Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On the point raised by Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, what we are moving towards in terms of sustainable management is what is called MSY, or maximum sustainable yield. We want to get to a situation where all species are fished according to this objective and it a road we have been making progress on. We subscribe in principle to that but we accept that, in certain situations, it cannot be achieved overnight and we need to have a two-step or three-step approach to it. However, it is getting to a situation where we are only taking from any particular species a level which allows us to come back the next year and also have a harvest. It is a question of moving stocks to that sustainable management process. In many respects, it is what is driving the quite considerable proposed reductions here, which, in certain circumstances, would be quite difficult economically for coastal communities to reach in one short swoop. Our position will be informed in terms of both the survival of fishermen and the survival of fish, and we must have balance in the approach. We certainly want to, and do, subscribe to the principle but it is a question of getting there over a manageable period.

On the issue of the international transferable quotas, super-trawlers and so on, the first principle is that no vessel, whether a super-trawler or a small fishing boat, can fish without having a quota to fish those species. Obviously, it then becomes an issue of policing the effort of every boat. If we had a situation where our quotas were private assets, we would long ago have had a situation where we would have maybe a dozen or so huge boats and the industry would be wiped out as we know it in very many small communities. I am glad that is not a road we have gone down. However, it is equally important that we are able to police those who come in with big quotas and take substantial volumes. The practice in other countries has been to have private assets and, therefore, to be able to sustain huge boats, rather than having the large number of small and medium size boats that our industry is, in large, characterised by.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, is the critical agency and the Naval Service is important in terms of boardings. For example, in 2016 we had 18 inspections and we have had 30 to date in 2017. I understand that three German, one Lithuanian, ten Dutch, one Norwegian and three Russian boats were boarded, which is a significant increase in activity over the previous year.

One of the things we have been supportive of, in principle, is the idea of further ensuring compliance with quotas through the placing of onboard cameras on these boats. It is something we have been trying to make progress on in negotiations, although it has not yet been possible to get agreement on it in terms of getting access to real-time information shared by all member states. I think it would be a logical step forward.

There has been increased activity in regard to boardings and the relevant authority, the SFPA, is active in that area.

Obviously, it polices anybody who fishes in our waters, be they our own boats or others. It is important that the authority has all the necessary instruments and the use of cameras to monitor activity would be another tool in its armoury to be more effective in that area. I am aware there is a narrative suggesting the big super trawlers are the bad guys and the small community-based fisheries are good guys. What is important from a policy perspective is to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone who has a quota - be it a privatised asset in a super trawler coming from the aforementioned states that we have boarded or our own industry - and they are catching what their quota is. That is how we ensure that stocks remain viable and sustainable in the future.