JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Apr 2008

Fishing Industry: Discussion with Federation of Irish Fishermen.

Chairman

I welcome to the joint committee Mr. Michael Walsh, chairman of the Federation of Irish Fishermen, and Mr. Bernard Goulding, administrator; Mr. Sean O'Donoghue, CEO of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation; Mr. Lorcán Ó Cinnéide, CEO of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation; Mr. Gerard O'Flynn, CEO of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation; and Mr. William Deasy, chairman of the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation. The delegation joins us to discuss issues relating to the fishing industry.

Before we commence, 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 also 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 House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask all present to switch of mobile telephones. I invite Mr. Walsh to make his opening statement.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I thank the joint committee for inviting us before it to make a presentation on behalf of the fishing industry. The Federation of Irish Fishermen is an umbrella body consisting of the four producer organisations, namely, the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation. The federation represents 90% of fishing vessels more than 12 metres in length. The chair, which I currently hold, is filled on a rotating basis.

I wish to refer first to the Cawley report and the Government's seafood strategy which was announced last year. This report is vitally important to the industry. The most important part of the report from our perspective is decommissioning, given that the Irish fleet is over capacity in terms of the available quotas. As quotas have been declining for some time we need to decommission up to 35% of our fleet. A decommissioning scheme was announced by the Minister in February of this year. We are looking for another part of the Cawley report to be implemented, namely, the scheme for vessels under 18 m. Reference is made to such a scheme in the report but it has not yet been announced.

The way we manage our quotas presents a problem. We appear to be the only member state that allocates our quotas on a monthly basis. For example, if a vessel had a quota of a tonne of cod each month but did not catch any cod for the first four months of the year and caught 1.25 tonnes of cod in May it would be outside the law. We need a more flexible system that addresses the issues of the industry and which would allow us to operate our quotas more efficiently in a way that is relevant to the fleet we operate.

The future financial commitment given by the Government in the Cawley report is vitally important to the federation, as is the implementation in full of every element of the report over time. A total of €295 million was announced by the Government, comprising public and private funding, to cover the areas of sea-fisheries, marketing and training. The sum of €66 million from that fund is for decommissioning. I cannot stress enough to the committee the importance of meeting those objectives in order for us to have a sustainable and profitable industry in the future.

One of the major issues being pursued by the federation at the moment is very controversial, namely, the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. The federation and the producer organisations lobbied very hard to have provision made for administrative sanctions within the legislation. Unfortunately we did not get that and this is having serious knock-on effects on the industry with fishermen ending up in court for what in some cases are very minor offences. People have been before the Circuit Court where they incurred high fines and in some cases a criminal record. We have approached the Minister about this and have received a commitment from her to examine the entire issue of administrative sanctions. We seek to have minor offences dealt with outside the Circuit Court.

I wish to refer to control and enforcement and our issues in this regard. The perception in the industry currently in regard to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is that there is no culture of compliance. The authority is proceeding with a one-dimensional approach. There is an urgent need for a culture of compliance and for the authority to comprehend and understand the industry with which it is dealing on a day-to-day basis. My colleagues and I are members of a consultative committee and it is vitally important to us that this committee gives full consideration to the input of the consultative committee members. A level playing field in enforcement is vitally important. The authority must be even-handed in carrying out enforcement between Irish fishermen and others using the Irish exclusive economic zone, EEZ.

Control and enforcement has become a big issue with the European Union. The Commission has launched a new consultation paper, in which the Federation of Irish Fishermen will be participating to ensure control and enforcement is stepped up across Europe. It is important that any developments in this area have the participation of the stakeholders. Before any laws are introduced, it is important the stakeholders understand them. It will be far easier to enforce laws if the fishermen understand what they are about.

Ireland is only accountable for approximately 23% of fish caught within the Irish EEZ. Only if enforcement is applied evenly across the EU fleets, and not just the Irish fleet, will the problems be solved.

Our quota management problems go back to 1973 when Ireland joined the EEC and got a poor share of the quota. At that time, the quotas were based on historical rights and Ireland did not have an efficient fishing fleet. Many attempts have been made over the past several years to get quotas increased to suit the current fleet. Unfortunately, under the current EU system the only way Ireland can get a quota increase is if some other member state gave it away.

This issue continues to cause problems for the Irish fleet. It is not in the industry's interest to decommission its fleet. Unfortunately under the current system, we have no option because of the quota situation. We made several submissions to the Cawley report and discussed the issue with the Minister for some time. We are seeking a new quota management system where we can share the quota in a more flexible and even-handed manner. Such a system would allow fishermen to plan for their futures on a better basis than is currently the case. This is predicated on successful decommissioning. If we do not tackle the first problem and reduce the size of the fleet under the current system, it will be difficult to manage our quotas in the future

My next issue concerns scientific advice and the problems encountered with it. For example, scientific advice suggested a reduction in the catches for cod and mackerel in the Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea several years ago. However, fishermen now claim those fish stocks are in abundance. The committee may believe that is what the fishermen's representative will claim. This year, however, there is more partnership between the industry and the scientists and they have picked up on this abundance in fish stocks.

High fuel prices are a major issue affecting day-to-day running of the fleet. While I accept they are here to stay, they are crippling the industry, absorbing an increasing share of sales revenue. Unfortunately, the price of fish does not reflect this. Running costs of a vessel are going up while quotas are coming down but the price of fish has not gone up accordingly. We have taken this issue up with the Minister and are seeking to set up a task force to examine short, medium and long-term measures to address fuel costs. It is a difficult situation as there are only a number of ways we can tackle fuel costs. The European Association of Fish Producer Organisations has put forward a paper to the Commission outlining 19 areas for progress on fuel in the short, medium and long term. Whatever measures are put in place, it is important for us that we are on a level playing field with the rest of Europe, whether fuel for the fisherman is subsidised directly or indirectly.

A big problem for the fishing industry in Ireland — more noticeable since our own quota started climbing — is the amount of foreign imports coming into the country. There is a lot of fish being sourced from other countries. I received a figure yesterday of €1 million per week of foreign imports coming into the country. That keeps the price of fish down, because this fish is coming from countries that have few restrictions on the amount of fish to be landed. For example, we are importing cod early in the year at the same time as our own boats land cod and export it to Grimsby where it is being dumped on the market. This fish is being sold without enough traceability in Irish supermarkets for top prices, and it is having a detrimental effect on the industry.

We raised this issue with the Minister to see if she could look at the tariffs for foreign imports coming into the European Union. We need more information and traceability for Irish fish. The FIF will be looking for the development of some kind of fish awareness to promote Irish fish to the public. We do not think people are eating enough of our own fish. It makes little sense to be exporting fish against imports. It is a major issue for the industry.

Deputy Michael Creed

I apologise for being late. It is quite an unusual day in the Oireachtas, and regrettably I must go to another meeting at 12.30 p.m. I welcome the members of the Federation of Irish Fishermen, with whom I have been in contact and with whom I will get in contact again to organise a more detailed briefing for my colleagues in the Fine Gael group. I have met some of the group's constituent bodies previously and I am very grateful for briefings they gave.

I came in to this meeting when Mr. Walsh was dealing with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Agency, which represents a serious bone of contention for fishermen around the coast. I met with officials in Clonakilty recently and discussed the concerns of fishermen with them. I know that Members of the Oireachtas would have felt prior to the last election that that was one of the most contentious Bills passed during the lifetime of the last Government. Many members of that Government reluctantly had their hands forced against their better judgment and this issue needs to be examined. One issue that annoys me is the legal side of all this. If criminal sanctions — which require a higher burden of proof — are dropped in favour of administrative sanctions without scaling back the level of penalty involved, do we not run a risk?

It is alleged that the group's competitors in France, Spain and Italy are receiving a transport subsidy from their own Governments. I have a question to the Minister on that issue on today's Order Paper. If this is the case, it would distort competition and there is some confusion on whether a subsidy is being paid. I can inform the FIF when I get a response on the issue.

What are the views of the FIF on the issue of decommissioning and compensation for crews? I noticed that one of the so-called three wise men who commissioned the Cawley report, Mr. Joey Murrin, has raised this issue again. It is contended that indications were given more than 12 months ago that crews would be looked after. The issue is who has responsibility to look after crews. The proprietors of boats, against their traditions and heritage, are being forced to decommission and do not believe the responsibility is theirs. Has the federation an opinion on whether the onus is on the Government? If one dilutes the level of compensation and obliges owners to look after their boats' crews, it would significantly diminish the attraction of the decommissioning scheme.

Another issue is raising its head, namely, the quota of the Atlantic Dawn previously and now the Johanna Maria. This issue was dealt with in the Cawley report. I will put my hands up, as my constituency does not have a mile of coast, but someone like me can sometimes bring a more discerning eye to such issues. It seems as if the Department is bending over backwards to facilitate the case of the successor to the Atlantic Dawn, whereas the management of quota generally would not have been addressed. There does not appear to be a level playing pitch because there is one rule for the super trawler and one rule for ordinary fishermen. What are our guests' opinions in this regard?

I apologise in advance, as I have a Front Bench meeting to attend at 12.30 p.m. I will read the responses in the minutes and I will be in touch with the federation.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I thank Mr. Walsh for his presentation. In light of last year's tragedy, I offer my deepest sympathy to our guests and Mr. Walsh in particular on the loss of his boat and crew members. It is my understanding that much of what occurred was due to the pressure under which fishermen were put. A more flexible quota system was mentioned in the presentation. Fishermen, particularly in the south and the south west, are under extreme pressure because they have a weekly calendar to meet their quotas and are forced to take chances. Can our guests confirm whether a different system is applied in Killybegs from that applied in Dunmore East? Is there a carryover of quota in the north west as opposed to the south and south west?

One of the most disgraceful legislative measures to pass through the Houses in my time was the sea-fisheries Act which criminalised decent men and women who were trying to make a living. It would not occur in respect of any other sector, particularly a sector with the political clout to prevent it. If someone in another sector in rural Ireland goes over quota, he or she is fined. If a fisherman goes over quota, it is a criminal offence and the fisherman is brought before the courts and convicted. I hope the new Minister will take cognisance of this matter and address disgraceful legislation that makes a difficult life more difficult for honest and decent people.

Concerning control and enforcement, I concur regarding the consultative representatives in the industry and the equality of enforcement across the EU, as referred to in the presentation. Will our guests elaborate on the inequality of enforcement and control?

Quota management and quota increases are being linked to decommissioning. We need a new quota system that takes cognisance of the Irish situation. We know what happened in 1971-73 during those negotiations and how Irish fishermen were sold short and have paid a price ever since. I concur with the demand for a new system of quota consistent with the Irish situation.

Regarding scientific advice on stocks, I argue that scientific advice is hit and miss whereas the industry's experience, provided by the people at the coalface, is far more reliable. What is the relationship between the industry's experience and the scientific recommendations and advice?

We need a level playing pitch for all EU fishermen regarding fuel prices so that our fishing fleet can compete. I am aware of the situation over the past 12 months. A crewman who I met at Christmas and who had fished last year had a total income of €6,000. This included fishing in all types of weather, trying to make a living. A major part of this is the rising fuel costs and its effect.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

It is widely recognised that the Cawley report is the gospel but the challenge is to get it introduced. Decommissioning is taking place with regard to the white fish fleet. The delegation referred to the scheme for boats under 18 m, which should be implemented without further ado. Fishing is a business but how can anyone run a business with the monthly quotas for cod? There could be three or four months when one could not fish at all. That is not workable and quotas should be annual. Have we ever received an increase in quota or sought one from Europe?

The Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act and its provision of administrative penalties is heavy-handed. Having met fishermen in Castletownbere and other areas, I believe this could be dealt with by a system similar to penalty points rather than running someone straight into court and confiscating their nets and livelihood. There could be tiered fines after a number of offences.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority brings to mind the television programme "The Enforcers". This body has more power than gardaí or customs officials. I referred to the fact that there are more sea fisheries officers than fishermen going out from the port on any day of the week.

The favourite word of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is "equivalence". If everyone was playing on a level playing pitch, it would give Irish fishermen a better chance. While in Castletownbere I could not believe when a local fisherman told me that when he cannot land the catch at Castletownbere after a certain time he must go to Union Hall. It is dictatorial.

The delegation referred to the decrease in quotas while prices are not increasing. It is well known that the busiest fish port in Ireland at present is Cork Airport. I wonder if the catches landed at Dingle or Castletownbere and put on trucks for export include fish that will be re-imported after processing abroad. There is significant potential for creating value-added products for export by processing fish in Ireland. I cannot see why we are importing fish on an island. It is not logical. If we processed fish here we would be in a much stronger position.

In regard to the fuel subsidies offered to fleets in other jurisdictions, equivalence is needed.

Senator Denis O’Donovan

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak. Unfortunately, I am not a member of this committee but I am happy to support the case being made by the Federation of Irish Fishermen. I acknowledge the great advance made through the merger of the four organisations. In the area where I was involved in fishing as a young lad, there was too much disintegration. When we fished for herring, we would not tell our neighbours if we found fish. It is time we moved away from those practices. This new organisation will have greater influence and will be respected.

The Cawley report appears set to become the bible for fishermen. I would like to see that report implemented in full rather than in bits and pieces. The Chairman referred to decommissioning, which in one sense I find sad. In ports such as Castletownbere, decommissioning has had a greater impact on the white fish fleet than on pelagic fisheries. Every boat and crew lost to these small areas is a tragedy. Even in the first tranche of decommissioning, vessels under 18 m should have been considered. A fisherman getting on in years should not be excluded just because his boat is 16 metres long. I urge flexibility in that regard.

Other members spoke about the quality and price of fish. The price of the quality fish being landed is not good and should be investigated, whether through Cawley or otherwise. Better prices should be obtainable. It is a sad day when 80% of the fish we land is exported in refrigerated trucks to Spain and elsewhere and it is not good for the industry. We should consider expanding onshore processing.

I do not wish to return to the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 because I have developed sores from it. It is important, however, that the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, commit to an examination of the Act. I would like this committee to consult a constitutional expert because we were told that it would be impossible to introduce administrative sanctions. It would be welcome if we could resolve that issue. A constitutional expert could advise on whether it is constitutionally possible and, if it is impossible, tell us how to proceed. I have argued for many months that it is possible but unfortunately I was not heeded. I know a task force has been established but we should consider this issue sooner rather than later. We should also investigate the entire notion of criminalising fisherman. Speaking with my legal hat on, criminal sanctions remain under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959. We would need to be careful to avoid that cul de sac because we could be rebuffed by the constitutional expert. The notion of an administrative system similar to that obtaining in France and Germany should be considered. I listened to the EU Commissioner in Kenmare two years ago and had the clear understanding that at EU level the need for a level playing field would be examined. We are to vote on the Lisbon treaty in less than six or eight weeks and there is no point in France, Spain, Denmark and the United Kingdom all having different rules. We seem to be the ideal Europeans. We are saying we are the best Europeans ever but fishermen are suffering. That is unfair. I endorse the point made, although I am not sure how it can be done under the new decommissioning programme.

There is a group present which primarily represents boat owners. I also have great sympathy for a fisherman who is, perhaps, 50 years old and has been fishing in various boats, whether in west Cork or County Kerry, for the last 30 years or more. Some compensation package should be available to crewmen, some of whom have family commitments or mortgages. Will they be left high and dry? My sympathy is more acute for those who are indigenous and were born, bred and reared in the industry in Ireland than for a crewman who came here from Latvia, Lithuania or Poland two or three years ago. That issue should be re-examined.

My next point is of serious importance. Perhaps it is not appropriate to address it today, but I must raise it. Under the European fisheries fund, a new programme is being introduced specifically to help rural communities that have suffered, whether through the loss of salmon fishing as a result of the banning of drift netting or through decommissioning. I was alarmed to note in a report I received a few days ago from a Corkman who had attended a seminar abroad that Ireland had not applied for Axis 4, which is worth approximately €20 million and is co-funded by the European Union, which will probably provide another €20 million. I will raise the matter politically but this committee should be aware of it. The report reads: "At the opening of this conference, which was held in Marseille on 20 and 21 February, of 21 countries in Europe involved in coastal fishing [more than 21 countries are involved, but that is the figure given] the exception is Ireland, which submitted its draft outline proposal in November 2007 without any reference to Axis 4". I am very annoyed about this. Will we forgo major EU funding for coastal communities that have suffered due to the loss of fishing? Such a community could be Union Hall, Schull or Baltimore in west Cork. Money could be pumped in. I ask the Chairman, through the clerk to the committee, to raise the issue again because if we do not apply for this funding in the next six weeks, we will lose out. The money could be dished out through the Leader programme or by other means. We must wake up and smell the roses. We have invited representatives of the fishing industry to come here to hear what they have to say and I have listened carefully to what they have said. At the same time, will the Government and the Department lose these fantastic funds that could be distributed through the Leader programme to help rural communities that have suffered during the years, whether in County Waterford, County Donegal or elsewhere? I can give the Chairman the information required. We should ensure we tap into this fund which is co-funded to the tune of 50% by the European Union and will probably have a greater impact because if one seeks a grant to set up something in a coastal village or town, one must come up with 30%, 40% of 50% of the cost oneself. If we lose this money, I will be very sore and we have only a few weeks left. So far — in the last four or five months — the Government has not applied for it. This has come out publicly and other countries are laughing at us. Other Europeans will be delighted if we do not take it up this money under Axis 4 but we will lose substantially and coastal communities will suffer greatly.

I thank the new Chairman for allowing me to speak. I am passionate about fishing and coastal areas. I thank the representatives who are doing an excellent job. They are swimming against the tide but must not give up because there is a future in fishing. While they may have to adapt and diversify, they should not throw in the towel.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I also welcome the Federation of Irish Fishermen to the meeting. It is very timely that its delegates should be present as many problems face fisheries and the fishing industry in this country. It is clear we have gone completely overboard with bureaucracy and red tape in this country. We seem to be the best Europeans in the Union of member states. Not only are we implementing European regulations but we are penalising Irish fishermen. I have been reliably informed that the criminal sanctions in this country were introduced by our Government. There was no stipulation from Europe to criminalise Irish fishermen so why do we support a Government which has implemented such a rash measure? The criminalisation of Irish fishermen will have to be stopped immediately. If there is an infringement of European regulations in any other country in Europe it is dealt with in a district court, not even going as far as a circuit court. I am happy to inform my learned colleague, Senator O'Donovan, of that fact, if he is not aware of it. We criminalise Irish fishermen with a penalty which shows on their record if they travel to the United States or anywhere else.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

One cannot criminalise a person if he or she does not break a law.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

Why insist it be a criminal sanction? Why can it not be treated as a civil offence and be dealt with in the District Court? There are up to 30 fishery inspectors in Castletownbere but Irish fishing trawlers cannot land more than four boxes of monkfish in Schull or Baltimore without having to travel to Castletownbere or another fishing port. Why can those fishing inspectors, who overlap in Castletownbere, not be diverted to Schull, which only takes one 1.5 hours? Fishermen are compelled to give notice to the inspectors two hours in advance of landing their catch. I cannot see why the Department of Transport or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform impose such regulations on Irish fishermen. The time has come for change and rapid change is needed. We should cut out the bureaucracy and red tape that emanates from the Department.

Why can a tolerant system not be put in place for Irish fishermen? How can any skipper of a trawler refrain from taking in a species that he has overfished? It is well-nigh impossible so why should the skipper be penalised? Instead of dumping prime fish overboard for seals and seagulls why can we not send them to market where there is a huge demand?

On the issue of a fuel subsidy, in the past six months Spain has paid out €35 million in compensation to fishermen for the increase in the cost of fuel. Not one cent has been paid to our fishermen and I am told that when they go to fish, if they stay out a week, the cost of the fuel is 48% of the total value of the catch brought back. How in the name of heavens can Irish fishermen exist?

There should be a level playing pitch for every person working a European trawler. The same system should apply to all. Spanish vessels can land their catch on Dinish Island in Castletownbere without surveillance from fishermen inspectors, although we have 26 or 30 in the town, but if an Irish trawler owner catches a dozen more fish than he is allowed, he will be approached in the square in Castletownbere by a fishermen's officer and may be fined. Is that proper tolerance for our fishermen?

This system is completely wrong. Ultimately, it should be changed. Senator Denis O'Donovan spoke about Axis 4. I wonder if any members of the federation of Irish fishermen have details of it. Have they heard of it at all and why was it not implemented by our Minister with responsibility for fisheries?

The time has come to call a halt to all this upheaval in the fishing industry. In the late 1930s, 1940s and into the 1950s my father employed up to 30 fishermen fishing for autumn mackerel off Castletownbere and employed me when I was a boy, and up to 20 women processing the fish for export to the United States. However, for the past 30 years we have allowed articulated trucks to come in from Europe to Castletownbere, Schull, Dingle and any other fishing port in Ireland. The raw material is exported to the Continent and jobs have not been created here. Instead we have herrings in brine, herrings in wine, herrings in beer, all in cans coming from Germany and Norway. Why is our expertise not used in working with the raw material landed?

It is time to call a halt to this stupidity and get our Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to act. I am disappointed a proper Minister for Fisheries was not appointed. I have no doubt Deputy Coughlan is a good lady but agriculturally speaking, she cannot handle the cow, sheep, pig or fish. The fishing industry deserves a special ministerial position at Cabinet. Until that day, there will be no solution for the crisis prevailing in the fishing industry.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I welcome the members of the federation today. I do not have much experience of sea fishing but I have served on inland fisheries and the southern fishery board for many years. There are many similarities with regard to sea fishing and inland fishing.

We are speaking about the survival of a livelihood and tradition in fishing. The same applies to inland activities. The whole sector is being put under severe pressure. My sympathies are with the federation, as its members are trying to survive in extreme economic circumstances.

The EU has been very good for Ireland and we have made great progress under it. However, when we joined the EU we gained in terms of agriculture but we lost out in the area of aquaculture. This is an island on the periphery of Europe, surrounded by sea, but we have not done too well in terms of allocation of quotas. Quotas are the bane of everyone's life. We shudder when we hear about quotas and restrictions. This applies to farming and agriculture as well as fisheries. All we can do is to keep the best side out and fight to improve the quotas. As mentioned here already, we must also hope that we can get some moneys in.

With regard to the decommissioning, how is it working? What are the financial packages being offered to the fishermen? Many fishermen are getting older now and their children are not following them into the business because there are now other options due to the buoyant economy. How is it progressing?

I agree that the stakeholders — the fishermen themselves — should have a considerable say in any decisions. I do not agree with the scientists and their advice, which I have experienced in the case of inland fisheries. Nobody can tell one the number of fish in the rivers or the sea or the number that are running or the level of scarcity better than the fishermen themselves. They know because they have been at it for years. Much of the scientific advice is questionable and I wonder where it originates. Sometimes it is the very opposite to what is really happening. There are many more fish than they know about or recognise. However, we must all live within the regime of science and technology. If a species is disappearing it is our duty to protect that species for the future survival of fishermen.

There seem to be many discrepancies in other areas, including the law and how it is implemented. I do not know fully about this, but if there is discrimination it should be investigated. If our laws and regulations are different from those in other EU countries I do not know why. I would like to hear more about that.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

I apologise for being late for the meeting as I was unavoidably detained. I apologise to the people who made the presentation as I am not fully aware of its contents. However, I will acquaint myself with the submission that was made and I will make some general points.

This is an island nation, which is an obvious thing to say, but we take no cognisance of our rich maritime history. There is the fat of the land, but there is also the fat of the sea. I agree with the point made previously that when the CAP was being negotiated all those years ago, the fishing industry became the poor relation and has been ever since, in spite of the fact that this is an island nation. We have a wonderful resource but it is being depleted year on year due to environmental and other problems. This is causing undue hardship.

My view is simple. A Minister with direct responsibility for marine and fisheries at Cabinet level is a necessity——

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

Hear, hear.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

——if we are ever to bring to the political forefront the notion that fisheries are an important aspect of our economy. However, fisheries are important not only to the economy but also from a social perspective, because the fishing co-operatives in the coastal regions sustain local communities. If we do not start thinking in terms of sustaining those communities and prioritising fisheries at Cabinet level, the industry will go deeper into the morass. There is political rhetoric and much cognisance taken of the notion of local food production. While the agricultural lobby is a strong one in terms of its political voice, rightly so, the fishing lobby is not as strong or does not seem to have been heard in recent years. If we are talking about local food production, the Minister of State with responsibility for food also has to look at fisheries and their potential. Fish has to come more to the forefront as part of the national diet.

Those are very general points but it is about changing our attitude towards the fishing industry which should be seen in a more positive light. This can only happen politically. For it to happen politically there has to be a seat at the Cabinet table for a Minister with responsibility for the marine and fishing industry. That is something I would wholeheartedly support. I will be available to meet with the gentlemen present after the meeting or at some future date to hear about their concerns because I missed their submission today. However, I will apprise myself of it. If there is anything we can do to be of assistance, we will certainly do it.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I too welcome the representatives of the Federation of Irish Fishermen and apologise for my late arrival to hear its submission.

I come from a constituency to which the fishing industry is important. Since being elected, I have been made even more aware of its importance. Speaking to fishermen — I have had meetings with fishermen from the south and west — is how one learns about their struggles. They are a band of people for whom I have great respect. What they have endured during the years in trying to make a living is unbelievable.

We must move forward. On a positive note, we are lucky to have someone such as Deputy Coughlan as Minister. She understands the situation and is ready to meet fishermen to discuss their problems.

Rules and regulations are fine but how they are applied is the important issue. Nobody is in a better position than fishermen to know what is involved in their industry. It is not in the interests of any fisherman to see fish stocks being depleted. I am sure it is not the aim of fishermen to finish the industry by doing so. They are the ones who must be involved at every stage. They must have a say in deciding their own destiny.

I come from a constituency to which the fishing industry is as important as agriculture. We must work together to achieve the very best outcome for fishermen. I think we can do this. There is no point in being negative; we must be positive and move forward together. We must get our point across by having meetings with the Minister and the relevant individuals involved in the industry. For my part, I will work tooth and nail for fishermen to ensure their livelihoods are safeguarded.

Chairman

I call Mr. Walsh and ask him to be as brief as possible.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I thank the members for their constructive input and interesting questions and comments. We came here to deal with six issues: quota, fisheries science, the sea fisheries Bill, control and enforcements, imports and fuel. The issues have been addressed and questions asked. I will pass on some of these questions to my colleagues but I want to say that I hope there will be a positive result from this meeting. In general there was support for the plight of the fishermen. The industry is facing its darkest hour.

I will pass on the questions asked by Deputy Creed to Mr. Ó Cinneide and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.

Mr. Lorcán Ó Cinnéide

Along with my colleagues I am delighted to be here. I will be brief. I will take the question on the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority in conjunction with the one on administrative sanctions. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority was established under the infamous 2006 Act which we railed against unsuccessfully. I wish to send a note of appreciation on our behalf to two members of this committee, Deputy Ferris and Senator O'Donovan, who were members of the previous committee with which we dealt on this issue. They made considerable efforts on our behalf, individually and politically, in their support for us on that Act. We hope to apprise ourselves and the members of the issues in detail during the lifetime of this Dáil.

Interestingly, the protection authority has only one master, which is this committee. Under the terms of the 2006 Act the only group to which the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is obliged to report is, unusually, this committee. I hope this committee would avail of the opportunity of interrogating, in a positive manner, the authority on the way it operates.

We have been very unhappy with the way this new authority has set about its business in a number of respects. We are not arguing that there should not be law and order. We must have control and management and we realise the SFPA has a job to do. However, we have been very critical of what I would call the one dimensional approach that has been taken to date by the authority, which essentially is to do with arresting people and dealing with that. We believe the authority has a much wider remit than that, similar to other law enforcement or regulatory agencies, including the Garda and others, whereby it must foster a culture of compliance. We have thousands of pages of regulations, all of which are difficult and archaic and many of which are not understood by the very officers who are supposed to police them.

There is a major job to be done in terms of co-operation, education and developing over time a partnership between the industry and those who regulate it in the interests of all. We have been very unhappy with the Poseidon report, the so-called Farrelly report, which set up the closest thing to a KGB-type approach to the management of fisheries. As our chairman mentioned, we are members of the consultative committee but that is only a consultative committee. We have been unhappy——

Chairman

I would be grateful if Mr. Ó Cinnéide would concentrate on answering questions rather than making a speech.

Mr. Lorcán Ó Cinnéide

I beg your pardon. To answer the question on the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, we are trying to develop a partnership with the authority. We are unhappy that there is an uneven playing field in that regard in that there is far more control in terms of the Irish situation than there would be on other vessels in foreign countries.

Regarding administrative sanctions, they are constitutional. We are clear on that issue. The Minister has given a commitment that she will examine them but, at present, we are not sure whether we will be included as participants in that review or as mere consultees. It is essential that we have a strong voice. We believe a system that is enforced for 90% of the offences committed throughout the EU should be enforced here. It was a disgrace that it was not introduced in the last Act. We look forward to members of this committee working with the Minister and us towards achieving that in the near future. It is essential for our industry.

Mr. Sean O’Donoghue

I will address some of the questions asked by Deputies and Senator O'Donovan. Deputy Creed and other speakers mentioned fuel and a transport subsidy. The French and the Spanish are actively working to devise some temporary indirect aid. They cannot give direct fuel subsidy aid because it is contrary to EU rules. We are aware that, in the case of France, not a cent or euro has been paid to French fishermen yet, although we hear all kinds of things on the grapevine. Obviously, this is a key issue for us. The fleets operating in our waters must operate on the same basis. If one operates at half the cost, it is a huge issue. With regard to the Spanish, I agree with Deputy P. J. Sheehan that they have introduced aid under a de minimis rule, which allows for €30,000 to be paid over three years. They are introducing various schemes but, again, there is no direct subsidy.

The fuel situation will be a disaster for us unless we can get some solutions. These temporary solutions will not fix the problem. We are addressing the short-term issue in looking to the Minister to ensure that if other member states are doing this we can do the same thing. If the French or the Spanish are doing something, we are not saying it should be scrapped but if they can do it under the rules, why can we not do it as well? That is our argument. On the general issue, fuel prices are increasing and we have proposed a range of measures to the Minister. She has promised to examine them. We seek the establishment of a task force. However, this is a bigger issue that applies to more than just Ireland. We are taking it up with Europe as well. We need solutions for both the medium and long term.

Deputy Ferris mentioned a different quota system in the south east and the north west. As somebody actively involved in the north west, I can categorically assure him there is no special provision in the allocation of quotas for vessels in the north west vis-à-vis the south east. The FIF represents 90% of fishing vessels and if there was a difference our chairman would be the first to make me well aware of it. There is no difference. Deputy Creed referred to an individual with regard to favouritism in quota allocation. Again, I categorically assure the Deputy that this is not the situation. As an organisation that represents most of the vessels involved in that category, we would not support better treatment for one vessel than for others in the allocation of quota. I can categorically assure the Deputy that is not the case. This is something that is very dear to our hearts and we are very conscious about it. I think I have covered the quota issue and the other issues.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I wish to answer Deputy Creed's question about crew payments. There is a provision of €5 million in the strategy for community projects. Speaking for myself and my colleagues, if we had our way we would have made substantial payments to the crews as individuals. The crews are aggrieved that there is no direct payment. Perhaps something can be examined within that €5 million for direct payments for people who have been fishing aboard such vessels. Perhaps the committee can consider that point. For example, older crewmen will not diversify into other areas. Men who have been in the industry for 20 or 30 years, but do not own the vessels concerned, feel aggrieved that there is no payment for them. We have sympathy for them and it would be in our interests if they were looked after.

The scheme sets out to deliver the decommissioning of fishing vessels to bring the fleet back in line with the quota. The aim of the scheme is to safeguard the future of the industry if the plan works and the objectives of the strategy are met. Perhaps that €5 million can be diversified given that the provision is there for crews under European regulations.

Deputy Ferris asked about the pressures fishermen are under. I wish to thank him for his words of sympathy on my own situation. I wish to make it clear to the committee that the industry is under severe pressure. Fishermen are under the utmost pressure every time they leave harbour, given the aforementioned problems. My own situation did not arise from legislation, it was a tragedy that befell the boat. I do not want to blame anyone for what happened on that particular day. However, there are ongoing issues in which the industry has been involved for the last 25 years. As a fisherman for much of that time, I can state that the industry is under more pressure now than ever before. It is important for the committee to understand that.

Deputy Ferris also asked us to elaborate on the control aspects. Perhaps Mr. O'Flynn can take that question.

Mr. Gerard O’Flynn

I will be brief, Chairman, as I am conscious you are watching the time. The key issue is a lack of respect for fishermen and their skills. At a future date I hope the FIF can make some proposals concerning that situation. Nationally, the fishing industry is not properly integrated into the wider maritime sector and we would like to discuss this with the committee again. Merchant seamen are given a special provision, which is a seafaring allowance for income tax. We hope to raise that matter with this committee and with Deputies and Senators individually. It concerns the issue of respect for fishermen.

Some of the contributors have raised the question of where fish can be landed. The generic term is the business of designated ports. We are now, hopefully, at a reasonably advanced stage of making some progress on that matter both with the Department and the enforcement authority, the SFPA. If we do not make some degree of progress on it we will be coming back to the committee and to Deputies and Senators individually. The issue is closely linked to safety and fuel costs. It is adding unnecessary costs so it is the business of designated ports.

As regards the Cawley report, I hope the committee will take on board our view that cherry-picking any report, and particularly a report of this importance, must be avoided at all costs. We hope the committee will take the message from us that the key points are the full enforcement of the Cawley report and a full commitment to the capital expenditure brought forward to its net present value, rather than the historical figures that were quoted when the report was originally published.

Mr. Michael Walsh

Deputy Tom Sheahan inquired as to whether we had ever sought or received an increase in quota. We have received a few but they are difficult to come by. If we obtain a 5% increase, it is usually the view of the industry that we could have obtained one of 300%. There are far more decreases than increases. We are continually seeking increases but, as already stated, in order for us to obtain them, someone else must give them away. That is the problem.

Reference was made to administrative sanctions, penalty points, etc., to address this issue. I did not indicate earlier that the FIF recently submitted a comprehensive paper to the Minister in respect of this matter. We would welcome anything members can do to bring about the establishment of the committee to address this issue.

I must state, on behalf of the FIF, that we would be happy if we could have the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, to ourselves for some time. It is unfortunate that she has responsibility for a number of different briefs under her departmental remit. Somebody stated that the fact that her Department has responsibility for food should be seen as a positive sign. Reference was made to how we process and export our fish. The FIF will be hoping to promote what is happening in the home market before consideration is given to exports. There is a great deal of potential in the home market upon which we are not capitalising.

Chairman

Senator O'Donovan made a proposal to the effect that we should invite a constitutional expert to advise the committee. Do members wish to leave consideration of this proposal until the next meeting?

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Mr. Ó Cinnéide said——

Chairman

It is not a matter of what Mr. Ó Cinnéide said. I want to know if members wish to defer consideration of the proposal to which I refer until the next meeting or are they of the view that we should engage the services of a constitutional expert?

Deputy Martin Ferris

We should do the latter, particularly in the context of the timeframe involved. Senator O'Donovan said that we have only four weeks. Unless members wish to meet tomorrow or next Tuesday, we should proceed with the proposal.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that the clerk to the committee will inform the Minister and her Department about the debate that took place at this meeting? Agreed.

Deputy Michael Creed

I suggest we invite representatives of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority to appear before the committee in order that we might pursue the issues raised at this meeting.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank Mr. Walsh and his colleagues for making their presentation and answering members' questions. They are more than welcome to reappear before the committee at a later date if they are of the opinion that there is a need for them to do so.

Sitting suspended at 13.23 p.m. and resumed at 13.27 p.m.