Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Apologies have been received from Deputy Cooney and Senators Craughwell and Wilson.

Before we begin, I bring to members' attention, as I am required to at the start of every meeting, the issue of privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence that they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence from any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. I remind witnesses 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 from 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 a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by the witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams, though I do not believe we have any at the moment, prior to making their contributions to the meeting, to confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The agenda for today's meeting is the extension of the EU-UK trade agreement and the implications for the Irish fishing and seafood sector. As agreed previously by this committee, we will first hear from the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with special responsibility for fisheries, Deputy Timmy Dooley, and his officials. I ask the Minister of State to introduce his officials.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With me are the assistant secretary in the Department, Ms Sinéad McSherry, and Ms Anna O'Sullivan.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State may call on his officials to speak briefly for clarification where a specific or technical point arises and the officials can clarify matters for the committee, so they will have an opportunity to speak and answer questions, but any follow-up questions should be put to the Minister of State because he is the accountable person before the committee. The opening statement from the Minister of State has been forwarded to members and as the time for the discussion is fairly limited, I ask the Minister of State to give a brief synopsis of it of approximately two minutes, then we will proceed to questions and answers.

I formally welcome the Minister of State to the committee. We were eager to have him here. It is an important result for the Irish fishing industry that there is now a committee examining fisheries and maritime affairs and, indeed, a Minister of State with responsibility for these issues.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Cathaoirleach and congratulate him and all those on the committee on their appointment. I am looking forward to working with them on an ongoing basis. I have already provided the committee with a written statement. I do not intend to go through it word for word. I will give a brief overview as an introductory point and then we can try to answer questions that arise. I spent much time on the other side of the fence here, so I know it can be somewhat frustrating when witnesses take all their time reading prepared statements. Members have it and can work from there.

This Government is committed to the maritime sector, which is why the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, in the programme for Government, have established the role that I am privileged to occupy, which is really about trying to create a virtual Department of the marine and bringing together all aspects of the sector that have been broken up over recent years from a point 15 years ago when we had a full Department of the marine. There are aspects within the Department of agriculture, particularly fisheries, that are central to that. In the Department of climate are the areas of marine planning, marine protection and marine environment. My role is to try to co-ordinate all of that from a regulatory and policy perspective and also with regard to the implementation of the plans that the Government has for the seafood sector and offshore renewable opportunities and to make good on our commitments relating to marine protected areas. While that is not the subject of today's meeting, I wanted to put that as part of the opening discussion about the Government's commitment and what it seeks to do. I am happy to answer any questions on that either now or later.

Regarding the subject matter that the committee wants me to talk about, specifically the EU-UK trade agreement and the implications for the fishing industry, I am conscious that the fishing industry suffered a hammer blow with the advent of Brexit. It is well recognised that, over the next ten to 12 years, it will have an impact to the tune of about €1 billion on the processing sector and about €800 million on the catching sector. While the Brexit adjustment fund that was provided by the EU and the Government has been a significant instrument in assisting the industry to pivot beyond the impact of Brexit, I have no doubt that the industry still has a considerable way to go in meeting the exacting demands that were brought about as a result of the loss of that quota. I am mindful of that, as is the Department, in all our actions. In my significant engagement with the sector since my appointment, I have seen resilience and recognition that failure is not an option, and the sector proposes to continue to work ahead.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I open the floor to questions, I suggest that we take five-minute blocks.

Each block will include the question and the Minister of State's response. There will be a timer on display around the room and I ask members to keep to that. That should leave us some opportunity for a second round of questions. I understand some members will have to leave for various other engagements. I have asked for indications and have been taking notes. I ask anyone who wants to speak to indicate. I have most of them down already. The first person is Deputy Whitmore.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this virtual Department. It is important to bring those different elements together. I look forward to working with the Minister of State on that.

On the MPA legislation, I welcome that I received confirmation this week that it would remain a stand-alone Bill. There were concerns it would just be amending legislation or perhaps be used as the DMAP process. It is expected to come through the Dáil towards the end of the year. When does the Minister of State envisage that remit will move over to this committee? Obviously, that would be a large item we will look at.

Something that is adjacent to the EU-UK deal, in that it is another deal with a third party, is a potential deal between the EU and Iceland. Concerns about this have been raised with me. Is there any information on that? It has been raised at a number of different points but I do not think there has been any confirmation on it.

There is also the issue of sprat. Obviously, it is a time-sensitive issue because the fishing season will be in September. Where is the consultation on the management of that fishery?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure what response the Deputy got on the MPA legislation or from which Department but I can give her the overall objective from the Government perspective, which is to ensure that we achieve 30% marine protected areas by 2030. This is a commitment that the Government has given and I have reiterated on its behalf a number of times, most recently at the UN ocean conference earlier this week in Nice. I understand that the marine environment function is still with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and that it will transfer shortly. I am hopeful that it will be within the Department of climate change by autumn. I do not have any responsibility in respect of the passage of that legislation just yet, so I cannot give the Deputy any commitment as regards it. However, what I am anxious to do, and I have discussed this with the marine planning section of the Department, is that we advance it without delay. I am conscious that the commitment should be about action. I cannot confirm at this stage whether it will be stand-alone legislation. My aim is about getting it delivered and putting a regulatory regime in place where we can do it. I have thoughts about how it might be able to be done, recognising that the Government has already announced a decision to do a national designated marine area plan, DMAP. The Deputy will know a regional DMAP was done off the south east coast that has been successful in identifying the area, and there will be auctions arising out of that for offshore renewables. I am conscious when that work is being done around developing a marine area plan that a lot of the same work is required to do a marine protected area. I am looking at the possibility of co-ordinating the two and that, as we create a national DMAP, we look to carrying out a programme that will identify areas for marine protection at the same time. I cannot say whether that will require a single Bill or if a significant amendment to existing legislation like the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 may ultimately be the vehicle that will allow us to progress it more fully, but I will engage with the Deputy because I know her interest in the area from my time serving with her on the other side.

On the EU-Iceland agreement, discussions have taken place at European level. We have engaged with the Commission on what our position might be but nothing further has emerged from that. There were some initial indications that there was a desire to reach an agreement on blue whiting in the early stages and the opportunity for Icelandic fishers to access Irish waters - EU waters in that context - but that has not progressed with any great haste. There was indication that there was a desire to have discussions expedited by the end of May. I met the Commissioner again earlier this week in Nice and there was no further movement on that.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry, but I will have to move on.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I address the sprat issue? I am conscious that it is an issue that has been raised by several people. There is a Government commitment to address it. There was a previous policy position that resulted in a decision of the courts that ran contrary to what the Government wished to do. A new process was engaged in and there was a consultation, which received over 5,000 responses to the call for submissions. The Department is preparing options for ministerial decision. I am conscious of the need to address this issue. I hope to be able to proceed before the summer.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There might be an opportunity to address this in response to other speakers or, indeed, in the second round. I call Deputy Ward.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister of State and look forward to working with him over the term. I have two questions. I think we can all agree Brexit has been a disaster for the fishing industry in Ireland. The TCA was a disaster. Why did the Government seek to ratify this EU trade agreement?

Were Ireland’s interests communicated to the negotiators of the EU trade agreement? If so, what was agreed?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The first question was on why Ireland ratified the renegotiated TCA. The decision taken on Brexit was a decision of the European Union. All discussions around the exit of Britain from the European Union were handled by the Commission. Obviously, we are a contributing party and our views and aspirations are taken into account, but only taken into account. Commissioner Šefovi negotiated the agreement. The Deputy will recall that the then facilitator, Mr. Michel Barnier, was a significant player in those discussions. From an Irish perspective, we recognise that the fishing sector took a significant hit in that regard, but that is the way it was negotiated. It did not favour our position but at the end of the day, we had no choice but to accept. It was not an either-or situation. It was not as if we had the capacity to veto.

Part of that initial agreement was that there would be a review of fishing up to June 2026. In all the diplomatic channels, background noise and chatter, the message was that the British would not permit continued access for EU vessels into their waters without a significant further shift in quota. My predecessor and I, since coming to this post, and all our negotiators at European level made it clear in the strongest possible terms that Ireland’s position was that we would not accept the trading of one more fish for continued access. We felt we had given a phenomenal amount of quota for that continued access. When the recent agreement was coming into place, we fought hard. Initially, there was an offer of continued access for two, three and five years, and together with a group of eight like-minded member states, we succeeded in increasing that from what I think was an initial offer of about two years to 12 years. That is a good deal and a significantly positive outcome that gives certainty to the catching sector and the processing sector.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, however, it in no way rights the losses that were taken as a result of Brexit, so I am conscious that is still a very significant overhang for the industry. In the recently renegotiated trade deal, it was a very significant positive outcome, particularly for us, to be able to fish within UK waters. The bit that is often lost in discussion, although I am not suggesting it is lost in here, is that we had very little to trade with. Ultimately, the British are able to catch their quota in their waters, by and large. It was not as if this reciprocal access to waters benefits the British as much as it benefits European vessels, so we were running out of road. That is why this was a useful way to stitch in the longer term commitment. If we had not made an agreement at this stage and had let it run until next June, we would have had no chip to spend, effectively. The British then would want to do it on an annual basis, which is what they were suggesting, taking particular stocks as they wished. This was a comprehensive way to deal with this and gave us an opportunity to give certainty to the sector, which allows for the kind of investment that is needed and gives some direction of travel for the next 12 years. I hope that helps.

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

After the Minister of State comes in here, there will be a number of delegations from the fishing organisations attending at the committee, as he knows. We have had a chance to read their inputs in advance. Ideally, we would have preferred to have the delegations from the fishing organisations attend at the committee first and to hear their issues, and then put them freshly and directly to the Minister of State, but that is not how it worked out today. I hope it will be the case in future.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to come back to meet the committee at any stage to facilitate discussions such as that.

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

That is fine and I appreciate that. I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. It is a vital development that we have two things, namely, a dedicated Minister of State dealing with fisheries and a dedicated committee dealing with fisheries. I know the committee is wider than just fisheries but they have a really strong emphasis. I and my colleague in Sinn Féin, the Chairperson of this committee, published a survey of fishermen, businesses and workers in the seafood industry. None of us who are listening to those communities will be shocked by the outcome, but it is devastating. Nine out of ten of those who responded said they would not encourage their children to continue in the tradition of fishing. Nine out of ten respondents felt they were in a worse position now than they were ten years ago. The respondents were from all around the coast. We have published the locations and there were hundreds of respondents. More important than the statistics, because none of that would shock us, are the actual testimonies. Respondents took time to write their stories and some of their quotations are published with the survey, which we will send to the Minister of State. It sets the scene for the huge challenge and responsibility he has. I commend him on having engaged with those in the industry - I have seen it at first hand - and I believe he is listening to those in the industry. That is a step in the right direction but we have to get to the point of having a plan for how we turn this around.

In terms of this subject matter, the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, and Brexit, the submission from the Seafood Ireland Alliance is particularly important because it draws our attention to the fact that Brexit has probably cost our industry around €180 million at this stage and estimates that up to the end of this new deal, the 12-year extension, will cost us approximately €800 million in lost opportunities. That is a lot of money to those sectors. The Minister of State stated that is a negotiation between the British and the European Union and that is fair enough at that level, but the European Union must accept that Ireland has taken on an unfair burden from that negotiation. If the European Union is saying this is the best deal we can negotiate to give stability for 12 years, that is the Union's perspective, but the outcome of that is that it extends the injustice of what we have endured. With all due respect to it, the Brexit adjustment reserve fund does not go anywhere near dealing with that. I would like to get a sense of the Minister of State's plan.

Sinn Féin's manifesto referenced having a dedicated office in Europe called "Fish Ireland", similar to some of the work the IDA and others do in promoting trade but also working in partnership with our industry. It would be the Government and the industry united and promoting our sector but also, more importantly, reaching out to allies in Europe. There is the whole issue of the behaviour of Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Norway, whereby they are ignoring scientific evidence, overfishing mackerel and then getting a very good deal on other species and mackerel in trade. They are being rewarded for being irresponsible.

There is then the whole issue of carbon and climate.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is within time but I remind him the Minister of State needs time to respond.

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

I will wrap up. How can the Minister of State say that when vessels are being taken from long distances and vessels that are closer are being disenfranchised? To summarise, what is his plan at European level?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for his document, which I received, although I have not had a chance to go through it in detail. In terms of capturing the sentiment of the fishing community, I have seen that at first hand. There is a very clear recognition that we must continue to engage with the community and I am prepared to do that, as I know the Deputy does. I will visit Rossaveal again tomorrow and there are a number of other harbours I have to get to that are within our area of control, namely, Howth and Dunmore East. I have visited the others.

Having engaged with the sector right from the start, I know there are many issues of concern to it. Some of those issues are outside of my control. Some are within the remit of European levels, so my plan there is quite simply to engage to the fullest extent possible, particularly with those coastal member states and ministers, and I have begun that process. I have had quite a number of engagements with the Commissioner and his senior staff. His presence in Castletownbere - I know Senator Boyle was there - was really helpful in informing him in the words of the people who were most affected. He reflected in a conversation on Monday how taken he was by the level of engagement and the understanding of the sector. It was a good engagement in that people brought their issues rather than their frustration and he looked at it from a positive perspective. I am hoping that in whatever ultimate review there is of the CFP, if there is to be a review, there will at least be an opportunity for us to have our voices heard. We will amplify every channel of the member states we have had engagement with. I have had some experience with our European colleagues through work I have done previously, so I am clear about that.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Apologies, but I have to move on to the next speaker.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I just want, for completeness, to add one other point.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Very briefly, please.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did indicate when I first met all the interest groups that we would come back with a plan or a way to move forward. My intention is to appoint an independent facilitator to work with the sector, paid for by the Department and the Government, to try to identify those issues that can be resolved. There are some issues that are outside of our control. People will reflect on them but they know they are issues they cannot resolve.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Kieran Mulvey, who is well known in this room-----

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State will have an opportunity to come back in again. Deputy Gallagher is next.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and compliment him on hitting the ground running. He has visited most parts of the country and has been very accessible to all organisations and to Members of the Houses and that is important. It is important also that he has delegated responsibilities. I recall the days when I had them back in the early noughties and it was vitally important. It is great that we now have a committee that meets to deal with fish and maritime issues and is not the poor relation of agriculture. It was very difficult to get parliamentary question responses and I hope the day will come when we will get a Minister answering parliamentary questions not as part of agriculture, etc., but as part of fisheries.

I recall Michel Barnier, who negotiated Brexit, speaking in this House and he looked me straight in the eye and said that fisheries would be safe because they would be inextricably linked with trade. I was foolish enough to accept that. Fisheries have been a disaster as a result of Brexit. Colleagues have outlined the millions of euro we have lost over recent years.

I cannot understand how anyone could have welcomed, from a fisheries perspective, the statement after the EU-UK summit, which was the first summit since Brexit, on 19 May. This will continue until 2038, when the losses will have escalated, some say, up to €600 million or €800 million. It will certainly be north of €600 million as a result of that. The Minister said that we had input but did we have input, through Europe being the negotiator, at ministerial or official level? I cannot understand how we or anyone involved in the maritime sector could have welcomed this. It will be 2038 before there will be a further agreement.

We have lost a considerable amount. Let us remember that the fishing industry is located along the coast in an area where there is no alternative source of employment. We largely depend on this. The Minister of State saw that at Castletownbere, Dunmore East and Killybegs the finest vessels are tied up. There are opportunities for some of those vessels to avail of fishing opportunities in other parts of the world. The Minister of State has taken a particular interest in this. It may not have worked out this year, but it is incumbent upon the Department of the marine to assist those vessel owners who are prepared to try to supplement their income from the reduced quotas for various fish, whether these are commercial or pelagic, and to find a way out for them, so they do not have deregister and reregister. I understand that is much too difficult. We should smooth that out.

Barnier is the one who has to take a lot of the responsibility for this. We must also ensure there will be additional funding from Europe for the sector as a result of the losses we have incurred over the past number of years. I have been there and done-----

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is within time, but I remind him that the Minister of State has to respond within the time allocated.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, okay. I do not think any of us are so naive as to think the review of the Common Fisheries Policy will resolve all our problems. We all thought we were going to achieve that but, unfortunately, we are fighting against other maritime states because if we are to gain, they are to lose.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy, who has vast experience in this area and, like many others on the committee, has been of significant help to me. I come from a small farming background. Fishing is not necessarily my bailiwick but I am learning fast because of the expertise of others around this table across all parties. I thank them for that.

I will finish my point to Deputy Mac Lochlainn, which will be of benefit to all, on the person who will do the facilitation. Mr. Kieran Mulvey has indicated a willingness to assist in this regard. He is a man of very considerable knowledge and skill who can help to assist us, in the first place, with facilitation, and in developing a roadmap for addressing those issues that are within our remit. He will assist us in developing that overall future direction we want to go in. I will make further announcements about that in due course.

I agree with most, if not all, of what Deputy Gallagher said regarding his assessment of Brexit and its implications. The way forward is difficult and challenging, as he knows from his experience at EU level. It is regularly mentioned to me, by current incumbents of ministerial office and Members of the European Parliament, what a contributor he was in his time there. We thank him for that. On the overall reset on which the British Government wanted to engage with the European Union, much of which was done through the Department of Foreign Affairs, it will be seen that the response in the British press from British fishermen has been very negative towards their Government. While we might feel, rightly, that it was not a wonderful deal from our perspective in the overall Brexit side of things, British fishermen certainly believe that it was very negative from their perspective. I continue to reiterate that the agreement reached on 19 May is as good as or better than I might have expected when I started on this journey with the kind of briefings-----

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister of State to draw a line under that. We will move on to the next speaker. There will be another opportunity.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State. It is great to have a Minister for the marine now. It is long overdue. Little did I think, when I called a public meeting in Killybegs four years ago, that people from all over Ireland would come to a meeting on the fishing industry. That was the start of us getting the ball rolling on this and getting it into the programme for Government. It is probably the reason I am sitting here today. I am delighted to be here and that the Minister of State is in his role. We have to make progress.

Reform of the CFP was mentioned. We have to hang tough on that. We cannot just roll over and die as we did in the previous one. The Iceland deal was also mentioned. In the previous deal the EC did for us, we ended up with 10,000 tonnes of blue whiting. It was worse than a disgrace. People are coming and fishing in Irish waters. We have the largest waters but get the smallest crumb from the table just to keep us happy. We can never allow that to happen again. My thinking on it is that whoever comes into the waters has to pay the price, which has to be a large price, and probably the best would have to be paid for mackerel. These other countries are giving themselves large quotas. When they have to take a reduction, they are not really taking a reduction. The dogs in the street know what they are doing. They are inflating the quotas for themselves and then saying they are more than happy to take a reduction to make it look good. We cannot afford any more reductions. We need our quotas to go up. To be honest, for Irish seafood and mackerel, we need to be setting approximately 80,000 tonnes or 90,000 tonnes a year to make it viable for people. People are just hanging on by their fingernails. I am one of them and I know many more. We are in Killybegs but I have been around to the other ports. I see it and feel it from people.

We have to home in on and push the Common Fisheries Policy. I was only in Brussels for two days in my life. I was there and I could see it. We have good people out there, but what other countries are doing can be seen. They have people out there lobbying 24-7. We have nobody.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the Senator to leave time for the Minister of State to answer.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, I know I will get a chance. The Minister of State said a facilitator is coming in, but we need somebody out there too lobbying on our behalf 24-7. Having somebody out there who is fit to lobby is something the Department should look at. It would then make it easier on the Minister of State, when he goes out, to have the pathway walked and it would only be a matter of finalising it.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator. I note his point on lobbying. From a Government perspective, as he knows, we have a fishing attaché and some consular people at the permanent representation in Brussels. We are well facilitated in terms of engagement. However, I take his point on the lobbying effort, which generally does not fall within the remit of the Government. I am happy to look at the suggestions the Senator has to see if we can do more. I am conscious of the team we have, whom I have met on a number of occasions. They are impressive in their capacity to engage with other member states and appraise the Department and myself of issues arising and future opportunities. I am conscious though that other countries have a significant lobbying exercise, perhaps funded through the industry. As I said, we can engage with the Senator on that.

I do not disagree with his assessment, and that of others, on the impact that has happened as a result of Brexit. The Senator will know, through his own business, the impact that it has. It is also worth reflecting on the sense of resilience I get in the industry that notwithstanding the significant challenges and significant losses, a group of men and women are prepared to try to reorient their business and this industry in a manner that will provide for those coastal communities. The Department, the Government and I will absolutely want to work with that to ensure we leave a viable business behind and have a plan-led approach to it.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could I come back in for one second?

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator has 15 seconds.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was out there. We met with the representatives and the first thing said to me was that we only lost 26%. Listen here, let us call a spade a spade. If we have somebody going in and negotiating for us who then says we only lost 26%, where are we going to be in the next negotiations?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will come back afterwards.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I think it was a rhetorical question as much as anything else. I call Deputy Michael Cahill.

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him again. He has impressed me very much to date and I wish him very well in future. He is well on top of his brief. This is very important. I have several questions. Does he believe that inshore fishing should get a fairer share of the pelagic quota as it now comprises over 90% of the fleet? When will inshore bluefin quotas be introduced? Is there any update on the north-west herring advisory committee? I understand that inshore fishermen have lost up to €10,000 each since 2020 due to the impact of Covid, Brexit and the war in Ukraine. I am informed this is what the crew members, never mind the skippers and owners, have lost. Can financial aid be provided as a matter of priority so they can continue in business as primary producers?

I wish to raise something very close to my heart, as the Minister of State is well aware. I refer to the matter of pair trawling. The students at Pobalscoil Inbhear Scéine in Kenmare in south Kerry undertook a massive campaign. This is a major issue all along our coast, especially in Kenmare Bay and Dingle Bay. I see pair trawling regularly outside my home in Rossbeigh. If we do not act now, untold and irreparable damage will be done. It is so important we support future generations, to be honest. The sprat stocks have been wiped out. This is not just affecting all other species but impacting the small fisherman, the man with the rod, the guy with the small boat and, indeed, the small-to-medium-sized trawlers. In that regard, when will the ban come in? When will the 6-mile limit be introduced? Does the Department believe in supporting the introduction of the 6-mile radius?

I emphasise the importance of our seafood industry. Ireland can pride itself on how successful we are.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the Deputy to leave some time for the Minister of State to respond. There were several questions asked.

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. There are some great companies just in my own county, including Quinlan's Fish in Reenard in Cahersiveen, which has shops all over counties Kerry, Limerick and Cork. In my own parish, there is a small but successful and thriving business called Glenbeigh Shellfish. Then there is Cromane Seafoods down the road in Cromane, a port that once upon a time was the third largest exporter of mussels and where ice has been a big business. There is Daly's Seafood, and you can get Daly's smoked salmon here on the menu in the Dáil.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know the Deputy wants to name several places, but I ask him to ensure he leaves time for the Minister of State to have an opportunity to answer several of his questions.

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Lastly, I turn to the issue of aquaculture licences. This has been going on for years and livelihoods are at stake here. I ask the Minister of State and his officials to look at this matter. There are cases where people are waiting to apply for European funding and cannot because the licences are not being renewed or processed.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy, this is my third time intervening. The Minister of State will not have time to be able to respond because there will not be time.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy. I also thank him for his ongoing engagement with me since my appointment. I think the number of queries and questions he has submitted is an indication of his connection to the seafood sector and the fishing sector generally, and specifically to the inshore fishermen, whom I know are important. I had the opportunity to visit with the Deputy and meet with representatives of Quinlan's Fish and others in the sector.

On pair trawling, I had an opportunity to reflect on this issue earlier. A process is in place and under way now, and I do not want in any way to impinge on its outcome. I can say that the Government is committed to addressing the issues raised by the Deputy. The previous Minister began a consultation process last year and more than 5,000 submissions were received. The Department and I have to go through those in detail so that whatever decision we ultimately take is proportionate and based on science and facts. I intend and expect to be able to make a decision on some possible options in this area by the summer. I do not want to second-guess what those might be at this stage, other than by saying I am committed to making a decision in the interests of all at the earliest possible opportunity.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State. Once again, I remind members their allotted five minutes include time for the questions and the responses. I call Deputy Cleere.

Peter Cleere (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister of State on his new role in this very new Ministry. It is fantastic to see. I have spoken to many stakeholders in the industry and the feedback on the Minister of State is that he is prepared to roll up his sleeves, get stuck in and get involved. It is fantastic to have a Minister of State like him going out to communities right around the country. Fair play to him in this regard. From a Government perspective as well, it needs to be acknowledged that to have a specific committee on this topic is fantastic. It has not been there before. Deputy Gallagher said this earlier and it must be acknowledged. Having a specific committee and a specific Minister of State dedicated to the marine is huge and shows the commitment this Government has to this matter.

I will be brief with my questions. I have two. I will roll them into one contribution and then I would like to hear from the Minister of State. Regarding the extension of the EU-UK trade agreement, we know this area is worth €1.25 billion to the economy and impacts 17,000 jobs. What would be the two or three biggest impacts the Minister of State would see this trade agreement having on the fisheries and seafood sector?

If I can be indulged, the Minister of State might talk a little about the Government's offshore renewables strategy. This is an area where there is huge potential. I would like to get some remarks from the Minister of State on this issue as well. I thank the Chair.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy. In terms of the reset agreement, for want of a better word, it gives certainty to the sector regarding what the operators have and their investment strategy. We were facing a potential further loss of quota and it having to be addressed on a multi-annual basis. That would not assist operators in the sector in financing their projects or businesses over the years ahead. The agreement, therefore, gives certainty. It also, of course, recognises that the loss of quota is still significant. We talked about it earlier, and I do not want to underestimate it in any way and the pressure it has put on the sector. This agreement, however, does give certainty as we progress.

Turning to the offshore renewables aspect, we have significant commitments to achieve our decarbonisation targets by 2030 and onwards to 2050. There is already some activity in this space and we hope by 2030 to have gone a long way towards achieving a further 5 GW of electricity from offshore renewables, principally via offshore wind. These targets are exacting but we are progressing well in this regard. We have a further commitment that by 2040 we will have a further 15 GW to 18 GW, bringing us to a total of 20 GW being generated offshore by 2040. This is important from two perspectives, including decarbonising our electricity grid and then also further decarbonising our economy generally so we are moving away from fossil fuels. In doing so, our demand for electricity will grow significantly. I think at the minute we use about 6 GW of electricity on the island of Ireland.

By 2030 we are hoping to have another 5 GW of that offshore. Some of the onshore activity is already there so we want to continue to progress that. There are real opportunities for coastal communities in providing, through some of the biggest ports, for this sort of main work. Then there will be ongoing maintenance activity that can take place from smaller harbours. There are significant opportunities in the years ahead.

The Government is also committed through the national designated marine area plans, legislation for which is already there in the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. A area has been successfully designated off the south-east coast. As it has not been judicially reviewed, this was a positive outcome in terms of the regulatory approach that was taken. We are now moving that forward and will be making a further statement shortly on the details of how we intend to progress this on a national basis. We are hoping by the end of 2027 to have a national designated maritime area plan, DMAP, which will identify other sites around the coastline that are suitable for fixed and floating offshore wind opportunities. We see that as a very significant enabler of local communities.

It is not going to be without its challenge because these are shared spaces. There is transport, leisure, fishing and now when we introduce offshore renewables there is potential for conflict. Part of the role I have been given is to try to ease that, insofar as we can, between the competing interests of the Department of fisheries on the one hand and the marine aspect, comprising marine planning, the marine environment and the marine protected areas that we have to put in place as well. It is challenging, it is exciting and it has huge potential to assist us in decarbonising our economic activity. We have an abundance of wind offshore that other countries, quite frankly, do not have. Depending on grid development over the coming years there is potential to have an impact in exporting electricity from that source into a European grid. We have some interconnection at the minute, particularly through the Celtic interconnector, but that would have to be strengthened and expanded. There are also opportunities being developed and looked at through electrolysis and converting that potential abundance of electricity into hydrogen and ammonia. We all recognise that aviation is a contributor to climate change.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will ask the Minister of State to wrap up on that. We will have an opportunity at the meeting after next when this committee will look at offshore renewable energies. Given that all members have already had a first opportunity to speak, I have a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister of State.

As Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned, he and I and our party launched that survey document yesterday. It makes for very depressing reading when we are looking at a sector that many of us are involved in and which has sustained our coastal communities for a very long time. Some of those responses point to a real distrust of government and the approach of successive Governments over many years to prioritise the sector, to vindicate the interests of coastal communities and to stand up for the industry at European level and elsewhere. Taken as a whole, if we were to distil it down to just a few words, there seems to be a problem with culture and attitudes at the heart of government. This is not something that is new. It is not something that has cropped up recently but it seems to be there at the heart of government when it comes to the fishing sector. The Minister of State has heard that feedback from the communities and industry already.

The events of recent weeks with the conclusion of the negotiations on this trade agreement and with the locking in of the provisions of the trade agreement for many years to come underscores that. It shows the lack of interest and disregard at European level for the Irish fishing industry and the coastal communities and the marginal communities it sustains. Out of the Commission's extremely long statement on the overall agreement, there were only four lines in the entirety of the text relating to sea fisheries, and nothing specific about Ireland. There is also the question that is rightly asked, and I believe that Deputy Mac Lochlainn alluded to it, around what is the dividend here for the Irish fishing industry. Where is the recognition that we are carrying the burden of this again? I note that the Minister of State's own statement at the time welcomed the certainty that it gave. When the industry has been haemorrhaging €44 million worth of fish every year under this agreement, and is likely to haemorrhage €800 million over the lifetime of the agreement, that is certainty for sure But the industry certainly knows it is screwed. This is the way I would put it to be honest. This is the way it is termed to me.

What can we do to leverage the fact that we are carrying this burden at European level as we run into the December Council quota negotiations and look for some additional funding? I note that the Brexit stability fund provided €31 million for ports and harbours. I have some questions about how that was directed and how accessible that was to local authorities in particular, for example, to access this funding for dredging and other works. How can we leverage the fact that we are under this burden now to do best for the industry and for the coastal communities?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chairperson's two specific questions are around what can we do now based on a recognition of the difficulties this sector faces at European level. The first level of engagement, having met the Commissioner and then having had him come and meet the industry, was a really positive first step. The fact that it is central in his mind as to the impact it has and continues to have is part of it. The work I will be doing over the coming months and throughout the summer will be meeting with counterparts at European level. I have already met a number of them in my attendance at Council meetings. I am also organising bilateral meetings where I will visit other member states. In addition to what impact that might have in the context of the Council meeting, it is also part of a road show the Government is encouraging all Ministers to engage in to assist with our development of our programme for the Presidency, which will take place in the second-half of 2026. That is important work. The work of this committee is important too. When we had a briefing session with this committee I encouraged members to go to Brussels and meet with various interested parties. It feeds into what Senator Boyle was saying about lobbying. I do not mean this in a facetious way but members also have a role in that in terms of being present, both in Strasbourg and in Brussels on occasion, with delegations to meet counterparts at European level and to meet members of the European Parliament. It helps to continue to highlight the issues that we face.

On the additional funding and funding for harbours, I believe that this year we have €4 million for specific harbours outside our remit or control. It was €27 million overall and some of that was funding to the State-owned harbours but €4.1 million or €4.2 million was announced by the Minister, Deputy Heydon, and me earlier this year, which was then attributed to the various different applications. Applications come from local authorities. They are flagged in advance. We provide 80% funding for shovel-ready projects. The local authority has to have done some of its own work. We do not fund the environmental impact studies and all of that. We do not fund that aspect; we just fund projects that are ready to go. The local authority has to have made some headway in that regard.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have discussed this previously. We will have to come back to it at a future committee meeting because that is out of kilter with the way other Departments fund other local authority projects where there is money for development.

We have some 15 minutes left on this item with the Minister of State. I will open it up to the floor. I remind members that we will go for five minutes but this has to include some time for the Minister of State to respond. Deputy Mac Lochlainn, Deputy Cahill and Senator Boyle have indicated.

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

We will have various sectors represented here today in the next session on islands, inshore and offshore. I would like to get the Minister of State's latest perspective on the issue the six-mile limit. I acknowledge it is being reviewed and that a number of court cases have held back the intent of the previous Government.

Ireland has the natural resource of fishing and shellfish around its coast, which we have never fully developed. Does the Minister of State believe the resource is protected as a resource for the Irish people under the Irish Constitution?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the changes concerning the so-called inside six, different terms are used such as the "inside six", "sprat fishing" or "pair trawling". In 2019, the then Government adopted a policy position that was challenged in the courts on a highly technical point. The position fell against the Government on that very technical point. In 2024, the Government restarted the consultation process, which achieved a very significant number of over 5,000 submissions. Such a process must be gone through meticulously on the basis of the potential challenges that might take place at a later stage. I am not in a position to make any pronouncement on what the ultimate decision might be until I have gone through all that process. We have reached a point in that journey where I am hopeful that we can make our position known over the course of the summer. The sooner the better, from my perspective, because people in all areas are interested, from both sides. I want to be judicious in the approach that we take but I want to be resolute that we need to reach a final position and I am committed to working through that. Yesterday, we had discussions about it at a ministerial level. We will continue to progress that. As I am conscious of the impact it is having on all sides, I want to bring it to a conclusion.

On the issue of a natural resource, we have a number of natural resources in our maritime area that are of huge importance to coastal communities. Fishing and shellfish is a very significant resource and we must protect that resource in every way. We have to protect it against overfishing and against other opportunities that emerged with the potential for offshore renewables.

I also am conscious that even though the value of aquaculture has increased significantly in recent years, the volume has dropped, principally because the value of organic Irish salmon has grown significantly. Earlier we talked about the licensing issues but notwithstanding the challenges around the issuance of licences and the process involved, there is an opportunity to do greater work on the potential benefit for coastal communities. Recently I attended the Our Ocean Conference in Korea and I took the opportunity to look at a pilot onshore fish farm project being developed there. The project is not commercially viable yet. The project is located in close proximity to the sea but uses groundwater rather than water from the sea. There are significant costs associated with the energy required but in looking to the future and the abundance of offshore energy, the project may have some potential for Ireland. The project is at a very early stage but is one I want to interrogate. If it is possible to do in other parts of the world then we should consider it for here.

The ecosystem that exists off our coastline is hugely important for the future of coastal communities. In response to what the Chairman said earlier, over the passage of time perhaps attention has been focused elsewhere. I think the Government is now very clearly committed to trying to exploit those resources to the benefit of those communities but in a manner that is sustainable and ensure they are protected for future generations. Those are my riding instructions from the Government.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Cahill is next. I wish to advise that a number of people have indicated and we only have ten minutes left in the session.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To save Deputy Cahill, perhaps I could answer the questions that I did not answer earlier. I will save him the time and answer them for him.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that okay with Deputy Cahill?

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister of State to keep his answers to three minutes.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Cahill mentioned pair trawling was mentioned. I have addressed the issue a number of times and he was present for that.

Ireland does not have a quota for bluefin tuna because for historical reasons, we did not have the species in our waters. A number of people mentioned the issue when we met the Commissioner. Interestingly, it seems to have stuck in his mind because he mentioned it again when we met earlier this week that perhaps because of climate change - certainly the migratory patterns of fish stock and species are changing - waters are warming, which has a negative impact too but it does see species coming into our waters. Like previous Ministers, I certainly will not be found wanting in fighting for a share of the quota. As Deputy Gallagher has identified, for us to gain quota then somebody has to lose. Even when species move away from waters and where there are countries that do not fish their entire quota, they are very slow to give up their quota. I do not want to underestimate the challenge that we will face in that regard but I assure members that we will do everything possible to push for that. Having the Commissioner on side will not be enough because the decision must be made by member states when discussing various negotiation agreements.

On aquaculture licences, I mentioned that aquaculture is an opportunity but it will only be one if we can bring some semblance of hastiness to the issuance of licences. Where we have situations in which licences have to be renewed after ten years, many of them are allowed to still operate while their licence is under review under an existing provision. They have gone to 15 and 16 years so for another ten there are only four years left in that. I want to do a piece of work on this and I will come back to the committee in due course with it. From my perspective, the system does not work at the minute. Department officials and I have discussed this already. I am conscious of it because the people who are involved in aquaculture regularly raise this issue. I think what we would ultimately like, if we can get the processing right, is for us to have the ability to issue a 20-year licence. I say that guardedly because I have not advanced all of the aspects involved. I think we must give certainty to the people and businesses who are investing in this area. If we, as a State, believe in what they are producing - and we do - then we must be of assistance in terms of delivery. I have no doubt but that the initiative will be challenged. Like any licence, where people believe a certain practice runs contrary to what they would like then of course there it will be challenged in the courts. None of this is for the want of effort; it is just how we put in place the regulatory and legal framework, as well as primary legislation if necessary, to give certainly to those who will take decisions at a later stage.

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed response. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance of expediting the processing of aquaculture licences. I also thank the Minister of State because earlier this year he announced funding for smaller piers like in Kilmakilloge, County Kerry. Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of Dingle Harbour and the investment there.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry I missed the Minister of State's contribution on aquaculture. There are no quotas when it comes to aquaculture and those are the opportunities that we should take. It is important that a one-stop-shop be established when it comes to aquaculture processing. As far as I understand, the Minister of State does not have it in his total remit to process applications. There are other Ministers interested. Perhaps the Minister of State could consider the issue and let us have your views at a future meeting.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are a number of other Ministers who are interested. In fact, it is an issue in terms of getting my delegated responsibilities between the two Departments. I mean one might impact on the other because of the capacity to review decisions that are taken by me, on the one hand, and the potential implications that that might have. We will certainly look at that and see if there is a methodology in place as part of that overall review. Maybe what we could do in due course is when we have a plan or even the bones of a plan in place, I can come back before the committee and hear ideas from members on that particular element.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to raise a few wee things. As has been stated, we were in Castletown when the Commissioner was there. He is really getting involved in the new species that are coming into Irish waters because of global warming. Is there any way we could conduct a review to see what is coming into Irish waters to try to be ahead to the posse?

Bluefin tuna were mentioned. It would be a good help to our small fishermen if they could get two or three tags for the year. It would be a massive help to a small man with a boat out trying to fish crabs and lobsters.

The Minister of State is here. Could he outline the plans for the small fisherman? At the end of the day, he is just living on crumbs off the table. He is a person who must be included in a plan, moving forward, because if we are to keep coastal communities alive, we need the small man to be involved too.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator very much. The understanding of the migratory flows and patterns of certain species in our waters is handled in the first instance by the Marine Institute, which falls under the remit of the Department in the area for which I have responsibility. I visited the institute recently and I am in regular contact with it. The Marine Institute is an outstanding operation and it does some amazing work in capturing data. We will not be found wanting in terms of having access to knowledge when it comes to fighting our corner in that regard. That will be part of an overall negotiation at Brussels level.

It is a challenge because for us to get new quota, as it requires somebody else to give way. I understand the pressures inshore fishermen and women and the small operators in particular are under. It is a bit like small farming, which I understand very well, having grown up on one, and the implications involved.

To the best of my knowledge - Ms McSherry will correct me if I am wrong - there was a previous policy position taken on reallocating or adjusting quotas between certain sectors within the Irish area. That was judicially challenged and there was a judicial review on it that is still in the courts. It is not straightforward to adjust the share in our own area between the bigger fleets and the smaller fleets. The decision of a previous Minister was challenged. That makes it difficult for me to move forward at the moment with a new plan in that regard, if we were minded to do it, based on observations or discussions, because it would be challenged. The decision that was already made is still being challenged in the courts, so it is not just a matter of the stroke of a pen from me or the Government to reallocate quota. We must follow a process, and it is open to challenge. That is where that lies.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending here today. It is the first time, but it certainly will not be the last time. As he heard, there is a wide range of issues that we wish to discuss with him and tease out in more detail and at length. I thank him and his officials for their contributions to today's meeting.

We will suspend to allow the next witnesses enter the room and get set up.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am required to read a short statement on privilege for the benefit of our witnesses. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and 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 from a location outside the parliamentary precincts, those joining us on MS Teams, are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take their own legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publications by witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I thank the witnesses for attending the meeting to discuss this pressing issue. I welcome Mr. Cormac Burke, chairman of the Irish Fishing and Seafood Alliance; Mr. Enda Conneely, vice-chair of the Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation, who is joining us remotely; Mr. Brendan Byrne, Seafood Ireland Alliance and Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association; and Mr. John Lynch; Seafood Ireland Alliance and Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation. Witnesses' opening statements have been forwarded to members. As the time for this discussion is fairly limited, I will not ask them to give the full statement; rather, I ask them to give a brief two-minute synopsis of their statements. We will proceed to a question-and-answer session thereafter. For the benefit of members, once we begin the question-and-answer session, I ask them to indicate and we will do the same practice we did previously whereby each member has a five-minute slot to ask questions. Responses are also included in the five minutes and I ask members to bear that in mind when framing their questions.

We will start with an tUasal Uí Chongaile atá ar líne on MS Teams. He has two minutes.

Mr. Enda Conneely:

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. The Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation, IIMRO, is an offshore, islands-based organisation representing members from counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Cork. IIMRO is a recognised EU producer organisation since February 2021. We are affiliated to the Low Impact Fishers of Europe, LIFE, and to Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann, otherwise known as The Irish Islands Federation. Our members are predominantly small-scale, low-impact operators fishing from small boats, using local crews and supporting our island communities.

The offshore islands are dependent on fishing. More than 6% of the national fleet is made up of island boats, which is important considering islands only make up 0.03% of the population of Ireland. The importance of islands has been recognised at European level in the Common Fisheries Policy and the recently published European oceans pact. To date, this vision has not been delivered at national level. The trade and co-operation agreement between the EU and the UK, which is third country since Brexit, governs a lot of fisheries policy. The small-scale fleet segment is largely invisible in the agreement despite its social importance and low environmental impact, considering the small proportion of the overall fishing opportunities allocated to it. Europe handles negotiations, with Ireland having limited input into the final outcome. The recent trade and co-operation agreement has a long timeframe and, therefore, it is essential implementation is flexible in order that it can deliver on the aims of the agreement, particularly for the next generation of fishermen and women and island and coastal communities.

Brexit has affected all Irish fleet segments. The small-scale and inshore fleet segments did not benefit from the Brexit adjustment reserve, BAR, fund as these measures were moved to the national Exchequer. This had the negative consequence of falling under the limited de minimis funding rule for fisheries and which IIMRO opposed at the time.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Conneely. We are just out of time. We have timers in the room, although I am not sure whether he can see them on his screen. I ask witnesses and members to be cognisant of them. They are in red around the room. I thank Mr. Conneely for his two-minute synopsis. I now move to Mr. Cormac Burke.

Mr. Cormac Burke:

Good morning. I thank members of the committee for the invitation to be here today. I will give an abbreviated version of the opening statement that I submitted. I have picked out a few of the main points. While the EU Commission claims this agreement offers stability, it does nothing for Ireland, which has lost the chance of negotiating back any of the quota submitted to the UK during Brexit. The deal shows the Commission’s failure to protect Ireland’s fishing sector. It appears there is no intention to save Ireland from the Common Fisheries Policy, which benefits EU nations to harvest Irish waters while forcing Irish fishermen to survive on 14% of total EU quota in Irish waters. At this stage, Irish fishermen feel their industry has reached the point of no return unless there is a radical overhaul of the system.

There are a number of example in this regard. First, every time the inshore sector attempts to diversify into a fishery to take pressure off the crab resource, that fishery is closed due to regulation or coincidental scientific advice that suits the EU Commission narrative at that time. Second, a demersal sector example exists in south-east Ireland where Irish vessels are restricted by EU quotas to just a few kilos of Dover sole per month while Belgian vessels, fishing the same Irish waters, are allowed several tonnes. Incredibly, this has resulted in Belgian fishing companies building new vessels purely for this lucrative situation, while Irish vessels go bankrupt. Third, the pelagic fleet has seen quotas alarmingly reduced. Since the Commission no longer deems there to be Irish waters but rather classifies them as an EU shared resource, it carries out deals with Norway, without much consultation with Ireland, to permit the catching of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of Irish blue whiting, while Ireland’s allowance is just 60,000 tonnes.

Ireland was impacted disproportionately by the Brexit deal, losing €43 million worth of quota annually. People do not realise that, reportedly according to Eurostat, €215 billion has been taken from Irish waters since we joined the EU in 1973.

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

First, the extension of the trade agreement, gives us 12 years of certainty. We must look at that in the context of what we witnessed in the UK for the past eight years with the turbulence of the various governments, from Theresa May and Liz Truss to Boris Johnston. That certainty is welcomed by the sector. We welcome it. The historic fact is still there, however, that the losses imposed on Ireland in 2020 are really hurting the sector right across the board. The sector I represent, that is, the processing sector, has lost €240 million of fishing opportunity. That is manifesting itself with reduced working hours and employment opportunities in the various factories across the board.

While there are others who say the BAR alleviated that, we need to be realistic when we do an analysis of that. While we did get €30.4 million in funding for capital investment, the sector had to invest €110 million of its own money through mortgages and loans to draw down that €30.4 million so there was a lot of risk on the part of the sector. The other scheme that was to benefit this sector was the Brexit transition fund. I challenge anyone here to have a look at that scheme. It was a disaster from beginning to end. It missed the opportunity to help the sector. Then we have to bear in mind that €230 million of the BAR fund was sent back to the EU at a time the sector is crying out for support.

We are in a situation where global demand for fish is high. We could sell multiples of the volume of fish we are processing but it is not available to us. The 12-year extension for the sector I represent will cost us €1 billion. That is what this 12-year extension will mean. That is shared over 82 fish processing units. Doing the ratio, that is a severe hit for our sector. That is the certainty that I, the factory owners and processing owners are dealing with. We need to evaluate the past five years and we need to do a prospectus on what the next 12 years really mean in real terms. I am now conscious that I am over time so I revert back to the Chair.

Mr. John Lynch:

We in the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation recognise the stability the new EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement has given us. It gives a certainty to businesses and for people who intend making investments in the future, which at this stage is very important. We also recognise and are confident that there has been a realignment of the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations and hope that this will allows us to re-establish the land bridge and the landing of live shellfish into the UK for transport back into Ireland as a European Union member state for onward processing. That was stopped post the initial Brexit and I made a lot of statements about it during the intervening five years. Therefore, it is encouraging for us to see those sanitary regulations being realigned and we hope it can happen as soon as possible.

In saying that, we did have massive losses amounting to €43 million of quota annually being transferred from Ireland to the UK as part of the TCA. That will be ongoing for the next 12 years after next year up to June 2038. We see that as a huge loss for the catching sector, which runs up to almost €800 million, and in nephrops where we transferred 14% of our nephrops quota to the UK as part of that agreement. That has amounted to almost €50 million over the five years to date. That will continue and those loses will continue. As my colleague said, the BAR funding did, in some way, give temporary assistance to alleviate some of the financial loses but it really has not helped the industry to readjust to the new reality. That new reality is that the fishing industry is struggling because of consolidation where we decommissioned almost 66,000 tonnes of vessels. In all, 39 vessels were decommissioned and that has consolidated the industry to a point where it really is struggling to support itself. It is struggling to support the service industry and it is struggling to keeps its processors supplies. That is causing huge issues all around the industry, all at a time when we are starting to face into the reality of having to rebuild our fleet for the energy transition into the future.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Lynch. We will open up to questions and answers. I call Deputy Gallagher in the first instance followed by Senator Boyle and Deputy Ward.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am committed to doing an interview on RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta and I am watching the clock. I welcome those who are with us this morning, both here in person and online, giving an overview of the implications of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement of 19 May. Of course, that was heralded as being a very welcome agreement by all except the fishing sector. It has a great impact on the sector. While we were told early in the day the British fishing sector saw it as a negative, the converse of that was that it should be a positive. It is not a positive for us. The amount we have lost to date has been outlined by the spokespersons and it will be up to €1 million by 2038. That will have devastating implications for the industry. The Brexit adjustment fund, which was meant to be of assistance with capital of €30 million, is not sufficient. Some €110 million had to have been provided by matching funds by the sector and that is an indication of the type of sector. Many of those in the fishing sector are investing without any assistance whatsoever. The Cathaoirleach or Mr. Byrne can correct me if I am wrong that €230 million, or something of that nature, was returned to Europe. It was not taken advantage of. Those are not questions for Europe. Those are questions for the Irish Government and the Department and we will pursue those vigorously at our next meeting. As I said earlier, I point a finger at Michel Barnier who told me very clearly that Brexit would not have any implications for the fishing sector because trade and fish would be inextricably linked but that did not happen. We have lost as a result of that. It has been suggested that the Common Fisheries Policy may right all our wrongs but I am around too long to know that since the very first day there have been no changes policy. The cake has to be divided and if we are to get an extra 2% to 3%, others will oppose that vigorously. We do not have the power then or the voting strength at the Council of Ministers. By the same token, I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, is totally committed. He hit the ground running, he is learning quickly and he will work closely with us to try to do his utmost to support the sector and try to reverse all of the wrongs that have been done.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take it that question was directed at Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

Yes, I can confirm the amount that was returned was €213 million. That is what we were told at the most recent two meetings at which this issue was addressed. The Deputy is 100% correct. The real impacts and the accumulative impacts of the quota transfers resulting from the TCA are being felt year-on-year. We can see that from the catching sector and the representatives here. The profitability in the catchment sector is down 82%. In our sector, the processing sector, at least 50% of the factories are working less time. At least 30% to 40% of the factories are no longer profitable and making considerable loses. All those challenges are a direct result of having lost 26% of the value of our quota in order for the TCA to be agreed. That also translated into Ireland contributing 40% of the volumetric value of the overall TCA deal for all of Europe. One member state contributed 40% whereas the other eight contributed the 60%. It is an easy maths equation when we look at it. We have to fair and objective. Ireland got a severe and disproportionate hit as a result of this. While the 12-year certainty is welcomed by us, it also confirms 12 years of further loses unless we can do things differently.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agat. Next we have Senator Boyle. He has five minutes including the response. Will the Senator direct his question to one of our witnesses in particular if possible?

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, I congratulate the boys. It is great to see them here. Normally, I would be with them on that side of the room. It is different sitting over here. I am so glad they are here. They are representing their industry and it is the same with the people on Microsoft Teams. This is long overdue. We should have had this ten or 15 years ago and maybe the industry would not be in the mess it is in now. I have a couple of questions, which I will put generally. Mr. Byrne referred to us sending back €230 million. Was the Government responsible for sending that back or was it Europe? That is just one question. I will let the witnesses answer them then.

In the first session, the Minister of State said that the fishing people of Ireland are resilient, which I know we are. Think of where we started off at four years ago and where we have come to now. We have no visible gains but we are gaining ground around Ireland and through the coastal communities. In the future, is there any place that we can make wee ones to secure the small and big fishers? What are the deals that can be made with Europe? Earlier, we talked about the Icelandic deals. Can we score one there that will help the industry to stay alive and try to keep going? These questions are open to the three witnesses and whoever wants to answer is welcome to do so.

Mr. Cormac Burke:

One thing I meant to say earlier was that if anyone in Irish politics needed an explanation as to what the fisheries problem is for Ireland, the simple answer is that the Common Fisheries Policy continues to benefit not those closest to the resource but those closest to Brussels. That answers many of the questions that have been asked today.

Mr. John Lynch:

There are several aspects to this. We are looking at what can be done to improve the situation of the fishing industry and the seafood industry as a whole. An item high on the agenda at the moment is the ongoing negotiations with Iceland. We think that the maximum value for Ireland should be extracted from the negotiations. This is a way of partially rebalancing the losses that were made in Brexit, particularly in the pelagic sector. In the demersal sector, now that we have maintained the same level of quota transfer to the UK and the TCA, one of our main opportunities is the ongoing evaluation of the CFP. We are asking our Minister and the Government to push for some reforms to be made to the CFP. In this, we would like to see reforms of the Hague preferences and of underutilised quota. There are several things within the CFP mechanism that we would like to see reformed. We would really like to see our Hague preference, which were hard fought for by Ireland, being given a stronger legal basis in the CFP. Currently, we have to go annually and fight for the Hague preferences. Reference was made earlier in one of the statements that in a certain area, 7fg, of the Celtic Sea, we are particularly deficient in quotas for sole. We do have a Hague preference in this stock, but we have never managed to invoke it and there is an issue with us trying to do so with the Commission annually at the December council. We would like to see that given a stronger legal basis.

Mr. Enda Conneely:

I will make a few brief points. From our perspective, we have been recognised as a producer organisation but there is no funding available, in line with EU policy. We are short of basic infrastructure. The small-scale fleet is the basis of everything. Everyone starts off fishing on small boats on the coast and look at the state of us here; we are getting old. We need a practical system of facilitating generational renewal, such as a fishery apprentice scheme or something like that. A more nuanced scientific approach is where advice is presented and acted on. The pollock closure had a terrible effect on the small-scale fleet. The UK handled it differently from how we did. Most of our small-scale guys have been wiped out or severely impacted. The Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill 2017 was developed from a recommendation of the Oireachtas committee in 2014. It facilitated the introduction of many of these practical measures for the base of everything. It is interesting that at the UN Ocean Conference, Ursula von der Leyen said that fishermen, especially small-scale fisheries, should be prioritised and that the Commission is going to work with member states to ensure fair and transparent access to fishing opportunities and to make it easier to renew the small-scale fleet.

I agree with most of the things that have been said by my colleagues. We need to revisit the Common Fisheries Policy because we are stuck in a time warp and that needs to change.

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

On Senator Boyle's question about the €213 million, while the previous Government did set up a task force, those of us who were part of it found it nearly impossible to get any scheme that could focus money from the BAR fund to the various sectors that were in critical need of it. If we did succeed, as I said in my opening statement, the Brexit transition fund for the processors was earmarked for €12 million in the seafood task force, but Ireland chose to only draw down €7 million of it. The other €5 million could so easily have been given to the processing sector. There is a disconnect between the opportunities that exist in 100% European funding, which the BAR was, and how it was given to the sector. I thought how we managed that was very short-sighted. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the sector after it had lost 26% of its value. This is one thing that is glossed over and forgotten about. We who represent the sector have lost something at the stroke of a pen in order to get a political decision of the TCA. It was important that there would be a smooth exit for the United Kingdom from the European Union but in order to get that, the fishing industry lost 26% of its value at the stroke of a pen. It is not possible economically for us to reconfigure and get back to normal in two to three years. The penny has not dropped about this yet. Those are the consequences of why we are here.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the witnesses and look forward to working with them over the term. My first question is for Mr. Conneely. In his opening statement, he said that the Common Fisheries Policy and the European ocean pact have not been delivered at national level. What needs to be done to deliver this?

Mr. Enda Conneely:

From the small-scale perspective, we have been recognised as a producer organisation but because of the way the funding structure is set up, it is not suitable for small-scale operators starting off. It is the same with the other inshore sector. We need basic infrastructure on piers and harbours that are used by small-scale fleets. We do not have power, water, waste disposal, lights or any of that stuff at the moment. We need some kind of a practical system to facilitate generational renewal. As I said earlier, everybody starts in a small boat. They get a taste for the sea and they just grow up into it. It is very important to have the base right so that we can do it.

Regarding the scientific stuff, the way they did the pollock was really bad for the small-scale fleet and the small local boats that do seasonal fishing. Having statements from the Commission announcing that it is going to facilitate this is good but we need a targeted approach. It is a bit like the way the BAR fund was delivered. It was handed out in such a parsimonious fashion and the fact that they had to give some of it back did not make any sense at all to us. This is an ongoing thing and we need to get very practical here, because we are stuck with a 12-year certainty of having 26% less than what we had. The review of the CFP may be an option. There may be opportunities for us with the new European ocean pact they are working on as well. However, at a local level, we need a hands-on approach from the Government and the Department for all the sectors and we need to just get on with it.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My second question is for the Seafood Ireland Alliance. It was mentioned that it recently engaged with the European Commissioner for fisheries and oceans. Does the alliance feel there is an adequate opportunity for fishing organisations to engage at European level? Was there an engagement previous to the recent EU-UK trade agreement? I will leave those questions open to any of the witnesses.

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

One of the historical weaknesses Ireland has had is that we have been very weak at engagement at European level, as both a Government and a sector. The competency for fish lies solely with the European Commission and it has been that way since 1983 with the Common Fisheries Policy. That is one of the weaknesses that we as a country need to address, at both official Government level and a sectoral level because in Europe, in Brussels, that is primarily where the decisions are taken. We need to be stronger in Europe. We are all talking about the current evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy. There is no certainty that will lead to a review. In order to get it to a review stage, where there may or may not be opportunity for Ireland, a lot of political lobbying needs to be done at European level by both our Government and the sector. It is now that we need to do that. One of the areas where this committee will have a very important function is that we need to look at what level of engagement we have and what level of representation we have in Brussels and, if necessary, that will have to be beefed up. I know it to be the case that it needs to be beefed up but I will not draw a conclusion that the committee must draw.

Mr. Cormac Burke:

In response to the question about the CFP, we are hearing kind of positive whispers about a reforming of the Common Fisheries Policy, but I wonder if the committee is aware that the previous fisheries Commissioner, on a visit to Ireland three years ago, when he was asked that question was quite honest and said there is no appetite among the other member states - obviously not, because they have a lovely situation and are cleaning up in Irish waters. There was in 2013 an evaluation, which was never going to lead to any sort of serious change, and now we hear about possible renewing or reviewing of it. Without serious pressure from the Irish Government, I do not think the EU will change. It is not the Commission's fault but the members who are harvesting Irish waters. They will not sacrifice 1% back to us.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses for coming in. It is very nice to meet them. This is the first meeting of this committee and I think it will be quite a large and long learning curve, but we look forward to working with them on that.

Even from these conversations this morning, and just going back for years and years, we have consistently heard stories of how Ireland has not been represented well at Europe, that we lost a lot of our fisheries and that we were disproportionately impacted by it. I cannot honestly see a big change in that happening because we are such a small country and because of the business-as-usual approach, as Mr. Burke said. I think that will be what is applied and I think we need to fight for it. As regards even the negotiations with the EU and the UK and the fallout from that for Ireland specifically, there were obviously not mistakes made but maybe negotiations or leverage was not there for us. We are going through a similar process now with Iceland. What would the witnesses like to see happen now specifically as regards Iceland? What would be a good outcome? If the EU came back and said, "We have agreed third party or third country agreement", what would be a good outcome for the witnesses as regards Iceland?

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

I admit we are a small country, but we must not lose sight of the fact that Ireland contributes 12% of the EU fishing grants or the fact that the viability of the Dutch, Belgian, French and Spanish fleets depends in large part on Irish fishing grants. That is what we bring to the table. Historically, we have not appreciated as a country what we are contributing to the EU in terms of fishing. We were defeatist or certainly we failed to value what we had when we were at the negotiating table for fisheries. That is the history of it. Even beyond our fellow member states that I outlined, we also contribute fishing opportunities to Norway. Meanwhile, our own fleet is suffering. There needs to be a whole in-depth argument, and that is where this committee - and this is the first time we have had a fisheries-focused committee in I think 20 years - needs to drill down into what Ireland is really contributing. Small country that we are, we are a major player in terms of fishing opportunity.

I will give the Iceland questions to Mr. Lynch.

Mr. John Lynch:

I thank Deputy Whitmore for the question. Her question kind of implies the answer. It is a necessary answer, and we need to make ourselves clear on this, that the negotiation with Iceland is ongoing, to the best of our knowledge. How we engage with that is very important because, as I said earlier, we need to extract the maximum benefit to Ireland from that negotiation and there is opportunity there. To that end, we have ourselves in the Seafood Ireland Alliance, and the reason the five organisations got together was to establish better communications with our MEPs and with the European Commission post Brexit because the Deputy is right that the landscape has changed. Our intention there is that we develop within Europe and we work with our Ministers and our Department and among ourselves in the alliance as an Ireland Inc. representation in Brussels to get the maximum possible benefit we can from any negotiation that is going on in Brussels, including the upcoming possible reform or at least review of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Deputy is quite right that it is not easy to change anything within the Common Fisheries Policy, but there are tweaks in there that could make life a lot better for Irish fishermen.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could Mr. Lynch expand on those tweaks?

Mr. John Lynch:

I can. There is the issue of under-utilised quota whereby in a good few stocks we are deficient in quota and our vessels struggle with the minimal amount they have available to them to catch. Within the Common Fisheries Policy the quotas are divided up and some countries have larger shares than others. In that, many member states do not utilise fully the quota they have available to them so it just stays there uncaught. We are therefore asking, and it is in our Common Fisheries Policy review report and the recommendations are there, that we should develop a better system of swapping or accessing those under-utilised quotas. Also within the Common Fisheries Policy, we would like to see more adherence paid to the Hague preferences that Ireland has and that those Hague preferences should be enshrined on a stronger legal basis within European law within that Common Fisheries Policy because currently we have to invoke those Hague preferences annually and it is always a process to argue for them every year, whereas if they were enshrined, they would automatically be delivered.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are all outlined in the alliance's document. Do we have a copy?

Mr. John Lynch:

It is a Department document, a Government document. It is a Common Fisheries Policy review under the previous Minister, Deputy McConalogue.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perfect. I will have to take a look at that. In that regard, because Article 17 is an element of the current CFP that we could potentially utilise, it seems to me that we do not really utilise it to its full benefit. I do not know if we utilise it at all, actually. What are the witnesses' thoughts on that?

Mr. Enda Conneely:

Did the Deputy address that to me in particular?

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was just saying, as regards the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 17, and with Mr. Conneely's organisation and the inshore and the smaller boats, what would he like to see? Obviously, the Government can apply Article 17. Is that something Mr. Conneely would like to see happen, and what would he like to see incorporated into that consideration?

Mr. Enda Conneely:

That tends to go back to the island heritage licence Bill that was progressed to an advanced stage a number of years ago, based again on the 2014 committee report.

That has to be revisited in light of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy as well. If we go back to the Iceland deal, we in IIMRO did not agree that Iceland, as a third country, should be allowed access. The Commission pointed out they are EU waters now, not Irish waters. We are very small there. We thought it was a risky proposition for Ireland to accept that at this level. We have to put our foot down on many different things. The issue of relative stability seems to be stuck in gear. It is like the Hague preferences. These things need to be revisited. It is not going to be pleasant for anyone, but this is a problem and if we do not deal with it, we will not have an industry.

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

I apologise for having to step out for 15 minutes to deal with the Business Committee. I read our witnesses' presentations beforehand. I took the opportunity to put some of the issues directly to the Minister in the previous session. Let us address these issues. The first is that we have third-party countries that do extensive trade with the European Union. I am thinking in particular of Iceland and Norway, but also of the Faroe Islands. I know that they have a connection with Denmark, which is a member state. These things are not straightforward. Let us be frank about this; they have ignored the science to which our fishing industry has to subscribe under the Common Fisheries Policy. They have just ignored it. They have overfished, and they have not been punished in any way for those actions. Indeed, they have been rewarded with lucrative trade. That obviously has a direct impact on our own industry.

I quoted from the submission of the Seafood Ireland Alliance that Brexit could have an impact of €800 million until the duration of this 12-year period. It has already had an impact of about €180 million. I thank Mr. Burke for his submission. He has campaigned in the industry for many years. I also thank Mr. Conneely from IIMRO. Other fishing sectors will be looking on with interest today. The appointment of a dedicated Minister of State - thanks to the industry, all of our witnesses here today and those listening who campaigned for this – is very important. We have a dedicated Minister of State and a dedicated committee here in the Oireachtas at last. That is crucial. These two major developments are thanks to the campaigning of the industry. However, we need to see action.

I would like to get the Minister of State's thoughts on my proposition that we establish a dedicated office - I suggest that it be given the name Fish Ireland, but the Minister of State can come up with other names - in Brussels where the seafood industry and our Government would fight side by side for our interests, try to build allies, confront injustice and speak truth to power. If deals are being done with third-party countries that reward poor practice, that should not be happening. If there are practices that go against climate or carbon policy, that should not be happening. Those communities closest to the fishing grounds should benefit the most.

I want to get a sense from everyone here of their thoughts on how we can unite together and have a strategy or plan to try to restructure the Common Fisheries Policy to make it fair. I want to get a sense of everyone’s thoughts on the unity of the industry. I commend all of our witnesses here today because they have united together and all their sectors are standing up for Irish interests. It is not easy because everybody is trying to survive. All of the members of the organisations represented today are trying to make a living, and are forced to compete with each other. Despite all of that, they have united together to stand up for the industry. I wish to get a sense of what we need to do, and what actions they believe need to be taken with the new Minister of State.

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

That is a very pertinent question. Deputy Mac Lochlainn is 100% right; the third countries he alluded to - Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands - have been consistently overfishing mackerel by 155%. They take 55% more than they are entitled to. They have reduced that to 45% more than they are entitled to. The consequences of that for Ireland are dire. Mackerel is the second most valuable stock we have. It used to be the most valuable stock we had until the TCA transfers. The reckless behaviour of those countries in overfishing beyond their entitlement and beyond scientific advice will have consequences. We await in the next two weeks the scientific advice for the year ahead for mackerel. We are fearful of that. Not alone that, but those of us who work within the rules and are compliant with control and enforcement rules and regulations - Ireland is the gold standard in that at European level – compete with countries that fish 45% and 55% beyond their entitlement. That is eroding our position in the global markets. That has been the case for the past three years. That is the climate we compete in. At the same time, we are members of a European Union that openly trades with Norway and gives it unrestricted access for their salmon into the European markets. We have to see that happen at the same time that its actions are undermining the Irish fleet. That is very difficult for us as representatives of the fishing industry to stomach. It is where we as a member state need to bang the drum and challenge the European institutions. We either all work by the rules, or there are no rules. It is not anything beyond that; those are the facts of the matter.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn is 100% right; Europe is weak on key elements. To give access to countries that fragrantly and blatantly overfish is wrong, and it has to be called out. We are currently engaged in the coastal state process. I want to make apologies for Aodh O'Donnell of the IFPO, Dominic Rihan of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation and Patrick Murphy from the Irish South & West Fish Producers Organisation, who are currently in London at the coastal state talks, which are running in parallel with this.

Europe needs to take a stronger stance. The competency of fishing lies with the Commission, as I said earlier. However, we are part of the European Union and we need to strengthen. To go back to the second part of the Deputy’s question, as I alluded to earlier, for too long we have been too weak in Europe. If Europe has the competency for fishing policy, and it has, we need to be in there, front and centre, strong and united. That is something we need to focus on, particularly as we run into the Presidency of the European Union. We need to get there, particularly if this evaluation goes on to a Common Fisheries Policy review. We discussed a review and how it will present opportunities, and that is correct, but are we ready to take those opportunities? Do we have the wherewithal to shape where the decision-making is taking place? I seriously doubt it.

This committee, which I fully support, has a massive role to play. The fact that we have a new dedicated Minister of State is critically important. We have a robust programme for Government that I view as a minimalist approach. We should aim for that and more, but we need to get started. As far as I can see, the level of representation we have in Europe and the level of sectoral, departmental and Government engagement needs to be better aligned and stronger while representing us in Europe.

Mr. Cormac Burke:

I have a couple of points in response. There is a lot of talk about the CFP and the EU Commission, but there is not so much talk about the work that needs to be done here at home. I will give two examples.

In October 2014, when Commissioner Damanaki was about to leave, there was a seismic shift in the division of EU mackerel quotas. I will put this into perspective. At that time, Ireland had a quota of more than 90,000 tonnes of mackerel and the Faroe Islands had 8,500 tonnes. As of today, the Irish mackerel quota is at an historic all-time low of less than 40,000 tonnes because we are sticking to the scientific advice, while the Faroe Islands, which are ignoring the advice, have a quota of approximately 118,000 tonnes.

That kicks back to the processing sector. With regard to the issue at hand, as I have said, there are issues here at home. I am getting into Mr. Conneely's area here but we have to ask ourselves how many successful and vital inshore fisheries have been shut down in Ireland over the past 30 years although they continue to be utilised in other EU member states. I am talking about wild salmon, bass, freshwater eels and, in more recent times, spurdog, although I believe that fishery has reopened under very tight restrictions, and pollock, the quota for which is now so minuscule that it might as well not be open. These are not questions for the EU but for our own Department and our own regulators.

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

To put what Mr. Burke has said into perspective, it is my understanding that the population of the Faroe Islands is approximately the same as that of the Inishowen Peninsula, where I am from. That is the equivalent of the population of the Inishowen Peninsula having a mackerel quota three times greater than that of the entire island of Ireland. What Mr. Burke has just said is absolutely astonishing.

Mr. Cormac Burke:

We are obeying the rules and trying to manage the stock and be sustainable, which is very important in all fisheries. Despite this, the European Commission, which is supposed to make the rules for us, is largely ignoring other countries who have decided to just fish it out.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am being a little more lenient because we are ahead of time. We will finish out this piece of the engagement and then go for another round of very brief points and questions before we finish. Is that okay with everyone?

Mr. John Lynch:

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for his question. He is absolutely correct. We have long been pushing for action to be taken against Norway, the Faroes and Iceland for the overfishing they have engaged in, which has had a detrimental and negative impact on the stock. The stock is now in decline. It was actually increasing at the time those states awarded themselves these unilateral quotas. That is where this kicked in. They decided they were going to take more and they took more. We have had many discussions with our own Government, our own Department and the Commission on this issue. We always asked that the trade agreements with those countries would be used to force them - I should say encourage them - to fish within sustainable limits and within the quotas under the sharing agreement that was established in 2014. In that agreement, Ireland and Europe actually gave quota to the Faroes, Iceland and Norway but they still came back looking for more. When that happens, you need to deal with it in a fair and proper manner. Using the trade agreements with those countries is the only form of punishment available.

It is encouraging that, last week or two weeks ago, Europe adopted what are now known as the Faroese measures. The Commission will now have the option of applying trade sanctions on those countries if they continue to overfish. The Deputy spoke about an Ireland Inc. point of view and having an office and capability to deal with these matters as one in Brussels. As I said earlier, we need to work together in Brussels because we are looking for the same thing. We need to work together to deal with these countries that are fishing unilaterally, partly in European waters or Irish waters - whatever way you want to look at it. We cannot allow that to continue. We need to encourage the Commission to use these new measures to bring those third countries back into line with a policy of fishing sustainably and within the advice.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Mr. Conneely want to speak on this particular question? If that is not the case, we will go to another round of questions. I ask members to keep their questions very pointed and very brief. We have 15 minutes left. I ask members to direct their questions to an individual witness.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will dig down a little bit more into the issue of overfishing. It is not that Europe has allowed the Faroe Islands to fish, given them a quota or anything like that. They are just fishing there and Europe is not taking any action against them. Is that the thrust of it?

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

The thrust of the charge we make is that Norway, Iceland and the Faroes have unilaterally set quotas for themselves that go beyond the scientific advice and beyond their legal entitlement as per the previous coastal states sharing arrangement. They have set unilateral quotas that are not based on the science or on their entitlement but rather just based on what they think they want.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This comes back to what Mr. Lynch was saying about what the sanctions could be. The trade agreements seem to provide an obvious sanction. However, as with everything in Europe, these things move very slowly. Is there anything Ireland can do in our own right? Could a case be taken or something like that, if even just to highlight the issue?

Mr. John Lynch:

I am not sure about a case but, as I said just a while ago, the Commission has now adopted these Faroese measures. That regulation will allow the Commission to use the trade agreement to encourage these third countries to come into line and fish within their legal entitlements and within the advice ICES gives every year.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As a State, should we not be saying that we do not want any discussions with Iceland while this is going on? Is that not another point of leverage? Iceland obviously wants an agreement.

Mr. John Lynch:

From talking with the Commission and our own Government, we know that part of the agreement should involve Iceland coming back into line with its legal share and sustainable fishing.

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

The other thing that needs to be focused on is that the competency of negotiating with Iceland rests with the European Commission. It will be looking at larger geopolitical issues including the fact that Iceland has committed to holding a referendum on possible membership of the EU. There are a lot of geopolitical factors other than fish. Ireland and the representatives of the fishing sector have to make a decision. Should we stand alone in opposing an agreement or should we try to shape it, as Mr. Lynch has said, by forcing Iceland to reduce its overfishing, possibly giving an opportunity to the starved fishing sector here? There are much bigger geopolitical issues at play.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the gentlemen for their insight. We need them to come in more regularly to give us updates on what is going on in this area and to tell it like it is. The elephant in the room is that we have problems with the Department at home. We have to get those problems sorted. Europe is a problem. I agree with Deputy Mac Lochlainn. We had the Minister of State in here earlier and I asked him if he would send someone to Europe to lobby on our behalf. During the two days I was out there, I could see how the Dutch were working the room. The dog on the street knows what they are doing but we have nobody out there. On the day we were out there, at the last meeting we had that night, the people representing us said we only lost 26%. I still feel like pulling them across the table. It beggars belief that somebody could say we only lost 26%. We decimated the Irish fishing industry with one stroke of a pen. That is why we need the witnesses coming in here. I support Deputy Mac Lochlainn's proposal for a dedicated office in Europe so that one could work with the other. We also have some opportunities for foreign vessels to come in to land fish but the Department is a problem there. The big ports of years ago are no longer welcoming for boats coming in. It seems that nobody wants to touch Ireland. That is something we are going to have to address. We could get our factories working again, helping the towns and coastal communities, if we could get a bit of extra fish in that does not come from the Irish quota. However, we have to get the Department to work on that.

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. It is great to have them here. I hope we will see them again in the coming weeks so that we can continue with this. The witnesses feed us information and we have a good Chairman and a good committee here. We want to make a difference. That is why we are here. We are not here just to sit and do nothing. I want to see the Irish fishing industry climb up the ladder again. We were up there before and there is no reason we cannot get back there.

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

I thank the Senator and acknowledge his contribution. The reality is that Brexit was a massive hammer blow to the industry but from 2017 to 2020, the decline had started albeit the Brexit transfer of 26% of the value really hammered the industry to the ground. The Senator, in his contribution, has hit the nail on the head. We need to do things differently. Today, we are talking about the fishing industry but to take away 26% of the value of any industry in the economy for a political decision yet think things will continue as normal and there will be no impact as a consequence of that is economic naivety, and I think we need to get out of that space. That is a message that needs to be driven home to the Minister, the Department and everyone. This is not going to go away. The extension confirms it is going to be the reality forever more ad infinitum and we need to do things differently. That includes our Department, industry and how we engage right at the heart of Europe. That is the challenge that faces all of us. We can do it. The great thing is that the demand for Irish fish has never been as high. I attended a trade fair in Barcelona and we were sold out within hours albeit we are reduced in what we are selling but the demand is massive. Also, as an industry, rather than it employing 17,000 people, I should be here today talking about how I can grow that to 35,000 or 36,000 people over the next ten years. That potential is there but not if we keep doing what we have done for the past 20 years and that is a mindset that has to change.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will come back to Mr. Lynch for a response after brief comments from Deputy Ward and a few minutes from Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to talk about certain areas. For example, we know about fisheries, especially around the coastal areas. I am from the island of Arranmore and we are dying. Burtonport and Arranmore used to have a thriving industry. I get messages from people who are still fishing in Aran but have decided to no longer go fishing. They send questions to me and I reply that as someone who is newly elected I will take their questions and represent the community. Greencastle deserves designation because herring is being landed there. The nearest port with landing facilities is where the scientific studies have identified herring. Rathmullan is no longer a pelagic landing spot. Being able to land in Greencastle rather than Derry meets the Government's objectives of having boats land in Irish ports and, in turn, the fish factories will have secure supplies of raw materials. It is essential that Greencastle is designated a landing port for pelagic species over 10 tonnes. I say that because we have towns that were once thriving. In Killybegs there are children nearing school-leaving age who used to work in these factories but no longer do. They have told me that their dad's boat is tied up and it has only been out a few months of the year. We need to encourage these children to join the industry but instead, with the way things are, they are being driven away.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

After Deputy Mac Lochlainn speaks we will take a round of responses, if that is okay.

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

Yes. As everyone will know, my party published the results of its survey yesterday. None of the commentary and findings will shock our guests as they all know the reality on the ground. Sinn Féin conducted a survey of fishermen - these are people who have a business or are workers in the seafood industry - from all around Ireland. Nine out of ten respondents said that the industry has been in serious decline over the past ten years. The survey contained a range of possible responses and one of them was "there has been a significant improvement over the last ten years." Not one single respondent ticked that response. Almost nine out of ten respondents said they would not encourage their children to continue to be in the industry. That response is heartbreaking because these are intergenerational fishermen and fishing families.

The aim of this committee is to find ways to turn around the industry and bring hope. How do the findings of the survey tally with some of the reports by BIM? Is it the case that we are being forced to import fish from overseas? BIM has published a different report today, which I believe is more accurate as it reflects some of the challenges around the piers and harbours around the coast. I have seen reports, however, where if a person did not know anything about the industry he or she would read those reports and think that the industry is in a healthy shape and moving forward. Why are there contrasting reports? Sinn Féin's survey findings show that nearly everybody says the industry is in decline with the decommissioning programmes and the loss of quota. By the way, it is not just offshore. It is inshore, islands fishermen, aquaculture, etc. Every sector tells us the same story. How can that reality not be reflected in the reports produced by the State? To be clear, I am not trying to get our guests into conflict with BIM but let us get an honest picture of where we are at. I always say that if we do not agree on what the problem is then how can we solve it. The starting point is to get everybody around the table and agree on what the problem is, and that is when you start to turn it around. I would like a bit of direction from everybody about the matter.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before hearing a final round of responses to questions, I will make a couple of comments and pose a question of my own. Earlier, when the Minister of State was here, I asked him a question about attitudes and culture at the heart of government. I was shocked but not surprised by the results of the report alluded to by Deputy Mac Lochlainn. The lack of confidence and hope within the industry is devastating . One of the key findings of the report was that nine out of every ten respondents does not believe that the Irish Government is batting for the industry. There is quite clearly an issue with the culture and attitude to the Irish fishing industry within the Government over many Governments and over successive years that needs to be challenged. Most speakers here have mentioned that there has been progress with the appointment of a Minister of State and creation of a committee. I am interested in hearing the views of our guests on how we, that is, public representatives, industry representatives, the industry as a whole, BIM, various agencies and the Government, can lead a change in culture and attitudes in order that we, as a system, an economy and as a society, have a more healthy attitude that will inform political decision-making and the level of political prioritisation. With that, I ask each of our four guests to respond to the last three questioners and I advise that this is the final round.

Mr. Cormac Burke:

In response, the Chairman has used the same word I was going to use. The results of the survey do not surprise any of us. The biggest thing to come across is the feeling of disillusionment among the people in the industry. The reason I say it is no surprise is the fact that we have had 20 years of BIM fantasy reports that have been dressed up to fool the public but the people in the industry know they are not true. Next, things have reached the stage where people say that the Department is not working for the industry. Finally, we have the SFPA. The poor relationship with those three organisations reflects back. The fisherman on the pier who deals with these semi-State bodies has nothing else to presume only that the Government does not care about him because it is paying these people who are not working for his industry. That is the short answer.

Mr. Brendan Byrne:

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for his question and, indeed, I meant to address the issue of the survey. We, in the industry, welcome the survey. The more that is documented in terms of the state of the industry then the better because for too long we have been all too silent as we watch the industry go down, reduce and become less relevant.

In my 51 years the only two optimistic things that I have seen in fishing have happened in the last nine months.

We have a dedicated Minister of State who is giving energy and commitment to the sector, which I welcome. We also have at long last a robust fisheries committee, which has a massive role to play in the time ahead. Of course, we have the programme for Government and all that contains.

Any State agency foolish enough to publish something that is not accurate is only making itself irrelevant by its actions. We who represent the industry all know the state it is in. Those who work in the industry know the challenges they are operating with. If any agency wants to go into fantasy economics or works of fiction, it reflects worse on that agency than anything else. I do not need to say anything more about that.

The days of fooling the people are over. We have an industry that is challenged to the hilt but resilient and willing to fight and build back. All we need is a fair shot and a level playing field. It is like any other sector of the economy. In my lifetime I have seen the beef industry fall twice and the mushroom sector fall. I have seen different sectors of the economy struggle. We are struggling and have been for the past four years but there are few helping hands reaching out to us. It has not been dealt with fairly or equally.

What is at stake? There are 17,000 coastal jobs at stake. That might not sound much in an economy with millions of jobs but can anyone here or listening tell me how to replace that number of jobs in rural, peripheral and maritime areas? Those 17,000 jobs are the equivalent of many Intels. They are not replaceable and communities depend on them.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn is right that the actions of the Department in the past have been hostile to fishing. I have seen it. I was a public representative of a coastal community for ten years. I have seen what it is capable of. I will not go any further than that because I will not dwell on the past. I want to shape a future containing, after I retire, a resilient, robust industry. That is what we need to focus on and what I have been continuously saying today. What we have been doing to date has failed. We need to admit that. The first step to recovery is admitting what was done has failed. Now we need to do it better.

Mr. John Lynch:

When the Minister of State was appointed, we welcomed him and his ambition for more and better engagement. That has evolved into the establishment of this fisheries committee, which we very much appreciate. We look forward to engaging with it as much as possible. We intend to come in as often as the committee requires us to answer questions and inform members.

The survey shows the truth of an industry in decline and in trouble. Whether it is how people feel or how things actually are is irrelevant. The industry is in a very low place and has been on the way down for a number of years. Three things that have driven it down more quickly were Brexit, Covid and the fuel crisis. Those things have happened and our job is to work to alleviate and try to rebuild.

We are looking towards a future of fuel transition where we will have to achieve more efficiencies with an ageing fleet. That is impossible. We have to look into a fleet rebuilding programme involving a more effective, cleaner, more modern fleet to meet the State's and world's ambitions for carbon neutralisation. That is a given. It has to be done.

Previous to those events, when a fisherman had a bad year, week or month, he had the opportunity, because the fish were available to him within quota, to fish a little bit harder to make up the gap. That was the resilience we had but now we do not have that resilience. If he does not take his opportunity within a month or year, he have lost that opportunity. He cannot regain it. He can only catch what is allocated to him the next year or month. There is no opportunity to build resilience in a business in the fishing industry. That is what kept the industry going up to now but that resilience or those reserves are now gone and it has gone into negative figures for most operators in the catching sector and possibly in businesses upstream and downstream from that sector.

As my colleague said, we have to recognise we are in a bad place but we also have to engage and work together to achieve a better proposition for the seafood industry, to modernise and to maintain those 17,000 coastal jobs, which I believe are irreplaceable. No other industry will come in and replace 17,000 jobs around the peripheral coastline of Ireland. We need to rebuild and maintain jobs both onshore and on the islands, as Deputy Ward said. We need to be all-inclusive, rebuild for everybody and build a modern, sustainable fishing industry for the future.

Mr. Enda Conneely:

I agree with Mr. Lynch and Mr. Byrne that we are in trouble. We need to move forward. Looking at the speech about the oceans pact, the Commission is saying extreme weather and unfair competition is putting many fishers out of business. One of the things it wants is that no young European who grows up beside the sea should be forced to leave their home. That is the message from the top so we need to give it some practical application. It was also said that every fishing job at sea creates 30 upstream and downstream jobs. The EU imports 70% of its fish. Another issue mentioned was food security, which is extremely important, especially with short supply chain stuff along the coast.

Going back to the attitude of the Government and agencies, they seem to have been caught up in a kind of bureaucratic nightmare. They seem to look for how things cannot be done as opposed to how they can be done. We will have to find a positive way of interpreting these things so we can rebuild an industry that we let go but should not have let go. That is the only thing we can do. We have a dedicated Minister of State and this committee will be useful. Let us just focus on the future, as Mr. Byrne said.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Uasal Conneely. I thank the Minister and his officials for being at the first part of the meeting and the sectoral representatives for being at the second part. We had a really good discussion. I thank members for the co-operation. This is the first meeting I have chaired at which we have had witnesses. We had a number of business meetings to set up the committee. I thank everyone for their engagement and co-operation. This will not be the last time we will have the witnesses before the committee. The purpose of the committee is to give a voice to coastal communities and the industry and to change attitudes, cultures and policies that need to be changed for thriving, sustainable communities along our coastline and around our island.

I will adjourn the meeting. I wish you safe home agus go raibh mile maith agaibh arís.