Dr. Cecil Beamish:

Probably demersal. There would be some discards of pelagic fish but there are not strong reasons for large-scale discarding of pelagic fish. Clearly, if the reform policy could prevent unwanted catches, particularly of juvenile fish, that would contribute significantly to building stock to higher levels and sustaining higher catches.

The real debate on relative stability was on the Commission's proposal for the introduction of individual transferable quotas and the privatisation of quotas to individual level, allowing them to be sold, bought up, concentrated and aggregated. Deputies were concerned about inshore fishermen, fishermen with smaller boats, family-owned trawlers and so on. That Commission proposal was regarded by the Government as a significant threat to the way in which our fishing industry is organised and a significant threat to the national quotas. Very strong opposition, with unanimous support from the fishing industry, was exerted in respect of that central aspect of the Commission's proposals for reform. The fear in the Irish context was that the larger industrial companies that operate fishing fleets in white fish fisheries to the south and pelagic fisheries in the North Sea would effectively buy up Irish quotas. If that happened, landings to Ireland would diminish significantly, as would the associated employment downstream. There was an intense debate and Ireland was at the forefront of opposition to this proposal. That element is not in the Council's agreed position today. It is there to a small extent in the Parliament's position but it is not in the Council's position. That was a significant change in what the Commission had proposed in this reform and was the core debate about the code of management.

With regard to quotas for inshore fishermen or smaller fishing operations, the principle agreed in the general approach of the Council is that it is for member states to decide how to distribute their quotas. This morning we had an initial meeting with the fishing industry for about four hours, updating them on the reform process. We keep close contact with them on what is happening in the reform process.

The fishermen sit down with the Department, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and others on a monthly basis to pool all the information and decide, essentially, on the quota arrangements for the following period. That process will be allowed to continue under the reform. It would not have been permitted if the quotas had been privatised under a individual transferable quota system. As the extent to which quotas are available for particular segments of the industry is subject to national decision, there can be a national debate on it.

I am trying to stay within areas that do not involve policy, but it is not easy. It is difficult to assess the exact implications of the decision that has been made with regard to maximum sustainable yield. The stock situation changes every year. That is nature. There are significant fluctuations in many species. The maximum sustainable yield is a target that is being aimed at. The pace at which a stock moves towards that target varies from stock to stock. A stock might be subject to a different trend for wider reasons than the level of fishing. For the last two or three years, the December Council has been receiving proposals from the Commission which have focused on aiming to achieve the maximum sustainable yield. The Council has decided to do this on a graduated basis. It is not as if the process of aiming to achieve the maximum sustainable yield will start when the new reform comes in. We have been moving in that direction. An increasing number of stocks are reaching maximum sustainable yield. It is not a goal that is beyond many of the stocks. It is difficult to quantify the exact effect of this measure. According to the Council decision, attempts will be made to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015 where possible and in all cases by 2020. This has quite a long lead-in period. It has been guiding the way quota decisions have been taken for a number of years.

I was also asked about the position on the Hague preferences. At the moment, both versions of the text reflect the Hague preferences. It is not the case that they are in one version but not in the other. They are reflected differently in each version of the text. The Council position is the one that has been in place since the outset of the Common Fisheries Policy, which means the Hague preferences will remain. The opposition to the retention of the preferences in the Common Fisheries Policy has not won out. They will remain under both versions of the text. It is not the case that Ireland has lost with regard to the Hague preferences. I do not think I have missed anything. As I said, I do not wish to stray into policy areas.