Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next matter for discussion is in accordance with the committee's role in examining EU matters in relevant policy areas. The Minister, Deputy Creed, will brief us, in advance of next week's EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting, on the sea-fisheries sustainability impact assessment. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the sea-fisheries sustainability impact assessment with the committee. As in previous years, a rigorous assessment has been undertaken to examine the implications for Ireland of the Commission's proposals for the fixing of total allowable catches, TACs, for the coming year. The EU Commission proposal was issued on 27 October and a number of so-called non-papers updating the proposal have issued throughout November. As the committee will be aware, the final arrangements for 2017 are due to be negotiated at the Council scheduled for 12 and 13 December. The levels of TAC and the quotas for Ireland will be determined at that meeting following intensive negotiations with member states and the Commission.

The waters surrounding Ireland are a precious natural resource containing some of the most productive fishing grounds in the EU. We have a duty of care to protect their biological richness and, as such, they must be managed responsibly and sustainably. Ireland's total allocation of quotas in 2016 amounted to 216,261 tonnes with a total value of €201 million. There are also very valuable inshore species which are not subjected to EU TACs, such as crab, whelk, scallop and lobster, and which are fished by the Irish fleet inside our 6-mile coastal zone. The process of preparing for the Council is well under way. The proposal covers 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 proposal as yet.

On 19 October, I was pleased to announce that an international coastal states agreement for mackerel was finalised in Clonakilty which, economically, is Ireland's single most important stock. The negotiations resulted in a quota for Irish fishermen for 2017 of 86,429 tonnes, an increase of more than 10,500 tonnes from 2016. The agreement provides a high quota, stability and a framework to ensure the long-term sustainability of the stock. This quota is not included in the sustainability impact assessment as we must wait for the conclusion of all of the international negotiations. Negotiations have just been completed, on Friday last, between the EU and Norway. The EU TAC for blue whiting has not yet been finalised as there are further negotiations between the EU and the Faroe Islands to be concluded this week. However, it is expected there will be a substantial increase of more than 80% in Ireland's quota for 2017.

The year 2017 will see the continued phasing in of the landing obligation or discards ban. This was a central element of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, and was agreed by all member states as well as the European Parliament. It will, in effect, phase out the dumping of perfectly good fish at sea and end the catching and discarding of juvenile fish. This is a common sense goal but the obligation comes with significant challenges. We must be determined to face these challenges head on if we are to ensure the sustainability of our vibrant coastal communities, which depend on healthy fish stocks.

One measure to lessen the immediate impact of the discards ban which was included in the CFP is that the Commission will be obliged to take account of previously discarded fish when considering its TAC proposals.

So-called quota uplift, or top-ups, was applied to affected stocks for the first time last year and will be applied again this year. I am closely examining the methodology used by the Commission to ensure that Irish fishermen get the maximum uplift compatible with stock sustainability.

Throughout this process, I have listened to a range of views on the Commission's proposals. It has become clear to me, however, that there is a common desire among all stakeholders to ensure the sustainability of our fish stocks is guaranteed for future generations. In order to achieve this, we need to engender a shared sense of responsibility and foster a willingness to approach the challenges that face us in a creative and open-minded way. We need to strive to make our fleets more efficient in what they do so as to maximise the economic return, protect the sustainability of our stocks and safeguard the future of our coastal communities.

In my view, knowledge-sharing is a key aspect in accomplishing these goals. The fishermen I have met have generations of experience and, more than most, fully understand the importance of protecting our natural resources. I hope to see continued engagement between our industry, NGOs, the Marine Institute and BIM to ensure that the knowledge is fully shared.

I would like to refer to one of the key objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, namely, maximum sustainable yield, more commonly known as FMSY. This is the largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. Our shared ultimate objective is to bring and maintain our fish stocks to levels that can deliver FMSY by 2020 at the latest. In line with the CFP, however, it must be implemented in a progressive manner if, and only if, its immediate application seriously jeopardises the social and economic sustainability of the fishing fleet.

The proposals are based on formal advice received from ICES, 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, 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 an assessment of the impacts of the Commission proposal undertaken. To facilitate the assessment, an open consultation process was initiated whereby stakeholders were asked to submit their comments and observations on the Commission proposal for fishing opportunities for 2017.

From 1 November, an online web portal on www.fishingnet.iewas activated to enable the transmission of electronic submissions for consideration. These portals remained open until 25 November and in all four submissions were received by the closing date. The full content of all the submissions received by the deadline will be published on www.fishingnet.ie. In addition to seeking written submissions, I convened a meeting of stakeholders on 2 December to give a further opportunity to interested parties to outline their positions directly to me on the many aspects of these proposals. As I have mentioned, there was a range of views among stakeholders. However, there were also commonalities and I agree with many of the sentiments expressed throughout the consultation process. These include a call for adherence to the available scientific advice to enable responsible and appropriate management decisions to be taken. This, however, must be balanced with the concern that major cuts to TACs could have severe socio-economic impacts. It is in that context, that I have given a clear message to the Commission that I will not support cuts unless I am satisfied that they are absolutely necessary and fully supported by rigorously assessed, clear scientific evidence.

I will go into more detail in this regard but I shall first illustrate what we are facing next week. These are some of the cuts affecting some of our important stocks: nephrops or prawns – minus 9%, which is inclusive of the Commission proposal for quota uplift; cod in the Celtic Sea – minus 68%; megrim in the Celtic Sea – minus 28%; and monkfish in the Celtic Sea – minus 12%. Following the consultation process and the expert advice of the Marine Institute, I do not believe that all of these reductions in quota are either justified or necessary. There are stocks in respect of which I can accept the cuts proposed – for example, those affecting Celtic Sea herring and horse mackerel, among others.

The Marine Institute and BIM have again this year made an invaluable contribution to the assessment of the Commission's proposal, which is contained in the sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment that is before members today. I would like to briefly set out the findings contained in that assessment.From a purely biological perspective, the Marine Institute's view, which coincides with the ICES view, is that there has been an improvement in the status of some fish stocks. However, others remain a concern, namely in the areas west of Scotland and in the Irish Sea.

The impact assessment summarises the pressure on the 74 stocks dealt with in the 2016 stock book. If anyone wants a copy for light reading, I can arrange it.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will wait until Christmas.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to report that there is again this year a higher number of sustainably fished stocks – 28 compared with 26 last year – and a higher percentage – 38% in 2016 compared with 36% in 2015. I should note, however, that while the percentage and number of stocks overfished has declined in 2016, the number and percentage of stocks with unknown status are similar to last year. The specific details for all stocks are available in the document which has been laid before the Dáil and in the stock book, which was prepared by the Marine Institute.

The socio-economic impact assessment of the Commission's proposals does not fully account for Ireland's share of fishing opportunities. The stocks not covered include blue whiting, horse mackerel, mackerel, north-west haddock, ling and Celtic Sea whiting because the Commission has not to date included proposals for these stocks, most of which are the subject of ongoing international negotiations with third countries.

If agreed as they currently stand, the Commission's proposals would see a net reduction in fishing opportunity of 19% by volume in tonnes. In financial terms, this amounts to a direct income reduction of €14.752 million. These figures can be further explained, as follows. Our valuable prawn fleet could see a critical reduction of 9% by volume, with a direct income reduction of €5.849 million. The proposed reduction to Celtic Sea cod would see a reduction of 76% in volume, equivalent to a reduction of €1.89 million.

Let us consider the regional analysis of the impact. For the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and west coast - area VII - there will be an 18% reduction in fishing opportunity. This will cause a €14 million income reduction for the demersal fleet. This would have a severe negative impact on the ports of Clogherhead, Howth, Dunmore East, Kilmore Quay, Dingle, Castletownbere and Ros an Mhíl, in addition to other smaller ports.

For north-west - area VI - stocks, the impact assessment does not take account of some important stocks, which are not included as they are impacted by the EU-Norway bilateral negotiations. In particular, haddock and saithe are not included in BIM's assessment. BIM's assessment, excluding these two stocks, paints a slightly better picture, with a proposed 8% increase in fishing opportunity, resulting in a €0.75 million increase for the demersal fleets in the north west. This will directly affect the ports of Greencastle and Killybegs. However, the impact assessment does not include large expected cuts to Ireland's horse mackerel and boarfish stocks. The EU-Norway negotiations were concluded on Friday and the TAC set for haddock in area VIa involves a 42% cut and saithe in area VI involves a 61% increase.

Let me refer to the processing and ancillary sectors. In addition to the direct losses to the fleet, income will also be lost from the processing sector as a direct result of reduced catches and in a number of ancillary industries, including net making, chandlery, engineering, refrigeration etc. Based on turnover multipliers from fish landed in distinct Irish ports, BIM estimates that the full cost, including direct, indirect and induced, of the proposed quota reductions are in the order of €30 million.

This will obviously have a knock-on effect on employment. It is estimated that on the basis of the most recent employment surveys of the catching sector, these reductions could affect between 350 and 400 full- and part-time jobs, either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies.

The proposals do not include the Hague preferences, which are a safety net for the Irish fleet on specific stocks where TACs are in decline. Essentially, these are additional amounts of quota that Ireland and the United Kingdom claim for important whitefish stocks. Many member states object strenuously to their application as the additional quota comes off their allocations.

Ensuring that the preferences are applied will be a key political objective for me in the negotiations. The loss of these allocations in 2017 would amount to 1,535 tonnes of fish with a direct value of €3 million, according to BIM. This will have an associated impact on between 60 and 70 full- and part-time jobs, either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies.

I fully concur with the findings of the sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment. It highlights the significant impact the current proposals could have on the Irish fishing industry. This will be my first December Council. I have found that the process has given me an invaluable opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of our fishing industry and all those who care about it. Significant challenges lie ahead next week but I will do my utmost to agree a fair and balanced package for Ireland to ensure the continued vibrancy of our industry and the long-term sustainability of our stocks. I wish to publically thank and acknowledge all those who contributed to the production of the impact assessment and I look forward to the contributions of the committee.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Minister for your comprehensive opening statement.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive overview of the challenge and the potential quotas for next year. They will be up for debate at the Council of Ministers next week.

Near the end of his presentation the Minister outlined that the potential overall employment impact from what is on the table could be between 350 and 400 part-time and full-time jobs. That shows the significance and it sets out in real terms the potential impact of the fish quotas due for reduction next year.

To what extent does the Minister believe he will be able to mitigate what is being proposed at European level in terms of using domestic evidence and the Marine Institute? How much will the Minister be able to hold on to?

In the north-west area 6A there is a potential cut of 42% in haddock and 61% in saithe. What will the impact of this be financially and in terms of tonnage? Can the Minister explain the rationale behind that aspect of it?

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

I thank the Minister for his opening statement. This is an annual process. We discuss the savage cuts proposed at Council. Then the Minister goes to negotiate and comes back having rescued the situation. That is the story presented in the media each year. The figures keep declining each year regardless.

We have a detailed proposal but some aspects of it have confused me. The Commission sustainability impact conclusions state that there are no indications of progress towards achieving the maximum sustainable yield by 2020. The target has been jeopardised yet the Commission is still proposing a 20% cut in effort for the Irish fishing fleet for 2017. How does that square up against the proposal from the Commission? The Commission has said there are no indications that we are not on track to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2020, yet it has proposed a 20% cut across the Irish fishing effort.

Last year was the first year the so-called quota uplift was supposed to be in place. It was not clear last year how much of the quota was comprised of the uplift and how much was comprised of the cut. The impact assessment states that Ireland has required that the Commission provide the methodology used to calculate the quota top-ups in a visible and transparent manner. That implies the process has not been visible or transparent up to now. Has the Minister made any progress with the Commission in this regard? To what extent do the proposals for 2017 include top-ups or are made up of top-ups at the moment? It would be interesting and important to hear that.

We know there is a question over where the status of stocks is unknown. How much survey activity has taken place? How much effort has been put in to finding out the condition of the stocks? We have two survey vessels. I understand they spend approximately two months of the year in Canada surveying stocks there. I am unaware of others. For example, cod surveys have not been done in the Celtic Sea in recent years. What effort has been put in to assessing stocks in the Celtic Sea and in our waters that would add to the situation in terms of negotiation this year?

If we negotiate the Hague preferences successfully it will mitigate some of the reduction. The economic impact of the proposals ranges from €14 million to €11 million. Do the Hague preferences cover prawns? What impact will these have on the prawn fishery if we are successful in getting the full Hague preferences implemented?

For the past six months everyone has been discussing Brexit. My question is more for the future rather than for this year's allocation. Anyway, I will take the opportunity to ask the question. If or when Brexit goes ahead, we will have 60% of EU coastal waters as opposed to 25%, which is the position now. Does the Department have a view on whether this provides an opportunity for Ireland to increase the share of fish stocks that we can target, given that we will have 60% of the coastal waters?

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

I thank the Minister for his presentation. I concur with the remarks of Deputy Pringle. Each year we get a report suggesting it is hitting the floor and then the Minister comes back with a great success. This is a game plan and it does not wash with me. I imagine it does not wash with anyone who has been involved with the fishing sector over the years.

Let us consider area VII. It includes Dingle, Kilmore Quay and many other areas along the south coast that are being hit. These areas are the poor relation when it comes to fishing. They are being hit again and this will have a major effect. Are there other fisheries that have not yet been tapped into? I am specifically referring to spurdog. I have organised public meetings all along the south coast from Kilmore Quay to Fenit. Everywhere I go I am told that the waters are thick with spurdog. Fishing spurdog has been banned. This even applies to those who are potting. They are coming up in the pots and there are many of them. Is this not an opportunity to help those in the inshore sector who are having a terrible time? Should they not have an alternative? There could be many advantages if it was possible to have it opened up. For example, it would take pressure off other sectors such as lobster, crayfish and people involved in gill netting. They could have another source of income. It should be considered for smaller inshore fleets and smaller boats. They could attain some sort of sustainable income. Then, there is the question of bass. This is a thorn in the side of many fishermen. Boats from other jurisdictions are able to fish bass, albeit outside the 12-mile limit, yet we cannot catch bass in our waters. This is coming up at all the meetings.

The Minister referred to a figure of 86,429 tonnes for mackerel and said it was up by 10,500 tonnes. How will this be distributed? Are we going to have the same allocation of quotas as in the past? In many areas they were political allocations ring-fenced for certain people. This is a chance to try to do something. I am not at all concerned about the 23 or 24 millionaire big boats. I am concerned about the fisherman who works out of Ballycotton or Youghal, over as far as Helvick Head, Dingle, Castletownbere and so on up as far as Rossaveel and back to Kilmore Quay. They are trying to make ends meet.

A quota is a huge problem. There is nothing but reductions again this year. In regard to cod in the Celtic Sea, there is a minus 68% proposal; megrims, 28%; monkfish, 12%; and prawns down by 9%. I know these are in negotiation but there will be cuts again. It is destroying a way of life. Some mechanism has to be found to try to protect that way of life not to force people into the opportunity to decommission and get out of the industry as has happened in the past. This has had serious social consequences for coastal communities. Is there any way the spurdog industry could be started up again? I understand there is some research going on to see will it go. If it does that would give people with small boats a good opportunity to stay in the industry.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McConalogue's question about whether I can mitigate this and come home with a good news story shades into the other question. In truth, I do not know. This is my first voyage. The advice of officials in the Department and engagement with colleagues paints a grim picture. Looking at previous impact assessments I do not think anything was quite as severe as this in terms of the proposals for several species of significant value, particularly the prawns. They are one of the most valuable stocks up for negotiation at council. I honestly do not know. A great deal of work has gone into preparation for this in consultation with other member states where we might forge strategic alliances and work to deliver the best possible outcomes. It is a very challenging area.

Deputy Ferris asked about spurdog. The advice is that it is significantly overfished. It is a long living and slow to recover fishery. There is a proposal for a small scientific fishery for 2017 and the details need to be worked out. The scientific evidence would not support the views the Deputy is putting forward.

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

I want to tease this out. The evidence I get from the people who are potting crayfish and lobsters is that they have never seen spurdog as thick in the water as they have been in the past two years.

Dr. Paul Connolly:

There are two points to emphasise here, one, the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, is for a zero catch. It is gravely concerned about the state of spurdog. The second point is spurdog is notorious for its ability to aggregate. A fisher could be out and catch no spurdog and in the next trawl come across a huge shot of spurdog. That would imply there is plenty of spurdog but by the nature of the beast, they are easily caught in big shoals. Overall, however, there are very serious concerns about the state of the stock of spurdog. As the Minister said, they are very vulnerable to overfishing because they are long lived.

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

I am not talking about one area but about the whole way from Kilmore Quay to Loop Head. I have been in every port and have spoken to people at the coalface. The scientific evidence does not take into account the people who are fishing it. I have had a problem for a long time with scientific evidence because it is not based on the experience of people who are part of the industry. I am told, and I have no reason to doubt it, that spurdog are thick on the ground.

Dr. Paul Connolly:

The Commission is proposing that we set up a small experimental sampling fishery to work with local fishermen. In that case we can allow some level of fishing to take place then do a scientific evaluation to see with the local fishermen whether what ICES says stands up. We could certainly do that.

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

I think-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Deputy we have to-----

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

I think we are making progress here. I want to see something come out of this meeting. I think we are making progress and that is------

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are out of order here because-----

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

I do not want to be awkward.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we want to carry on this discussion, which I have no problem doing, we will have to return to private session because of the Standing Orders, which I do not make. The officials are supposed to respond for clarification purposes only unless we return to private session. I am only clarifying the situation. I have no problem with having this discussion.

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

I will wait for private session. I want to see this through.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will return to the Minister. I am not trying to be awkward just to clarify.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Deputy McConalogue's other point about Area 6A haddock, this species is the subject of a bilateral agreement between the EU and Norway. I am not at the table for those negotiations, although Ireland is represented. It is a fait accompliat this stage.

We have raised maximum sustainable yield, MSY, with the Commission. Where we feel the consequences of moving to MSY too early would have a devastating impact on communities dependent on certain fisheries we are indicating clearly to the Commission that we are availing of the maximum possible time delay available in the reformed common fisheries policy, CFP, to acknowledge the difficulty that journey causes the fishing community.

On the issue of uplift in the context of the data we have on the various fisheries, we are examining what we would consider to be the appropriate uplift entitlement and that will form part of the negotiation process with the Commission next Monday and Tuesday. We are doing a cod survey.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister could conclude we will allow five or ten minutes in private session where he could provide clarification.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak about some of the other issues. Hake preferences and prawns are not applicable because when the hake preferences were negotiated in the 1980s prawns were not considered an important enough fishery to be covered by it and it would be impossible at this stage to have the scope of hake preferences extended to other species. There is huge resistance, even though it is one of the instruments in our tool box for getting the best possible outcome. It is very resistant and is not even a guaranteed card to play but extending it to Nephrops would not be possible.

Brexit is in many respects a different debate to the one we are having today. Bearing in mind in the context of the referendum, as Deputy Pringle knows better than most, the expectations of the fishing community in the UK were elevated higher than those of any other community, if the UK were to leave with its territorial waters and jurisdiction over them I fail to see an opportunity. We catch 38% by volume and 36% by value of the effort of the Irish fishing fleet in the UK territorial waters. If we are displaced from that by the stroke of a pen when Brexit negotiations conclude we and all others who fish in those territorial waters will move into smaller waters chasing a finite resource. That can only have calamitous consequences for us. I raised the longstanding fishing practices of the Irish fishing fleet over generations last week when I met Secretary of State, Andrea Leadsom, on Brexit related matters in the UK.

While she prefaced her remarks by saying that these matters are subject to negotiation between the UK and the European Union, she did acknowledge traditional fishing practices. This obviously raises the Voisinage issues, which were also discussed and on which we hope to have progress. I brought a memo to Government today on drafting legislation. If possible, I hope to have that legislation published before Christmas and, with the assistance of Members, to have that legislation passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas early in the new year. Brexit is an enormous challenge, particularly if the UK decides to go and take for its exclusive use its own territorial waters.

Deputy Ferris also raised the issue of bass. This is an issue of the scientific evidence as well. All that is left is the angling opportunity for bass, which is restricted. There is no commercial fishery and unlikely to be for quite some time, based on the science.

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

It has only been banned since last year. It was banned for Ireland for 15 years. European boats could fish and Irish ones could not. It was ridiculous.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since last year we have had a level playing pitch because the science indicates that the stocks are just not there.

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

I am not disputing that. However, I am disputing that-----

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is nonetheless a significant angling resource. The Deputy and I both see people fishing for it. There is a catch restriction of two per day. That angling product has been protected in the context of what is otherwise a closed fishery.

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

Do the Commission's proposals include the quota uplift at the moment or is the quota uplift additional?

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

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

Last year we were informed that the Commission's proposals included the uplift.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figures I have outlined are not inclusive of that. However, in respect of the various species we are doing some calculations as to what we would consider an appropriate uplift.

Chairman:

Is it agreed to go into private session for five minutes for clarification on the matters about which Deputy Ferris is inquiring? Agreed.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the members for their engagement on the issues. They will appreciate that it is a very technical area. I welcome the input from members and all the stakeholders. Last Friday in Clonakilty, I had a very useful engagement with all the producer organisations, POs, and the environmental pillar. That was an important voice also. Ultimately all stakeholders have a fundamental interest in ensuring the viability and sustainability of the industry. That is based on science and sometimes the science does not tell us what we would like to hear, but we ignore it at our peril. Obviously we feed our science into the deliberative process through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES. I understand Ireland has been a member of that council almost since the foundation of the State. Its job is to provide a rational basis for the level of fishing that is sustainable.

We have some issues with it and argue on those points, but the industry itself acknowledges the evidence on quotas in certain areas. For example, it agreed to restrict the fishing of nephrops in the Porcupine seabight several years ago. As a consequence, stocks in the area have returned and there is a proposal to double the outtake in the next year. That will be a help, although there is a proposal for an overall 9% reduction.

There are other areas of science that we do not dispute and where fisheries will be closed. If we overfish, we run the risk of doing permanent damage to fishing opportunities in the industry. That industry is located on the periphery. If fisheries go, there are not many alternative enterprises available to people. It is my ambition to deliver the best possible outcome for the industry in what are seen as challenging circumstances.

I thank the committee for facilitating this engagement.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for appearing before us and giving us a detailed presentation. I wish them every success next week in their negotiations. I hope there will be a satisfactory outcome.