Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

The first question was on why Ireland ratified the renegotiated TCA. The decision taken on Brexit was a decision of the European Union. All discussions around the exit of Britain from the European Union were handled by the Commission. Obviously, we are a contributing party and our views and aspirations are taken into account, but only taken into account. Commissioner Šefovi negotiated the agreement. The Deputy will recall that the then facilitator, Mr. Michel Barnier, was a significant player in those discussions. From an Irish perspective, we recognise that the fishing sector took a significant hit in that regard, but that is the way it was negotiated. It did not favour our position but at the end of the day, we had no choice but to accept. It was not an either-or situation. It was not as if we had the capacity to veto.

Part of that initial agreement was that there would be a review of fishing up to June 2026. In all the diplomatic channels, background noise and chatter, the message was that the British would not permit continued access for EU vessels into their waters without a significant further shift in quota. My predecessor and I, since coming to this post, and all our negotiators at European level made it clear in the strongest possible terms that Ireland’s position was that we would not accept the trading of one more fish for continued access. We felt we had given a phenomenal amount of quota for that continued access. When the recent agreement was coming into place, we fought hard. Initially, there was an offer of continued access for two, three and five years, and together with a group of eight like-minded member states, we succeeded in increasing that from what I think was an initial offer of about two years to 12 years. That is a good deal and a significantly positive outcome that gives certainty to the catching sector and the processing sector.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, however, it in no way rights the losses that were taken as a result of Brexit, so I am conscious that is still a very significant overhang for the industry. In the recently renegotiated trade deal, it was a very significant positive outcome, particularly for us, to be able to fish within UK waters. The bit that is often lost in discussion, although I am not suggesting it is lost in here, is that we had very little to trade with. Ultimately, the British are able to catch their quota in their waters, by and large. It was not as if this reciprocal access to waters benefits the British as much as it benefits European vessels, so we were running out of road. That is why this was a useful way to stitch in the longer term commitment. If we had not made an agreement at this stage and had let it run until next June, we would have had no chip to spend, effectively. The British then would want to do it on an annual basis, which is what they were suggesting, taking particular stocks as they wished. This was a comprehensive way to deal with this and gave us an opportunity to give certainty to the sector, which allows for the kind of investment that is needed and gives some direction of travel for the next 12 years. I hope that helps.