Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have full defence against any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. While all witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege, they may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence at a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I welcome all the witnesses, whether they are joining us in person or remotely. They are: Mr. Seán O'Donoghue, CEO, Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation; Mr. Ciaran Doherty, chairman, Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation; Mr. John Lynch, CEO, Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation; Mr. Aodh Ó Domhnaill, CEO, Irish Fish Producers Organisation, who is joining remotely; Mr. Patrick Murphy, CEO, Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation; Mr. John O'Sullivan and Mr. John Tattan, both from the Irish South & West Fish Producers Organisation, who are joining remotely; and Mr. Jerry Early, Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation, who is joining remotely. We will take the opening statements of all the organisations as read but will allow the representatives to make observations at the start and outline their positions as regards fish quotas and decommissioning. We will then have questions from members. Representatives will have five minutes each. We will start with the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation.

Mr. Se?n O'Donoghue:

I thank the Chair for inviting us to this meeting on a subject that is very important subject to us, namely, the total allowable catches, TACs, and quotas for next year, in addition to decommissioning. I already submitted a full statement, as the Chair said. I hope members had a chance to read it. I will pick out a few key points from it.

As we go into 2023, we are again in the ridiculous position we were in in 2021 and 2022, which is that the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council, to put it mildly, is of little use in setting the final TACs and quotas, as Brexit has changed everything. The EU-UK negotiations are ongoing at present and are scheduled to finish on Friday but, from what we learn, I doubt that will happen. The council meets on Sunday and Monday so we will again have this farce of provisional quotas being set. We brought this up over the past two years. There needs to be a better way of doing business because Brexit has changed everything.

In addition, the backdrop is that we have a fuel crisis, reductions in quotas and the significant effect of Brexit hitting us.

We need assistance to get us through a very turbulent period. We have identified the key problems but more importantly, we have put forward solutions and we hope some of those will be taken on board this year.

On the mackerel issue, we have the ridiculous situation that in 2021 and 2022, the Faroe Islands and Iceland set themselves enormous additional quotas over and above what they should have, putting the stock in jeopardy. There seems to be a complete unwillingness at Commission level to deal with this. We looked for trade sanctions against the Faroes and Norway. They have not happened. If they do not happen, there is a real danger that our key stock will be put in jeopardy.

There are a few other stocks that I want to highlight. We are facing real difficulties regarding pelagic fish for next year because of the effect of Brexit on the mackerel quota. Over the course of 2021 and 2022, we transferred 23,000 tonnes of mackerel, worth €35 million, to the UK. We are going to do the same next year and in the subsequent years. By 2025 we will probably be transferring 20,000 tonnes of mackerel per year and that will stay there indefinitely. This needs to be addressed. There is a small chink in the armour in terms of burden-sharing with the Danish and Norwegian mackerel. The Minister mentioned that this is coming up at the Council. We expect that we will get our fair share of that. It will go in a small way, and I emphasise the word, "small", towards the burden-sharing. However, by no means will it go the full way.

The other issue we have with pelagic stocks is regarding western horse mackerel, which is a key fishery for our pelagic vessels. Unfortunately, the scientific advice for next year is for a zero catch. We will probably end up with a rebuilding plan that was devised by the Pelagic Advisory Council of approximately 15,000 tonnes or 16,000 tonnes, which is about three quarters of what it normally would be. The key issue for us is that there is a big problem with the science. We want to get this benchmarked next year so that we do not end up in the same position for 2024.

Blue whiting is the only good news story on the pelagic side with the 81% increase. The issue here is the EU-Norway negotiations that are ongoing. I have attended for the last few rounds. I should be there today but I decided this committee was really important to attend. We need the balance reduced. More importantly, if there is to be access to the Irish box, there has to be a payment in blue whiting in return from Norway.

Regarding the whitefish sector, we have a difficult situation in the north west with a significant reduction in monkfish. We will likely not get the increase in haddock that we should get. I want to emphasise that the task force recommendations have been accepted by the Minister. However, not one cent of the €433 million has gone to the sector that has been most affected, which is the pelagic sector. That has to rectified without delay.

Mr. John Lynch:

We sent in a fairly detailed statement and we outlined all the stocks that are of concern to us for this year. We also detailed some of the pelagic stocks, on which we fully support the Irish position. We recognise what we lost in Brexit but we also lost in demersal stocks and that is mentioned in the statement. One in particular is our second most valuable stock, namely, nephrops. In some ways it is probably our most important stock in terms of the number of vessels and crew that depend on it. As outlined in the statement, we lost 14% of our nephrops quota in the Brexit TCA agreement. We have yet to get any quota balancing there. The nephrops fleet is at a minus. This has driven many of the applications for the decommissioning scheme, because of the reduction in earnings for the vessels which is, in demersal terms over €10 million per year each year since the TCA or rather, it is building to €10 million in 2026. Those losses are unsustainable and that is why vessel owners were forced to apply for the decommissioning scheme. If we had burden-sharing within the EU on the TCA agreement, this might not have been the case for many owners.

Another serious effect of the TCA agreement for our members was on scallop vessels. They are not affected by quota but they are affected by the TCA agreement. They have yet to receive any assistance from the BAR funding for the losses they have suffered due to the TCA. They are struggling like everyone else in terms of fuel and the ongoing costs because of how they had to change their business due to the TCA. This meant that they could not trade through the UK anymore because of the requirement for health certificates.

Leading into 2023, we will have a review of the Common Fisheries Policy and we have outlined in our statement our opinions on the stocks of concern. Among our main stocks of concern are monkfish and black sole in area VII, particularly in 7f and 7g sole, where we only have 3% of the TAC in the European Union. Three percent is a very small amount for a coastal state in that area. We have vessels that very much rely on this. We cannot understand why we have so little and we can not understand why we do not invoke. We have a Hague preference on this stock and we do not invoke it. In our opinion, the Hague preference should be invoked this year along with the others that are invoked every year.

We have not had a TAC on spurdog since 2009. There will be a provisional TAC for spurdog in the first three months if there is no agreement with the UK by Friday.

We emphasise the need to move our fisheries in all stocks, to a maximum sustainable yield by 2030. In doing that, we need to recognise that some stocks are at such a low level that they are given a zero TAC advice by ICES each year.

Where efforts are being made to rebuild these stocks, we still require a by-catch quota for these stocks to keep other fisheries open. In other words, a lot of our target species in the demersal sector like nephrops, haddock and whiting cannot be caught without also catching some cod. We require a by-catch quota there and for whiting in some areas where there is a zero TAC advice. One cannot target the other fisheries without accidentally catching some of these species. We urge that those by-catch quotas would continue for that reason.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite Mr. Ó Domhnaill to make his contribution remotely.

Mr. Aodh ? Domhnaill:

I am with the Irish Fish Producers Organisation and I represent vessels all around the coast in pelagics and demersals. I will not go over the areas covered very well by the other two participants but will focus on some key issues for the seafood sector and in the context of the negotiations. At the moment, the Norwegians are abusing the quotas on mackerel. They have been setting unilateral quotas for the last three years. At the same time, as a third country they are pressing for access to Irish waters to fish a massive quota of blue whiting worth €100 million to €120 million, most of which will be taken in our waters. This is a major ambition of theirs. It is fundamental to them and it is fundamental to the negotiations overall. To put it into perspective, the Irish boats will probably have a quota value of between €9 million and €12 million. The Norwegians have almost ten times the quota that we have and yet the fish are in our waters.

I am asking for a Brexit mitigation strategy. Brexit really hit the industry hard. We are decommissioning 60 vessels at the moment. In Rossaveal alone, there are nine vessels, seven of which have applied for decommissioning. This is decimating the fleet and the industry. We have a golden opportunity to take issue with Norway and tell them they cannot access our waters south of 56° 30' N unless they are prepared to compensate our fishermen by way of quota transfers. It is up to us as a member state to stand firm, to set the ambition, defend the sector and get something reciprocal in return. If we allow a third country to access our waters to fish in our territory on a third consecutive year, then we set a terrible precedent. We are asking for a level playing field.

For next year, it is really important that we focus on a developmental approach for the sector. We need coherence and we need to apply the funding that is there as aid measures for the fuel crisis, for example. This will enable us to compete on a level playing field with Europe. We are at an inflection point for the industry. There are many problems. The industry is suffering from decades of neglect. There is a failure of policy. The solution starts at home but we need to prioritise. We need to raise the ambition and we need to fight for these quotas. What fishermen need to survive are quotas that support the vessels. We cannot have resilience of vessels unless we have adequate quotas to cover our very small fleet. That is my position. It is about trying to raise the ambition and to encourage Ireland, at a political level, at a whole-of-government level and at a policy level, together with our civil servants, to start to fight hand in glove to defend the industry and to set targets that support development.

Development for the fleet is not directly relevant to the quota negotiations but it is relevant to decommissioning. We are decommissioning a big segment of our fleet. Alongside that we need to have a developmental approach where we are into a fleet renewal to address the issues of green compliance, decarbonisation and improved technical measures. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak. I hope I have not been too critical but I think these are important points. It is an inflection point for the industry, which is at its lowest level. Brexit has whacked us. We have given away 40% of the total transfers of our fish to the UK. We have got nothing in return.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Ó Domhnaill and invite Mr. Murphy to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Patrick Murphy:

If it is okay, I might share my time with the two chairmen I have with me. I thank the committee for inviting us here. We would like to have more regular meetings during the year rather than just one occasion when it comes to the December Council. I hope the committee would take note of that. We have a big job ahead and we need help. We would like to see more of this engagement between the committee and the Minister. As he said in his statement, he has met us a few times and it is never enough. We have spoken to the Minister a few times on the fuel issue. He is still considering it. For us, that is hard to take, given everything else that the industry is going through. There is money available and our industry is in dire need of assistance. We talk about level playing pitches and that we go to Europe and look for these. Here is one instance where countries in Europe get fuel subsidies which gives them a massive advantage in the marketplace because they have fewer expenses to catch the fish. The European Union has again rolled over, giving access to our waters between six and 12 nautical miles. This was despite our objections and the Minister putting a solid proposal forward that we would protect the area and the spawning grounds by moving this area out to 20 nautical miles. He was overruled when it came to the voting. That is something that needs to be addressed in the European Union. Maybe the Minister needs help with that from the committee and the Oireachtas. For us, the Taoiseach should be doing that.

One of the main points we raised here last year was the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. We put together a task force and we produced an excellent document. We were told by the Commissioner that there would be a review, then it was to be a report a now it is back to being a review. Without a review of the Common Fisheries Policy, we will have the same conversations with this committee year in and year out. It will be about the industry shrinking and there being no future in it for coming generations around the coast. To put it into in context, there were 330 boats in the various categories fishing offshore in 2006. We think that will be down to 120, maybe even lower if the targets are met. That is a shocking reality for our coastal communities. In places like where I grew up, fishing is becoming a memory. There are no boats. They are disappearing right in front of our eyes but we are doing everything that we can to try to stem this tide.

Burden-sharing is something we spoke about last year. We are fighting for this and we are trying to get our colleagues in Europe to back us on this. Hopefully we will get some support from them.

We have been asking for changes to the atypical working scheme to look after the hardworking people who are travelling here from the other side of the Continent. This will help to create employment and jobs ashore and will ensure that there are well-crewed boats with good skill levels. We are delighted that there has been movement on that. Hopefully this will happen before next year.

We have a small share in fisheries. The science tells us that the maximal sustainable yield for hake, for example, is 81,000 tonnes yet on a precautionary level, we are given around 44,000 tonnes. Our share in that is tiny. It was 2,383 tonnes last year. If we get a 3% increase on that, it is really an insult to the fishermen who have done so much work by bringing in gears to avoid fish by-catch. That is the design of fishing nets now as to avoid fish.

Fuel aid is definitely something that we hope the committee will raise with the Minister. People were expecting to get fuel aid, as has happened in other countries. They have dug deep financial holes for themselves and are in serious trouble. It will jeopardise their industries going forward.

We were called the custodians of the sea when we stood up to the Russians and protected our seas. We hope that will be acknowledged and that we too will be protected and helped to keep fishing. We have vulnerable marine ecosystems on the water. We have spoken to the Commission about the closing off of areas that were traditionally fishing grounds. We have raised objections that this is once again going to impact on fishermen in the Porcupine and other areas where they have plied their living. Again, we were deemed custodians of the sea for protecting the Porcupine from others coming in.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

On bluefin tuna, we do not even have a quota. We have only a 1% by-catch. The Koreans and the Japanese have a big fleet outside our 200-mile zone. We do not know how much they are catching. There is no one controlling them. Our waters are full of bluefin tuna feeding on our stock. We are fattening them up for others. Ireland has no quota. We should have asked for a quota in 1997 or 1998 but we did not. We had a boat long-line fishing out of Castletownbere for bluefin tuna and sending the fish out to Japan. We had drift net fishermen catching albacore tuna at the time and we caught bluefin tuna as well. However, Ireland did not ask for a quota and it is time we asked for one. Our waters are teeming with bluefin tuna.

Blue whiting is another fiasco. We have just over 3% out of 1 million tonnes of blue whiting. Norway catches over 200,000 tonnes in our waters. It has been allowed to do that since 2011 or 2014 and now wants to access double that figure. We need to get at least 80,000 tonnes, and possibly 100,000 tonnes, in return for this quota to keep our fleet alive.

I am the Chair of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, which represents pelagic boats in the polyvalent sector as well. A new boat arrived last week and I think there are three more coming to our fleet. There are boats that were modified over the years. We really need quota. We lost so much in Brexit. It has a massive effect on us because we have only 13% of the mackerel quota between 27 boats. Of the 50 boats allocated mackerel quota every year, 27 have access to only 13% of the mackerel fishery. We have access to only 9% of the blue whiting fishery. Boats that have fished in that fishery since 2004 now have to go into a lottery to get a quota every year. Boats in the other pelagic segment do not have to do so because each of them gets a quota every year. It is crazy. How are we going to survive? How are the new boats coming in going to survive? Will we have another decommissioning scheme in our fleet? How are the new boats going to be paid for? Boats were ordered before Brexit happened. It is just crazy. We were very worried about our future. I ask the Government to look into the redistribution of pelagic quotas between the polyvalent sector and the refrigerated seawater systems, RSW, sector. We need that extra bit to survive. What we do not need is to get in more boats that need to be decommissioned.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. O'Sullivan. We will try to come back to him later on.

Mr. Jerry Early:

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for inviting us to this meeting. I find it astounding that as the biggest producer organisation, even though we are an inshore PO, we had no notification of this meeting until yesterday. I find that shameful and those responsible should hold their heads in shame.

My big issue is that decommissioning is something that we, the Irish islands, never agreed to. I also find it astounding that nobody else has raised this insofar as decommissioning is concerned. For the Minister to say it was unanimous is not true. We did not agree with decommissioning and many things within it. Through the task force, the Minister said he said he had full support, which is not true.

I want to point out an important issue related to decommissioning that is very valuable. The Minister announced today that €52 million has been provided to local authorities for improvements locally in the western regions of Cork. Who is going to fish from these piers? There are no young people coming into the industry. We are talking about quotas. There is no forward thinking on access for new entrants. We are paying fishermen to stop fishing. Is there any forward thinking about setting aside tonnage and kilowatts for new entrants? There are older fishermen leaving the industry through decommissioning buying up small boats and pricing out younger people who want to get into the industry. They are fishing non-quota species in inshore waters and putting extra pressure on those stocks. We are talking about going out to negotiate with the European Commission and quotas. Charity begins at home. It is shameful that nobody else has brought up this issue at this meeting. I want it on record that unless we support new entrants into this sector, this whole conversation is null and void as far as I am concerned.

I have nothing else to add to what has already been said. I could go for forever and a day but the issues have been covered. That is my contribution.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all of the organisations. We had a session with the Minister before this one, for which I hope some of the witnesses tuned in. We told him the organisations should have come in first, with the Minister contributing afterwards. The best approach would be a debate around the table with everyone present. Sometimes that roots out the truth and cuts out the jargon.

I will address my questions first to the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation. Perhaps the witnesses will note them, rather than having a back and forth, to give other members a chance. Why have we not applied for bluefin tuna quota since the 1990s? The Minister made it very clear that he is engaging with the fishing organisations. I had the impression from what he said that he is doing this often. Is that the case? I asked him why the French and others can give a fuel subsidy to their fishermen and he said he cannot do so. I cannot understand that. We are all under one European umbrella. Europe works when it comes to taking our quota from us and dividing it between other countries. However, when it comes to giving us a bit of a subsidy for Irish fishermen, we cannot do so. The Minister said the organisations have met him several times. Do they have any idea why that has not happened?

Can some movement be made on decommissioning? As far as I know, and I may not be right here, the criteria applied to boats decommissioning in other EU states differ from those applied to Irish fishermen. Is it true that in some countries, the fishing fleets that were paid aid to temporarily cease fishing activity will not have to pay back that money when they are decommissioning their boats, as is required of Irish fisherman? In the conditions attached to the Irish tie-up scheme, were Irish fishermen notified that this money would have to be returned if they later applied to, and were successful in accessing, the decommissioning scheme?

Do they agree that money paid to compensate fishermen for loss of earnings should be returned? In my view fishermen lost enough through the Government gifting 25% of the fish they are catching. The Minister repeatedly admits that the Irish fishing sector has lost 15% and he sticks to that figure. I have heard it is 25%. Who is right and who is wrong here? The Minister also continues to tell us, even though we tried to correct him, that the task force was unanimous in its agreement for a decommissioning scheme. Is that the case, and are we wrong?

I will refer to one or two other issues. Are MEPs engaging with the fishing organisations? Major negotiations will take place next week. They always seems to happen coming up to Christmas week; it is like lastminute.com. Sometimes, as with Brexit, frantic and bad decisions are made at the last minute. Are MEPs engaging with the organisations and building a foundation for what may be a good news story coming out of Europe in the next week or so? Why are the negotiations taking place at the last minute? Why were they not held earlier? Mr. O'Donoghue made the same point. If I need to go back over some of these points again, I will do so. I would appreciate if Mr. Murphy or others would answer my questions.

Mr. Se?n O'Donoghue:

I thank the Deputy. He has asked a lot of questions. My colleagues will deal with the questions on bluefin tuna and other matters. I will deal with the fuel subsidy first. As an industry, we cannot understand why a scheme has not been introduced. We are demanding at this stage that a scheme be introduced. The French, Germans and Swedes have introduced schemes. There is no impediment to the Minister introducing a scheme. He was given the go-ahead by the European Commission under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF. I think that was on 24 March 2022 and we are still waiting for a scheme.

On the different decommissioning rates, there are different conditions. I think I know most of the countries that are decommissioning. My understanding is that the common factor across them is that they have all ended up having to repay the temporary tie-up aid. That applies to the French, the Germans, the Danish and the Dutch. It is one thing to have it but, knowing how things operate, I doubt that some of these countries will end up paying it back.

The Deputy also asked about the 15% figure. That is a misnomer. The figure is correct but it totally underestimates the real effect in Ireland. The two biggest stocks that got hit in Ireland are mackerel, at 26%, and nephrops, at 14%. Those cuts are the ones that need to be looked at because they are so important to the Irish industry. The overall 15% figure gives a distorted picture.

On the MEPs and the December fisheries Council, the European Parliament has no role in setting tax and quotas and cannot get involved. It is not a matter for co-decision. While we have relationships with the MEPs, when it comes to tax and quotas we concentrate on the Ministers and the Commission. I did not answer all the Deputy's questions but perhaps Mr. Murphy can answer.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will go to Mr. Lynch first and then to Mr. Murphy.

Mr. John Lynch:

I will provide clarity on one or two points as Mr. O'Donoghue answered most of the questions. On the subject of Brexit and the 15% and 25% figures, there is an old fishing saying, "Don't count the fish, count the money." In the year before Brexit, Ireland's wild caught fish was valued at €180 million. In the Brexit transfers, Ireland gave €43 million, so that is 25% in my book.

On engagement with the Minister, he started engagement earlier this year because of how things are going in the negotiations with the UK. That engagement started earlier but unfortunately I do not think it will finish any earlier because the negotiations are difficult and ongoing. It looks like we will be on provisional total allowable catches, TACs, again for the first three months. That is not ideal but it is probably better than having another bad deal.

Mr. Patrick Murphy:

I thank Deputy Collins for his questions. I have brought some visual aids. I have fact sheets from the Department on the amount of fish we catch and the fish in our waters. There is a big change to what we were told, so I will explain the 15% figure very simply. We do not catch 100% of the fish, with a value of €180 million, allowed to us, as mentioned by Mr. Lynch. However, as Mr. O'Donoghue and others have said, I guarantee that in the case of both the nephrops and mackerel, virtually 100% of the quota is caught. All the fish we lost, as Mr. Lynch said, were the money fish. When we break it down, it amounted to more than 25%.

What we also failed to take into account was the non-quota species, which was the Rockall squid. That is a very important fishery and we do not have access to it as a direct result of what happened with Brexit. This goes from €5 million to €10 million so members can see how fast this money ramps up with regard to the fish lost by the scallop men.

On bluefin tuna, we were told by previous Ministers that it would not be worth it, with the price we would have to pay to swap out. This is despite us producing facts and evidence of sales dockets. One of our members still has the original dockets from landing these fish. Derek Davis did a programme on bluefin tuna and the fishery we had, in which officials in the Department said it was great and fantastic. Yet, we have no tuna. We have seen how other countries have used the change in the migration patterns of these fish to sensibly ask for a quota, because these fish are feeding off our native stocks, as my chairman has pointed out. We would be entitled under that to get it. The problem is that ICCAT says that Europe has our fish and it is up to us to go to our colleagues in Europe and look for a quota. We pointed out in our talks at the ICCAT meeting that the movement of fish such as bigeye tuna is going to be a massive problem for our fisheries because we do not have a quota for them. We are not allowed to land them, yet we will catch them mixed in with the other fisheries. They are not targeted but mixed in, yet we will be deemed to be illegal, unreported and unregulated, IUU, fishing because we do not have a quota for them. We cannot swap it out because we do not have a Mediterranean licence to land such fish. This is what we are trying to regulate and fight for ourselves. This year for the first time, in fairness to the Minister, he has informed us that he is looking for a quota for tuna. As my colleagues have said, this is crazy. This could choke fisheries. If we catch this fish, we are not allowed to go fishing for the other stocks we have in case we will be deemed as IUU quota.

To return to the Deputy's remarks on MEPs, Mick Wallace is the only MEP who has made contact with me. I met Grace O'Sullivan in Ringaskiddy at a restoring our ocean and lighthouse building event. I was a speaker at it, as was she. I think I got give minutes with her. I was shocked to learn, after the meeting, that she stepped down from the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries, PECH. We have no representative on Europe's PECH committee. I find this absolutely incredible, given the size of the waters, the amount of fish that spawn and breed in our waters and, as we heard, the importance of custodians of the sea.

We are talking about blue whiting. There are millions of tonnes. The catch is 1.39 million but that is only a proportion of the biomass of the stock. Again, this is down. I brought the stock book with me today and we have real concerns about the way the advice is given. I attended a meeting the other day and was told that the advice for hake was 83,000 tonnes. I challenged that and said that it was not correct and they said that it was the maximum sustainable yield, that was the advice they were given. Yet last year we got 44,000 tonnes. This year we are getting an increase of 13% but a real increase of 3% because it is knocking off 10% of what we took last year. This does not even rebalance the fact that this stock has seen a benchmark and the biomass of the stock has been revised upwards by 71%. That is 71% of an increase in biomass and we get a 13% increase where we had a 25% cut last year and I think it was up to 20's from 2019 all the way through and we have been absolutely savaged.

The article Mr. O'Donoghue referred is Article 26.2 and it was put into legislation in the EU to allow us to get our fuel aid. All of us met the Commission officials several times and they told us this is what they want. They feel it is better to support boats to go fishing rather than getting nothing out of it seeing them tied to the pier wall, bringing in no fish and not creating employment ashore. They want boats to go fishing yet we cannot get a subsidy for fuel to allow boats to go to sea and to fish financially viably. It is absolutely crazy.

I hope the Vice Chair will take the time to look at our presentation. Like last year, we put in pictures of boats and of people that were spending hundreds of thousands of euro putting these boats out to sea safely. One of the boats in those pictures will be decommissioned or scrapped. It is going to be undervalued and is not going to get the money that I believe is due and what it cost to buy that boat and put that boat on the water. That is why, like Mr. Early said, his organisation did not support the decommissioning scheme. We acknowledged that because we could not get any fish the books would not match up and it was inevitable there would be a decommissioning scheme. We made sure as an organisation that it was put into the draft report that our organisation did not agree with the terms and conditions of the scheme and that it was flawed. That is why we did not support the scheme as it was written. We supported the principle of a decommissioning scheme because we were in desperation and as John said we had no choice and boats had to get out. There are just not enough fish there after losing 25% per quarter.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have Mr. Murphy's submission and it is comprehensive. Perhaps Mr. Ó Domhnaill could rejoin the meeting.

Mr. Aodh ? Domhnaill:

I missed part of the question but I think it is to do with the quota setting process and the delays around that. We have had experience here in Brussels and have come out here to meet MEPs. We have had good support from them with Mr. Colm Markey, MEP, who is with Fine Gael he is a stand-in on the fisheries committee. He has joined us to represent us at the fisheries committee to raise issues that are important to us, particularly relating to the Norwegian access issue, which is an important issue for us nationally. We have also participated with Mr. Chris McManus, MEP, who has also brought a delegation from the industry out. It is part of getting to know people within the Commission and it is important for us to understand that from an Ireland Inc point of view the real decision-making when it comes to negotiating for quotas is with the commission. We have a team of three or four people who are negotiating quotas on behalf of Europe and Ireland and a lot of this work is mandated by the Commission, happens behind closed doors, and there are all sorts of interests. We work together with the industry representatives to try to improve the situation. We fight the good fight.

The message we have on quotas and the treatment of Ireland is that Europe sees Ireland in some ways as being a soft touch in the way we have been hit by Brexit. They realise that we have been really badly treated. They put the Brexit Adjustment Reserve, BAR, funding in place which is a stopgap measure and is actually down-sizing the fleet. It has not been spent as was intended so we really have to pick up the fight at home. Our Minister, our Government, and our whole-of-government approach has to take the sector seriously. We have to go into Europe at Commission level and fight for our sector. If we do not have that united front, we will diminish and shrink further and we have lost approximately 50% of our sector over the past ten years. The Germans, for example, have four times the processing capacity of Ireland at 2.4 million. One Dutch company's combined consolidated turnover is in excess of the total Irish turnover, including aquaculture, and, therefore, we are losing out. We have the most productive waters in Europe but if we do not get quotas or manage the access, we are on a downhill slide. We need to lift our gallop collectively and we need to get support at Government level and at departmental level to fight the case.

Mr. Jerry Early:

I reiterate what Mr. Ó Domhnaill said. We find from our angle also that we get a lot of support from MEPs, such as Mr. Chris O'Sullivan, Mr. Chris McManus and Mr. Colm Markey In that sense we are quite satisfied with the co-operation from the MEPs.

On bluefin tuna and any hopeful quota we may get and possible spurdog, that gets distributed early among the whole fleet and that includes inshore boats as well.

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

I have a few questions although many have been dealt with. Could I ask Mr. O'Donoghue about the science for the horse mackerel and what the problems are and how he sees those being resolved? Ireland is not looking for sanctions for any of the Norwegian stuff. What is view on that?

Can I ask Mr. Lynch about the quota balancing of the Brexit impacts and so on and the unutilised quota available in other member states? How much of the quota is unutilised and where is it? What are his views in general on Brexit and how badly treated we have been? It is telling that it was a French negotiator and the French industry came quite well out of it. He said we need to raise our ambition and that is true.

Somebody mentioned an excellent document. Is that the review of the CFP? What are the witnesses' views is on that document in terms of a negotiating position and whether if it was fulfilled, we could get a good outcome from it?

The Minister has stated that all the fishing groups looked for decommissioning and were happy with it and the witnesses have outlined their position on that but that is the position that the Government has taken in respect of what the fishing industry is saying and doing. If they go to Europe with that position it shows what value they place on the conversations the witnesses have with them and I am worried about that. Many of our problems start in Ireland and we have to get Ireland on board first of all before we can get the EU to look after our industry.

The Minister continuously says that because there is no excise duty on fuel for fishing vessels, he cannot introduce a fuel subsidy, which is a nonsensical argument and obviously is an indication that he does not want to give money other than to give tax breaks.

That is all he wants to do. The small inshore fleet does not use marine fuel anyway. It uses petrol and such for outboard engines. Surely it is within the remit of the Minister and his Department to come up with a scheme to subsidise fuel costs for the inshore fleet. What ideas do the witnesses have about how that could work?

Mr. Jerry Early:

I will respond to the last point the Deputy made. He is a good advocate for inshore fishermen. The Minister stated in his submission that the price of fuel is 64 cent, 68 cent and 71 cent for diesel which is not indicative. As far as I am aware, the price of petrol has not come down and, as the Deputy alluded to, the inshore sector is mainly based on outboard engines that use petrol. How concessions can be made on that must be looked into. That is the only point I have to make. The rest is probably for my colleagues in the project side rather than commercial side.

Mr. Aodh ? Domhnaill:

I missed a little of what the Deputy asked but, as regards my area, it may have been to do with the CFP review.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Aodh ? Domhnaill:

We need to be careful about the review. The reality is that it was a report on the functioning of the CFP rather than a review. Industry representatives got together. Many strong submissions were made on various matters. Some of the key ones on opportunities for the sector revolved around tuna, including bluefin tuna, albacore tuna and big eye tuna as a by-catch within our fishery. The reality is that most member states are fishing large volumes of fish in our waters, including nephrops. They are not able to catch the volumes that are recommended scientifically. There is an opportunity for the State to work with industry to put in place long-term swaps with the French or Spanish for species such as nephrops that are fished off our coast, within scientifically recommended limits to the benefit of Irish fishermen. We need that sort of innovative thinking. The report is available. It is well prepared and submitted but the reality is that there will not be a review of the entire policy. It will be a mere tweaking and we need to be mindful of that.

Mr. John Tattan:

I will speak about a small issue - most of it has been covered at this stage - namely fairness and justice for the Irish fishing fleet and fishing industry. I draw the committee's attention to one species of fish, that is, black sole in the Celtic Sea. The TAC for 2020 is 1,337 tonnes, of which Belgium has 59% or 780 tonnes while Ireland has 3% or 39 tonnes. Where is the justice in that for Irish fishermen? I draw the committee's attention to another fish, namely north-west waters hake. As Mr. Murphy said, and as is stated in our submission, the TAC is 44,000 tonnes of which France has 19,966 tonnes or 45%, while Ireland has 2,383 tonnes or 5%, the UK has 8,831 tonnes and Spain has 12,756 tonnes or 28%. I want to know what the justification for these quotas is. With regard to monkfish, we have 7% of it and France has a whopping 56%. I would like to have that noted.

On the decommissioning scheme, fishermen have agreed to decommission their vessels for lack of fish and for other reasons. Why should these good vessels be broken up when some could be used for offshore windfarms, guard duty work and so on? Why should we punish the families for not having the fish?

Mr. John Lynch:

I will respond to the question the Deputy addressed to me on the review of the CFP and the utilisation of quota. I could go through them all but the three main ones that are underutilised, or where Ireland is short on quota, are nephrops in area VII; monkfish in areas VII and VI; and hake in the wider areas VI, VII and VIII. Those quotas are underutilised, mainly by France, which has a huge share of the TAC. Ireland has a tiny share in all three cases, namely 3%, 7% and 30% in nephrops 30%. However, in nephrops we run very close to the line every year and it is only through good management that we are left with a few tonnes to transfer into the following year. With the underutilisation by other member states, and one member state in particular, as Mr. Tattan said, we could develop a better transfer or swapping mechanism that could work for Ireland. All these issues are well dealt with in the final report by the CFP review group the Minister appointed this year and that reported to him in August. All the tools are there, including all the issues we discussed at this committee regarding the CFP. The document points out well how we could achieve a better deal for Ireland. The Minister and the Government should follow that document and apply it in their negotiations in Brussels to achieve a better deal in all the stocks we have outlined, such as sole in F and G, where we have only 3% of a valuable fishery. We are very short on this stock and we do not invoke the Hague preference we have on that stock.

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

What agreements are currently in place between Ireland and France on excess stock and such matters as the witnesses have outlined?

Mr. John Lynch:

We have no agreements other than that we do swaps. We swap out some of our stocks to get in stocks we are short of.

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

The Department does not do anything in-----

Mr. John Lynch:

We swap in nephrops and monkfish so we have to swap out other species for those, such as mackerel, skate, ray or whatever we can afford to swap.

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

There are no current arrangements for that.

Mr. John Lynch:

There is a swapping mechanism within the EU, which is run through the Department. It runs quite well. If we did not have that, we would be in a lot more difficulty.

Mr. Ciaran Doherty:

As the committee can see from all the people speaking online and around the table today, everything that has been happening to our industry as a result of the Brexit fallout has been negative. It is coming home for people like us to see. As well as being Chair of the KFO, I speak for a lot of people in the KFO. I am a fishing boat owner as well. For the first time in 30 years, we have not fished in the autumn. This is the reality of Brexit coming home. We have not retained our crew for this time of year for the first time. My father was in charge before me so some crew members are on board for 40 years and they have no employment. This is the reality of Brexit. Last week Ursula von der Leyen came to Ireland and to the Dáil. I am not taking away that the European project has been good for Ireland but as a fisherman, it has not been good for Ireland. It has not been good historically, but even more so in the Brexit fallout. Did anyone from the Government approach Ursula von der Leyen to put across our disgust at what happened in the Brexit negotiations?

Were any questions asked about whether there would be burden-sharing going forward? If those questions were not asked, it goes to show where we stand as an industry. Before the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement, TCA, relating to Brexit was agreed in December 2020, the European Fishing Alliance had a red-line issue to the effect that no matter what happened in negotiations, every country would share the responsibility and burden equally. That did not happen. Basically, we were thrown under the bus. There are opportunities for the European Union to redress that, for example, through the quota relating to blue whiting, a matter to which previous speakers referred. Let us not forget: the stock of the 1.3 million tonnes that will be caught next year spawns in Irish waters. Under relative stability, Ireland could be looking at getting 50,000 tonnes of that. Ireland gets 50,000 tonnes out of 1.3 million tonnes, yet countries where this fish never swims in their waters will get far greater quotas than us. Something is wrong with the whole project as regards Europe when that is the way in which we are being dealt with. The most valuable stock in the north Atlantic is mackerel. We are giving away 21,000 tonnes while Denmark is giving away 280 tonnes. Where is the fairness or the level playing field in that regard? They are non-existent. What is being done about this? I hope there will be some good news next week, but it will be small. We are not a fishing industry; we are a firefighting industry. All we seem to do is try to tamp down the bad news that is coming. There never seems to be any good news. Any wee bit we get takes a lot of fighting for on behalf of the industry.

The other issue in the north Atlantic is the 55% overfishing of mackerel by the Norwegians; they are still fishing it as we speak. The Norwegians have been fishing it since June. It is December and they are still targeting them, trying to catch it to show that they can get it in their waters. That is disgraceful. We talk about and the Minister spoke earlier about maximum sustainable yield, MSY. Yet, like most of the pelagic fleet in Ireland, my vessel has been tied up since the beginning of April. It will not go out to fish until January. That will be the trend from now on unless something changes dramatically. We are fishing three months of the year and tied at the quayside for nine. It costs money to be tied to the pier. One has to keep the engines running, etc. While we are tied up for nine months of the year, every other nation is having a Klondike. We used to hear about the gold rush in America; there is a mackerel and blue whiting rush in the north Atlantic that nobody is speaking about. They are not speaking to the right people to stop it. The European Union is sitting on its hands. It is not doing the job in respect of these coastal states or using the tools and mechanisms it could to stop them. The EU can easily lay down regulations that we have to adhere to, but it does not seem to do the same to the nations whose boats fish the north Atlantic. There is a gold rush in the north Atlantic in the context of the amount of mackerel being caught there. Let us not forget that 12 years ago, some of these countries had zero entitlement to that mackerel. There has been a smash and grab. Not alone were they not satisfied with what they were taking up to two years ago, they have now doubled it. The result of that will be quota cuts down the line on the back of scientific advice. Who will be the loser? It will be Ireland. We are the biggest losers in everything caused by their behaviour. I would like to put that on the record for the benefit of members and the Chair.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Doherty's testimony was very damning. I have specific questions for each organisation. The first is for Mr. O'Donoghue and Mr. Doherty from the Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation. On page 3 of their submission, they state, and rightly so: "The proposals disregard those other objectives of the CFP dealing with economic, social and employment benefits, and contributing to the availability of food supplies as stated in Article 2.1 of the CFP." That ties in with what Mr. Doherty said, that if one looks at the approach regarding mackerel, it is shocking that Norway and the Faroe Islands have not been held to account about what they have done in their own waters by just unilaterally increasing quota with no reference to science. In the case of the Faroe Islands, it is part of Denmark, and in the case of Norway, it is a major trading partner with the European Union, yet there have been no repercussions. Then, in the case of Norway, it comes back and want access to the Irish Box; that is astonishing. When the Minster was here earlier, I appealed to him not just to meet the organisations represented here, as he did in September, but also for there to be constant communication with them about the critical negotiations taking place. There are the negotiations at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and those with the Norwegians and Faroe Islanders in respect of mackerel. I will get to blue whiting in a moment - the question in that regard will for Mr. O'Domhnaill. Do the witnesses accept that this approach is not in line with the best principles of the European Union?

Mr. O'Domhnaill's submission was really sobering. On the third page, there is a table containing Eurostat data. It indicates that the total value of fish processing in Ireland in 2015 was €627 million. By 2020 - before the conclusion of the TCA - it was down to €325 million. In other words, it had halved. In response to me raising this shocking matter, the Minister spoke about MSYs, fishing practices having changed across Europe and so on. Looking at this table, I also see that Belgium and Finland increased the value of their processing sectors by 40% and 70%, respectively, in that five-year period. Spain is up 20%, Poland is up 50%, France is up around 4% and Britain, before Brexit, was around the same. The only country that experienced a huge decline was Ireland. Is that the entirety of the value of the processing sector for the country, as Mr. O'Domhnaill understands it? If it is, that is utterly depressing.

The next question I have is also for Mr. O'Domhnaill. It relates to blue whiting and is similar to the question I put to Mr. O'Donoghue and Mr. Doherty. I am not going to rehearse what I said to the Minister earlier, when I outlined the serious concerns of the industry to the effect that what is proposed in this regard could sound the death knell for the industry if those involved in the negotiations do not get the quotas relating to blue whiting, horse mackerel and mackerel right. In terms of blue whiting, is Mr. O'Domhnaill happy that there is constant dialogue with the Minister and senior officials as we approach these critical negotiations? Will Mr. O'Domhnaill elaborate on his request that they be deferred?

My third question is for Mr. Early from Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation. He mentioned spurdog and talked about the quota; this is a publicly-owned quota in Ireland. Will Mr. Early speak about the island and inshore fishermen and his organisation's vision for how they can get a sustainable share the?

My final question is for Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Murphy from Irish South & East Fish Producers Organisation. Mr. O'Sullivan spoke about the Hague preferences. Again, his submission is very sobering. He spoke about deploying the Hague preferences, if need be, in respect of some of the species. Mr. Murphy indicated that what is being offered is not in line with the science and is far too conservative.

These are critical issues for the industry. What is the level of dialogue between the organisation and the Department and the Minister? Are the Department and the Minister listening? Do the witnesses get a sense that the specific matters they raised are being dealt with?

Will Mr. Lynch and Mr. Murphy comment on the issue relating to fuel? I am in despair at this stage. I do not know how many times we have begged for an intervention in respect of fuel, but not from the Brexit adjustment reserve fund, the purpose of which is to compensate people for the impact of Brexit. I agree with Mr. O'Donoghue's point on the pelagic sector not getting appropriate assistance, particularly when we consider the scale of the impact. We do not want this to come from the Brexit adjustment reserve fund or to be based on tie-ups. We want Exchequer funding. There was a huge package in the recent budget for a range of sectors within the economy. How in God's earth is there not some intervention for the fishing industry? Earlier, the Minister referred to the fact that the price of fuel has come down again. My point is that if you are an inshore fisher, you did not have a tie-up scheme anyway. There is an impact throughout the year. What are Mr. Lynch's and Mr. Murphy's views in that regard? I want to direct the questions rather than having everybody speak on the same points.

Mr. Se?n O'Donoghue:

I will address the socioeconomic point as well the interaction. Deputy Mac Lochlainn rightly picked that point from our submission. Every year, not just this year, the Commission produces just the biological aspect of their TAC and quota proposals. They are dependent on the fisheries ministers then picking up the socioeconomic food security aspect, which, in legal terms, is every bit as important as the biological. They must all be taken together. As I mentioned earlier, it is important to understand that the December Fisheries Council is, unfortunately, becoming not totally irrelevant but no longer has the status it used to have. There are about six different negotiations that go on which, by the time we reach the December Council, the Ministers are only rubber-stamping the outcomes. The first of those negotiations relates to the coastal states' quotas of mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring. The EU-UK negotiations are huge for us. Then there are the EU-Norway-UK trilateral and the EU-Norway bilateral negotiations, which we have just been talking about. There are a few factors involved. Out of the four, the only one in respect of which a decision has been made is that relating to the coastal states' consultation on the TAC for mackerel, blue whiting and the Atlanto-Scandian herring. There is also ICCAT. This year we will meet the Minister on Saturday night or Sunday morning. Everything is either done or waiting to be done, so we cannot change anything. The negotiations with the industry here have to start in early September because they need to be dealt with in advance of the negotiations to which I have just referred. Covid has been a problem for us because most of us had to use Zoom and could not be physically present at the negotiations. That makes a difference. This year, that is changing. Hopefully, we will have a new scenario and a get-together to start our discussions on all of those elements, because they all fit in as part of the jigsaw.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn did not ask me the question about this, but I am so annoyed about the issue relating to fuel. I know he is as well. This idea of TACs is, to use a pun, a total red herring. There is provision here to compensate for the additional costs. You take what you were paying this time last year and compare it with this year and you should get a subsidy related to that. That is what the others have done. It is quite simple and there is no reason we cannot do it.

Mr. John Lynch:

Deputy Mac Lochlainn asked about the Hague preferences. We think the Hague preferences should be given a far better legal standing within the Common Fisheries Policy. We should not have to go to Brussels every year and renegotiate the Hague Preferences time and again. Everybody knows they are there and that they only apply to Ireland now. They used to apply to Ireland and the UK. With the UK leaving the EU, Ireland has lost some percentages in its entitlement under the Hague preferences. It is a small amount but it is a loss nonetheless. Much of our Hague preferences fish used to come from the UK. That is how that happened. The Hague preferences should have a stronger legal standing within the Common Fisheries Policy and within the EU in general. We are of the view that we should not have to go with the begging bowl every year in the context of the Hague preferences. That is not fair. As I mentioned earlier, there are some Hague preferences that we do not invoke. We should invoke the one relating to sole f+g, because we are so desperate for that species. Many vessels are reliant on it and do not have the quota to fish. They have to stop fishing from time to time to allow for the next month's quota to come on stream in order that they can go back to sea. That makes things difficult for them.

On the fuel prices, the money is there but we need the will to get it distributed. The money is in the minimal financial assistance funding, MFA. The Commission gave permission and invoked Article 26(2) of the MFA funding programme. That allows some of the funding to be used as a fuel subsidy, which is desperately needed by vessels at the moment. The Commission estimates that the European fleet as a whole is viable at fuel costing 60 cent or 70 cent, which is what it was before the crisis. Anything above that is a problem for the fleet. It was far above €1. It has gone down somewhat, but it is still in the high 80s or low 90s per litre. That is still a huge problem for the fleet in Ireland. It is not true to say otherwise.

Mr. Patrick Murphy:

I hope this will be taken as a lesson by others. I am the first to put my hand up when I make a mistake or say something incorrect, so I would like to correct the record. When Deputy Michael Collins asked me about our engagement with the MEPs, I said that we had very little. I thought that was in regard to the current negotiations, but we did have a good trip to Brussels to meet with the Commission. Our visit was organised by Deputy Mac Lochlainn and Chris Mac Manus. It was good because we put across our points of view at those meetings with the Commission. Our understanding was that if we could come up with a mechanism to alleviate the damage that was done to us by other means, the Commission would be receptive to it. For that reason, we believe the blue whiting issue is critical. Ireland is a coastal state. It is not within the European Union. This is access to fish in European waters. Even if they say this fish can only be counted as European fish in European waters, it is a coastal state that is accessing it. We feel this is the opportunity for the EU to rebalance the burden-sharing. If there is a will, there will be a way. As my colleagues said, there were legal changes to the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, EMFAF, under amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1139. As Mr. O'Donoghue rightly stated, we in the industry, through our colleagues in Europe, met with the Commission and asked if it could change the rules and regulations to allow member states to give fuel aid.

We in the industry, through our colleagues in Europe, met with the Commission and asked if the rules and regulations could be changed to allow member states to give out fuel aid and that happened. As the Commission keeps pointing out to us, with this done, it is up to us to go back to our member states and get them to give fuel aid to us, as has been done in other countries.

I have a question for this committee. Will it please ask the Minister what the €5.5 million from the European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund, EMFAF, that has not been allocated is going to be spent on? This has an effect right across all sectors of the industry, including the inshore sector Mr. Early mentioned, the seafood sector and the processing and aquaculture sectors. Other boats did not avail of a tie-up scheme and got no aid in this regard despite suffering from the increases in fuel prices. This needs to be addressed. As I said in my earlier contribution, there are vessels that were genuinely counting on this. They have massive fuel bills and were hoping that, as in other countries, this would apply not just to fuel going forward but that there would be a rebate such as Mr. O'Donoghue mentioned. It is very easy to do this. You see that the increases were based on what was spent on fuel last year and go with the guidelines presented by the European Union, which specified 30% of the increase. We are not asking for the full amount of the increase in fuel prices to be covered but just a portion. We are asking for just enough to make it viable for boats to go to sea to fish while remaining legal and targeting the minimum stocks allocated to them. It is crazy to be sending boats out. Anybody who has been on a vessel knows how difficult it is to make a living on the sea. It is not an easy environment. Some of the time, as a result of weather conditions, you are risking your life. These people deserve to be treated a little bit better.

The Deputy mentioned the science. I will provide an example. This was mentioned earlier by Deputy Pringle. I refer to horse mackerel. According to the scientists, there are 805,000 tonnes in biomass of that stock. I will say that again so that there can be no mistake. There are 805,000 tonnes. Despite this, it is felt a sustainable fishery could not be created out of that. I understand that, because of the way the European regulations are written, when the biomass of the stock has gone down below the limit on spawning stock biomass, BLIM, it has to recover within a calendar year or the advice will be that the total allowable catch, TAC, should be zero. However, as Mr. O'Donoghue has said, socioeconomic circumstances should be considered. It is not the case that the stock will be damaged further because we know that egg recruitment is very high. The cuts should be phased. The Pelagic Advisory Council and Mr. O'Donoghue, who I must mention in this context, did Trojan work. They worked with the scientists for two years, well before this problem was flagged by the industry, to highlight that this was coming down the tracks and that we must do something about it now. That is two years' of effort, including meetings all over Europe with many different people, to come up with a rebuilding plan which involves only 17,000 tonnes. As I said at our meetings with the Pelagic Advisory Council, you can work out what percentage of the stock that represents. The plan aims to make sure that we keep getting the science from this fishery and that the boats that are there have something to keep them going. It will not pay their bills but it will give them something so that, if they do catch this species mixed in with other fisheries, they will not be accused by EU fishing authorities. This is what we are asking for: a rebuilding plan of 17,000 tonnes. I find it incredible that the science does not back up the taking of 17,000 tonnes out of 805,000 tonnes without doing any damage to the stock. Recruitment to bring it back up above BLIM might be slowed down by a couple of years but fish do not spawn one offspring but thousands. It is absolutely crazy in the context of that level of stock. That highlights the point regarding the science.

If the Vice Chairman will bear with me for a couple of minutes, I will find a part in the book I have here that explains it all. It is the stock book produced by the Marine Institute. I am sure the Minister spoke about it. We have to follow the science.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Mr. Murphy to be sure he leaves time for his colleagues.

Mr. Patrick Murphy:

Bear with me. We are always accused of overfishing. There are always three ranges. The lower range of the advice specifies 53,284 tonnes. The maximum sustainable yield, MSY, advice specifies 83,130 tonnes. However, on the upper range, if you could catch hake on their own, you could catch up to 117,526 tonnes without damaging recruitment and the fish coming back next year, according to the scientists. Despite this, we will be told we can catch 48,000 or 49,000 tonnes next year, if we are lucky. That does not take account of the socioeconomic part of the pillars of relative stability and the Common Fisheries Policy which we were told must be included in our deliberations. I hope that explains it. I am sorry for taking up so much of the time.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

There were some very good contributions from everyone, especially about mackerel, what we should have and what we should not have. We have a great natural resource outside our door. We have the biggest and most productive waters in the EU. It is crazy that we have such a small percentage of the quotas. It is the same hymn sheet over and over again. People do not realise what sovereignty means. It means that, under law, we should be entitled to fish up to 60% or 70% of the fish in our waters. Where is the justice? Where are our rights? It is time to wake up because too many towns around Ireland, from Clogherhead all the way around to Greencastle, are being decimated. You can see it everywhere. It is about time this stopped because this is a massive resource that will provide food security going forward. We have to wake up. It will be a shame if we do not.

Mr. Aodh ? Domhnaill:

I thank the Vice Chair and Deputy Mac Lochlainn. I will just talk about the two points the Deputy has raised. With regard to the Irish processing indication, the reason I used the EUROSTAT trend is because it provides hard figures. It shows that we are in a very difficult and bad place. It merely confirms what we already know. All you have to do is drive through the various fishing towns on the west or east coast of Ireland to see the decline and demise of the catching and processing sectors. First-class vessels of world-class standard are tied to piers while vessels from other member states are out catching and processing fish from our waters to their own benefit. This decline is evident. For example, in the south of Ireland there is only one pelagic processing company left. That is an indication of the fact that there is not sufficient supply of raw material.

There is something else that is important to point out. The Deputy mentioned Belgium. Belgium has a coastline of approximately 67 km and yet its processing turnover is €300 million, almost 50% more than Ireland's. It is ridiculous and just does not make sense. The other key indicator is that, over a period of ten years, landings of Irish vessels into both Irish and foreign ports dropped by 33%. At the same time, the landings of foreign vessels into Irish ports increased to 145%. You can therefore see that we are losing the game. Foreign vessels are a very important source of supply for us but, in that context and the context of quotas, employment and socioeconomic considerations, if we do not have a fit-for-purpose control procedure to get that fish landed properly, freshly and in the best condition, we will also displace that supply for processors. I am not here to represent the processing sector but this is an indication of a problem we have.

With regard to blue whiting, I am relatively new in this position but I find it really difficult to understand why, given that we have a quota of less than 3% of the total while the Norwegians have eight to nine times that, most of which is caught in our waters, we would even think about giving them access to catch this fish without some form of deal.

We have had a strong relationship with Norway for a long time but business is business and we need to represent our sector effectively.

On the consultation, I am relatively new to the representation sector but from what I observe, particularly with Norway, the negotiators are very effective. The negotiators in Norway take the lead from the industry, whereas in Europe all the member states are represented by two or three negotiators, who take the lead from the Commission. They think about things like oil and gas and the benefits to other member states. Some member states have a much better relationship with their industry than we have. The Dutch work hand in glove with their sector. They are really close and they develop it. That shows in the fact the companies have increased, grown in scale and scope and developed their business abroad.

There needs to be a better level of engagement between industry and the public service, as well as at political level, to represent Ireland. Otherwise, there will be continued decline. We can fight the fight and go out to Europe to see what is going on but, in principle, they will say we have to use our own people in our own public service to represent the industry. That is my experience. It is a pointed situation and that is what we need to focus on if we are to survive. We are here in the national interest to build the businesses. There are 16,000 employed in the sector but after Brexit and with everything that is going on, that will reduce significantly.

Mr. Jerry Early:

I forgot to include in my submission that we have disengaged from the CFP because we feel many of our proposals were not included. I do not think there is much there for the inshore and small-scale sectors. It is a shame.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn's question on the spurdog is a great question. This has been a pretty negative meeting, as Mr. Doherty of the KFO said, but the one chink of light I see is the possible TAC coming down on spurdog. We all remember back 15, 20 or 30 years ago when every small harbour around the coast benefitted from the spurdog and gillnet fishery. When Mr. O'Donoghue came out to the island, one of his roles at the time was to give the bad news to the fishermen here that, because of its relation to the shark family, spurdog was being banned and it was very unlikely it would ever come back. There is a small chink of light that we may get a quota back. It is imperative for the small-scale sector, which has been hammered. Everybody has difficulties with quotas and it is a difficult sector to be in at the moment. We all represent our own little corners and members. It is hard for everybody because we continuously seem to be knocking our head against the door.

There is a chance to regenerate some of these harbours that the Minister is very proud of. He is saying there is €56 million being spent on them. How many harbours have young people coming out of them? How many have a seasonal long fishery when it is not getting hammered into lobster, crab and nothing else? We all know the destruction caused by the salmon closure in our small areas. This is an opportunity to start to right the wrongs for us all, not just the inshore sector. Many good fisherman out there are throwing spurdog out hand over fist. The pelagic men will say the spurdog are causing all kinds of problems in the fish pumps, etc. It is important, if we get a quota, that it is shared and that we share not only the pain but the joys of getting something back to our areas. That is a positive in a sea of negativity.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are overtime by nearly 40 minutes so we had better wrap up. I acknowledge everyone who participated today. They came excessive miles, to say the least, to represent their industry. It is greatly appreciated. It has been a very good engagement.

The next public meeting will be on Tuesday,13 December at 7 p.m. It will examine the forestry strategic vision and representatives from Coillte will be present.