I welcome representatives of the Federation of Irish Fishermen and the Irish Fishermen's Organisation. Mr. Joe Maddock is chairman of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and with him are Mr. Ebby Sheehan and Ms Caitlin Uí Aodha. Before I call on them to make their presentation I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but 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 members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Maddock to make his opening statement.
Future of the Irish Fishing Sector: Discussion.
Mr. Joe Maddock
I thank the Chairman and the committee. The Irish Fishermen's Organisation was founded in 1974 to represent the interests of Irish fishermen nationally and internationally. As the committee members can see, we are alive and well although some people have tried to write us out of the history books for their own good or bad reasons.
The outcome of the December Fisheries Council has serious implications for all fishing vessel owners and fishing communities. The details of the cod recovery plan are set out in Council Regulation EC No. 1342/2008 and in annexe 11a of the 2009 TAC and quota regulation. Under the plan, each member state is to receive annual allocations of cod fishing effort for the areas covered by the plan. The fishing allocations will be broken down by the different types of fishing gears used in these areas. The imposition of a days-at-sea regime, based on vessel track record in area Vla, which is off Donegal, and area Vlla, the Irish Sea, is based on actual days fished and logged in either area between the years 2005 and 2008, using trawls, prawn trawls, beam trawls or gill nets. There will be a 25% cut in each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 if cod recovery targets are not met.
The IFO is totally opposed to this new regime, for the following reasons: it is discriminatory and unfair; it is designed to split fishermen; it will increase the value of some licences and make a number of licences worthless; the free movement of polyvalent vessels around the Irish coast will be severely curtailed and in many cases stopped altogether; it takes away the legitimate rights and entitlements of fishermen with polyvalent fishing licences; if a vessel has landed more than the specified percentage of cod in the specified years, it is doomed — its days to fish will be cut by 25% this year, next year and the year after, unless cod recovers; and the introduction of the new days-at-sea regime is a bridge too far and the IFO shouts "Stop".
A related issue is the Celtic Sea, which at present remains outside the cod recovery plan but is threatened with a plan for next year. This must be resisted as this fishery is the mainstay of the Irish whitefish fleet. There is an abundance of cod and there have been box closures — affecting the Trevose and Dunmore East boxes — for the last four years to protect spawning cod. Since this plan is working, why change?
I will ask Ebby Sheehan to say a few words. He is a practising fisherman and knows the business inside out. I will continue when he has made his contribution.
Mr. Ebby Sheehan
I have spent most of my life at sea and am well acquainted with the fishing industry. I have made a good living from fishing for most of my life. I feel very distressed and betrayed to see the state of the industry today. I am here to ask members whether we want an industry or not. From a fisherman's perspective, the answer seems to be "No". The volume of legislation enacted affecting the industry in recent years is unprecedented. We have had 100% enforcement, which in itself is okay, but our EU counterparts have not been subject to anything like the same level of enforcement. A necessary code of practice was introduced across Europe to enhance safety but, lo and behold, when the relevant Irish State body proceeded to enforce it, the regime imposed on the Irish small boats under 24 m — deep sea vessels — was such that it is costing the boat owners in the region of €100,000 to honour the code.
Anybody in this room who believes the whitefish industry is healthy should note the frightening statistic that in excess of 50% of the Irish polyvalent whitefish vessel owners have interest-only loans. They do not have interest-only loans by choice. Some of the boats were built five or six years ago and some are second hand. A very small stumbling block, a decrease in the quota, and enforcement of the days-at-sea rule will mean the boats will be gone. Given the state of the country at present, the banks are reasonably lenient. Only for this many of the boats would be repossessed. Hence, we must ask whether we want an industry or not. If so, we must do something about it. The writing is on the wall and the polyvalent whitefish industry will certainly go down the tubes.
Days-at-sea rules are being enforced to reduce effort. As a fisherman, I agree with the days-at-sea rule. Common sense seems to have gone out the window in respect of the industry a long time ago. We could live with a minimum of 21 days per month. There are boats in areas VI and VII, off the north of the country, which have as little as two and three days per month. The affected fishermen will be out of business or will have to move south. Next year, when the days-at-sea rules are enforced for the south coast, the fishermen there will be out of business if the same thing happens. Twenty-one days is the very minimum that every boat owner needs. Fishermen would step up to the mark to back such a regime. The days-at-sea measure represents a good system of conservation because effort is reduced. I agree that we need to reduce effort because last year there was open fishing and we were retaining the quota of some stocks in a shorter period, thus leading to the dumping of fish.
Fishermen, as members know, campaigned for a "No" vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum. We will definitely be doing the same again because the European Union has done a severe injustice to the Irish fishing industry. This injustice has been backed up by the Government.
Mr. Joe Maddock
Special areas of conservation, Natura 2000 and marine protected areas all pose a threat to fishermen in coastal communities. I refer to the closure of fisheries under the habitats and birds directives, drift-netting for salmon and the cockle fisheries. Cockle vessels have been tied up for one and a half years without income. This is a disgrace and must be resolved quickly to enable these fishermen to resume fishing. Progress is being made but we need the committee's help to expedite the solution to this problem. A political push is required.
The banning of drift-netting for salmon was a body-blow for island and coastal communities. This fishery is so valuable to areas and communities with few alternatives. The fishermen cannot easily relocate to the Far East, Australia or America, and we need them where they are. They should be given the means to stay by allowing drift-netting for salmon.
With regard to the bass fishery, the main regulation is SI 230 of 2006. This is the beautiful Irish statutory instrument that prohibits Irish vessels from catching bass but allows those of all other nationalities to do so. It is a good statutory instrument and I am sure some politician advocated it should be implemented; hence the difficulty for Irish fishing boats. All the boats in our waters can have bass on board and sell it but the Irish vessels cannot. This must be examined seriously and corrected.
With regard to the pelagic fishery, the IFO proposed that all segments should be increased by 33%. We considered this would be the fairest way to share the extra mackerel.
Relative stability, tacs and quotas, the Hague preference, track record, equal access, effort regimes, days at sea, GTs, kilowatts, long-term management, rights-based management, closed areas, and no-take zones will all be in the review of the Common Fisheries Policy.
A radical change in the way we manage our fisheries is required. What is required is a policy that allows fishermen, male and female, to fish and a legal system operating in tandem with what fishermen actually do. The present system that criminalises people who try to make a living from fishing and support their own communities must be wrong and we surely can do better. The best way forward is open fishing with days at sea as the main regulator, subject to the regulation fish sizes, technical measures, the tonnage and kilowatt ceilings and the vessel licensing entitlements in the EU fishing zones. All polyvalent vessels in the demersal and shellfish fisheries, trawlers, prawn trawlers, beam trawlers, gill netters, long liners and hand liners should have 21 days per month to fish.
The review should consider no trading in kilowatt days or the carrying forward of any days not fished in the previous month. It would return confidence to licence holders who are very worried about losing their rights under the new days-at-sea regime. Only a fraction of the proposed effort should be used and this would give a fair chance to all the vessels to earn a living. It would prevent the discarding of marketable fish and give an accurate account of the fish actually caught. It should help the scientists by providing accurate information. The review would result in the fleet being tied up for three months each year, which would be very good for fish conservation. If agreed, it would go some way towards mending the fences between the State and fishing communities. It would be easy to control and make life easier for fishermen.
Ireland has many fishing banks — Leinster, Kish, Codling, Arklow, Moneyweights, Lucifer, Barrels, East, West, Lahady, Nymph, Porcupine and Stanton. Since we joined the European Union in 1973, we have in our generosity given billions of euro worth of fish from these banks to our EU partners. We are due a return. A fairer fisheries policy is needed. Fishermen are being forced out of business by rules and regulations which is why coastal communities voted against the Lisbon treaty.
Provided the right fleet policy and effective stock management are in place, fishing has the capacity to provide a high and sustainable level of employment around the coast. Fish has many advantages. It is a pure and unadulterated food with beneficial dietary properties. It will probably always be in short supply for market requirements. Fish is a self-renewing resource and one to which Ireland is in close proximity.
On behalf of the committee I welcome the representatives from the Federation of Irish Fishermen, Mr. Lorcán Ó Cinnéide, chairman; Mr. Sean O'Donoghue, chief executive officer, Killybegs Fishermens Organisation Limited; Mr. Michael Walsh, chief executive officer, Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation Limited; Mr. Gerard O'Flynn, chief executive officer, The Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation Limited.
I must inform them 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.
Mr. Lorcán Ó Cinnéide
The outcome of the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council negotiations on fishing quotas was quite positive for Ireland. The European Commission had proposed a wide-ranging set of cutbacks to many whitefish quotas from 15% to 40%. The Irish industry opposed these on the grounds there was, in most cases, no scientific evidence to support such cuts. The Federation of Irish Fishermen worked in parallel with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and departmental officials in its input up to and including direct discussions with the Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Mr. Joe Borg. This resulted in the maintenance of most quotas at 2008 levels for 2009. The notable exceptions were in cod quotas in the Irish Sea, the north-west haddock and whiting quotas and Celtic Sea and north-west herring quotas.
However, the relatively positive overall result was negatively coloured by the outcome regarding the Commission's last-minute attempts to eliminate whitefish fishing in waters off the north-west coast. Although the Minister succeeded in averting a ban on fishing, the compromise reached has had a dramatic and drastic effect on the Donegal whitefish fleet in Greencastle and Killybegs. Restrictions on mesh sizes have resulted in many key fisheries in the area being unviable and have posed an enormous threat to the continuation of a fishing industry in the area, especially for less mobile vessels. While some stocks are in trouble, others are in a relatively healthy state. Accepting there is need for conservation and management, it must also be pointed out that this idea we are fishing the last of the stocks is a fallacy.
The implementation of a new EU fishing effort regulation in the Irish Sea and off the north-west coast, and its possible extension to the Celtic Sea south coast, is the most significant change for the Irish fishing industry in many years. This measure was agreed in November and final details incorporated in the December Council outcomes. The Federation of Irish Fishermen has consistently and trenchantly opposed these measures but they are now EU law.
The idea behind kW-days limits is allegedly to limit catches of cod to allow stocks to recover. KW-days represent fishing days limitations related to the engine power of vessels. The regulation involves a 25% reduction in 2009 of the number of kW-days used in the areas compared with the baseline limit. As the regulation stands, further annual cuts of 25% in both kW-days limits and quotas will follow in 2010 and thereafter if mortality targets for cod are not reached.
The kW-days system introduced in areas VIIa and VIa as a result of EC Regulation 1342/2008 has caused enormous difficulty. The pilot scheme introduced by the Department between February and April has given rise to enormous frustration, anger and numerous problems, with direct effects on fishing operations. In area VIa, it has been made worse by the special measures introduced for cod, haddock and whiting.
One positive development in recent months has been good engagement by fishing interests directly with Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Marine Institute. Only by taking a central and active role with science, on changing gears and conservation can the industry survive. The Federation of Irish Fishermen has taken a leading role in the steering group set up at its request by the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, involving the industry, the Department, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Marine Institute and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, to work through the complex and challenging issues facing the sector. We remain deeply concerned that the best outcome under this regulation, with all the input that we have, can allow the fishing fleet the degree of flexibility and access to the resources that can make its future possible.
We have very complex regulation. We have had meetings of the steering group, which led on from a whole series of meetings that FIF constituent organisations arranged with the Minister of State in the ports, to hear directly from people involved about the effects on them. Living with this in terms of getting solutions to the problems will be extremely difficult.
We are also mindful of the possibility that this whole exercise will be extended to the Celtic Sea next year. That was the Commission's intention for this year. We are in discussions with our European colleagues through our European organisation, most notably the French, but also the British and the Belgians, to develop alternatives to the possible extension of the kW-days system to the Celtic Sea for 2010 and beyond. That will be a very big challenge for us.
On the effect of the general recession faced and how this affects the fishing fleet, the fishing industry, as is well known, did not share in the general economic prosperity of the boom years. We might be tempted to say, "Welcome to the club", but we would not wish the last ten years the fishing industry has had on anybody – and we realise we are part of a much wider set of issues that has to be dealt with. The current economic emergency is badly affecting the fishing sector. While fuel costs, in the short term, are low – and that is a welcome change from July last – exchange rate changes in sterling, the lack of consumer demand and the severe shortage of credit in the European market for fish are having a very detrimental effect on market prices and therefore on fishermen's ability to earn revenue.
All this is compounded by the changes in kW-days, which means that the baseline assumptions that people were able to work with have been completely undermined. People's ability to earn is very much affected and some species have dropped 50% in producer prices in the past 12 months, although this is not reflected in terms of the consumer prices being charged. We experienced a fuel emergency arising from oil selling at up to $143 a barrel last summer. That resulted in an emergency aid package being announced by the EU. This was to include a €600 million EU package of additional finance, which we had proposed should be put towards items such as decommissioning, tie-up days and other supports of a short-term as well as a structural nature, which would have assisted the sector to get through. The root causes have changed but the sector is still at the same level of crisis, albeit for different reasons. Due to the adverse domestic budgetary situation, Ireland is critically dependent on additional EU funding to meet the current crisis. That money has not been forthcoming – and has not been programmed at all. FIF has repeatedly stressed this at all EU forums in the past six months, including directly with the Commission on two occasions last week, and we continue to do that. We know that this is also being hammered home by the Minister of State and the Department in their discussions with the Commission, but we have no positive indication to date that the additional funding will be forthcoming for short-term tie-up aid or other urgently required measures, which leaves people in a very vulnerable situation.
We have an overall review of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is due to be completed by 2012. We participated in the first steps as regards considering that at a meeting of European organisations with the European Commission last week – and a Green Paper on that is to be published at the end of April. We see this as a very important opportunity to redress some of the basic flaws which exist in the Common Fisheries Policy. In the short-term we have a proposed control regulation for fisheries which would revolutionise, mainly in a negative sense, the whole manner and system of controls as they affect fishermen — essentially adding to the complexity of the administrative burden on fishermen. In that regard we have made a detailed submission to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny as well as to the Minister of State and the European Union, directly.
A third development under way relates to technical conservation measures, essentially to do with all matters concerning gear sizes and modifications and attempting to control the use of various types of gears. This represents an overhaul of the existing regulation but it could have very far-reaching consequences. The committee can take it, therefore, that we have a full agenda of issues ongoing, we are doing our level best to battle our way through those and are very concerned about our industry, which has the capacity to make real wealth, not funny money. It has the capacity to provide real indigenous employment from a renewable natural resource where we have a competitive advantage. We hope this can be widely understood by Members of the Oireachtas and that the measures which can get us through the current immediate crisis will be taken so that the industry can make the contribution that is required.
I thank Mr. Ó Cinnéide very much. Is it agreeable that I take the members of the committee first, and the witnesses can respond? Agreed. We shall hear from the spokespersons first. I call Deputy Creed.
I have a problem in that I have to attend another meeting at 11 o'clock. Regrettably, I may not be able to stay for the response, but I should like to welcome the Federation of Irish Fishermen and the Irish Fishermen's Organisation. It is the first time the committee has heard from the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, certainly in my time here, anyway. It begs the question as to why, for an industry in such a perilous state, we cannot have a single voice that speaks for fisheries. The Cawley report, in its analysis of the industry, observed that too many voices weakened the political clout that might be used to deliver results for the fishing industry. I do not mean to put anybody on the spot but I should like to know why we cannot work in unison as representatives of fishing organisations. What is the problem or where are the stumbling blocks? As I understand it, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, IFO, is not a member of the federation. Perhaps it could give the committee some information on its geographical spread, its membership and the background to the IFO. I accept that there is more than one representative organisation in the agricultural sector, but the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, is probably without equal as a lobbying body in the country, and as a consequence is in a position to deliver very considerable benefits to its membership. When the IFA cracks the whip on issues of a political nature all politicians in all parties sit up and take notice. Sea fishing is a coastal industry and obviously is not as widely spread as farming, but nonetheless that analogy should be borne in mind. Why can we not have a single voice for fisheries organisations, given the perilous nature of the industry at the moment?
Mr. Sheehan made a point on the Lisbon treaty. I accept that among the coastal communities, and among the fishermen's organisations and their families, there was significant rejection of the Lisbon treaty. I also accept that this was because they felt that coastal communities had been hard done by in the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU. However, if we look at places like Iceland that are clamouring to join the European Union, there has to be some realisation that it is better to be within the club trying to advocate improvements, rather than being outside the club. Being outside the club does not automatically mean that all of those who fish our waters at the moment will be automatically banned. That is an over-simplistic analysis, and one with which I would not agree. I do not intend to make the Lisbon treaty the central point in this.
What outcome do the witnesses from both organisations think will result from the review of the Common Fisheries Policy? That is the real show in town for the foreseeable future. In a Common Fisheries Policy, we will have to make agreements with countries who we perceive to be our competitors for the fishing resources out there. If somebody puts science into that equation on conservation, how do they see a better deal being constructed that will benefit them? It would involve somebody else giving up something for us. How realistic is that on a political level? That is the reality we must face.
On the issue of conservation, the centrality of science and the cod recovery plan in the north west, what is the level of engagement and satisfaction between the FIF, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and the Marine Institute? Nobody wants to destroy any species or do lasting damage to stocks. The industry must buy into the science that is informing political decisions on conservation. What is the level of agreement or disagreement among the membership of both organisations on the conservation questions and stock levels?
I welcome the organisations here today. My questions are quite specific. Where are the scientific assumptions underlying the preservation of cod stocks coming from? Do both organisations agree with those assumptions? Do they agree that the Council regulations put in place for the preservation of cod stocks represent the right way to go for a sustainable industry?
Do the witnesses feel that the green paper on the Common Fisheries Policy will present a real political opportunity to overhaul that policy? Do they think that it will come down to the same, last minute EU Council negotiations and will pan out in a beggar thy neighbour process? We always talk about what a great resource fisheries could be, but if this green paper is to mean anything, there will have to be real political change. Do the witnesses think there will be real political change to bring about the type of industry they want to see?
Mr. Maddock stated that the IFO is totally opposed to the new regime because it is designed to split fishermen, will increase the value of some licences and make a number of licences worthless. Can he clarify what he means? I am still a little bit at sea — pardon the pun — in terms of my understanding of the assumptions governing the regulation on the limits of kilowatts per day in the Celtic Sea. Can somebody elaborate on that for me?
Is it possible to quantify how many boats will be adversely affected as a result of the restriction on mesh sizes? When he spoke about net sizes, Mr. Ó Cinnéide stated that the other stocks are in a relatively healthy state. Can he elaborate on that?
I welcome the representatives from the Federation of Irish Fishermen and the Irish Fishermen's Organisation. It should be the Irish fishermen and women's organisation. I am delighted to hear from them and their presentation this morning. I come from a coastal community, so I fully understand the state of the industry and the effects the implementation of regulations has had on such communities across the island. There is no doubt that the fishing sector has been hard done by for some time now. I argue that they voted rightly as they did on the Lisbon treaty. Europe has been good to the fishing industry since we entered what was then the EEC. The compromise meant that the fishing industry was sold out in a trade off for another sector, and we have been paying the price ever since in coastal communities.
Deputy Creed made a point about unity within the sector. When I fished, I noticed that one looked after the sector in which one was involved and tried to promote it. There was always a lack of leadership and unity. It certainly has not helped the rights of those involved in the industry, especially those involved at the coalface.
One of the most disgraceful Bills ever to come through the Oireachtas criminalised people involved in fishing. That would happen to no other sector. Administrative sanctions were rejected here and in the House, in spite of the arguments put forward. There were cross-party arguments in support of administrative sanctions, as against the criminalisation of the fishermen. That legislation is now law, and we were misled about what was happening at that time. Our legal advice, that we have yet to receive in written form, copperfastens the argument many of us made at that time in here.
The central point to obtaining rights for rural Ireland and especially coastal communities is the renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy. If we do not have adequate quota and a level playing pitch, and if restrictions continue to be imposed on an already highly restricted industry, it is obviously only going one way, which is further and further into decline.
With regard to the 2012 aspect, which is due to arise, if it cannot be got right this time, the whole fishing sector will be gone. The days at sea argument has been made, as well as the argument regarding kilowatts and so forth, and this was presented as a fait accompli during the negotiations in December.
Were the fishing organisations, including the FIF, satisfied with the stance and the arguments being made by the Department in support of the arguments they made? During the Lisbon campaign, it all came down to the word "veto" — a veto for the farming organisations in particular. Could there have been a better outcome for the Government in particular, as well as for those advising it and the FIF, which was also present? While it is only my opinion and I will wait to hear what the witnesses have to say, once again, the Government rolled over to the EU demand in this regard. In any case, I pose the question.
There are also other aspects, including the importation of fish into the country at present, particularly through Cork, and the effect this is having on the price of Irish produce. The issue of country of origin labelling is also ongoing. What do the witnesses suggest needs to be done? Are they in favour of country of origin labelling of fish coming into the country? Are they in favour, as I would be, of a restriction on the amount of fish coming in? In my opinion, this is doing irreparable damage to the people working and risking everything for their livelihood.
In addition, a huge bone of contention for me is that, very recently, when allocations of quota were given out, there was complete discrimination between one part of the country and the other. This drives a wedge deeper and deeper between people involved in the sector. This will probably be contentious within the FIF in that 23 boats are getting the vast majority of quota as opposed to the position of people in the west and the south west. The people who make those decisions are effectively dividing the people involved in the industry. I would like to hear the witnesses' views in this regard. When they are representing an organisation, they are representing all those associated with the industry, not just their own area. This worries me greatly.
Deputy Tom Sheahan stated that the code of practice for vessels under 24 m results in a cost of €100,000 to upgrade a boat. Deputy Sheahan gave the example of a mussel boat in Cromane, where one could practically stand as there was only 8 ft. or 10 ft. of water there. Yet, in order to be in compliance, fishermen had to put in a code of practice and invest huge amounts of money, well in excess of €100,000. It is a disgraceful situation.
Reference was made to bass fishing. Did I hear correctly that whereas Irish people involved in the industry are not allowed to trawl for bass, other countries can come in and fish for bass in our waters? If that is the case, we want the Minister to come here to tell us why it is so. That other EU countries can come in to take a species from Irish waters when Irish fishermen cannot do so is a complete disgrace.
The witnesses mentioned drift netting. I am on the record as stating that when salmon drift netting went, those involved would go into another sector and put pressure on a sector that was already under pressure. This has been the outcome. In addition, it has affected the communities which traditionally had an engagement in salmon fishing and the knock-on effect of an associated income.
The secret of all of this, I argue, must be the renegotiation of the CFP. If it is not renegotiated or if the review does not deal with the lack of quota for Irish fishermen across the sector, the industry is going nowhere.
I welcome both organisations. While I will possibly repeat much of what has been said, I echo what Deputy Creed said about unity in the fishing industry. As I have said at previous meetings, unity of representation is very important. I do not understand why the organisations involved cannot see the value in having one voice for fishermen and the industry. I am aware there are different sectors in the industry but, overall, it must be classed as one industry. We have seen what the Irish Farmers' Association can do when it gets down to work as a single body representing the majority of farmers in this country. I urge the organisations to make an effort to get together. I do not see a problem in different sectors being represented by different people but, as a whole, if there can be one voice representing the industry, we would be in a much better position.
A letter was dealt with at the committee today in regard——
We discussed that earlier.
I was not present at the time. It is ludicrous. We had somebody in here to advise us on the matter of rules and regulations in regard——
I will inform the Deputy as he was not present. I spoke to Mr. Hogan in the past couple of weeks and he has given me an undertaking that he will be back to us as soon as possible. He is doing this in a voluntary capacity.
That is very much appreciated and we appreciated him coming here to clarify points on this matter. It is hugely important to the industry that this side of it would be cleared up.
Perhaps it is not fair to compare farming and fishing. However, while farming is being reviewed on an ongoing basis, how many reviews of the Common Fisheries Policy have taken place? Can anyone enlighten me on this question? This review is ongoing and is to be completed by 2012. There is an opportunity to really get something from this and to go in there fighting. As was pointed out, the industry is hugely important to the coastal communities of this country. There is major potential, if it is done properly, that it can add considerably to the overall economy. It is not being half utilised. The resources are there but we must be mindful that they may not always be there. If the current policy is allowed to continue, where foreign boats are coming in and simply taking away the fish, we will no longer have a fishing industry in this State. The situation in regard to sea bass, with foreign boats being allowed to have sea bass on board while Irish boats cannot, highlights more than anything else we have spoken about today the difficulties we face.
We have covered most of the issues. It is only by working together that we can achieve something in this area. I advise the representatives of the industry to adopt a unity of purpose, especially at a time when a review of the Common Fisheries Policy is ongoing.
Since Deputies Creed and Sherlock are obliged to leave in order to attend another meeting, I ask the delegates to respond to the points raised by them.
Mr. Joe Maddock
Everybody agrees that a united approach is the best approach. Some politicians would even like a national Government in which everybody would speak with one voice and play Mammys and Daddys for the sake of a quiet life. The Irish Fishermen's Organisation was established in 1974 at a mass meeting of fishermen. Its objective was to represent fishermen's interests and not to be tied to the State in any way. The other delegates can speak for themselves but I will make the point that producer organisations are a creature of the Common Fisheries Policy. They are set up under European Union regulations and are controlled by the State. That is the reality of producer organisations. They are established for the purpose of looking after the marketing of members' fish, ensuring it is sold under optimal conditions and operating the intervention system, which involves the withdrawal of and, as at the present time, the carryover of fish. They have much work to do.
The people who set up the organisation I represent envisaged that it would speak politically, without fear or favour, for all fishermen. There would be no clubs or small groups and no going in through the back door for consultations with politicians. It would be up-front in setting out the problems its members face and would be beholden to nobody. Last year was a very difficult one for the business. However, it has meant that our organisation has a new lease of life from fishermen seeking clear direction. Our message may be the same but people are seeking clear direction. That is what we have always given.
The Common Fisheries Policy was reviewed in 1992 and 2002 and the current review will be completed in 2012. Dr. Whitaker was part of the first review group that was set up to allow us to put forward a good case for Irish fishermen. Mr. Pádraic White was chairman of the second national strategy review group. However, we have always lost ground in these reviews. In the last one, for example, the Irish Box was slimmed down. We have made many concessions as part of what I would describe as a creeping re-nationalisation of fisheries. For instance, the French are railing off their own coast but keeping all their options open in Irish waters. The United Kingdom, particularly the Scottish, would also like to rail off what they consider to be theirs.
Much of the documentation issuing from the European Union suggests it is trying to move away from the total allowable catch, TAC, and quota system because it is so perverse. Off south-east Ireland there is a very mixed fishery with 2% of plaice and perhaps 70% of whiting, all caught in the same net. We are now moving towards a days-at-sea system. As we pointed out in our submission, if every vessel were to have 21 days or whatever under the new regime, then it would be a level playing field because everybody would be in with the same chance.
However, the reality is different. In the case of Celtic Sea cod, for instance, the French have 72% of that quota. We have huge box closures in the Celtic Sea to conserve cod. We are conserving 72% of that for France. There has probably been cod in the Celtic Sea forever but it has become more abundant in the past 40 years and particularly in the past three years because of these closed boxes and the deduction taken by Irish fishermen in tandem with other fishermen. These measures are in place. However, the general thrust of European policy is to reduce the fleet to such a small size that Europe will have no fleet left. The notion behind saving cod is to drive out more and more boats.
We recently attended a meeting in Edinburgh with Scottish fishing representatives. A fisherman I have known for years said that the problem for his compatriots is that there is too much fish because they have a mechanism of no-take zones where if one catches more than 40 cod on a week's trip, the area will be closed. They are finding so much cod over so wide a territory that they are now afraid everywhere will be closed and there will be nowhere to catch other types of fish. It is easy to make a statement regarding the scarcity of fish. If, for example, a quota is reduced from 100 tonnes one year to 50 tonnes the next, that means very little. However, in the view of a green politician — or a red, white or any other colour of politician — it will be declared a disaster and evidence that cod stocks are reduced drastically. This bears absolutely no relation to reality.
I expect another chairman will be appointed to oversee the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. Each one of us, when we travel outside the country, tries to work hard for Ireland Inc. and to call it as we see it. The sea-fisheries protection consultative committee provides a forum for fishing industry representatives to meet with departmental officials and to air their views. There is no great difficulty in getting our message across, but getting a result or an answer is another matter. For example, the case of the cockle fishermen, a small group of fishermen, has been tied up for one and a half years. The habitats and birds directives have been in operation since 1997. Ireland was supposed to have completed all its environmental impact studies and so on but has not done so. We have now put an interim plan to DG Environment in Brussels to see whether this fishery can be reopened quickly.
It is within the power of politicians to push this issue along and to secure a response quickly. The issue has been debated to death, and is now holding up aquaculturalists also. It is something politicians could easily pursue in order to bring it to a speedy conclusion. We cannot have people obstructed in their activities because somebody did not study a particular bird for the last three years to see whether it nested in the same place this year, last year and the year before. Common sense has gone so far out the window that coastal communities have no choice but to move against an officialdom which has become nonsensical. Politicians should be the experts on all the legislation that comes from Brussels. They should be on top of their brief in identifying dangers for the industry and getting the job done. They should work for the fishermen in their constituencies who currently experience only a disconnect.
I welcome the increasing numbers joining our organisation. The colleagues who have accompanied me today work very hard. However, their members believe they do not work hard enough or that they are too close to the State. That is their belief and I cannot help what people think.
The difficulties are real and not imagined and I have stated at many meetings at Dublin that while fishermen can shout "stop", unless politicians who represent us also say "stop", we are wasting our time. This is what we believe, as every year brings another restriction. Although we have what almost is the tiniest fleet in Europe, we get the same draconian regulation out of which the French always can find their way, because they are masters at recording. They did the business, got all the quotas in our waters and in their generosity left us with 5%.
While some people will state that we should get more fish, I strongly advocate a system based on allocating days to fish in which one is allowed to land what one catches. The Norwegians operate such a system and have a no-discard policy. They bring in what their boats catch and this is the only way in which one can introduce a level playing field. We are close to the resource, while in a system based on days, the Spanish and French would have a long journey to make up to our coast. They would use up days while travelling. Advantage should come to Ireland, everyone would have the same chance and there would not be discrimination. While a person with a bigger boat might have a better chance than someone with a smaller boat, the smaller boat might catch fish closer to the coast.
While I am unsure whether I have covered everything, as Deputy Ferris noted, the issue pertaining to bass is up in lights. Although the rest of Europe can fish bass in our waters, we are prosecuted if we have it on board and can neither fish for it nor sell it. Something must be wrong in this regard. As politicians, members can change this but I can only bring it to their attention. However, they should be aware of all issues that are pressing down on good people who live in out-of-the-way places in which it is hard to find jobs. Not many people would trade places with fishermen or their livelihood, which is a tough job and a difficult way to make a living. They need the out-and-out support of the State and feel they are not getting it.
I asked Mr. Maddock about the engagement with the Marine Institute, if any.
Mr. Joe Maddock
I have no difficulty with the Marine Institute, which is used to state what the science is. While I am not a scientist, the process goes in the following way. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, will be asked for advice on the Irish Sea. It will be stated that as there is no cod in the Irish Sea, the quota should be cut further. As the Celtic Sea is full of cod, ICES and the scientists will recommend that the quota be cut because of over-exploitation. One cannot win with the perverse systems that are being played out. If there is too much cod, people are exploiting it too much but if there is no cod they have over-exploited it. The quota is cut both ways all the time.
Such things are driving fisherman to distraction and people are being driven round the bend with all their regulations. It is a field day for technocrats and those who wish to read regulations or to create several more books of regulations. It is a field day for the bureaucracy who love it that they are trying to save cod. It makes a great headline for Europe in the rest of the world that on foot of the 2015 targets agreed at Johannesburg, we will save the cod. However, the crux is they are trying to kill the fishermen who are the bit in the middle and who wish to survive and to act responsibility. I have said my share and thank the joint committee.
Does the delegation from the Federation of Irish Fishermen wish to respond to the questions raised by the two Deputies?
Mr. Lorcán Ó Cinnéide
I appreciate Deputy Creed must leave and my colleagues will cover some of the points raised. However, I wish to comment on unity. I almost am reluctant to enter this debate because things that already have been said at this meeting are not entirely conducive to unity and I do not wish to add to disunity. However, I categorically reject the assertion that the organisation for which I work, the Federation of Irish Fishermen or its constituent organisations, namely, the four producer organisations in the fishing industry, are creatures of the State. Members will be aware that representatives of my organisation have been coming through these doors for a long time. I have spoken to all members, both individually and together since I took up this job, and an enormous amount of time and effort was spent in respect of the 2006 legislation and subsequent legislation. I do not believe that any member would have the slightest belief that we are creatures of the State. In so far as we are set up under European legislation, it would be the equivalent of asserting that the trade unions are instruments of the State because they are subject to the industrial and provident societies Acts and trade union legislation.
We have four organisations, one each based in the north west, the south east and the south west, as well as my body, the Irish Fish Producers' Organisation, which is a kind of mixum-gatherum around the place. We have worked separately but in co-operation for many years and while I do not boast, given we must deal with the realities of life unlike other people, I defy anyone to better the case we make on behalf of Irish fishermen in any of the numerous fora in which we operate. The four organisations joined together under the banner of the Federation of Irish Fishermen and while we do not claim to represent the entire industry, we claim to represent those who make up our membership, pay subscriptions into our organisation on an annual basis and who do not perceive us to be creatures of the State but expect us to do a job for them.
I respect the fact that others have different opinions. It is a free country. However, I resent the characterisation of us as being somehow too close to the State. Perhaps the point is that we perceive the reality of what must be dealt with in this regard. Although the idea of 21 days of unlimited fishing without quota would be highly attractive — incidentally, they do not fish in Norway without quotas — it simply is neither a credible nor a tenable aim for us to pursue in our negotiations. We must deal with the realities of life as they exist and with the issues as they are put forward. Members may rest assured and already are aware that we try to do the most effective and detailed job possible. We are criticised for taking an engagement, rather than a rejectionist view. Different people have different views on this and I hope people will respect what we are trying to do, just as we respect their right to their own opinions. It would not be constructive to take this matter further at this meeting.
We know who we represent, namely, the people who pay our wages and we also look to the general best interest of the industry. We do our level best to so do and I completely reject the idea that an alternative, in which one somehow was unsullied by association with the State, would achieve better results than that. I leave it to the intelligence of committee members to make up their own minds about what we are trying to do. That said, our doors are open. We do not differ greatly from others regarding where we want to go. While I hope for a common platform, this is difficult given some of what has been laid at our doorstep. Mr. O'Donoghue will cover one or two other issues.
Mr. Sean O’Donoghue
Since Deputies Creed and Sherlock are about to leave, I will cover the two issues they raised. Everyone, including the federation, has identified the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, review as a key issue. The CFP began in 1982, there was a mid-term review in 1992 and a 20-year review in 2002. In this respect and as Mr. Maddock has stated, Ireland had two review committees. We did not achieve what we desired in the reviews, but we made certain achievements. For example, industry becoming more involved in the decision making process arose out of an Irish provision in 2000. What we refer to as the regional advisory councils are now taken as read.
The federation has begun its input into the CFP at EU level and has had significant influence at the macro level. We are considering two areas in particular. The CFP needs greater engagement with stakeholders. We must be actively involved in the decision making process, not just as advisers. While this would be a paradigm shift at EU and member state level, it would make a significant difference.
I will not be able to address all of our areas of consideration, but the second particular area relates to the 1976 Hague preferences, which gave Ireland additional quota due to our peripherality. Irrespective of the CFP negotiations, the Hague agreement was one of the best agreements on our fishing industry. However, we did not build on it when the CFP was introduced in 1982. In these terms, we can try to get a preference for Ireland. As Deputy Creed stated, if relative stability is changed, something is taken from one person and given to another. The CFP is addressed at EU level by majority voting, but France, the UK, Spain, Belgium or any other country will not give up what it has.
One must be innovative and find new approaches. We are up for it. The four people sitting on this side have been actively engaged in the matter. Unlike others, we are not chasing pipe dreams. Rather, we are examining reality to determine how we can guarantee the Irish fishing industry's future. While we have had failures, we have an opportunity now. We have already been in touch with the Minister, as Ireland Inc. needs to get its act together and to decide on how to play this out over the next three years, which is the CFP's lead-in time. The Green Paper to be produced at the end of April will explore almost every idea, but it will not contain proposals. It will cover everything from abolishing effort or tax on quotas to going without a system. The nature of a Green Paper is to table everything and to consider responses. We will be involved in the year-long consultation.
Unlike others, I view this as an opportunity if we box clever on the CFP. It is several years down the line, but now is the time to get our act together. When the proposal is on the table in two years time will be too late, as we must influence the Commission's considerations in advance of its proposal.
I wish to address the issue of days at sea. Deputy Sherlock also asked how many vessels will be affected by the mesh size arrangements. Any vessels that fish in the new so-called French line in the north west will be as good as tied up because they will not be able to use their previous mesh sizes or land their usual catches. We have been working in this regard, as the regulation must be changed. It should not have been introduced. It was first tabled as a proposal during the first week of November. To be fair to the Department, it tried to stop the regulation coming into effect, but the Commission and a number of green countries rammed it through.
We have a disaster on our hands. We are trying to do something about it. For example, a number of gear types were left out of the regulation by default and we hope that it can be amended in this regard. Small, inshore vessels doing a bit of gill netting, jigging or hand lining have been excluded, as one can no longer fish using those gears inside the French line irrespective of the fact that they do not catch the cod, haddock and whiting for which the line was intended. With Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Marine Institute, we are pursuing the use of trials, in particular to find a combination of mesh sizes to give the effect desired by the Commission's regulation.
How many vessels?
Mr. Sean O’Donoghue
In the County Donegal area, the number directly affected is between 20 and 30. However, this is not the end of the story, as visitors from around the country also fish in Donegal. Including small inshore vessels, the total number of vessels is between 50 and 70.
Mr. Gerard O’Flynn
I want to cover three topics briefly, those being, a code of practice or certificate of compliance, the direction we should be taking in the Celtic Sea cod issue and co-operation with the scientific community. Last year, the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, established a group known as the Irish Fisheries Science Research Partnership. This was an important step forward, because one of the very big frustrations for fisherman is the gap between their day-to-day experience and that which they see reflected in scientific reports. Scientific reports and data take a long time to compile and have a long lifespan from when the data starts to be collected. Unfortunately, there is a large gap between the lifespan of the industry and its perception of stocks. The industry's Irish Fisheries Science Research Partnership is an important step forward. I am confident we can use our influence to close that gap and to ensure the real time experience is reflected more quickly in scientific data and that this data is reflected in reports that inform decision-making on a more timely basis.
In recent years, an unprecedented level of change has been imposed on the industry. Within the European framework, a volume of material must be taken on board. It is a nearly impossible task to cover all angles. We must guard against how the change being imposed is managed. It has not been successfully managed up to now. Change must be managed but the level of change imposed on the Irish industry has been compressed into too short a timeframe and has caused a major amount of frustration.
We must guard against the unnecessary imposition of cost on the industry. I note a question on the certificate of compliance or code of practice. This has to do with certification of fishing vessels. Under no circumstances will I or my colleague argue for anything that would undermine safety at sea. However, I am conscious that over-zealousness in interpretation of regulations and imposition of technical regulations can lead to unnecessary cost. We must guard against unnecessary cost being imposed on skippers and owners of vessels in terms of this code of practice. We endeavour to work closely with the Marine Survey Office in terms of teasing out every issue that arises. It is a fine line between compromising safety, which I will never argue for, and the imposition of cost.
I refer to the issue of Celtic Sea cod, which is an example of unity. I regard it as a success for the federation, working with the Administration, the Minister and his officials, that we managed to have the days-at-sea regulation, of which committee members have heard much of today, kept out of the Celtic Sea. The days-at-sea regime applies to waters on the east coast and the north-west coast, north of a line just off Killybegs. Keeping the regulation out of the Celtic Sea was a success and it gave us some breathing space but the Commission has indicated that it will revisit it. It is not enough for us to state that we are opposed to it. We must come up with some way of mitigating its worst impact. We are working with French, Belgian and UK colleagues to come up with an alternative plan. We are endeavouring to devise a plan that will meet the target. There is over-emphasis placed on cod. All research points to cod and salmon as the most important fish. It is an issue for Ireland that we are undermining our fish stocks. Regarding the Celtic Sea cod, we are endeavouring to work with colleagues in the countries to which I refer and we hope to propose a plan that will be acceptable to the Commission.
In the context of unity, we realise we cannot do it in isolation but we hope that by bringing out colleagues from other countries who fish these waters we can come up with a system that will be more acceptable to the Irish fishing industry. The degree of change being imposed on the industry has been compressed into far too narrow a timeline. We must guard against costs being imposed on the industry in respect of how the change is implemented.
Ms Caitlin Uí Aodha
I am married to a fisherman and have fished and Mr. Ebby Sheehan is a fisherman. We are stakeholders in the industry. Other speakers have referred to the code of practice and I will speak on a few other matters. Tomorrow, Ebby Sheehan will put on his oilskins and go down to the boat. Tomorrow, I will take my husband to Union Hall to fish. We know the reality of the industry. Europe talks about stakeholder involvement and that is why we are here today. It is time people heard the reality of what it is like in the fishing industry from the stakeholders.
The industry and every boat at sea today is united in the hope that all of us can do something for the future of the Irish fishing industry. Ireland is an island nation that has left the sea behind. John de Courcy Ireland said that sometime in the middle of the last century we turned our backs and got rid of our maritime history from our educational textbooks. In fact, we are not an island people at all. We might as well be living in Paris or New York because we left our roots behind.
Our seas are important to us and while we can go on about what Europe has done over the past 35 years, we must move forward. We have made mistakes, and Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and every party that has brought us into the EU made mistakes. We must gain something. Maybe we must go back to Europe. Perhaps this sounds silly because people say you cannot make changes to the Common Fisheries Policy but nothing is written in stone. If that was the case, we would not have a black President in America and we would not have the end of apartheid in South Africa. We are all part of Europe and we received good things from Europe but fisheries was a sector that suffered. Maybe it is time to return and renegotiate so that if Europe wants Lisbon, the people who suffered the most in the past 35 years want something also.
Members referred to unity, the IFA and farming. Fishing is different to farming. A fisherman cannot leave his boat, travel to Dublin on Friday and return on Friday evening to fish on his boat. A fisherman goes to sea on Thursday evening, on a boat costing €1 million to €3 million, with responsibility for the lives and safety of him and four or five crewmen, hoping to make enough money to feed their families. They must go to sea with peace of mind and cannot be thinking of the protest around the corner or what Europe is doing. We are here today to do that task for them. There is real concern, as Mr. Ebby Sheehan will agree, that we have very little time. Every fisherman is united behind us in different ways even if we are doing it differently and have arguments. That is the way we are but we are here to do what is good for the fishing industry. The unity we need is not among us but from politicians. We need politicians to realise that the Common Fisheries Policy has not worked. We have given and given and we could speak all day on the amount of fish that France gets. Ireland gets a very small quota in comparison.
We do not ask for hand-outs and we do not want to protest in Dublin about our pensions because no one looks after that but us. We do not want money for the industry. We want the right to fish. As fishermen, that is what we do. If we lose that, like days at sea, we will not have fish and we will not be able to fill our quotas. At that point there will be no point in labelling fish. We will be a country that imports fish. I could talk for days on this matter but those are the points I want to make.
I do not want to address unity because we are all united behind the industry, which needs to be looked after. This has not been done and it is about time this island nation realised the possibilities that exist. Ireland is going through a serious economic crisis and the people who may start to bring it out of that are the fishermen, the farmers and small shopkeepers. We only want the right to fish.
I meet politicians who tell me that Ireland has no tradition in fisheries. I could talk about every century through Ireland's ages where fishing sustained us. We had more than 20,000 boats working out of 88 ports around Ireland before the Famine. It sustained us and we had a tradition in fisheries. They tell us in Europe that we did not have a traditional right but we were occupied for 800 years. We did not have a farming tradition but farmers were not discriminated against when we went into Europe because we did not have a beef or lamb industry. Europe knew exactly what it was doing with regard to fisheries. We probably were ignorant in Ireland. We were told it was not sustainable but we had a sustainable industry. We did not have big boats but we did not have to go to France or Spain. All we had to do was leave our little ports and fish and sustain our families.
I thank the Chairman and I welcome the two groups here today. When it is available will the advice given to the committee by Dr. Gerard Hogan be published? It is in the national interest and in the interest of all fishermen that they know what the advice is. Will committee members seek their own independent advice to assess the suitability or otherwise of the proposed administrative sanctions?
Sometimes I put on my legal hat when I hear people speaking about criminalising fishermen. Criminal sanctions go back to Queen Victoria and they were also included in the 1959 Act. We must be careful and not go to Europe or the High Court and state that criminal sanctions were introduced by the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. It probably exasperated the situation but, unfortunately, criminal sanctions were already in place. I was a great advocate of and fought hard for administrative sanctions. It was one of two issues on which I feel we failed. Through the support of the industry during the passage of the Act and under pressure from all sides, we made 133 amendments to the Bill as originally published. Many changes were made but it was not quite to my satisfaction.
I urge the industry to be absolutely sure that in introducing a new regime of administrative sanctions it will not end up in a worse situation. I state this very sincerely because I support the industry and it is the background in which I was born and reared. Prior to penalty points for driving being introduced, I was stopped on a few occasions and I put my hand up for exceeding the speed limit and paid €50. Now the penalty points creep up and one can end up without a licence. However, I believe administrative sanctions are the way to go.
Commissioner Borg told us in Kenmare that we should have the same legal strategy for dealing with offences for fishermen whether they are in Italy, Spain, France or Ireland and at present this does not exist. Fishermen deserve this at least. Dr. Hogan is probably the leading constitutional expert and I was the one who asked that he assist the committee. He gave us very forthright advice. He is doing this on a voluntary basis and I know we have had some delays. My colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, sent a letter asking that we expedite the matter.
I agree that the Common Fisheries Policy is a critical milestone for the entire industry because if we do not get it right we will have to live with it for the next ten years. It is something on which everybody should work together in a cohesive approach. What do the groups think about the Cawley report? We were told it was the bible for the fishing industry. Did it achieve what it set out to do? Has it benefited fishermen?
The IFO mentioned salmon drift-netting. This was introduced by way of licence and the Minister of the day withdrew the licences against my strong opposition. Having stated this, is there now a need, almost three years later, to review salmon drift-netting? It was promised that it would be reviewed. I understand that those who took the payout signed up to agree not to return to the industry and this is a concern. There is a possibility that this can be examined in a limited fashion.
Approximately three years ago, the then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, went on record as giving assurances to the industry and to me as a Member of the Dáil that if aspects of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act were not satisfactory they would be revisited. Perhaps before this year is out the Federation of Irish Fishermen, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation or other groups might examine what aspects could be revisited.
I will not repeat the points made by other speakers but there is no point in considering in two years' time the negotiations on the Common Fisheries Policy. Now is the time to prepare for them. We must be innovative because having dealt with the industry for the past 20 years, I know that the French, Spanish or Scottish will not give an inch. We must come up with innovative methods to convince our partners in Europe.
Going back to 1972 or 1973 there is no doubt that fishermen got a raw deal in Europe. We cannot roll back this history but in a review of the Common Fisheries Policy we should fight might and main and urge the Minister to fly the flag. The fishing industry must be united. I will not take sides today but I am concerned because if Europe sees us as being in any way fragmented, I have no doubt that the French or Spanish will exploit those cracks. I hope we can go forward with a united front.
I welcome the delegations and they have made a case which I have fought on behalf of the fishing industry since I entered the Dáil in 1981. I disagree completely with decisions made in Europe concerning the fishing industry. I do not claim to have legal knowledge like Senator O'Donovan, who has just left, who blamed the laws of Queen Victoria. The law which floundered Irish fishermen and criminalised them was the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. It is a pity that Senator O'Donovan is not here to hear me say this because he supported it in the Dáil at the time.
The Act criminalises fishermen who have an extra box of fish. Fishermen were told to conserve stock. One does not conserve stock by dumping prime fish at sea. There should be an alternative way to allow someone who is over quota one week to include the extra in the quota for the following week. Dumping prime fish at sea is a cardinal sin as far as the hungry of the world are concerned. A conference on hunger will be held in Rome at the end of this year and it is an issue that must be tackled sincerely. I attended the previous conference in Rome and we made such good efforts at the conference to curb hunger throughout the world that we received a special audience with Pope John Paul II.
When Dr. Hogan addressed the committee last December I asked him what other European country criminalised its skippers for exceeding the quota and he answered that none do so. Where is the European law? The law enforcing this was introduced in Ireland in 2006 and therein lies the trouble. Dr. Hogan admitted it was wrong according to European law and that it was an Irish law. It is now up to our Minister to repeal that sanction against Irish fishermen and the fishing industry. That is what we will work towards. We will ask Mr. Hogan — or the Minister — to come back again and explain thoroughly. In fact, I have tabled a parliamentary question in which I intend to ask the Minister if he will state his plans, if any, to repeal the criminal sanctions against fishermen found to be in breach of the regulations of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdictions Act 2006. That question will be answered next week in the Dáil.
The Minister will be here next week, by the way.
Well, I hope he will have solid news for me next week. If he does not, I will remind him of his lack of interest in the matter.
I spoke to fishermen in Schull and in Union Hall during the week and they told me there was an abundance of cod in the Celtic Sea. They said they were beautiful, prime fish and they could see no reason there should be restrictions.
I first entered the Dáil in 1981, and in 1982 we had a debate on fisheries. At that time the Celtic Sea was closed for herring, and I told the Minister of the day the herring were dying of old age in the Celtic Sea for lack of being caught. That is on the record of the Dáil. At the age of ten, I was splitting mackerel for my late father in Dunkelly, in the Goleen-Dunmanus Bay area. He started buying autumn mackerel from three sailing boats in 1927, giving employment to between 30 and 40 fishermen from August to October. He cured them and exported them to Philadelphia for the American market. I remember that the name of the import company was Levinson's and its address was 16 North Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia 6, PA. Forty or 50 fishermen were bringing in autumn mackerel using a sailboat and another boat called a follower, which would follow the sailboat.
We are talking about fish today.
This is appertaining to fish. At the age of ten——
How long ago was that?
There is no denying my age. I was 76 years old last St. Patrick's day. At the age of ten, I was able to split mackerel by hand for my father.
Ms Uí Aodha gave a glowing speech earlier and I must say it was very sound. We have a fishing tradition here which goes back more than 60 years. I remember 14 trawlers coming into Schull in the 1940s and landing their catch; seven of them were owned by G. W. Biggs in Bantry. There is only one trawler fishing out of Schull today. That is a disgrace and a let-down for the fishing industry. Let us not cod ourselves: Europe was blamed for much of it, but successive national Governments have failed in their efforts to help the fishermen. I agree with Ms Uí Aodha that at this late point we need to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty. Now is the time, before the question is put to the country again, for the Minister to go to Europe with cap in hand. The Taoiseach needs to help also. He should argue in Europe that all our coastal communities will reject the Lisbon treaty again if something is not done to rectify things in the fishing industry. It is as plain as that. When the Minister comes in next week I hope to have the opportunity of questioning him further on this issue.
The witnesses have a grievance. I say to the two organisations here and the other two organisations involved that they should come together. United they will stand, but divided they will fall. They will have to ensure there is no acrimony. All the witnesses spoke very well this morning and they deserve full credit from every Deputy and Senator. Everybody should help in ensuring the renegotiation of fishing policy for Ireland. After all, we have 24% of the fishing waters of Europe but only 4% of the catch. That will have to be rectified. The other European countries have been pillaging our fish for the past 35 years. The witnesses deserve all our support and they will get it from me, at any rate, while I am in this House.
I could rant for an hour but I will say what I have to say in as structured a way as possible. My colleague was speaking about the Fighting Hunger conference. Looking around this table, I can see there is no hunger here anyway.
A Member
One never knows.
With regard to the cod recovery plan, I tabled a priority question to the Minister last Tuesday in which I asked about days at sea and exemptions for small boats in this regard. I mentioned 14-metre boats, although I know many people will hammer me for that.
What I have learned about the fishing industry since I came here is that the big man is wiping out the small man. I will not get into the divisions between the groups; instead, I will return to the dispersal of the mackerel quota between polyvalents and RSWs. The latter received a quota of 20,500 tonnes, while the polyvalents got 1,500 tonnes. I have received letters recently from fish factories in Dingle that must import mackerel to keep their doors open. I cannot for the life of me understand why that would happen, or why it should be allowed to happen. Why is it that Cork Airport is the busiest fishing port in the country? We are surrounded by sea. The blame lies with the Government for not protecting our resources. We have given away our fish in Europe, and we have gas in the Corrib field from whose proceeds the Exchequer will get nothing. This has happened over a long time. I wonder why the State cannot protect its resources.
On the matter of cod recovery and the protection of fish, 21 days at sea in a month is not realistic. During Question Time on Tuesday I asked the Minister to provide funding for the industry steering group — which includes members of BIM, the Marine Institute, the Federation of Irish Fishermen and others — to allow it to carry out real-time scientific research and provide real evidence. This will take time and will involve investment. The Minister did not make any commitment but I will not leave it at that because I believe the argument exists.
Concerning the habitats directive, a €5 million fund from Europe was not spent by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This money was intended for the carrying out of studies in areas designated as habitats but the Department did not spend it. It sent the money back. The Department closed Cromane last year although people depend on it. Employment was mentioned. One job at sea creates seven on land. There is great potential in this and I cannot see why the Government does not take this on board because job creation and a natural resource are involved.
I listened with interest to Mr. O'Donoghue's thoughts on the Common Fisheries Policy and the French line. There is room for achievement here and there are goals that might be attained. Mr. O'Flynn mentioned code of practice, emphasising safety. I return to the fishermen in Cromane with their small boats. They had seven dredgers for the mussel industry but none was allowed operate because their certification was not yet in place. The men in Cromane were able to rent a boat in Northern Ireland, however, an exact replica of their own, and bring it down to harvest their mussels. Some of what is going on in the fishing industry is maddening. Discarding is the only criminality taking place in the industry.
As a point of information for the industry, we are well advanced in bringing forward legislation to deal with the issue of criminal sanctions for minor fishery offences. We look to the industry for support when that legislation will come to the House. I shall leave it at that.
I apologise to the representatives of the organisations for my late attendance. I was otherwise detained.
I do not know where the unity came from but I agree with Mr. Ó Cinnéide. It is a bit like telling political parties they should all join the same party and sing from the same hymn sheet. It is almost as difficult as explaining to 30 different trade unions that they should amalgamate into one union. I have always found the organisations to be helpful, fair, balanced and very professional in their approach. It has been a great learning curve for me, as spokesman of my party, to meet and discuss these issues with people. They have explained them very clearly to me and I have found it to be a great process, personally and in my role as an Opposition spokesperson.
Morally speaking, it is very difficult to reconcile discards and conferences on world hunger. It is immoral, 2,000 years after the miracle with the loaves and fishes, that a restrictive law requires people to dump perfectly good fish overboard. It is wrong that in an age when poverty still affects a great number of people and hunger is a real issue, a sector of society is required by law to dump fish back into the sea. It is despicable and the worst of the worst. I blame law makers, wherever they may be.
No one denies there are many considerable difficulties in this area. If there were one serious initiative on the part of Government to drive us out of our economic difficulty it should be to consider this area as a natural resource. Fish is perfectly good for diet and health and that is a public health issue. Fishing is also good for creating jobs in rural economies and it would be a very good initiative to reboot the economy in this way. I made that point with regard to the schools infrastructure. Schools should be built where they are needed. There is genuine potential to reboot the economy if the political will exists.
I do not agree with criminal sanctions and have said so publicly. This committee debated the issue at length and an eminent, well-respected senior counsel has established that it is possible to move from criminal sanctions to administrative sanctions.
One might consider the drugs hauls off the coast of west Cork, especially the one that occurred almost in the back yard of Deputy Sheehan.
He found it himself.
By coincidence, of course. The people who police our coastline are the fishermen. A lot of goodwill exists here because of horror concerning the drugs business. None the less, the State set up the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority by virtue of legislation passed in the Oireachtas. This is only my second term and although none of us knows our future, I have never heard as much debate about any other aspect of legislation passed by both Houses during the last term. It is mentioned regularly. With hindsight, everyone appears to have 20-20 vision. For the life of me I cannot understand the difficulty. Senator O'Donovan, along with Deputy O'Keeffe, pushed through 114 amendments on Committee Stage. Given that, it is now time to revisit the matter and take the advice of Mr. Gerard Hogan. The committee should take the lead in this and seek the transfer to administrative sanctions. Clearly, there is an appetite for that.
I have some questions about the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. That organisation has been before the committee on a number of occasions. Have there been and are there regular meetings between the organisations and the SFPA? Can these happen on an individual basis too, with members strolling in to meet these people? I believe there was some controversy last year. Have there been any incidents that compromised the safety of fishermen and their crews as a result of the restrictions imposed by the SFPA? That is a very important issue and one I have raised at this committee with the authority. If it is the case that because of sanctions the lives of trawler owners and their crews and fishermen have been put at risk, it is very serious that an agent of the State would compromise the personal safety of any person. How are relations in general between the SFPA and fishermen?
There is the financial issue. Unless a person had been under a stone for the past six months he or she could not but be aware of the dire financial straits the country is in and the behaviour of some of the banks. Much has been said about stimulus packages and making money available to small and medium enterprises. What is the situation with bank loans for boat owners? Is it true that 60% of the polyvalent fleet have interest-only loans? If that is the case it is very worrying. The debate about the economic crisis tends, quite rightly, to concern itself with mortgages but I wish to consider briefly this industry. Have the banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer been willing to discuss situations with the organisations wherein people cannot afford to pay back loans? As taxpayers, we bailed out the banks and the least they can do is bail out people in this industry who have major difficulties in trying to keep their operations afloat, no pun intended.
This situation arises not only because of the economic crisis but principally because of the restrictive sanctions that were introduced during the last Oireachtas term. I made this point in respect of fixed interest mortgages. It is daft that we, as a country, do not expect banks to pass on, or to renegotiate, fixed rate mortgages when the ECB rate has been dropping consistently. It will probably reach as near to 0% as we have ever seen but still there is no benefit for this particular section. Has there been any leverage in this matter between banks and the industry? If there has not, the least we can expect from Government is that it should oblige banks legally to consider the situation and renegotiate loans, giving some quid pro quo to the taxpayer.
I shall bring my final point to the Labour Party conference in Mullingar this weekend. The Lisbon treaty was rejected last year. This was no surprise to me because anyone who had a finger on the public pulse would have arrived at that conclusion. At about 11 o'clock on the day of the count people were almost speechless. There was an arrogance about those promoting acceptance of Lisbon. I am pro-Europe. My party will seek guarantees from the European Commission and the European Parliament in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is very important as far as my party is concerned. It is also important to me as someone who has been an active member of a trade union since I began working at the age of 18 years. It is also very important that we receive guarantees on neutrality and the retention of our Commissioner. It is even more pressing that we receive guarantees from the European Commission and our colleagues in the European Union in respect of the future of the Irish fishing industry. Bargaining tools should be used when the Taoiseach travels to Brussels to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty at the European Council meeting and when giving a commitment to the European Union. It is very important that the fisheries issue is brought forward because of the inherent unfairness locked into the Common Fisheries Policy in recent years.
I realise there has been a consultative process in respect of the Joint Committee on European Affairs which has met ad libitum, but many of these exercises can be viewed as simply for the optics. We should attempt to be real and meaningful; I am trying to be as genuine as possible about the matter. If we are to be meaningful about what we have all said about this issue, we must lock in conditions as part of our negotiations on the Lisbon treaty. Otherwise, it will be rejected again.
I attended the protest in Clonakilty last year. I have listened to people who have been affected by the manner in which attempts have been made at European level to dismantle the industry. We are almost constantly on their backs and harping on at fishermen, whether it be about restrictive sanctions or the manner in which we do not negotiate properly at European level. We got a raw deal for the industry. I am trying to be as genuine as possible about the Lisbon treaty. I do not attempt to dictate to any organisation in terms of what they should do, but I will make the point at my party conference this weekend that the fisheries issue and the marine sector are as important as the matter of the retention of our Commissioner, tax harmonisation and neutrality.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. Ebby Sheehan
Deputies Creed and O'Sullivan raised the issue of unity. I do not understand why we wasted such an amount of time speaking about the matter, as we have unity within the industry. There are two organisations. I am not a member of the FIF, Federation of Irish Fishermen, but I have a very good relationship with the chairman, Mr. Ó Cinnéide. If we attend a meeting, we normally pass over our differences. I do not wish to leave the room with the perception that there is a difference between the organisations. That is nonsensical. We are all here for the good of the industry.
I do not believe we will meet my initial point today. We have spoken about the review of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2012 and the gentlemen present are very capable of negotiating a good deal. I would not take that from them. However, we have an immediate problem, as outlined by Senator McCarthy. There is an excess figure of 50% of our polyvalent fleet on an interest only loan, which is unsustainable. One cannot continue in such circumstances, whether it be a business, a factory or a fishing boat. If we are hit with anything such as a cut in quotas or a reduction in the number of days at sea, we will be out of business. I put the following question to the elected representatives present: do we want to have an industry? If we do, we must do something about it. If we wait for two years, it will be too late because a great number of fishermen will have gone out of business by then.
Mr. Michael Walsh
I agree with Mr. Sheehan and Ms Uí Aodha on the matter of unity. The industry is what is important. Although there are two organisations, as long as they are working for the overall good, that is what is important.
There are several important issues to consider. I have a good deal of experience in fishing, as well as at a representative level, and fear that at times there are too many issues on the table. The committee has referred many times to where we were and what we should have done. Various comments were made. What we should have is gone and has been since 1973. It is to the shame of the country that we gave it away without realising what we had. The legislation is on the table and that is what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis to keep the fleet at sea. We must also consider the way we will operate into the future. These are the issues to be addressed.
My fear with regard to unity in the industry is that one may undermine the work of the other. As we stated last week, the 21 day period across the board sounds great to any fisherman or fisherman's representative. One day I walked off a fishing boat and wrote numerous proposals which made logical sense to me. I brought them to Brussels and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but because there had been no scientific evaluation, they were not approved. The point is we can say anything we wish but the industry needs leadership and must find the way ahead. It has significant potential. We must work together on both sides of the table to establish how that potential can be realised to secure a return to the State. There are benefits, but I maintain it is a two-tiered system. Reference was made to the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Scottish fishing industry is moaning, but it is operating the system. It is also examining what is on the table, how it can best manage the kilowatt days and how it can keep the fleet at sea on a day-to-day basis. On another level we must consider what we can do with the industry and on the political side. We must make the best possible case for an alternative management system. There is a risk that there is a perception reaching the fishing industry that one organisation supports a figure of 21 days across the board, while the other is playing politics or too close to the State, but we are living in the real world. Members of the committee are very experienced and professional enough to realise that legislation is only that. That is the way the industry must move forward. There is too much pessimism. Reference has been made to the banks. Sometimes Ireland Inc. is blocked by the day-to-day business of trying to keep the industry running to actually consider how the industry can benefit, given what is available. How do we change this? How do we influence the science? All of this must be done. The review of the Common Fisheries Policy, influencing the science, fish imports and managing the quota such that we do not discard fish are all important issues. The current system which involves quotas, fishing effort and licences is obsolete.
Mr. Maddock referred to the evaluation of fishing licences and someone asked how the system worked. If I have a licence with an entitlement to fish for 100 days in the Irish Sea and if Mr. O'Flynn has a licence with an entitlement to fish for two days, a fisherman would pay more for the licence with an entitlement to fish for 100 days. The problem is that the State will maintain that the licence belongs to it but it is no longer that simple. We must examine how we can interlink fishing licences, fishing opportunities and quotas. They must be tied together if we are to move forward.
I am worn out, as I am sure my colleagues are. I have been in this job seven years and it is a constant battle. I am considering whether I should return to the industry in which I was significantly involved. I envisage a future, but we must change our mindset and do so together. We must play different games. The industry must believe there is a goal worth working towards.
I was asked two questions about safety and it is important I provide the answers. I commend the comments of Mr. Sheehan on the issue of small boats, an issue I have raised several times in recent weeks. It is an absolute disgrace that the European Commission introduced a regulation which resulted in small boats being tied up. A case was brought to my attention two weeks ago where an 11.4 m boat in County Donegal was obliged to sail to Dunmore East to fish because the operator had no track record of fishing in County Donegal or on the Irish Sea off Howth. He asked me what he could do. I indicated nothing could be done until we found a solution. I made the argument to the Department last week and make it again to the committee that boats less than 15 m in length should be completely exempt.
There are safety considerations. Last week an official made the comment to me that the safety of a vessel was in the skipper's hands. That is a fair comment. However, skippers have no choice but to move outside the comfort zone offered by inshore fishing and recovery areas and get to areas not covered by fishing effort provisions. There are safety considerations on boats and fishermen must make decisions everyday, regardless of whether they have a quota. If anything can be done or any support can be given to get small boats exempted from that, it is critical. If that is not done we will find ourselves in Dublin tomorrow in an unsatisfactory situation.
Those who run small boats will make an argument about how they can get more effort and days. The only way they can get it, as Mr. Maddock alluded to earlier on, is to take it from one lot of boats and give it to another. Immediately, this creates a split in the industry. The safety element of small boats must be driven home. We continue to do it at our level and will discuss it again tomorrow. These are inshore fisheries in coastal communities which are being driven out of business every single day because they cannot survive with the legislation.
There is a need for management but there is now a need for focus if we want to go ahead with this industry and I honestly think that is what everybody needs to do. We need to ask how we can turn this industry around.
Mr. Joe Maddock
I thank the Chairman. I thank all the contributors today from the Oireachtas and Deputy Sheehan for his usual humanity. His heart is always in the right place.
A period of 21 days is unrealistic if we are not headed for some kind of radical change. The industry is not in favour of some kind of radical change. We can go to all the meetings in the world and try to mitigate the disaster that is upon us with the current days at sea.
There will be casualties at the end of this. What will we say then? Will we say that we did not cry "stop", "halt" or "resist"? One could resist or put forward something that is not so radical. Until this new regime was brought in prawn trawlers could fish for 21 days per month. That was the EU regulation. I merely wanted it for the rest of the fleet. These things are possible. If Ireland Inc. is in control of its own fishery sector, we can surely be a little bit imaginative.
Very few boats would use the effort of 21 days per month, but there are boats which would need to use it. The amount of effort one calculates on that would still mean boats would be tied up for three months of the year. The amount of effort used now under the effort regime we have is sometimes 45% or 50%. The new regime is dynamite because it relates back to what the boat did in the given years. That is the difficulty.
If we do not allow time for boats to fish they will go out of business. The minimum the trawler men say they need is 21 days. That is why I put this proposal forward. I, and the others with me, need to try to convince people of its merit.
I have been at all the reviews of the Common Fisheries Policy and was there before it. I have some idea of how systems work. People never give up the powerful hold. The French have taken it all towards themselves, even in the most recent talks at Christmas. They railed off Area D, which is down at their own coast, and Ireland is now excluded from there for cod fishing. People say no change can be made.
In fact, a track record is a mechanism for stealing somebody else's rights. We had far more concessions from the initial agreement than we have now. We had rights in Area 8 to fish for some of the same quotas we fish for in Area 7. We had open fishing for scallops. It was all negotiated away under the term "track record". People will say that in the interests of relative stability we should not increase the quota but they will take all the rights anyway and impose a mechanism that puts the other people out of business.
We are on their quotas. Our quotas are low and our fleet is small but we must talk loudly and clearly for the fishermen. These are very good men. I say it all the time. The country needs organised fishermen. The more organised fishermen are, the better. There are different courses for different horses. We all fight for Ireland Inc. and when we go to Brussels I will sometimes have an alternative view to what others have. Whether that is good or bad, it is the view of our organisation.
When we tried to keep cod recovery out of the Celtic Sea, members of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation spoke very strongly at the meetings with the two Ministers in Dublin before they went to Brussels. We met the Ministers in Brussels. People had thrown in the towel before we went but we argued very strongly that this could be saved, perhaps just for one year. At least it was a fight and the Minister did good work on that day. He pulled out all the stops and used his negotiation skills and all the things available to him to overturn a French proposal. It took some doing and has never, to my knowledge, been done before in fishing negotiations.
The same applies to the Hague preferences. There were waivers on that as well but our organisation went straight to the point. The Hague preferences were one of the best concessions ever negotiated and were negotiated by Dr. Garret FitzGerald when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was a good deal and gave us a little bit from the wreckage that was the share out.
I worry about the politicians in this country. They are nice people and rarely want to refuse anybody anything. That has landed our country and our industry in some difficulty. Unless the licensing system holds that a new Minister cannot come along and give out another 60 licences or another large boat for somewhere else as a result of political pressure, we will not have stability in the business. It is officialdom that needs stability. We will fight the corner for fishermen, as will the good people here. We must make sure that our boats have enough time to fish and are not harassed when they do so. I emphasis the term "harass".
Does Mr. Ó Cinnéide wish to come in on a point?
Mr. Michael Walsh
I agree with a lot of what Mr. Maddock said. There is no place, whether here, in Europe or the Departments, where one can go in and put one's case. One will be asked to put one's case on the table and prove it. We have talked about the review of the CFP. As I said at the outset, if the 21 day period can work — I do not think it will meet the objectives but I stand to be corrected — I suggest the IFO, given that it is its proposal, get a complete scientific evaluation of this.
Mr. Maddock is in the job long enough to know that, in the end, when he goes to Brussels with that plan he will need it to be evaluated and will need to make sure it matches fishing effort, mortality and all the parts of the legislation that have us where we are. If it can work, I am quite sure we would strongly consider supporting it. It needs to be evaluated and it would be time well spent, because between saying it here and getting it approved at the European Commission, as Mr. Maddock is well aware, there is a considerable distance.
Mr. Lorcán Ó Cinnéide
I have a couple of remarks on the Cawley strategy. It is quite clear the world has changed a great deal since the Cawley report was issued and its strategy put in place. I imagine the amount of money available has evaporated. It is time for us to revisit the strategy and tailor it in accordance with changed circumstances in the industry and changed financial circumstances, and have a more realistic plan. There is no point in our pursuing multi-million euro plans when the Department will tell us the next day that there is no money for them. I am not saying that it should be abandoned. We need a positive plan that has been updated with the involvement of the sector.
I appreciate the interest of this committee and its predecessor, which have kindly requested our presence on many occasions in this area, and its work to date. It is extremely important. I take on board the need for us to evaluate Dr. Hogan's proposals. There are proposals for administrative sanctions in the control regulation put forward by the European Union. The problem, however, is that the cure is worse than the disease. I said to that committee that we are being told to be careful what we wish for because the proposals are far more rigid than what we had in mind when we discussed it here. It is important that we have a strong view of how we would bring in administrative sanctions for ourselves rather than have Europe dictate inappropriate proposals to us. That is what is on the cards. The control regulation is being debated, we have made our inputs and the European Council of Fisheries Ministers will possibly decide on it in the first half of this year. That has significant implications for those who must live with it, and for the rest of us.
We have places on the sea fisheries protection authority consultative committee. There are and always will be difficulties and tensions between the regulators and the regulated, much of which has to do with the law they are enforcing and the manner in which they enforce it. There has been some progress and there is a somewhat better atmosphere than there was in the early stages. We all agree, however, that there is a long way to go.
Unless we have the resources to conduct the science we will not meet the scientific criteria. Like it or not these exist. Trials are under way, but we are told time and again, like every agency, that there has been a major cutback in money. Fishermen are willing to contribute in kind. There is a growing awareness of the need for them to be involved in research at ground level. None of that is any good unless we have the scientists and gear technologists who must be paid. That money must be made available now, not next year or the year after. It must survive as a priority in this budgetary environment. We will not allow the Government to tell us that we are the victims of financial rectitude although we recognise that we all face that problem.
Banking is a sensitive issue for individuals. I and many of my colleagues have dealt on a one-to-one basis with banks for our members. It is true that much of the fleet operates on interest only, has no resilience and is vulnerable to any shock. The suggestion that this be broadened and the banks forced to make better use of the European Central Bank and investment bank money to provide the requisite support and understanding is positive.
I thank the Chairman, the committee and all who have contributed to this discussion.
Ms Caitlin Uí Aodha
Michael Walsh has said most of what I wanted to say. I spoke to a fisherman from Clogher Head recently who reckons that up to €40 million has been invested there in recent years but that area is being hit by the restriction on days at sea. Most of that money was spent on prawn fishing boats but because approximately 2% of their fishing is cod they could be closed down. It is insane to think that they could go out of business for that small percentage of cod. If they cannot fish in their own area they will move down so the fishing effort is moved to another area, where all the boats go, which is not good.
If money is not provided to do the scientific work we will be in serious trouble because we will not have the facts and figures necessary to keep our quotas up.
Go raibh míle maith agaibh as éisteacht linn. Tá áthas orainn teacht anseo. Tá súil agam go mbeimid in ann rud éigin a dhéanamh don tionscnamh as seo ar aghaidh.
Is it agreed that the clerk of the committee will inform the Minister and his officials about the debate that took place here today? Agreed.
I thank the Federation of Irish Fishermen and the Irish Fishermen's Organisation for their comprehensive presentations and for answering the questions raised here today.