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

We will now move on to the fisheries section of our discussion. I thank the officials who are departing and welcome the new arrivals. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

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

The annual fishing opportunities for fishing fleets are traditionally agreed at the December Fisheries Council. This year, the arrangements for 2015 are due to be negotiated at the Council scheduled for 15 and 16 December. The levels of total allowable catch, TAC, and the quotas for Ireland will again be determined at that meeting following negotiations with member states and the Commission. The Fisheries Council will also 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 2015.
The process of preparing for the Council is well under way, with the publication of detailed proposals for TACs and quotas of key stocks of interest to Ireland in late October and November. I refer here to the Commission's proposals as opposed to those of individual governments. The proposals cover stocks which are not subject to third-party international agreements and are, in the main, whitefish and prawn stocks. Stocks which are subject to ongoing international negotiations, such as blue whiting and whiting in the Celtic Sea, are not included in the proposals.
Ireland, on behalf of the European Union, is hosting important fisheries negotiations between Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal and Ireland at the National Seafood Centre in Clonakilty, County Cork. These negotiations, on the annual fishing arrangements for 2015 between the EU and Norway, commenced yesterday and are expected to continue all this week.
Mackerel quotas were agreed at coastal state level last week, with Ireland given a quota of 89,000 tonnes for 2015. The latter is a very good result for us in our most important fishery. In fact, it is the second highest quota we have ever received for mackerel, as far as I can recall. The highest was last year, but there were specific reasons that it was so high on that occasion.
The Commission's proposals are based on formal advice received from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, the independent international body with responsibility for advising on the state of fish stocks. The Commission also takes account of the views of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, STECF, 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 an assessment undertaken of the impacts of the Commission's proposals. This is line with the commitment contained in the programme for Government regarding the preparation of a sea-fisheries sustainability impact assessment. 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's proposals for fishing opportunities for 2015. From 5 November, an online web portal on was activated to enable the transmission of electronic submissions for consideration. In addition, I convened a meeting of stakeholders on 26 November, which gave a further opportunity to key stakeholders to outline their position directly to me on the many aspects of this proposal. Five submissions were received by the closure date, all of which are available in full on the website.
I agree with the sentiment expressed in most of the contributions, which call for greater adherence to the available scientific advice to enable prudent and appropriate management decisions to be taken, allied with a concern about misapplication of some scientific advice. To be clear, I do not agree with taking an overly narrow interpretation of some of the scientific advice. I will not support cuts where additional information is available to inform the decision and where there is a real risk of generating higher discard levels than at present. The Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara have undertaken an evaluation of the Commission's proposals, which is contained in the sea-fisheries sustainability impact assessment.
In regard to the biological assessment, while noting an improvement in the status of some fish stocks, others remain a concern, namely in the areas west of Scotland and in the Irish and Celtic Seas. Much needs to be done for the benefit of our fishing industry to rebuild all stocks to sustainable levels, including, in some cases, further reductions in fishing opportunities and, in other cases, improving selectivity to avoid by-catch. Implementing a reformed Common Fisheries Policy and ending overfishing will require continued work and commitment from all member states, including Ireland, and the fishing industry itself.
The impact assessment summarises the pressure on the 73 stocks dealt with in the 2014 stock book. This is an increase from 59 stocks last year, mainly due to the addition of a number of skates and rays stocks. There is a higher number - 25 stocks - assessed to be sustainably fished in 2014, up from 20 last year. That is very positive. The proportion remains the same due to the higher number of stocks being assessed overall this year. The number of stocks overfished has increased from 14 in 2013 to 22 in 2014, which is not good news. This is due to the inclusion of four new stocks - rays and seabass - and four stocks having gone from unknown status or underfished to overfished. The number of stocks with unknown status is 26, which is similar to last year.
In respect of the biomass of stocks, that is, the quantity of mature fish in the sea, approximately one quarter, or 17 stocks, are in a positive state with above biomass trigger points. The number of depleted stocks has increased from seven to 12.

Now, 16% of stocks are assessed as being depleted. The number of stocks with unknown spawning stock biomass, SSB, no assessments or an undefined maximum rate of fishing mortality, Fmsy, remains relatively high at 44. Many of these stocks have good information on biomass trends, informing scientific advice for the stocks.

As part of the negotiations on the European Maritime Fisheries Fund, EMFF, I secured a budget of €32.5 million for data collection. This will be available to the Marine Institute together with national funding to deliver enhanced data collection work for the period to 2020. I am confident that we will improve information and provide better quality advice for the stocks around our coast with this commitment to the data collection work of the Marine Institute.

It is also noted that the activities of the fleet have other impacts on the wider marine ecosystem. Greater efforts are necessary to achieve a more harmonious and eco-friendly interaction with the broader environment and to ensure compliance with the European environmental directives. These efforts will need to be imposed at European level on all EU fleets fishing in shared fisheries under the CFP. This is a matter that will receive attention in the reformed CFP.

I will not go into a stock-by-stock discussion now, but the specific details are available in the document that has been laid before the Dáil and in the accompanying stock book, which was prepared by the Marine Institute. I will of course address any specific issue raised about individual stocks.

Regarding the CFP, the maximum sustainable yield, MSY, and the discards ban, I am committed as a general principle to the ambitious policy of achieving MSY by 2015 where possible and by 2020 at the latest. This must be implemented in a rational and progressive manner. In line with the CFP, we will need to phase in the delivery of Fmsy if its immediate application seriously jeopardises the social and economic sustainability of the fishing fleet.

Additional changes being introduced under the reformed CFP include an obligation to land all catches. This will apply to pelagic species from 1 January 2015 and will be phased in over three years, commencing with some of the main demersal species in 2016. A further change is the development of a more regionalised approach. Ireland will chair the north west waters group of member states in the first half of 2015 during which time its six member states will work on the difficult task of drawing up a discards plan for demersal stocks in the waters between the north coast of France and the northern tip of Scotland. A third change will see a move towards multi-annual plans covering multiple stocks and where and when they are exploited together. Managing mixed fisheries is a particularly complex ask but we will endeavour to do it.

These changes will result in a major shift away from current management approaches. This provides a challenge to all stakeholders to identify and apply instruments that are consistent with the overall policy objectives while maximising the potential yield available in line with available quotas. In particular, the obligation to land all catches means that total allowable catches, TACs, must be set taking this situation into account. The reformed CFP provides that when the obligation to land applies to a stock, the TAC will be set to reflect catches. This should involve higher TACs, which is good news for fishermen, because discarding will no longer be permitted from 1 January 2016 for certain whitefish stocks as the landing obligation is rolled out.

There is a serious challenge for our industry in preparing for the implementation of the landing obligation or, as it is more commonly referred to, the discards ban. I have established a national discards implementation group under Dr. Noel Cawley to help to prepare the industry for the challenges that lie ahead. The work of this group will intensify next year as we face the considerable challenge of commencing the implementation of the discards ban in our mixed whitefish fisheries.

Crucial to preparing for the landing obligation will be the introduction of improved technical measures to reduce significantly catches of juvenile fish and avoid catches of depleted stocks. It will be essential to include technical measures such as mesh size changes and closed areas in the regional discard plans to be drawn up by the regional member states and implemented in EU law. There was some ambiguity from the Commission this year as to whether this was legally possible. To ensure that it is, I have been working hard to have it specifically set down in an EU regulation. I am hopeful this matter will be resolved satisfactorily in the near future.

The Marine Institute, together with EU partners, has been working with the North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council to begin the development of mixed fisheries plans to aid the decision making process. The European Commission has funded two major projects to deal with these mixed fisheries interactions. Our industry is heavily involved in these projects, which aim to highlight and identify the biological and economic trade-offs between management options. This work is an investment in the future and will help towards better TAC setting.

It is sobering to read what the economic and social impacts of the Commission's proposals would be were they to be implemented in full. On the specific issue of the TAC and quota proposals for the December Council, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, estimates that the proposal as it stands would see a net reduction in fishing opportunity for the Irish whitefish sector of 20% by volume. In financial terms, this amounts to a direct income reduction of approximately €18.2 million on 2014's levels. Pelagic quotas would also decline, due in large part to decreases in boarfish and herring quotas. The impact would be a reduction of €13.24 million on 2014's levels. Overall, the financial loss to Irish fishing opportunities if the Commission proposal was adopted unchanged would amount to a direct income reduction of €31.46 million on 2014's levels. At a regional level in the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and along the west coast, the proposal would result in a 24% reduction in quotas at a value of €18.8 million for the demersal - whitefish and prawn - fleet. This would directly impact on the ports of Clogherhead, Howth, Dunmore East, Kilmore Quay, Dingle, Castletownbere and Ros an Mhíl as well as other smaller ports. However, an 8% increase in quotas for the demersal fleet in the north west would directly benefit the ports of Greencastle and Killybegs.

In addition to the direct losses to the fleet, income would also be lost from the processing sector as a direct result of reduced catches and in a number of ancillary industries, for example, net making, engineering, refrigeration and chandlery. Based on a total turnover generated per tonne of fish landed, BIM estimates that the full costs, direct and indirect, of the proposed quota reductions in the Commission's proposal pre-Council would be in the order of €78 million. On the basis of the most recent employment surveys of the catching sector, BIM also estimates that these reductions could impact on between 500 and 600 full and part-time jobs, either 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 TACs are in decline. The Hague preferences are negotiated annually at the Council in the face of considerable opposition from a number of member states. The loss of these allocations in 2015 would amount to 1,351 tonnes of fish with a direct value of €2.9 million. BIM estimates that the full value, direct and indirect, of losing the Hague quotas in 2015 will be approximately €8.1 million, with an associated impact on 100 or so full and part-time jobs, either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies.

I concur with the findings of the sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment. I will not support cuts where reliable, scientifically vetted additional information is available to inform the decision or 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 must be satisfied that in every case these cuts are justifiable. Fishing ports and whole communities around our coast are dependent on these fisheries for their very survival.

I would like to publicly thank and acknowledge all those who contributed to the production of this impact assessment and I look forward to the debate on its conclusions. In particular, I want to reaffirm my commitment to obtaining a fair, science-based outcome in December, which is in the best interests of our fishing fleet and fishing communities, but also takes a responsible approach to stock management.

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

This is almost an annual event. This Council meeting becomes the most important one of the year from a fisheries perspective, other than the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, itself. I am not sure whether Deputy Ferris's question was answered in that contribution.

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

No, the Minister has not come to it yet. The potential damage to the fishing sector if all these policies are implemented would have a huge social and economic effect on coastal communities, as the Minister mentioned. It would be devastating for many. I make it €89 million if one takes the Hague preferences plus the others. I hope the Minister can-----

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

The €78 million does not include the Hague preferences, so if we invoke them successfully, the €78 million will decrease by €8 million. The maximum damage, direct and indirect, if this were imposed in full and if we did not manage to invoke the Hague preferences, is estimated by BIM to be about €78 million. It would be €32 million in actual reductions in fish, but then one must calculate all the other ancillary and support services, processing, and so on.

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

We are talking about €70 million in any event. The Minister is also talking about the loss of 500, 600 or 700 jobs.

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

We said about 500 but, again, that is the worst case scenario. That would be the result of implementing the Commission's proposals.

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

It would be a disaster to implement this in full. The social consequences for our coastal communities, as the Minister is well aware, and as all of us from coastal areas are aware, will be significant. It is up to the Minister's negotiators to try to break the Commission's proposals down. We have all argued that the biggest problem for Irish fishermen, particularly those depending on whitefish and so forth, has been the lack of a quota and they have suffered greatly as a consequence of this. I would be very interested to know how the stakeholders, particularly the fishing organisations, have approached it. I assume they are up in arms over it, to put it mildly. No matter what it takes, the implementation of this will be detrimental to the coastal communities.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his presentation. The €78 million does not include the 15,000 tonne reduction in the mackerel quota for the next year either.

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

It does.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does it? It does not say that in the document.

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

Actually, no, it does not.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One could, therefore, add another €15 million to that.

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

Not necessarily, because that depends on the price of mackerel. The industry was quite happy with that mackerel outcome because there was probably an oversupply of mackerel this year, which drove prices down. Price is as important as volume in mackerel.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Volume is important for those who work in the factories in Killybegs and depend on it for an income. If the loss of the 15,000 tonnes and the indirect costs associated with that are included, the figure is significantly higher than €78 million.

The Minister said in his presentation that he agrees with the submissions from the industry on the misapplication of scientific advice. What can the Minister do about that at the Council? I presume it can just be used as a negotiation tactic. The Minister also mentioned the €32.5 million he secured for data collection in the new CFP and that the Marine Institute will use this to improve the data collection. How will that feed into future negotiations? If data collection is improved, is it agreed by the Commission that this will be accepted as reliable data if it is collected unilaterally by us? What other co-operation will there be with other member states in relation to our waters in terms of collecting that data and using that information?

The Minister also says that there has been a question about how legally binding the regional discard plans will be. This will probably have more impact in 2016 than 2015. He says he hopes to have it resolved in terms of the regulation by the Commission. How soon will that be resolved? If it is not resolved, does he see this as something that Ireland would implement unilaterally? That would be a retrograde step if the Commission cannot make it legally binding.

On the direct and indirect calculation of the loss of earnings, the figure of €78 million represents well over 10% of the total exports in the fishing sector. It is a significant impact. If the farming industry saw a reduction of over 10% in total value to them next year, this room would be packed to the rafters with members and media and there would be demonstrations outside the gate. What does the Minister plan to do over the next year for fishing communities to put in place measures to help those who will lose their jobs if this is implemented in full?

Will BIM provide an economic and social impact assessment based on the outcome of the negotiations on 16 December? That would be vitally important in informing people who depend on the fishing sector about the impact.

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

Is that the final agreement? This is in anticipation of-----

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, even if we mitigate the Commission's proposals by 50%, there will still be a €40 million loss to fishing communities around the country and a huge impact on jobs as well.

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

I call Deputy Harrington, in substitution for Deputy Deering.

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

I thank the Minister and the officials from his Department for the presentation. This time every year fishing communities look at what the Commission proposes in advance of these meetings. In my area, Castletownbere, they have seen the Commission's proposals and they have gone beyond anger. It is terror, almost, for some of the operators, particularly in the demersal sector. Many of those vessel-owners and families are in a precarious position and the Commission's proposals for some of those species, particularly in the south west and south east, are very concerning for those families and the communities. They are caught in a whirlwind of scientific advice, what they hear themselves, what they know from their own fishing effort, what they hear from the Commission, what they get from the Marine Institute, what they see in their own specialised media and what they are dealing with in the new proposals, with the discard bans. It is not an easy time to be in the industry or to be making decisions, to invest or to reinvest, or to see where one's future lies, particularly in the demersal sector. I know the Minister will be going to Brussels and I agree with what he is saying about the case he will make for Ireland based on the available scientific advice against the Commission. This is where it is difficult to square some of the Commission's proposals.

I understand ICES is showing interest in increasing the catches of haddock and cod in the Celtic Sea but the Commission has proposed a swingeing cut in the TAC for 2015, which does not square up. Similarly, there are data limited stocks. Pollock is deemed not important enough to invest in information gathering exercises. The figures put forward by ICES and the proposal the Commission has made for skate, ray and monkfish in area 7 do not add up. The prawn fishery is hugely significant for Ireland but there are disparate landing figures for the year and the Commission is basing its TAC on them whereas the scientific advice says something different. We are trying to reassure an industry and asking participants to have confidence in the scientific advice. We are saying that we must make decisions based on what we know about the sustainability of a fishery but the Commission then makes proposals such as this. That is not confidence inspiring from its point of view. There is plenty to put on the table at the upcoming meeting to meet the Commission's proposals head on.
The Commission says there is insufficient data for some proposals and it has invoked the precautionary principle. It has in the past proposed a 20% cut in a fishery under that principle and followed up the year after with another 20% cut because it does not have data. That is hard to take when the fishermen say the stock is strong and recovering and can cope with an increase in the TAC or a maintenance of the status quo. It would be great to know to whom the Commission is listening when it keeps proposing rolling cuts instead of applying a cut and then assessing the fishery. I welcome the increased investment through the EMFF in data collection measures and I hope that will generate more information on individual fisheries. The potential loss based on not having the full picture would be catastrophic for coastal communities, particularly on the south, south-west and south-east coasts.
The proposed discards ban is problematic in the pelagic sector and it is a minefield in the whitefish, mixed whitefish and demersal fish sectors. The committee will ratchet up its work next year with Noel Cawley. When will that work reach an apex? What consultation will there be with the industry? Will technical measures, closed areas and restrictions on efforts in terms of days be considered? How can the discards ban be effectively implemented to deal with what needs to be done and to ensure fishing communities can provide for themselves?

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

There is a great deal of concern, as the Minister will appreciate. With regard to the discards and the new equipment, will he clarify whether the EMFF will assist fleets to upgrade their gear?

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

We have done okay in the negotiations on the new fisheries fund. Under the previous CFP, Ireland received a total of €70 million from the fund. This time we will receive €147 million, which is more than double what we received the last time. The €32 million for data collection will come out of that. More than €70 million will be available for sea-fisheries development and investment, mainly through BIM, and it will help fishermen to adapt to the new realities of the CFP. We should not lose sight of the fact that, ultimately, this is about fishing in a way that ensures there are more fish in the sea in the future. It is not about stopping people fishing; it is about allowing a maximum commercial return from fishing while, at the same time, ensuring we do not fish in a way that fundamentally undermines the existence of a stock. The challenge for us is to make that change and to keep fishermen in business while building stocks by managing the volume of fish they catch on the basis of the available science.

More important, by helping people to change the way they fish, we will ensure we only catch the fish that we want to land and sell and a have a quota to catch. That is why we are looking at new technology, innovations, net shapes and escape hatches for juvenile fish. For example, square mesh panels are proposed for the Celtic Sea west of the 8o line to ensure juvenile fish can escape while cod and haddock are predominantly caught in that area. Significant volumes of whiting and mixed fish are caught on the other side of the 8o line but that is a more complicated problem because we do not want adult whiting escaping while also allowing for cod and haddock to escape.

This is ongoing discussion to try to find ways to allow fishermen to catch the volume they need to make a living while, at the same time, avoiding catching juvenile fish which should be caught 12 months later as a commercial catch. In some mixed fisheries, there has been between 40% and 60% discards on the basis of the volume of what was caught. That is a disaster for sustainability, stock management and future breeding stock and commercial catches. We are making the switch from a landing quota, which is the essence of the change under the CFP. Currently, fishermen are given a landing quota. They are allowed land a certain tonnage of fish. If they catch twice that when they are at sea, they dump half of it over the side. They are entitled to do that because that is how the system works. However, they will not be allowed to do that anymore. Instead, they will be given a catch quota as opposed to a landing quota, which changes the entire dynamic because now they must be much more targeted about what they catch because they have to land everything they catch. They are some flexibilities in the context of species for quota management and between years, which fishermen will understand. However, that is the principle underpinning what we are trying to do.

This should mean higher quotas in the future. Currently, quotas are set on the basis of factoring in discards in a fishery and if they do not have to be factored in, fishermen should be able to catch more fish and do so sustainably if they avoid juveniles and other bycatch. The purpose of this is more profitable fishing, more fish in the sea, a much more efficient way of catching them and avoiding bycatch and damaging stocks. That is easy to say but it is a big challenge to implement it, particularly in the mixed fisheries. That is why we have people such as Noel Cawley involved. He is an experienced character in trying to secure compromise, finding a way forward and so on.

I understand Deputy Ferris's concerned response to this. I am also concerned.

When we met them, the fishing industry representatives were concerned, as could be expected. We can make arguments to try to reduce a damaging outcome. We are focusing on two key areas. First, many of the stocks that have a 20% cut applied are data-limited stocks. It is a precautionary principle which we will fundamentally oppose. If fishermen have to live by science and there is no science in this regard, we should not be punishing them. That is totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned. If there is science suggesting we have to reduce the quota to protect the stock, we have to do it, but I am not going to ask fishermen to catch less fish if there is no science to back that up. That is one principle around which we will be making a very strong argument.

The other key area is the Celtic Sea, which is a hugely valuable fishery primarily for cod, haddock and whiting. There are also some prawns there and a big herring fishery. Dramatic reductions have been proposed for cod and haddock. We have a piece of scientific research ongoing which will be finished by the end of next week, so we will have it literally days before the Council. We believe, or hope, that scientific evidence, although it obviously needs to be accurate, will show a more optimistic picture of recruitment levels in haddock and cod. We will have to wait and see. We are not going to make that up. It has to stand up to scrutiny. We are going to make a very strong case on the back of that evidence, which is the most up-to-date science on the Celtic Sea, to change the Commission's proposals in that area. The industry is working with us on that as well as the Marine Institute.

The other big area is prawns. The recommendation in terms of the science for prawns is for a slight increase in numbers whereas the actual recommendation is for a 14% cut. There is a debate to be had on that. We need to address their reason for proposing a 14% cut. There are also some pressures on certain prawn fisheries that we have to acknowledge and recognise, especially around the Aran Islands where there is reason to believe that the prawn fishery is under some pressure. The way in which we set quotas for prawns is by just giving one bulk figure for the whole of area 7, which includes the Irish Sea, the south coast of Ireland, the Porcupine Bank and the Aran Islands. We manage that by fleets moving at different times of the year to different fishing grounds, which has worked well. The danger of giving a specific quota to each individual fishing ground would mean that the whole fleet would go to each one, fish it out until the quota is gone and then move to the next one. The scientific advice we get from certain quarters is that would be very damaging.

We are trying to maintain a whole of area 7 approach towards managing quota, but if we need to look at measures to protect certain prawn stocks, such as we had in the Porcupine Bank, for example, where we had no-fishing periods to protect the stock and allow it to recover, which it has, and it has been a very successful outcome, and if we have to do something similar in other areas, we will have to look at that. We need to try to work with the industry to make sure we can do that because there are many small boats relying on that fishery around the Aran Islands. It is primarily - in fact, entirely - an Irish fleet fishing in those grounds so we need to take that into account. Many of those small boats do not have the capacity to go to the Porcupine Bank and certainly not to go all the way around to the Irish Sea. We are looking at that and talking to the industry about it.

There are things we can do about data-limited stocks, prawns and the Celtic Sea. We already have agreement from the industry on some of the areas, for example, the reduction in the boarfish quota, which is accepted, and I am reliably informed by Dr. Cecil Beamish that the mackerel quota is the highest since 1987 barring this year. It is a pretty decent-sized mackerel quota for next year, although in terms of concerns about factories, I can understand the point Deputy Pringle is making. This is about more than boats. It is about factories and jobs on land in terms of volume and processing, and in some cases freezing, shipping and so on. A figure of 89,000 tonnes of mackerel is high.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The total allowable catch has been reduced since last year.

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

That is a separate issue and the Deputy knows my position on it. In my view, one of the reasons the TAC was so high last year was to try to get political agreement on accommodating the Faroes and Iceland. I was fundamentally opposed to that deal and still am, but we should not forget it was a two-year deal that needs to be reviewed at the end of next year and we will be making our point then. For next year, the agreement is almost 90,000 tonnes and it was actually the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation that said it was the highest since 1987. Many in the mackerel industry do not want higher quotas because they would cause a lot more mackerel to be caught - potentially unsustainably - particularly given the fact that the Russian market is closed at the moment. Making sure that we have strong demand for what we are producing is also important as long as there is reasonable volume, which there certainly is next year.

A reduction is also proposed for herring in the Celtic Sea, but a very responsible approach to management of herring has resulted in a very healthy fishery there. I think we will see temporary reductions followed by the stock growing again. Our industry has taken a realistic and very responsible approach. When there is real science that suggests action is needed, by and large they accept that, but when the science is flimsy and can be contested or when we have new science that paints a better picture, as we hope will be the case with the Celtic Sea, they expect me to make that argument very aggressively, and I will. I feel a huge responsibility towards this industry. Over the last three Decembers we have shown a willingness to fight very hard for the industry but also to do what is responsible in terms of the science that is available.

I met the new French fisheries minister and the French are a very important ally on some fisheries, particularly for the Celtic Sea because we share that fishery with them along with the UK. We have already had a detailed discussion of the new science that is available. They are also doing some science in the Celtic Sea about cod, haddock and whiting. We are also trying collectively to agree on the technical conservation measures we can introduce there to maintain quotas at an acceptable level. That conversation will continue in the Council.

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

I will come back to Deputy Ferris. I want to raise one point Deputy Pringle made, that the €32 million under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund that is going to be used for enhancing data gathering would be accepted by the Commission. It seems the Commission is the least likely to follow scientific data. To whom do they listen? It is very important that some sort of agreement is reached at Commission level to the effect that, if they are going to accept and fund enhanced data collection, they would accept what the data show at the end of the process.

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

I take it the Minister does not accept these proposals and is going out there to try and ensure that-----

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

I accept some of them but not others.

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

There are three Deputies present from two main parties and none of them gives a goddamn about our coastal communities. That is the sad part about it. If it was anything to do with agriculture the place would be full and the Deputies would be sitting up there at the front trying to get in. I just hope the Minister is not accepting this and I hope he plays hard ball with these people.

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

My record in this area is fairly clear.

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

The Minister's record is only-----

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

Just in case there is any doubt, there is an extremely strong commitment to this industry by the Government parties. We are preparing meticulously for the negotiations. My experience in Europe, which is limited, is that one has to make one's case on the basis of science rather than on the basis of emotion, but also on the basis of the social and economic consequences of decisions, and that is factored into the new Common Fisheries Policy. We will use all those arguments.

There were a few questions from Deputy Pringle which I did not answer. In terms of the science on which we will spend money, the Marine Institute is very much a part of working with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Some of our key personalities, including Mr. Paul Connolly is very much part of the ICES structure. By doing more research through the Marine Institute, we will provide credible information that we hope will be the basis of decisions, and we have more money than ever before to do that. Likewise, we should have a strong fund to support fishermen and industries to adapt to new realities. We will be signing off in the next few weeks on how we are going to spend that money.

On the regional discard bans, we want this to be effectively protected by EU legislation. We do not want Ireland to have to implement national legislation on foreign fleets that are almost impossible to police. Whatever rules Irish fishermen have to accept in Irish or European waters must also apply to everybody else fishing in those fisheries. That should be imposed at EU level even though it is managed at national level. If we cannot agree a discards ban, the issue goes back to the Commission to be imposed. It is very much in the vested interest of regional management entities to get the job done. In fact, we will be chairing it for the first six months of next year and will work hard to get a sensible practical job done in terms of the implementation of an obligation to land in the white fish and mussel fisheries.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From what the Minister is saying about the regional discard ban, the intention is that we will unilaterally implement it if we do not get agreement on a regional basis.

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

No. We either get agreement on it collectively or it falls to the Commission to do it.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be no national legislation.

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

We are not going to be implementing this on a national basis and allowing other countries to do what they want. There would then be variations and problems in terms of enforcement. Whatever applies to Irish boats in Irish waters will apply to Spanish, Portuguese, French, British and Dutch boats.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Irish authorities have the power to enforce it?

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

Yes, because the budget for enforcement is also up significantly. Yes, is the answer to that question.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The last question was in relation to the economic and social impact-----

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

After the outcome of the talks.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

After the Agriculture Council.

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

We will do what we do every year, which is to give a detailed and factual press statement which includes the economic assessment from BIM. Mr. Michael Keatinge works literally through the night for two nights crunching all the numbers and putting them together. I am pleased to say that in the past two years, the value and volume of the fishing industry has been growing. People talk about the demise of the fishing industry. However, we are catching more fish which have significantly more value than ever before. I do not know if it seems like that because everybody want to get more quota. That is actually true. The statistics are as follows. Landing into Ireland increased from 246,000 tonnes in 2010 to 280,000 tonnes in 2013.

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

For what species?

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

That is all species landed into Ireland, an increase of 14%. During the same period, the value of landings increased by 48% from €208 million to €308 million.

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

From all Irish boats?

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

So far as I know, they were not from all Irish boats.

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

The Irish boats probably land somewhere else also.

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

Some of them do. We are trying to get more landings into Ireland.

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

There is a two-pronged approach here - more Irish boats capacity and more landings of fish

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

Our preference is to get as much fish caught by Irish boats landed into Ireland.

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

Absolutely.

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

The next best thing is to get foreign boats landing into Ireland rather than steaming back to Vigo or La Rochelle or wherever they want to go in order that we can process and add value to their fish here. Irish seafood exports amounted to €496 million in 2013. This follows a strong period of growth of almost 65% in the value of exports in the period 2009 to 2012. What we are starting to do in seafood is what we have been doing in dairy for the past 20 years, which is to add more value to it in Ireland rather than just exporting round fish, either chilled or frozen, to be processed somewhere else. That is an ongoing journey. We will use all the resources and advice available to us to make a strong case, as we have done for the past three years, and will try to get the best outcome possible.

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

One of the questions I asked was if there is a timetable in respect of Dr. Noel Cawley's committee.

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

We will have to be in a position, certainly by the middle of next year, to sign off on a plan to introduce the discards ban or the obligation to land, whatever one wants to call it, by around June or July 2015. That is what we had to do for the pelagic side which is much more straightforward as the fisheries are not as mixed. There are some exceptions but in general mackerel is a pretty clean fishery, as is blue whiting, herring and so on. The first six months of next year will be a big challenge. I appeal to Opposition spokespersons and parties who know a bit about the industry to try to work with me on the issue because we have to implement it. If we cannot get agreement on it, the Commission will force us to implement it, resulting in all types of enforcement problems and conflict. If we can do this working with the industry, bringing them on board and supporting them with what one hopes will be generous packages through the fisheries fund, then we will have done a really good job in terms of the sustainability of the Irish fishing industry.

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

Boarfish is an example. We have seen a huge decrease in the boarfish quota from 88,000, two thirds of the EU quota, down to 36,000. The fishermen have told me for the past 12 months that they have not been landing. They are not crying about that issue. They knew it and they accept it. Similarly, they will accept advice on other fish where they know the species are challenged. The majority of the fishermen understand the problem of the discard ban and are important stakeholders in terms of implementation of the ban. The vast majority are willing to work at it and can see the goal, but they know it will be a very difficult proposition for the whitefish fleet and that it will take some effort to get it over the line. I neglected to mention in regard to the Celtic Sea herring reduction that there was some talk that the Marine Institute survey may not have been done at the optimum time. Perhaps Mr. Paul Connolly would comment. That may rebound next year. The fishermen are deeply unhappy about it.

It may be accepted if they believe the advice might improve for next year. The scientific work might not be done. We had issues like this before, with scientific surveys carried out at the wrong time for fish management. The information can become sacrosanct, which is also difficult to deal with.

When the Minister speaks to the French agriculture minister, is there any chance he could give us some of the monkfish allocation which the French never seem to succeed in catching for our waters? We are completely restricted in that regard. Deputy Pringle and others may not thank me for asking this but has there been any discussion of a review of the mackerel fishery?

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

Deputy Harrington speaks to me about these issues all the time. He is right in that the industry is taking a very responsible approach and accepting a number of proposed cuts. As it happens, some of those proposed cuts would have seen very big increases either last year or the year before in the case of herring, for example. Fishermen realise that if they take hard medicine when they need to, they will get rewards the year after or the following year. That is the case. The Celtic Sea herring management committee is not perfect but it has demonstrated a capacity to take decisions that have had very positive results in terms of stock sustainability. My understanding is the parties may not like it but they accept it is the right decision to see a reduced quota next year. As the Deputy mentioned, they will not accept a precautionary principle where 20% is taken from a stock when there is no science behind the process. That is totally unacceptable.

Fishermen have become supporters of the idea of collecting more scientific data, not less. When I started in politics, fishermen wanted nothing to do with scientists and they did not accept that the scientists understood fishing and fishing grounds. Now the fishermen want more science. We spent much money and time using cameras to assess the state of nephrops or prawn stocks in the Irish Sea, off the south coast and the Porcupine Basin. It is really comprehensive and convincing science, and as a result of it we achieved much better results in the negotiations. Fishermen can see that now so we will continue to take that approach.

What was the other question? It related to the monkfish quota.

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

The French have not been getting generous.

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

We swap with the French all the time and sometimes we do so for species where we have a big quota in order to get a crucial quota in the likes of monkfish and prawns. We do it every year and the person sitting on my left is probably the most experienced international negotiator on swaps that I can think of. A good job is quietly done every year to try to ensure we get a little more fish in areas where we need it for the socioeconomic development of the fishing industry and take it from other areas, through negotiation, where we may not need it as much. That might include mackerel when we have a very big quota. That process will continue but if anybody thinks we get something for nothing in these negotiations, I am afraid we do not. We are good friends with the French and we have a great relationship but they will not start handing over quota even if they do not use it, as they know they can use it for swapping purposes.

The only exception is that they do not catch a significant part of their nephrops quota each year and we try to factor that into allocation of quota for nephrops. If we know 15% or 20% of the prawn quota will not be caught because of a track record over a number of years, should the Commission not be factoring in a slightly higher quota for the others? It refuses to do so because of the argument it sets a very dangerous precedent. That is all part of a negotiation process for prawns, which is arguably our most important fishery because of the number of fishermen relying on it. In value terms, mackerel is ahead of the prawn fishery but when we consider the number of boats and people fishing, the prawn quota species - from a socioeconomic perspective of our coastline - is the most important. That is why the prawn fishery is a big priority every December. That is not to say the mackerel fishery is not a big priority.

If people are wondering what we have been doing in advance of this process, we have had multiple meetings at official level with the Commission and the French Minister. I am meeting Ms Diane Dodds, an MEP, next week to discuss her approach for Northern Ireland, as we have a shared interest in the Irish Sea, and prawns in particular in that area. I will also meet Ms Michelle O'Neill, MLA, the Northern Ireland Minister, as I do before every important Council meeting relating to fisheries. She has been very helpful.

We will do everything we can to try to achieve the best outcome and, whether it is good or bad news, we will publish the full figures, warts and all. We will detail the outcome and the economic consequences. I hope we will be able to create a much better story than is being painted here but it will be a big job as it is very difficult this year.

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

I thank the Minister and his officials, as well as the members. The three members present, along with me, were part of the sub-committee which did the report on the coastal and island communities. A couple of other members have demonstrated a consistent commitment to the sector. The observations of Deputies Ferris and Pringle were that if an agricultural agenda had been set, we would have had a bigger number of Deputies, Senators and members of the media present. That is not to say the people here are not committed to supporting the Minister and his officials. We are fortunate to have very experienced officials and two reputable organisations like Bord Iascaigh Mhara gathering data. If it would be of help to the effort, the committee could write to the Commission, seeking that it take on board the scientific data available before making any recommendations. It should accept any new scientific data that the Minister might have in his armoury at the meetings.

On 16 December, the second day of the Council meeting, we will get a briefing from an official about draft guidelines for state aid to the fisheries sector and aquaculture. What we propose as an exception for the Irish case could be steered by the outcomes of negotiations if a particular sector is victimised, for want of a better word. We can make a submission along those lines. The most telling comment from the Minister is that in whatever period he has been involved with politics, trust between the people gathering scientific data and fishermen has grown and they now want to work together. That demonstrates how far the fishing industry has come in the past 20 years. We should be able to make that case in Europe to our benefit.

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

If the committee writes to the Commission in advance of the December meeting, which would be a good idea, there are a number of issues to mention. The committee can take the advice in whatever fashion it likes. The committee can ask the Commission to take on board the most up-to-date science but, more importantly, there are politics involved. In trying to introduce a radical change in the way in which we fish - that is the new Common Fisheries Policy, which came about for all the right reasons - the industry must be brought along with that change. That is not the time for implementing drastic cuts. It will convince fishermen that Europe is against them if there is implementation of drastic cuts, particularly if the cuts are not fully backed by science.

What we are trying to do is bring the industry with us. We are seeking to gradually introduce a new way of fishing which is more sustainable and which will result, over time, in much better results. From a political point of view, I appeal to those in the industry to recognise that we are all trying to bring about the reform to which I refer. Ireland is committed to that reform and it held the Presidency of the EU when the deal relating to it was done. Those involved should factor this into their thinking when they are weighing up the social and economic consequences - which they are obliged to do under the CFP - before making choices with regard to quota, as well as taking responsible decisions in respect of science and sustainability.

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

Is it agreed that we will draft a proposal for agreement next week and that when this is ready, we will forward it to the Commission, the Minister and his officials and the organisations represented at this meeting? Agreed. Drawing up such a proposal would certainly do no harm and, in my view, it would be of assistance. From a political perspective, it is important that we, as a committee, should be in agreement on said proposal. There should be all-party support for the Irish cause in respect of these key negotiations, which take place every year.

I thank members for their contributions to the debate. As there is no further business, we will conclude proceedings.