Mr. Jeremy Percy:

There was a range of questions. Quota management certainly varies across member states. When discussion verges on what is or is not permitted under the CFP in terms of the allocation of resources, it is worth remembering that Article 16 of the policy says very clearly that it how it allocates its quota is the choice of the member state. It can be allocated in whatever way the state wishes. The only requirement is that the European Union is told what is being done. It does not need to be told why, but it must be told how it is being done. There is a wide choice of methods for the allocation of quota. In fact, in a judicial review in the High Court in London, the judge made it very clear that under the CFP if a member state chose, for instance, not to allocate any quota to anyone in the course of a year it would be entitled to do so, although we are not suggesting for a moment that should be the case. There are a number of methods and it varies significantly.

On the difference the Deputy referred to in terms of effective privatisation, in the UK, for example, we suffer significantly from the fact that, because of a variety of reasons I will not go into here, Westminster Governments have allowed the real privatisation of quota, which has resulted in well over 50% of the UK's quota being in foreign corporate hands. The Deputy can imagine the impact of and the issues which arise from that. However, my understanding of the Irish quota system, which I will admit is not an in-depth one, is that Ireland has de facto privatisation because the quota is effectively allocated to the same people year-on-year.

To follow up on the Deputy's second question on the recognition of the importance and requirements of the inshore and small-scale fleet by the CFP, there are specific references in the policy - to one of which I referred - to the recognition of Ireland's small scale, artisanal or coastal fisheries and it endeavours to give preferential access to that sector. The CFP also makes clear in its introduction that the 12 miles are effectively reserved for the small-scale fleet, although if one asked small-scale fishermen almost anywhere in Europe they would find that particularly difficult to believe as large vessels are allowed, in some cases, right up to the shore.

On the other hand, I have also seen some causes for concern in the Irish management policy. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine published Ireland's quota management policy, dated 2016. There seem to be a couple of issues with it. In terms of environmental objectives, Article 17 of the CFP states very clearly that "Member States shall [and it says "shall", not "may" or "if they want to"] use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature" when allocating the resource. Within the Department's quota management policy, there does not seem to be any mention at all of any requirement on its part or on that of the producer organisations, POs, to address the environmental objectives of the CFP or the common management organisation. There is no mention at all of any requirement to carry out regular checks on PO compliance. Although I stress that I am not for one moment suggesting that the POs in this country have anything other than an honest and upright approach to quota management, this has not been the case when there has been a lack of oversight of PO compliance. In Denmark, there are criminal investigations ongoing as a result of the handling and management of international swaps that reduced the amount of quota that appeared to be available to the fleet.

It is equally the case with economic and social objectives. There are four producer organisations that have approximately 90%, the vast majority, of both quota and landings. The four POs here have an majority built into the quota management advisory committee, which effectively hands these national quotas to large fishing companies for free for the most part. If Ireland does not have direct privatisation, perhaps it has de factoprivatisation. One of our main aims as an organisation across Europe is to support equality of opportunity in this respect, as Deputy Martin Ferris suggested, not just by recognising the requirements of Article 17 and the various comments within the CFP in support of the provision of a fair standard of living for small-scale fishers and others, but also in the implementation of those legal requirements. I think I have probably covered the questions I was asked.