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.