Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Jan 2024

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach

I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones.

Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that they have a full defence in any defamation action in respect of anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice in this regard. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside of the proceedings held by the committee, of any matters arising from the proceedings.

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 House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online at a committee meeting when that participation is within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts and any attempt to do so will result in said member having his or her online access removed.

The committee will hear from officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on further scrutiny of EU legislative proposals: COM (2023) 495, proposal to amend EU regulation No. 2023/194 fixing fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks in union waters for 2023 and for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, fixing deep sea stock fishing opportunities for 2023 and 2024; COM (2023) 578, proposal for a Council regulation fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea for 2024; and COM (2023) 587, proposal for a Council regulation fixing, for 2024, 2025 and 2026, fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending EU regulation No. 2023/194 as regards deep sea stocks.

The witnesses appearing at the meeting are: Ms Sinéad McSherry, assistant secretary with responsibility for seafood and the marine; Ms Suzanne Brennan, principal officer and head of the marine programmes division; and Ms Anna O'Sullivan, principal officer and head of sea-fisheries policy and management division. They are very welcome to the meeting. The committee appreciates them making themselves available so soon after our previous meeting, which took place last Wednesday. A very long voting block in the Dáil, which was outside our control, led to our inability to reconvene on that evening. These are the demands of democracy.

As the witnesses have already delivered their opening statement, I had intended to proceed with questions and answers. However, I have been informed by the secretariat that the witnesses would like to make the opening statement again. Is that correct?

Ms Sinéad McSherry

If it would help members who were not here on the previous occasion, we would like to make it again.

An Cathaoirleach

In that case, we will allow Ms McSherry to make her opening statement again.

Ms Sinéad McSherry

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the invitation to speak to them today on fishing opportunities. I am the assistant secretary with responsibility for seafood and the marine. I am joined by my colleagues Ms O'Sullivan and Ms Brennan. Before I go into the detail of the Commission proposals highlighted by the committee, I will give a brief overview of the process for setting out the fishing opportunities for the EU fleet.

Most of the commercial stocks of interest to the Irish fleet are covered by the total allowable catch, TAC, and quota system. Following the UK's withdrawal from the EU, some 40 of the fish stocks in which Ireland has an interest, which were previously exclusively Union resources, are now shared resources under international law. Only two small stocks – plaice and sole in ICES area 7 b–c, off our west coast – for which Ireland has a quota are regarded as EU-only. Mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring are agreed upon at coastal state negotiations. The TAC for albacore tuna is set through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

The European Commission has sole competence to negotiate with third countries on behalf of the EU on the setting of fishing opportunities. The negotiations of significant interest to Ireland are coastal states, EU–UK, EU–Norway-UK, and EU–Norway. The process for the negotiations is as follows: the EU Council sets down a mandate for the negotiations. Member states are kept closely involved throughout the negotiations. Meetings between the Commission, Council secretariat and member states are held regularly during the negotiations. Member states are kept fully briefed by the Commission and advised of progress and, in turn, input their positions and concerns through these co-ordination meetings. The Commission also undertakes to keep stakeholders informed of the progress of the negotiations. Once agreement has been reached, for example, between the EU and UK, the Council must consider and approve the draft written record of the negotiations before it can be signed by the Commission on behalf of the EU.

The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, met stakeholders throughout the negotiation process. He also undertook a sustainability impact assessment, SIA, as part of the preparation for the TAC-setting process. The SIA draws its conclusions from a consultation process with all major stakeholders and expert contributions from the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The objective of the SIA is to consider the overall impacts the proposal could have on the sustainability of the fishing sector from biological, economic and social perspectives. The Minister also met other stakeholders, including fishing industry representatives and environmental NGOs, to give a further opportunity to stakeholders to outline their positions. He presented the SIA to this committee on 25 October 2023.

Regarding the Commission proposals, I will begin with COM (2023) 587. This is the proposal for the main TAC and quota regulation for 2024, covering the stocks found in the north Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. This includes the stocks found in the waters around Ireland. Where the scientific advice for a stock has not yet been received, or international negotiations for stocks are ongoing when the proposal is published, the fishing opportunities for those stocks are marked as pro memoria in the proposal. As these negotiations had not concluded when proposal COM (2023) 587 was published, most of the fishing opportunities were listed as pro memoria.

In previous years, as the EU-UK negotiations had not concluded by the deadline set out in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, provisional TACs and quotas had to be agreed by Ministers at the December fisheries Council. This was to ensure continuity for fishing fleets pending the outcome of the negotiations.

It was not necessary this year, as all third country negotiations concluded in advance of the December Council, meaning that the final full year's quotas applied from 1 January.

Coastal states negotiations for 2024 took place in October and the coastal state parties agreed on setting tax for coastal state stocks of mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring. The EU-UK negotiations for 2024 began on 25 October, and the written record was signed by both parties on 5 December. The trilateral negotiations between the EU, UK and Norway began on 20 October and concluded on 8 December. Bilateral negotiations between the EU and Norway began on 7 November and the agreed record was signed on 8 December.

The final outcome of the TAC-setting process for 2024 represents a balanced result overall. Ireland has increases for a number of our important commercial stocks, including prawns in the Porcupine Bank, Celtic Sea monkfish and megrim, and north-west haddock and whiting. Restricted by-catch-only TACs have been set for vulnerable stocks to help them recover. Most significantly, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, successfully negotiated a permanent allocation of additional mackerel for the Irish fleet, worth approximately €3 million annually for Irish fishers.

As regards COM (2023) 495, it relates to an amendment of the 2023 TAC and quota regulation to set the definitive TAC for anchovy in waters off the coast of Spain and Portugal, as well as waters around the Madeira and Canary Islands. When the 2023 TAC and quota regulation was adopted, the scientific advice for this stock had not yet been published and the provisional TAC had been set to allow for fishing to continue. This proposal did not impact on Ireland, as we do not have a quota for this stock, and similarly, COM (2023) 578 relates to the setting of fishing opportunities for stocks in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea for 2024. Ireland is not involved in this proposal, as we do not have fisheries in these areas.

I hope that information was helpful and my colleagues and I are here to take members' questions.

An Cathaoirleach

As Deputy Collins was in the middle of a question the last day when the bell went, we will allow him to resume. Deputy Mac Lochlainn has indicated next.

Deputy Michael Collins

I thank the witnesses. They know what happened last time. It was out of our control but there were three and a half hours of voting. That was unfair and unexpected.

The main reason they are here today is because I called for a discussion on these issues as the passed through the committee, particularly on quotas and the current situation Irish fishermen find themselves in. The National Inshore Fishermens Association appeared before us last Wednesday and its representatives painted a bleak picture of the reality of the crisis they are facing. While the quotas we are talking about are probably more to do with pelagic fisheries, we need to look at all issues in respect of fishing. To date, the fishermen have not been at the wheel in relation to negotiations for a serious change of mind-set in this country and my worry is we do not debate these issues. Nothing ever changes, everything is expected to be a box-ticking exercise and we move on quickly. At the moment, I believe the Government and the officials must step up their efforts in EU talks regarding Iceland's bid to access Irish fishing waters. We simply need to stand up for our fishing industry, as other EU member states do. This will have devastating consequences for further fish stocks in Ireland if it is to go ahead.

Sadly, the crisis that Irish fishing is facing at present is that the biggest deal it ever got in recent years was a decommissioning deal to get rid of Irish fishermen out of Irish waters. The Irish blue whiting quota for 2024 is valued at approximately €15 million. If the proposed deal proceeds, Iceland, a non-EU member with a population of less than 380,000, will be able to catch nearly the same amount of blue whiting in Irish waters as we do. This is despite our population exceeding 5.2 million. How can this be considered a fair deal? Are we gaining the opportunity to catch an additional €15 million worth of fish in Icelandic and EU waters through the deal? No. We believe that only a small fraction of this amount is being offered to Ireland, yet countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden are each set to benefit more from the deal than Ireland. How can officials or the Minister portray this as a fair deal when the data suggests otherwise?

As for COM (2023) 495 and COM (2023) 578, the witnesses may state this does not relate to this issue and yes, they can argue that point with me. Certainly, however, the fact that we are not gaining any kind of significant fish quotas that might have our fishing industry and our colleagues out there feel that someone is fighting the case for them means that we are on a hiding to nothing. We are looking at 75% of fish caught in Irish seas being caught by non-Irish fishing boats, which is an astonishing figure. If you go to Castletownbere in west Cork, the road is riddled with Spanish trucks taking Irish fish out of Irish waters. You could not write it. Had it been put together in a comic 20 years ago, people would have rolled around on the floor laughing but it is a fact. The facts are that we are not fighting for extra quota when we should be fighting for serious extra quota, not just a small one for bluefin tuna. The inshore fishermen spoke about that the last day. Irish fishermen have been begging for a bluefin quota but there is nothing. It is as though we are afraid to ask in case we get refused or get a slap on the knuckles. Europe cannot dictate that much to us. Europe has to work with Ireland but we have to seriously challenge Europe for the first time ever and get some significant changes, because we are simply ticking a box year in, year out and nothing decent is happening. As I said the best deal in town is a decommissioning deal, which many fishermen reluctantly took.

In respect of bluefin tuna, the witnesses should explain to us whether a quota is being sought. Why have we not got a quota for Irish fishermen? Have they an explanation or light at the end of the tunnel for the national inshore fishermen who have lost quota?

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Collins, the witnesses have come in to address the Commission proposals today. Serious issues were raised by the inshore fishermen on the last day that warrant having a discussion with the Department. In fairness, the witnesses were asked in today on the Commission proposals.

Deputy Michael Collins

I appreciate that but they might be able to enlighten us briefly on some of the other issues too.

An Cathaoirleach

A lot of serious questions were raised by the inshore fishermen and I presume the Deputy and others will seek a meeting with the Department to discuss the issues that they raised.

Deputy Michael Collins

Certainly, but they also might be able to enlighten us on some of those issues because that light at the end of the tunnel is not there at present regardless of whether you are an inshore fishermen or a pelagic fishermen. In respect of COM (2023) 578 and COM (2023) 495 - there is one on the previous page as well - we need to know where Irish pelagic fishermen are going at this stage. Will there be extra quota this year for them? Are we going to be faced with the same situation where we see more quota being taken from them and given to Iceland? Maybe some of our registered trawlers in Holland are getting some small part of Icelandic waters but not Irish fishermen owning those trawlers. That is the situation here and I would appreciate the witnesses giving a full rundown as to where we are going.

Ms Sinéad McSherry

The first issue I will deal with is the bluefin tuna. The Deputy is aware that bluefin obviously is a highly migratory stock that spawns in the Mediterranean and migrates all over the North-East Atlantic. Ireland does not have a national quota for bluefin tuna. The only way that we will obtain a share of the EU quota, is to change the relative stability key within the EU. Again, as the Deputy has heard at this committee before, that would require a majority of member states to agree under the qualified majority voting system. In terms of the by-catch quota that we have, a small amount of by-catch is available to Ireland and that is for use in our very important northern albacore tuna fishery and the Celtic Sea herring fishery. Again, this is because Bluefin tuna can be a by-catch in those areas. The issue for Ireland and the issue the Minister has addressed consistently with the EU is to look for a reopening of that relative stability key. It is important to note that within the EU, if quota is to be given to Ireland for bluefin tuna, it must come away from another member state. These decisions are made by qualified majority voting. However, the Minister has repeatedly called for a reopening of that stock in recent years. It will be challenging to try to secure that. I refer to one thing Ireland has been able to do.

In 2018, we secured agreement that allowed countries without a commercial quota to set up a catch, tag and release fishery. That can contribute to some of the collection of scientific data that may feed into future considerations. In respect of bluefin tuna, the Department feels there is a case to reopen the relative stability key. However, that is an ongoing piece of work by the Minister. That is the update on that issue at this point.

As for stocks covered by the proposals the Department is here to speak to today for the inshore sector, pollock is the one of significant interest and of concern to it. The key difference this year is that Ireland has a by-catch-only TAC for pollock in areas VI and VII which will impact on the fishing fleet in general and on the inshore sector. It is important to note that this came about on foot of the introduction of some scientific advice by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, and that is the basis on which the Commission takes its fisheries advice. The Marine Institute addressed that specifically when the Minister was before this committee for the social impact assessment, SIA, in October. However, if the Deputy seeks further information on that piece of advice and how it has impacted on the TAC for pollock in areas VI and VII, the Department can send this back to the committee through the Chair.

I am trying to recall the Deputy's questions. We talked about bluefin tuna and pollock. On the exploratory discussions that are ongoing between member states in respect of any discussions with Iceland, the Deputy will be aware that the EU holds the competence for all third-party negotiations between the EU and other third countries. To be clear, Ireland does not negotiate directly with Iceland. The Minister has regularly informed all stakeholders that there have been exploratory discussions at EU level. There has been no agreement and no decision has been taken but I will say that the Minister has taken a strong line in protecting Ireland's interests. When the Minister makes a decision on the policy that he will take, that will be a matter for the Minister at that point. However, there has been no agreement at this point.

Deputy Michael Collins

As other members wish to speak, I will be brief. Bluefin tuna is of serious concern to many fishermen and they feel there is huge opportunity in Irish waters. This committee has been talking about this issue for a while. I have been here since 2016; it is now 2024 and we are no further ahead. Nobody is going home with a bluefin tuna in a box in Ireland. Ms McSherry stated that the quota must come from another country but Ireland has been giving its quota away. Why has there not been a deal? Why is Ireland the only country that seems to be losing its quotas to the point that it is decommissioning boats to get rid of them; putting Irish boats out of Irish waters. Other countries do not seem to have to give anything, not an inch. They do not have to give a box, 100 tonnes nor 1,000 tonnes of bluefin tuna - nothing. Surely to God, there was some negotiating leverage there through the years, given that Ireland was repeatedly giving and that another country could have been giving. We have trawlers throughout the world fishing for bluefin tuna and making brilliant incomes by it, which they deserve because they work hard for it, but yet, Irish fishermen cannot. It is an astonishing situation. It seems to me that there is weakness on Ireland's side whereby we are not able to sell ourselves in Europe whereas other countries can. Other countries can get the quota and they can come in and eat into Ireland's quota yet we cannot touch theirs.

Ms Sinéad McSherry

To respond to the Deputy, Ireland does not have a quota. I will defer to my colleague, Ms. O'Sullivan, in terms of some of the background on this issue but those quotas were set. There is a relative stability key. Any change to that will be within the EU. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT, set the quota and the EU has its relative stability share within that. As I said, the Minister has been speaking to and making moves to try and reopen that relative stability key. The quota that Ireland hopes to gain will have to come from another European state.

Deputy Michael Collins

Okay. I thank Ms McSherry.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I thank the Chair.

As there has been a substantial increase in bluefin tuna allocation through ICCAT to a number of European Union member states, this is not just a case of relative stability. These member states gained substantially from the success of the measures that were put in place to sustain bluefin tuna. They were successful and therefore, they had the ability to allocate additional quota. There was all this additional quota going to EU member states and that is where the opportunity was. This was additional quota allocated from ICCAT and surely Ireland should have been getting some of that quota. I say this as commentary; I am not looking a response on that.

I do wish to talk about the concerns of the industry as articulated in a number of recent news reports. I will start with the reports on a letter from the Danish minister for fisheries, Jacob Jensen, to the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. This letter was sent to the Minister on 25 September 2023 and has been reported on by The Skipper magazine and the Irish Independent. It was reported that the Danish minister had offered to resolve a dispute between our two states. The value of what was being offered is at around €10 million over two years. In Ms McSherry's statement to the committee, she states that the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, "successfully negotiated a permanent allocation of additional mackerel for the Irish fleet worth approximatively €3 million annually for Irish fishers". While that is correct, Ms McSherry omitted to mention that there was an offer there. In the report in the Irish Independent, the Department stated "Ireland did not accept Denmark's proposal of a once-off transfer of mackerel quota in September 2023 as the solution proposed did not reflect the European Commission's legal analysis which confirmed that this quota originated in the western waters mackerel quota area." Why, when that letter was received from the Danish minister, was there not immediate consultation with the industry representatives? The Department meets them regularly, the producer organisations in particular. Why was there not immediate consultation with them about this letter and that an offer had been made, as well as the Department's assessment that Ireland would turn down the offer because it was not in line with the legal advice of the European Commission? The industry representatives could have had an input into what was a huge decision at a time when they are desperate for additional quotas. Can I get an answer to that question please?

Ms Sinéad McSherry

I thank the Deputy.

The Deputy will be aware that the Minister is responsible for those negotiations. To address the issue the Deputy raised specifically, this issue relates to a TAC of mackerel in Norwegian waters which are in areas IIa and IVa in the North Sea. Those areas were historically available to Denmark only. This TAC only existed as part of bilateral agreement between the EU and Norway where there was a transfer of mackerel from the EU western waters to Norway and a reciprocal transfer from Norway to the EU of fishing opportunities in Norwegian waters of IIa and IVa. The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, first raised this issue at AGRIFISH in October 2021 and his question was how this TAC could continue in the absence of a bilateral agreement between the EU and Norway on mackerel. As we have said, Ireland sought an in-depth analysis and the Commission then confirmed Ireland's assessment that in the absence of an EU-Norway agreement on mackerel, there was no basis for that original TAC. The resolution to this was secured in 2023 and while Ireland and Denmark where significant stakeholders in this, it was equally important that any solution arising from the Commission's legal analysis had to be agreed at Council and voted upon. These are considerations that the Minister had to take into account.

To reiterate, this is a decision and a negotiation by the Minister. The Deputy refers to Denmark offering a once-off, not-to-be-repeated amount mackerel as part of this solution. This solution would have needed to be agreed by all member states at the Council under qualified majority voting, QMV. Therefore, the issue considered by the Minister was a once-off offer or securing a long-term, permanent allocation of this TAC for western waters, of which Ireland is the biggest shareholder; we have 50% of the western water's mackerel TAC. These are some of the considerations that he had to take into account.

In relation to the Minister and his negotiating position, I have set out some of the considerations he has had to take into account. The most important point is that the Danish proposal was one that would have had to be agreed by all member states. This was not a matter for Denmark to give, as this is within the greater circle. It would have had to be agreed. The Minister took his decision and negotiated what he saw was a long-term viable solution for Ireland.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I will continue the dialogue with the Minister because I continue to have concerns around it. Those in the industry in Ireland obviously engaged with the European Commission. Right now, they are in Brussels engaging with DG MARE. They will want to get a firmer understanding of this. What industry sources told me was that the European Commission's view was this was a dispute between Denmark and Ireland and if the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, had accepted that offer, the rest of the European Commission and member states were likely to accept it as a dispute between two parties. However, I will continue that dialogue. I am not asking Ms McSherry to respond further to that.

What I want to get into is Iceland. Ms McSherry will be aware it has been articulated both before Christmas and in the past week by leading spokespersons for the fishing industry in Ireland that they have concerns around Norway's ongoing access to Irish territorial waters under the jurisdiction of the Common Fisheries Policy but it is not a secret that Iceland is seeking to gain access in terms of mackerel and blue whiting. At a previous committee, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, clearly criticised the behaviour of Iceland, Norway and the Faroes in terms of not adhering to ICES science and arguably being reckless with the way that it was not adhering to that. Therefore, there is a concern that countries outside the European Union are reckless in terms of not respecting the science. Of course, these are a migratory species. As Ms McSherry will be aware, they spawn off the coast of Ireland and work their way up through the Atlantic through various territorial waters. It is a collective responsibility to sustain this precious resource. The concern now is that you have a country the European Union views, and has challenged - namely Iceland - as being reckless around this. They are now seeking access. What they are seeking would be in excess of what Ireland already has in its own territorial waters. The population of Republic of Ireland is over 5 million. The population of Iceland is approximately 380,000. It is approximately the population of Belfast. One can see that it would be worrying and unfair if Iceland were to get the access it wishes to attain.

There is also a sense that various corporations, particularly in Holland, have interests in the Icelandic industry. They would gain twice. They would gain from their investments in the Icelandic fleet and from reciprocal access to waters up there. The question is: what is the gain for the Irish industry? The message in the Irish industry has been to hold the line strongly. The questions I have are as follows. What is the Department's understanding of the current state of this? I suppose what the Irish industry wants to know is whether a deal has been done. Has Ireland exerted its significant influence here because it is very unlikely that the other European member states would enforce this decision on Ireland, particularly in the aftermath of Brexit and all of the loss there? Is it the Department's understanding that negotiations are ongoing? Has a deal been struck? What is the current state of play and what assurance can the Department give the Irish industry that everything has been done to defend its interests, as articulated to the Minister and to the Department?

Ms Sinéad McSherry

I suppose the first thing I can say is that the Minister has engaged with those in our industry at each and every opportunity where these exploratory discussions have arisen and has brought the information to them and discussed it in a full and frank way. The Deputy will be aware that any negotiation with Iceland is an EU competence and that the Minister, in terms of representing Ireland's position in any exploratory discussions, has taken an extremely hard line. The Minister is well aware of the industry's views on this and he has engaged with those in the industry very regularly on it.

On the progress of those discussions, the Deputy's direct question was on whether a deal had been done. To the best of my knowledge, a deal has not been done. However, the entry into that deal is a decision for the Minister, not for the officials. We will bring all the information and supporting analysis available to the Minister.

As regards the Minister's position and the position he has taken in respect of the behaviour of some of these countries to unilateral tax, records of Council will demonstrate clearly that the Minister has taken an extremely hard line in terms of the actions of those countries and the impact it may have on the stock and viability for the future.

Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I thank Ms McSherry.

An Cathaoirleach

Has Senator O'Donovan a question?

Senator Denis O'Donovan

I have a quick question. I accept the Cathaoirleach's ruling that the presentation by NIFA on the previous occasion does not concern what the witnesses here today are briefed to explain to us. However, what troubles me - it might be taken back to the Minister - is that, as I understood on the previous occasion and, I suppose, from speaking some of the association's members along the coastline in west Cork, their big concern is engagement with the Minister has not taken place in any meaningful way. That will be something I will raise in a more substantial context when the meeting in question happens. That is my only comment. That issue might be relayed to the Minister's office. That is their big issue. Whereas much negotiation went on with the bigger organisations, such as the Irish South and West Fish Producer's Organisation and KFO, the smaller inshore guys feel they are not being listened to and their representations are not being heard, etc. When it comes before us, that is an issue I will be pressing hard on.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I refer to the relative stability key. How will that work? Can Ms McSherry envisage us getting some sort of bluefin quota? As was stated in the Department report, at first it was stated that there were 40 species available exclusively to the Union and, basically, they were given out to international waters and so on. All that kind of stock was lost and given away, and yet we said we got a balanced agreement, which the fishermen surely would not agree with. Mackerel, in itself, is a lucrative stock and we do not seem to be getting enough of it. I wonder what is the position on it.

As was said, the bilateral negotiations took place between the EU and Norway from 7 November to 8 December. How many meetings took place in that month?

Ms Sinéad McSherry

In terms of changes to the relative stability key, which was Deputy Mythen's first question, any of those would have to be agreed. It is a long process to change any relative stability key. As the Deputy will understand, any state that holds a significant share would be reluctant. For example, Ireland holds 50% of the mackerel share in north-western waters and would resist extremely vigorously any attempted change to that by another member state. In terms of bluefin tuna, it is a process. The Minister has engaged continuously in that process. It would have to be by agreement.

On the Deputy's question on the 40 species we share, I think what he said was that we are giving them away to international waters. How we fish them is within a number of agreements that involve third countries, not only European member states.

The Deputy's last question was on the bilateral negotiations between the EU and Norway.

I do not know off the top of my head how many meetings took place. I would be happy to find out and come back to the committee on the number of interventions.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I am confused about the Iceland agreement. Did Ms McSherry state it is solely the Minister's responsibility?

Ms Sinéad McSherry

No, I will go back to that. Any agreement between Iceland and the EU is the sole competence of the EU. Ireland cannot negotiate directly with Iceland on fisheries matters because of the Common Fisheries Policy. The EU negotiates with third countries in respect of fishing opportunities. The Minister's position is to represent and protect Ireland's interests. In any discussions or exploratory discussions, he has the mandate to represent Ireland and her interests. Naturally, he has engaged extensively with the affected stakeholders. That engagement included multiple meetings with industry about this. However, setting the agenda and making Ireland's position clear is a matter for the Minister.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I have a few brief questions while I have the opportunity to pick the officials' brains. Who organises the swaps for different quotas? Is there a regular publication of the swaps that take place and when they take place? I will get an answer on those two questions and then I have one more brief question.

Ms Sinéad McSherry

The administration of the swaps must be done by the Department. The different interactions between member states are very much supported and in some cases initiated by industry. I will pass the question on the publication of the swaps to my colleague, Ms O'Sullivan, who may have more information on it.

Ms Anna O'Sullivan

I am not entirely certain if they are published on the Department's website. I will double check whether there is a publication. It may well be that they are published on a Commission website. Off the top of my head, I am not certain. They are discussed at the monthly quota management advisory committee meetings, which are meetings between industry representative groups and the Department. As Ms McSherry said, it is primarily industry representatives who make contact with their opposite numbers in other member states to seek out opportunities or in response to other member states looking for swaps. They are then administered by Department officials. I will double-check whether there is a publicly available list of them and respond to the Chair.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Ms O'Sullivan can relay that information through the Chair and I can get it, if that is okay. My final question is whether the final quota figures for 2024 been released by the Department.

Ms Anna O'Sullivan

They were finalised at the start of January. The total allowable catch, TAC, quota proposal for 2024 would have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. We can forward a copy to the Chair for clarity, along with a table that pulls out the main stocks Ireland has a quota for.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I appreciate that. I thank Ms O'Sullivan.

An Cathaoirleach

Are members in agreement that the COMs discussed do not warrant further scrutiny? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for their contribution today and, again, for coming at such short notice as we were not able to finish the discussion at the last meeting. We really appreciate them coming back so quickly.

At 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 31 January 2024, the select committee will examine a Revised Estimate for public services 2024, Vote 30 - Agriculture, Food and the Marine. A private meeting of the joint committee will take place after this meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.44 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 February 2024.