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

I will try to deal with those questions in chronological order. The biggest challenge for us will be the mixed fisheries. Deputy Pringle, coming from where he does, probably understands this better than most. Haddock stocks are strong but, as he said, haddock cannot be caught on its own. One invariably ends up catching whiting or cod. We acknowledge that those stocks are particularly challenged and we want to work with the Commission to find a way to enable us to catch species that are strong while not jeopardising the protection and preservation of cod and whiting in particular.

The issue of cod is interesting. It does not just affect our waters. Across the North Sea it has been a subject of other negotiations and measures. I think the resolution to this will be technical measures. The Irish fishing industry is quite proactive in that space. There has been engagement between my Department and the industry to try to find a way that enables us to work with the industry. I think this is the point Senator Hackett was making at the end of her observations on mixed fisheries. If one accepts that, as Deputy Pringle rightly said, one cannot catch haddock without catching some other species, there must be some requirement for by-catch. This is about adapting the technologies used, the nets and the mesh sizes. These are technical measures. In my time I have found the Irish industry to be among the most proactive in that space, and it is recognised as such. We are working to try to make progress in that regard.

I will jump to one point Deputy Corcoran Kennedy made about herring. All the advice is that this fishery is in considerable peril. Though there was a quota, we have what is called the Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee. To give the industry credit where credit is due, when the fishery was opened, the industry came back and ordered its closure, stating that the fish were not there or that those that were there were juvenile and small. The fishing industry itself makes this point. It is illustrative of broader acknowledgement within the industry that the unsustainable exploitation of fishing stocks ultimately costs the industry itself. The principle of maximum sustainable yield, MSY, will underpin these negotiations. Significant progress has been made on fishing to maximum sustainable yield. We have a distance to travel but the graph is moving substantially in the right direction.

I will make one other point about the economic impact to which Deputy Corcoran Kennedy alluded as well as BIM, etc. I think BIM is acutely conscious of the impact of stock collapse. The other presentation of its assessment today concerns simply what would happen if this results and if the proposals become the reality. BIM does not take account of the Hague preferences. It is important to restate what the Hague preferences are about. They go back to the time of Garret FitzGerald's negotiations in the 1980s. They were an acknowledgement of the UK and the Irish fishing industries' concerns and, in the context of a stock that is in decline and the stock that is available for distribution, our capacity to have a carve-out for the UK and Ireland. The Hague preferences give us a lift. It is not that this affects every other member state and we reach into the pond to take more. The basis is the set advice, and we get a top-up that comes from other member states. There is considerable resistance to the application of the Hague preferences at all December Council meetings. The fact that the UK is leaving the EU will leave us much more isolated. Believe me, the securing of the Hague preferences is the most contentious issue at every December Council meeting, not just, I suspect, in my experience but in the experience of every previous Minister with responsibility for fishing. I imagine that with the UK leaving, fighting that battle for the Hague preferences will be a much lonelier endeavour, but so far so good insofar as they have been acknowledged. As for the economic assessment, I do not think there is any doubt that everybody is attuned, not least to the Marine Institute and BIM, which do invaluable work, but also to the industry as to the consequences of fishing unsustainably.

I am aware of the issue of the ICES advice for mackerel for 2019. Once the ICES advice was revisited and revised upwards, we endeavoured to have that additional opportunity made available to the industry here and across Europe, but there was not a willingness at the Commission at that time to adhere to that. It may well be reflective of the fact that the science even for this year is very strong in the context of a very substantial increase. I do not want to interpret the science - that is for the Marine Institute to do - but it is very welcome that the ICES advice shows a very substantially increased opportunity for us in 2020. The issue of the quality assurance of scientific advice has been commented on a lot since this issue arose. We have been in the vanguard in conversations about quality assurance regarding the scientific advice. ICES and its counterparts in all the other member states work to give the best independent advice available to them. They collate it and give it to the Commission in respect of the opportunities that are there. At all times, however, we need to be assured we are delivering the most accurate science. That is something for the Marine Institute and ICES itself. We have been active in that space in ensuring they learn from these issues.