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

I thank the Deputy for his questions. I do not have the figures that he seeks but I will endeavour to get them and forward them to him. I do not have data on the cumulative impact of cuts and changes in recent years or the specific figures for last year to hand.

I recall some of them last year - for example, with Celtic Sea herring there was a proposed cut of 60% and we ended up with a 30% cut. When the Hague Preferences were applied to nephrops, I think we went up by 15%.

Under the Common Fisheries Policy the Commission is committed to fishing under what is called MSY by 2020, whereby each species is only fished to the sustainable yield of the stock without putting itself under pressure to regenerate itself each year. That and the discards ban requiring fishermen to land everything are two issues giving rise to considerable challenges this year. Added to that is the issue on the Hague Preferences, which is a device applied where a stock is in decline. This is predicated on a case that was prosecuted back in the 1980s. In a way we were short-changed when the Common Fisheries Policy was established in 1982. As our industry was in some way disadvantaged, we got the Hague Preferences so that where stocks are going down we get a little bit more than everybody else. Every year other member states kick back against the application of the Hague Preferences.

It is complicated this year because the UK is going out the door. It was our ally in those negotiations. As it goes out the door, member states will feel we are more vulnerable on the Hague Preferences, notwithstanding that we have had a shared endeavour on Brexit. This is about what will be fished next year and people feel everything is fair game in the context of those negotiations and the Brexit thing is parked. The loss of the UK as an ally in negotiation over the Hague Preferences is a concern for us.

There is also concern about something of an unholy alliance emerging between the UK and Spain on what are referred to in the negotiations as Union TACs, that is where in certain species there would be no individual state allocations of quotas. There would be a headline quota for a species. We feel that would be severely detrimental to our interests. We have been working with other member states which would feel equally challenged by this arrangement. As Spain does not already have quotas for many of the species, it feels it could make a killing on this arrangement. It would lead to everybody setting out on 1 January 2019 and trying to fish the total quota as quickly as possible. I referred to it in my speech as kind of Olympic fishing. It could result in every boat being tied up by 1 April. That would not take into account when the market is strongest for a particular species. Everybody would go hell for leather regardless of the market. We are quite concerned about that, but are working with other member states to try to convince the Commission that is not a wise approach.

As always the background to the negotiations is the scientific advice from ICES. BIM feeds in scientific analysis on stocks. We need to take into account the science on one the hand and the socioeconomic impact on coastal communities on the other, and try to find a balance. We are sometimes criticised by the NGOs which feel we are on the wrong side of that line. Invariably if we go too far on the other side, those people who are employed in catching or processing feel we did not take their concerns into account. It is a balancing act across a range of species. As I said in my opening remarks, for some species the reports for 2019 are reasonable and for others they are particularly challenging.