Dr. Paul Connolly:

There were three questions directed to me. Deputy Pringle asked about seabass and whether the stopping of landings was a good idea. At the time in question, the seabass stock was in a state of decline and people were worried about its vulnerability but that did not stop the trawlers out on the Celtic Sea from catching seabass. One wonders, therefore, about the measure's effectiveness.

This matter represents the classic dilemma associated with how one should maximise a resource. Does one want to use the seabass resource exclusively for angling, with tourists coming to coastal areas exclusively for the fishing of seabass, with a view to protecting the stock? On the other side of the argument, one must remember there are fishing vessels in the Celtic Sea fishing for whiting and haddock that catch seabass. There will be a discard ban and this will force the issue as to how one wants to treat the resource of seabass and maximise its impact for coastal communities.

Deputy Harrington asked about the perception about science. There were two parts to his question, one on the scheduling of science and the other on the effectiveness of the science. I will first talk about the schedule, making reference to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, and the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. The council deals with the provision of scientific advice to the European Union for the TAC species. All the scientific analysis has been done for next year's quotas. All the information has been gathered and we are carrying out the assessments of the stocks. The advice will be issued in July for stocks such as cod, whiting and haddock and the remainder of the advice, on fish such as mackerel, will emerge in September. The advice emerging in July and September gives the industry, which will be affected by it, a chance to examine it, determine its flaws and decide whether it agrees with it. Ultimately, the European Union sets out its proposals for the next year in terms of quotas and TACs. There is plenty of time for discussion. The decisions are made at a meeting of the Council. That is the position on the schedule.

The Deputy commented on perception and asked whether the science is lagging behind. A way to deal with the question is to give an example of what happened last year. We work very closely with the industry. In days gone by, science was viewed as coming down from the mountain with the tablets. However, those days are gone because we work very closely with the industry. If I had to show an example from last year, it would concern the prawn fishery in area VII, which includes the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and the sea off the west coast of Ireland. It is worth €33 million and is our most important fishery. We envisaged problems with the way in which the European Union was going to cut the TAC. We said the stock was not in bad shape and that there was no justification for the cut. With the industry, we received funding to carry out additional surveys. The surveys were carried out last June and July in co-operation with the industry; in fact, the industry funded some of them. We did the science but there were no guarantees with it. We said we would give credible, timely and relevant science. We were able to use the scientific data obtained in July at the TAC negotiations in December and this resulted in an increase in the TACs for Ireland. Therefore, the perception that science is lagging behind and not relevant is no longer pertinent. That we are working closely with the industry forces science to be relevant, to see the problems within the industry and address them.

Deputy Harrington's third question was on aquaculture, research and the sea lice issue. The Marine Institute publishes scientific information on various aspects of sea lice interactions. It publishes in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The IFI does so also. There has been a lot of what I would call "my science and your science" trying to justify certain cases. However, I would be very reluctant to comment further on that because, at present, the Marine Institute is reviewing the EIS for Galway Bay aquaculture. Since it involves a statutory process I would prefer not to comment further on that.