Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and the officials from his Department for the presentation. This time every year fishing communities look at what the Commission proposes in advance of these meetings. In my area, Castletownbere, they have seen the Commission's proposals and they have gone beyond anger. It is terror, almost, for some of the operators, particularly in the demersal sector. Many of those vessel-owners and families are in a precarious position and the Commission's proposals for some of those species, particularly in the south west and south east, are very concerning for those families and the communities. They are caught in a whirlwind of scientific advice, what they hear themselves, what they know from their own fishing effort, what they hear from the Commission, what they get from the Marine Institute, what they see in their own specialised media and what they are dealing with in the new proposals, with the discard bans. It is not an easy time to be in the industry or to be making decisions, to invest or to reinvest, or to see where one's future lies, particularly in the demersal sector. I know the Minister will be going to Brussels and I agree with what he is saying about the case he will make for Ireland based on the available scientific advice against the Commission. This is where it is difficult to square some of the Commission's proposals.

I understand ICES is showing interest in increasing the catches of haddock and cod in the Celtic Sea but the Commission has proposed a swingeing cut in the TAC for 2015, which does not square up. Similarly, there are data limited stocks. Pollock is deemed not important enough to invest in information gathering exercises. The figures put forward by ICES and the proposal the Commission has made for skate, ray and monkfish in area 7 do not add up. The prawn fishery is hugely significant for Ireland but there are disparate landing figures for the year and the Commission is basing its TAC on them whereas the scientific advice says something different. We are trying to reassure an industry and asking participants to have confidence in the scientific advice. We are saying that we must make decisions based on what we know about the sustainability of a fishery but the Commission then makes proposals such as this. That is not confidence inspiring from its point of view. There is plenty to put on the table at the upcoming meeting to meet the Commission's proposals head on.
The Commission says there is insufficient data for some proposals and it has invoked the precautionary principle. It has in the past proposed a 20% cut in a fishery under that principle and followed up the year after with another 20% cut because it does not have data. That is hard to take when the fishermen say the stock is strong and recovering and can cope with an increase in the TAC or a maintenance of the status quo. It would be great to know to whom the Commission is listening when it keeps proposing rolling cuts instead of applying a cut and then assessing the fishery. I welcome the increased investment through the EMFF in data collection measures and I hope that will generate more information on individual fisheries. The potential loss based on not having the full picture would be catastrophic for coastal communities, particularly on the south, south-west and south-east coasts.
The proposed discards ban is problematic in the pelagic sector and it is a minefield in the whitefish, mixed whitefish and demersal fish sectors. The committee will ratchet up its work next year with Noel Cawley. When will that work reach an apex? What consultation will there be with the industry? Will technical measures, closed areas and restrictions on efforts in terms of days be considered? How can the discards ban be effectively implemented to deal with what needs to be done and to ensure fishing communities can provide for themselves?