factory ships. Ireland had one but the Dutch have a factory fleet that fishes in accordance with its entitlements in EU waters. Factory vessels are larger but they are largely Dutch, or Dutch-owned if they are based in other member states.
Deputy Sheahan also asked what changes might be made to the proposal. The Commission has the right of initiative in that regard but the Council will decide on and dispose of any subsequent amendments, following consultation with the European Parliament. We will have to wait and see what happens. The Commission has heard from the Council working group, which has Ireland as a member, on some of the issues raised concerning the draft. That is the normal procedure for any proposal and the Commission is now considering whether it needs to make any amendments before it brings it back. The Council can change the Commission's proposal before it is adopted but it is premature to talk about that at this stage.
Deputy Christy O'Sullivan asked about discards and the practice of landing all the catch. The discard issue is a problem for fisheries worldwide. There are discards in many fisheries because of quota problems, the size and marketability of what is caught, the fact that what is caught is not the target fish or has no market or the fact that part of what is caught in a net is simply not edible. It is a complex problem. Everybody wishes there were no discards and part of the solution is to find ways of avoiding catching what we do not want to catch. A great deal of work is being done to devise escape mechanisms for small fish for which there is no market. Fishermen who land these fish can receive a monetary return for catching fish below the minimum size and that can create an incentive to target them, making the problem worse.
There is nothing simple about discards and people have been trying for years to find ways to tackle them. The fishing community treats the discard problem as a top priority. If all fish are to be landed they must be counted against the quota. Without some debate on the effect of a change it could have a major impact on Irish fishermen. If they are required to have counted against the quota fish which are not marketable they will have a smaller return because their quota will be closed much earlier. The issue is not simple.
Deputy Sheahan asked about the situation when fishermen end up with a box or two of cod above quota but that is a matter for the industry. If it wants to set aside part of the quota for by-catches at the beginning of the year that is possible, but it will have to be counted as quota. Within EU legislation it is not possible to disregard landings if they are covered by quota. Everybody accepts that catching fish and throwing them away is not sound from the point of view of conservation. It is not, and never has been, as simple to solve the problem in mixed fisheries as people would wish. There is very little else one can say about the specific regulation. If members have specific questions I have not answered will they please point them out to me?
I thank Dr. Beamish for his presentation. Landing small fish is not profitable and everybody, including fishermen, is in agreement that we must try to avoid it at all costs. Fish that are marketable should be processed. As I said at the outset, going to sea is costly and no fisherman wants to land fish without a reward. If fishermen are over quota when they land they would be prepared to have the catch added to the quota for the following month and then tie up their boats and carry out repairs. Nobody wants to dump fish overboard because of the quota. It does not make sense to discard fish before one comes into port for fear of being over the quota. That is a realistic and commonsensical point to make.
We have the best fishermen in the world. Our fishermen are competing in the same markets but they do not enjoy the same level playing field as their competitors. Therein lies the problem. We are overregulated and are working to regulations that make it almost impossible for our fishermen to make a living. The officials opposite, Dr. Beamish and Ms Kelly, are capable people who are prepared to listen. I think they would be prepared to suggest changes to the Minister that would enable our fishermen to make a realistic living from fishing. We will have a problem in the future when young people see what fishermen face. Why would they choose fishing when they have a choice of jobs? I think we will have a serious problem in attracting young people into fishing.
Fishing is very important in my coastal constituency. I was not involved in fishing but of late I am trying to get up to speed with what is happening in the industry. Fishermen are prepared to work with the people who regulate the industry, provided they are not hounded and put under undue pressure. I hope the officials will see the light.
If I may be candid, the fishing industry frustrates me. In 1974 the then Government was advised in a report by an American expert not to join the EEC because it would take all our fish. I hope to have a copy of that report shortly. Fishermen have an anecdote that the busiest port in Ireland is Cork Airport, where we are importing fish. Statistics show that 60% of the fish being sold in supermarkets is imported. That frustrates me. Could the by-catch quota be negotiated at the highest level because as Deputy O'Sullivan outlined, a percentage of the catch must be discarded for one reason or another but some of it is saleable? Must the Minister be advised by his officials on changes to this document before the next draft?
I am informed that the big boats are state-of-the-art and have mulchers on board where fish are put through a mincer and blown out.
I am a little disappointed by the reply from Dr. Beamish as he cannot see a solution to the problem of having fish above the quota in a trawl that is hauled in. When a fisherman lands fish above the quota he is taken to court, fined and criminalised. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility for the European Union fisheries policy to exempt the trawler owner from a legal charge for landing fish over the quota by adding the surplus to the following months quota? There is no sense in throwing prime fish overboard to the seals and gulls.
We should change the law so that it is no longer a criminal offence to land fish above the quota. There are 27 fisheries officers in Castletownbere. I do not know what they are doing. Not one box of fish landed by Spanish boats in Castletownbere is supervised. It is put onto an articulated lorry and taken to Vigo, but it is not checked there on its arrival. What kind of a law is that? The playing field must be level for Irish and European fishermen. We should remove the element of the fisheries policy that criminalises Irish fishermen for landing fish over quota.
I apologise for being late. The EU has been good for Irish agriculture but we lost out on fisheries. We are surrounded by water and the quota system has worked against us rather than for us. I come from County Kilkenny and I am not directly involved in sea fishing. However, we have many rivers. Drift netting for salmon has been curtailed completely, with which I agree because salmon numbers were declining. We lost out on joining the European Union through the quota system. We got the rough end of the stick as far as quotas are concerned. There are factory ships and people coming from throughout the Union exploiting our fish stocks. We can call them our fish, EU fish or whatever one likes. The Irish fishing industry lost out badly through the quota system. I do not know how we can change that now. Species of fish are becoming more scarce by the day as scientific evidence has proved. We need to live with this. The future survival of the fish is very important. We all have neighbours and friends involved in fishing. It is a rapidly dying profession because it is no longer viable. My colleague from County Cork would know more about it, coming from a county by the sea. We are suffering and got a bad deal as far as the quota system in the Union is concerned.
I inform members that representatives of the Federation of Irish Fishermen will appear before the committee in early April. Many of the questions asked should be kept for that occasion. I call Mr. Beamish. I am not sure if there are any questions he needs to answer.
Dr. Cecil Beamish
Most of the questions are well beyond the scope of the regulation on the table. I reiterate that the allocation of the national quotas is essentially determined by the fishermen. They participate in advisory groups on a monthly basis in most cases and decide how to use the national quotas. It is a matter for them if they want to set aside a proportion of a quota to meet the by-catch levels which they set. Of course, that is at the expense of the amount available for directed fishing. It is a zero sum game. There is only so much to allocate. As Deputies Sheahan and O'Sullivan stated, if fishermen want to be able to land a certain by-catch level of a particular species, it is within their gift to determine that system. However, it means a lot less will be available for directed fishing. Therefore, it does not come without a cost. It is a matter for the fishermen's organisations to come together and reach agreement on the issue. They need to do this early in the year because there is no point talking about it after the national quota has been fished under the arrangements the industry has agreed. There is responsibility sharing with the industry. It is a matter for the industry to decide. That is the view of the Department and the Minister. If the fishermen want to take the fish early, late, in the middle of the year or spread the catch equally over the year, if they want to divide it between all the fleets or some of them, those are matters for the industry to determine. The country has only so much to allocate and that is——
Has that always been the case or is this something new?
Dr. Cecil Beamish
No, in the past four or five years the Department has moved increasingly to the position where the industry determines how to use the quotas. That was the principle set out in the seafood development strategy under the group chaired by Mr. Noel Cawley. We have an implementation group with the industry implementing the strategy. It is moving towards more devolved fisheries quota management. They are issues for the industry, but they carry a cost and it is a difficult choice for fishermen and their representatives. If they provide a lot for by-catch levels, it is still taken off the national quota — it must be — and there is less for directed fishing levels. It is a hard choice for fishermen who sometimes have difficulties reaching agreement on the issue. The call tends to be made after the quota has been allocated, which does not leave any opportunity to deal with the matter. However, if at the beginning of the year so much were to be set aside for bi-catch and some limit set for what could be caught as by-catch, the quota could be used in that way if that is what the organisations want. It is not a case of someone stopping the organisations from doing that. It is within its gift but it needs to be done at the beginning of the year when the quotas are available.
Would that get rid of the criminalisation aspect?
Dr. Cecil Beamish
If the industry decides it wants to allow certain vessels in certain fisheries to have a by-catch of something, that is the arrangement that would be put in place. However, that can only be done as long as there is national quota to meet it. A certain amount of quota would need to be set aside to meet that arrangement. For the individual fisherman, if that were the arrangement put in place, he would be working within the rules and regulations that apply.
Is it up to an individual fisherman or the organisation?
Dr. Cecil Beamish
The quotas are given by Brussels to be managed by the member state.
Who regulates it, the fishermen or Brussels?
Dr. Cecil Beamish
They only implement the rules after they are set. The rules on how the quota is allocated are in most cases determined by the fishermen's organisations. They try to reach consensus on how to use the quota, either early or late, between this fleet and that fleet. However, there are many competing interests regarding who gets the quota. If they can reach consensus that is what is put in place. All the sea fisheries officers do is implement what is put in place. They simply implement it once the rules are set down.
That would eliminate the criminalisation aspect and it would be up to the fishermen. Dr. Beamish has said that if the fishermen's organisations agree to that at the start of the year it would settle matters regarding extra catch being landed because it would be taken into consideration as part of the national quota. That may be what the Spanish, French and Dutch are doing. Are our laws too rigid at the expense of the fishermen?
Is it possible for the Minister to go to Europe to increase the national quota by, for example, 10% so that it could be used as by-catch quota?
Dr. Cecil Beamish
How the quota system has worked at European level since it was established is as follows. The scientific advice is formulated in the autumn each year on a fishery-by-fishery basis which, for example, could be cod in the Celtic Sea, cod in the Irish Sea, cod in the north west, mackerel everywhere or whatever. The surveys are finished, leading to the best estimate of what is in the sea and what can be taken from that stock for the following year. In December the Council determines what that total allowable catch will be. The sharing of what each country will get of that has been determined in most cases for 20 years and has been subject to two reviews of the Common Fisheries Policy up to now. It is known as the system of relative stability. In other words the share of what each member state gets is fixed year on year.
Did we get our fair share? It has always been the crib that Ireland has sold out its fishing rights to others.
Dr. Cecil Beamish
The Deputy will be aware that question is well beyond the scope of what an official can answer.
I thank Dr. Beamish and Ms Kelly for their attendance today and for helping us in our scrutiny process. Their contributions have been most informative and of great assistance to us in our work. For the information of members, a list of observations will be drawn up from today's debate for agreement at next week's meeting before forwarding to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. The meeting stands adjourned until Wednesday, 20 February at 11.30 a.m. when the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Sargent, will be in attendance to discuss farmers' markets and GM-free Ireland.