Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Sea Fisheries Sustainability: Discussion with Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine

3:20 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The second item on the agenda is a briefing by the Minister in advance of his next Agricultural and Fisheries Council meeting in December. I welcome officials from the Departments and representatives of both the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before saying anything about fishing, I believe it appropriate to note that a fisherman out of Kilmore Quay is missing off the south east coast, namely, Patrick Barry, who is a father. It is a difficult time for that family and it is important for members to recognise that. While I hope this search can be brought to a conclusion soon, as the joint committee is discussing fishing, it is important to recognise the difficult search currently under way off Kilmore Quay for a fisherman who went missing yesterday.

Has a division been called in the Seanad?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is one down anyway.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does this affect the quorum?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, the meeting had already started. As the meeting had only suspended, we can proceed.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to make those remarks.

As members are aware, the annual fishing opportunities for the Community’s fishing fleets are traditionally agreed at the December Agricultural and Fisheries Council. This year, the arrangements for 2014 are due to be negotiated at the Council scheduled for 16 to 18 December. The levels of total allowable catch, TAC, and the quotas for Ireland again will be determined at that meeting, following negotiations with member states and the European Commission. The Agricultural and Fisheries Council also will decide on the fishing effort, which determines days spent at sea, available for the Irish fleet in the Irish Sea and off the north-west coast for 2014.

The process of preparing for the Council is now well under way with the publication of detailed proposals for TACs and quotas of key stocks of interest to Ireland on 30 October last. The Commissions’ proposal for nephrops in the Irish Sea was, however, only received last Friday, 22 November and consequently the sustainable impact assessment, SIA, does not cover that stock. The proposal also does not cover stocks which are subject to ongoing international negotiations, such as mackerel and blue whiting, as well as whiting in the Celtic Sea. The Commission’s proposals are based on formal advice received from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, which is the independent international body with responsibility for advising on the state of fish stocks. It also takes account of the views of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, STECF, which gives the Commission its views on the economic, technical and social impacts of the scientific advice.

In order to inform my negotiations at the December Fisheries Council, I have had undertaken an assessment of the effects of the Commission's proposal. The preparation of a sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment is provided for in the programme for Government. To facilitate and inform these deliberations, an open consultation process was initiated whereby stakeholders were asked to submit their comments and observations on the Commission proposal for fishing opportunities for 2014. From November 6, an online web portal on www.fishingnet.ie was activated to enable the transmission of electronic submissions for consideration. In addition, I convened a meeting of stakeholders on 13 November, which gave a further opportunity to key stakeholders to outline their position on the many aspects of this proposal. In all, five submissions were received by the closure date. The full content of all the submissions received by the deadline are available on the aforementioned website and have been laid before this joint committee for those members who are interested. On examining the various contributions to the consultation process, there is a general acknowledgement that the national consultative process is a positive addition to the debate. While there is acknowledgement of improvements in recent years in respect of some stocks, particularly in the Celtic Sea, there is understandable concern about certain whitefish stocks targeted by the Irish fishing fleet.

I agree with the sentiment in many of the contributions, which call for greater adherence to the scientific advice available to enable prudent and appropriate management decisions to be taken. However one criticism, which I share, is that of the arbitrary cuts proposed by the European Commission for fishing opportunities in 2014 and the overly narrow interpretation of some of the scientific advice. There is justifiable concern that these cuts in certain quotas will only lead to further discarding. The Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, have undertaken an evaluation of the Commission’s proposals, which is contained in the sea fisheries SIA. While noting an improvement in the status of some fish stocks, others remain a concern, namely, in areas west of Scotland and in the Irish Sea. Much needs to be done to rebuild all stocks to sustainable levels, including further reductions in fishing opportunities and improving selectivity to avoid by-catch. Implementing the new reformed Common Fisheries Policy, especially the phased ban on discards, and ending overfishing will require continued work and commitment by all member states, including Ireland.

The new regionalisation model in the reformed Common Fisheries Policy provides for member states with a direct interest in fisheries in a region to work together with the EU advisory councils of stakeholders for the same region to develop appropriate conservation measures for the fisheries in the region. Ireland hosted the first meeting of the regional group of member states, involving the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, earlier this month. The first major task will be preparing for the effective implementation of a discards ban for fisheries in north-western waters. I also appointed Dr. Noel Cawley to chair a national discards implementation group, involving fishing industry representatives, to develop appropriate measures for fisheries in which we have an involvement. This group will develop and support Ireland’s input into the advisory group of stakeholders and the EU regional group of member states.

As for TACs and quotas for 2014, the sustainable impact assessment summarises the pressure on the 59 stocks dealt with in the 2013 stock book.

It also compares the situation with the same evaluation presented last year. In general, the situation has deteriorated slightly with a lower number, 20, and percentage, 34%, of stocks assessed to be sustainably fished in 2014 compared with last year. The percentage and number of stocks overfished has increased slightly in 2013 and the number and percentage of stocks with unknown status also increased.

Over one third or 18 stocks are above biomass trigger points. The number of depleted stocks has declined, from eight to seven, and now 12% of stocks are assessed to be depleted. The number of stocks with unknown spawning stock biomass, no assessments or undefined biomass triggers remains relatively high, at 58%. This poses a big problem.

I do not intend to go into a stock by stock discussion here, although if the members have questions, I will try to answer them. The specific details are available in the document which has been laid before the Dáil and in the accompanying stock book, which was prepared by the Marine Institute. I will be prepared to address any specific issues on individual stocks raised.

It is estimated that the proposal, as it currently stands, will see a net reduction in fishing opportunities for the Irish whitefish sector of 24% by volume. In financial terms, this amounts to a direct income reduction of €10.5 million or 19% on 2013, and while pelagic quotas will rise, due in large part to increases in the boarfish quota and the Celtic Sea herring fishery, the overall impact will be a reduction of €3.1 million or 6% on 2013. Overall, this amounts to loss in direct income to the catching sector of approximately €13.5 million.

However, I must stress that these figures do not take account of the huge implications of the proposed cut in the nephrops quota in the Irish Sea and the Celtic Sea which only came out on Friday last. The Commission proposal is for a cut of 23% on the 2013 quota which in financial terms would cost the Irish fleet over €10 million. The proposal appears to be based on an extremely narrow interpretation of the ICES advice and does not take into consideration the fact that many member states do not utilise their quotas. This is the second most important fishery to Ireland after mackerel and for the reasons I outlined, I cannot countenance such a drastic and unwarranted cut.

For demersal fleets in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and along the west coast, the proposal sees a 34% or €11.6 million reduction in fishing opportunities. This will directly impact at the ports of Clogherhead, Howth, Dunmore East, Kilmore Quay, Dingle, Castletownbere, and Ros an Mhíl, as well as many other smaller ports. For the demersal fleet in the north west, the proposal would result in a 19% or €0.9 million reduction in fishing opportunities. This will directly impact at the ports of Killybegs and, in particular, Greencastle.

In addition to the direct losses to the fleet, income is also lost from the processing sector as a direct result of reduced catches and in a number of ancillary industries, such as net making, chandlery, engineering, refrigeration. Based on a total turnover generated per tonne of fish landed, BIM estimates that the full costs of the proposed quota reductions are in the order of €48 million. This figure rises to over €70 million when taking into consideration the proposal on nephrops around the coast. BIM further estimates, on the basis of the most recent employment surveys of the catching sector, that these reductions could impact between 400 and 500 full and part-time jobs, through reduced incomes, partial lay offs or redundancies.

The proposal does not include the Hague Preferences which are a safety net for the Irish fleet on specific stocks where total allowable catches, TACs, are in decline. They are negotiated annually at the Fisheries Council and when agreed, offer additional quotas to Ireland. The loss of these allocations in 2014 will amount to 1,096 tonnes of fish with a direct value of €2.2 million. BIM estimates that the full value of the Hague quotas in 2014 is €7.6 million with an associated impact on between 100 full and part-time jobs, through reduced incomes, partial lay offs or redundancies.

In all, eight submissions were received during the consultation period. Submissions were received from OCEAN 2012, Birdwatch Ireland, the Irish Wildlife Trust, the Federation of Irish Fishermen, the Irish South and East Fishermen's Organisation, Inland Fisheries Ireland, an Taisce and Coastwatch. I do not intend to summarise the submissions made. They cover a broad spectrum of opinion dealing with the overall policy on setting TACs and quotas as well as dealing with individual stocks. The full content of the submissions received has been copied to the members.

I can concur with the findings of the sea fisheries Sustainability Impact Assessment. I will not support cuts where the Marine Institute offers additional information to inform the decision and where there is a real risk of generating higher discard levels than at present. There is a high cost from a social and economic perspective when quota cuts are proposed and we have to be satisfied that in every case these cuts are justifiable. Fishing ports and whole communities all around our coast are dependent on fisheries for their survival. Finally, I thank and acknowledge all those who contributed to the production of this impact assessment, and look forward to the debate on the conclusions.

For those who are listening and reporting on this meeting, it is important to state that the figures I outlined are the consequences of implementing the proposals as they currently stand, but this is a negotiation. There is always a difference between the negotiated outcome at the end of the process and the proposals going into that process. I would appreciate if commentators did not make predictions on the basis of maximising the impact of a headline around some of the numbers that I outlined. We need to take a responsible approach here. I need to rely, as I do, on the Marine Institute. Mr. Paul Connolly is kindly here to give his perspective, from the Marine Institute point of view and as someone who has a deep knowledge of ICES. Of course, if stocks are threatened and if the science recommends that we must ease back our fishing effort and our quota in those stocks, that is something we must consider and, potentially, implement. However, sometimes there is a need for a detailed analysis of the science and a negotiation around that to ensure we are not cutting fishing effort or TACs unnecessarily if the state of the stock does not merit it in terms of our science having undertaken an analysis of the ICES and Commission recommendations. That is my job. We will take a responsible and sustainable approach to fishing, as we have in the past two years, and try to get the best outcome we can for the fishing sector to maximise the commercial return within a sustainable fishery next year.

3:30 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for outlining the position, as currently proposed, and his own position.

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The fact the Minister states that these are only proposals offers some hope. I do not want to be negative or critical. I would say at the outset that the Minister is talking here about the sustainability in the future of many sectors in the Irish fishing fleet and as it stands, it makes worrying and disturbing reading. If this was implemented in full, it would be a disaster and it would finish many sectors.

All of us here who are from coastal communities, such as Deputy Harrington, the Minister and I, will be aware how difficult it has proven for fishermen to be able to remain in the sector with the exception of a few small sectors and we are also conscious of its knock-on effect, social implications and consequences for coastal rural communities, and the importance of getting as good a deal as possible here.

As an Opposition spokesperson, I will not be found wanting in offering support to get the best deal possible in that regard.

I assume most of the proposed reductions or cuts are primarily based on the scientific analysis on the various sectors. It has always worried me that scientific analysis, on its own, has been questioned and challenged consistently by various sectors at the coalface of the industry. I hope the various fishing sectors will have had an input into it.

The data show the proposed income reduction for the whitefish sector is €10.5 million, or 19%. The proposed reduction for the pelagic sector is €3.1 million, or 6%. Overall, this amounts to loss in direct income to the catching sector of €13.7 million. The cut affecting the Nephrops quota will be in the order of €10 million. For demersal fleets in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and along the west coast, the proposal envisages a 34% reduction in fishing opportunity. These figures are frightening and alarming for the various sectors.

The Minister stated many countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, came together on a regional basis earlier this month. Is the Minister building alliances with other countries and is he receiving support from other countries affected by the proposals? Small players in negotiations depend on alliances. I hope the Minister is getting support. Countries such as France, Spain and the Netherlands will be very much driven by self-interest regarding their fleets, etc. Are the proposals determined primarily by the scientific analysis carried out? Has there been any direct input by the sectors themselves into the analysis? Can the Minister envisage the measures being rolled back significantly in order to allow the Irish fishing sectors to survive?

3:40 pm

Photo of Noel HarringtonNoel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his officials from both the Department and the Marine Institute. Proposals always make bleak reading at this time of year. Negotiations will take place at Council level. I am concerned that the prawns or Nephrops are not included in the assessment. What is the potential impact of this? I am glad the Minister outlined in his statement that he will defend the existing allocations, presumably based on the scientific interpretation of the Marine Institute. I hope the proposals can be countered very strongly. The prawn fishery is a very significant one right around the coast. After the mackerel fishery, it is our second most important. It is critical that it be defended, particularly where every demersal species faces a cut. Megs and hake appear to be the only two demersal species in respect of which an increase is proposed. The Minister has been consistent in recent years in defending the argument for increased allocations because the science backed up his positions. However, the proposals affecting haddock, monkfish, cod and whiting have been crippling. We often hear the debate pitting the scientific argument against anecdotal evidence gleaned from experience on the ground. Such evidence suggests cod is much more plentiful this year because of the recovery plans. It is a question of how the circle will be squared. How can the scientific advice justify a proposal to cut haddock quotas by 75%? This seems very severe.

How does this subject link with maximum sustainable yield? There is always a balancing act. Ultimately, fishing communities will have to buy into the idea of maximum sustainable yield. In the herring fishery in the Celtic sea, short-term pain has yielded a longer-term gain for the industry. The idea that maximum sustainable yield is factored into the proposals is significant but even more significant is communicating that to a community that is entirely dependent on demersal species. It is the whitefish fleet proposal that affects that vast majority of communities right around coast. It is encouraging to note the increases regarding the pelagic species. Mackerel is extremely important to the Irish fishing industry but, in terms of numbers, bodies and even the inshore fleet, which comprises 85% or 90% of registered vessels that fish quota species, it is the critical demersal sector in respect of which the greatest cuts are proposed. Could the Minister take the opportunity of tying the concept of maximum sustainable yield, which is a noble but painful objective, to the proposals? His doing so would be worthwhile.

With regard to mackerel, which is being debated at a higher level in the European Union, I am concerned we may be tempted into a deal whereby we might again see a short-term gain in terms of the TAC but a detrimental result for the Irish fishing industry in the longer term. Could the Minister comment on that?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have experience of only two Council meetings, those of last year and the year before. It is true that the recommendations in advance of Council meetings are sometimes more stark than the actual results because the Commission takes a precautionary approach regarding some stocks. If there are insufficient data on which to draw a more accurate conclusion, it applies a cut of a certain percentage. We have to use all the available data to be as accurate as possible. If a stock is under significant pressure and is being overfished, we must reduce the level of fishing; otherwise we will use the stock. What will happen to other stocks if we do not take action is what happened to cod in the Irish Sea and other areas. We must not allow that to happen and must take the difficult decisions required by scientific analysis in order to conserve fish stocks and prevent them from being dramatically overfished and, therefore, subject to damage that may take years to undo.

Having said that, I believe there is a detailed analysis required. This is why the most important member of our team in the December discussions will be the Marine Institute.

We do not have sufficient data on the biomass of 58% of stocks in Irish waters to be able to draw significant conclusions. We cannot simply apply a 20% reduction because of lack of data. That is a principle that most Ministers in the Council would completely reject.

Maximum sustainable yield, or MSY, is a major part of the new Common Fisheries Policy. The policy has a number of big initiatives, including fishing to maximum sustainable yield. In normal language, that means catching as much fish as one can in order to return the maximum commercial benefit from fishing that stock, while at the same time not undermining the health of that stock. That is essentially what MSY is. We need a lot of data to make an accurate MSY figure or guesstimate. We will have an MSY fishing figure where possible by 2015 but for all stocks by 2020. In other words, this is an information gathering, scientific exercise to get as much data together, linked to the various stocks, as we can. We have enough data for some stocks to make an assessment of MSY. We are trying to move towards MSY by 2015 where possible.

There are other scientific arguments which cannot be ignored. As regards Nephrops, or prawns as most people would call them, we have multiple prawn fisheries in Irish waters, including the Porcupine Basin, off the south coast and in the Irish Sea. We treat Nephrops as one fishery, as opposed to dividing it into different geographical regions. In some of those fisheries, countries that have Nephrops quotas are simply not catching them at all, so a major portion of TACs are not filled. We need to factor such anomalies into the TAC and quota allocation decisions for next year.

In other words, we need to conserve stocks. However, we also need to look at the broader data to ensure that we are not unnecessarily reducing the level of fishing effort and quotas that will damage an industry by taking unnecessary steps to preserve or protect stocks. That is the kind of discussion that is ongoing between the industry and the Marine Institute. We have an industry-science partnership which involves a healthy and, at times, intense discussion. However, that relationship is probably better than it has ever been and the fishing industry understands the scientists' recommendations.

We also have industry observers at ISIS meetings, so these decisions are made in a transparent way. We might not agree with all the decisions but we can certainly see the process whereby they are made. The negotiations in December will be difficult for us. The numbers are harder and starker than in the preceding two years.

I am conscious of Deputy Harrington's point that the vast majority of fishermen in Ireland are not operating in large pelagic vessels - they are in medium-sized, white fish demersal vessels. That is how most fishing families derive their income, but we can only catch fish if they are there. That is the bottom line, so first and foremost we must protect stocks while at the same time trying to protect the incomes of fishermen and their families to the greatest extent without fundamentally undermining fish stocks. That is the basis of our preparations with the Marine Institute in advance of the December discussions, just as we did in 2011 and 2012 when we got pretty good outcomes given what was predicted going into those discussions. Sometimes people assume that the Minister will sort this out in December, as if we will have some sort of miracle solution. It is not as straightforward as that. We are facing difficult negotiations this time around and the outcomes for some in the fishing industry will be difficult. I will do the best I can, however, to try to make the scientific case for maximising the returns to a sector that needs to have somebody fighting for it. We will try to get the best outcome we can.

3:50 pm

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the committee again. I am sorry I was delayed but we had two votes in the Seanad. I have read the Minister's contribution and the attached documentation. The most worrying aspects, which are outside our control, are the European Commission's proposals on horse mackerel and mackerel quotas. The Commission seems to be using that quota as a bargaining tool for Iceland and the Faroes. The Minister has gone through the implications. I thank him for the detailed work which, in conjunction the Marine Institute, BIM and other agencies, has provided us with today's update. It is important for this committee to be aware of developments and we have been briefed in that respect.

How does the Minister see this matter panning out given the commission's standpoint? What is the timeline involved? If these quota reductions are implemented there will obviously be a quota reduction as well as a drop in income for the Irish fishing and processing sectors. Some of the proposed cuts will be catastrophic.

I am not sure what discussions have taken place with the European Commission, so perhaps the Minister can outline them and what the next steps are. Are member states being asked to make submissions to the Commission?

Mr. Patrick Barry, a fisherman who went missing off the Wexford coast recently, is in all our thoughts and prayers. His family must be going through a most painful experience at the moment.

I wish to acknowledge the excellent work of the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority and the Naval Service in detaining the Dutch vessel Annelies Ilena. The ship was detained 100 miles north west of Tory Island and the case if before the High Court today. While I do not wish to refer specifically to that case, a large number of huge factory ships are currently operating in Irish waters, including the north west coast in particular. Those vessels were previously fishing in Mauritanian waters off the coast of Africa, but they have been expelled from that area. As a result they are now off our north west coast and are effectively hoovering up horse mackerel and mackerel. I support the efforts of the Department, the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority and the Naval Service in this regard.

Fishing industry representatives in Killybegs think that shoals of fish are being caught and graded by such factory vessels, while smaller fish of less value are being discarded. That is happening on a wholesale basis. The Minister has our full support in tackling that matter.

If there is any more information he could provide, I would be grateful.

4:00 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That last point really refers to the overall Common Fisheries Policy.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The points made on the mackerel fishery are important. Depending on where one comes from, different fisheries are important. In value terms, the mackerel fishery is significantly important, particularly to the north west and the south west.

We are in the process of negotiating on the north-east Atlantic waters, a mackerel fishery shared by the EU, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. There has been a dispute for nearly five years about these waters. In our view, Iceland and the Faroe Islands have ignored all scientific advice and have been catching as much mackerel as they can catch and process. The EU has been trying to get back to a place where there was an agreed share-out of quotas between the stakeholders in that fishery, recognising where the fish spawn, grow and breed and that the mackerel stock has expanded into the north west. The proposed outcome is very different whether one comes from Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands or whether one is on the Commission. We had discussions last week in Clonakilty on this issue but there is still no resolution. It is in everyone’s interests to get an outcome that is fair and does not reward dramatic overfishing.

I met the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, recently and made clear to her the Irish position that the Commission’s current proposals are not acceptable and we strongly oppose them. This is an unfortunate position. I want to support the Commission in trying to find a conclusion to this matter but what is on offer is not the basis for a fair conclusion. Norway also shares our concerns. We cannot simply allow countries outside of the European Union to do what they want in terms of the amount of mackerel they catch. We will continue to be as constructive as we can be. We do, however, have to recognise the legal mandate of the Commission to be the negotiator on the European side.

Ireland only offers an opinion, but one that is strongly held. We have the second largest mackerel quota allocation in the European Union after the UK. We stand to lose a significant percentage of our access to stocks if the offer to Iceland and the Faroe Islands is too large.

I would rather not comment of the detention of the trawler, Annelies Ilena. That is in the hands of the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, and will be resolved in court. The SFPA and the Navy are doing their best to be fair in the tough job of ensuring people respect the rules. We saw an example of that in Kilmore Quay last week which was a difficult process for the industry to deal with but it was necessary. We are seeing it now with a non-Irish registered trawler in the north west. I hope the outcome will send a strong signal that people need to keep to the rules regardless of boat size or fishery.

The Council process is that the Commission makes a proposal based on advice from ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and other organisations. We go through a process of assessing this. Both Bord Iascaigh Mhara, and the Marine Institute have been helpful in this. We prepare a scientific argument whether to agree with, oppose or amend the Commission’s proposal. That happens at an intense Council meeting on 16 and 17 December. The outcome will probably be seen at 7 a.m. after 48 hours of non-stop discussions and negotiations.

As regards alliances at this meeting, member states tend to share scientific evidence. For example, we are working with the UK on nephrops in the Irish Sea, with Spain on megrim and with France on Celtic Sea white fish. We have agreed with France to change fishing gear to reduce juvenile fish catches, an effective way of reducing discards in that fishery.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish the Minister and his colleagues the very best. I do not know whether 48 hours of negotiation is good for one’s health but we have become accustomed to it.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My Department, BIM and the Marine Institute have ongoing discussions with the industry and non-governmental organisations in this area. For example, today there was a discussion between my Department and BirdWatch Ireland on the forthcoming Council meeting. We meet industry representatives at the Council meeting to update them on progress.

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that a cross-section of the industry?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is all the various representative bodies such as Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation, KFO, and Irish Fishermen’s Organisation. I cannot meet every single fisherman in the country so I have to meet through the representative bodies.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope the negotiations are based on the best possible scientific data. The meeting has been informative.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 December 2013.