Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

Senator Ó Domhnaill asked about the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, and perhaps we will need another discussion on this. The key issue of concern in that regard is the proposal from the Commission with regard to introducing a system of individual transferable quotas, ITQs. Currently, the way we run our system is that the quota the country has been allocated is reallocated to boats that are then allowed to catch that quota. They are given certain security in terms of access to quota, but the boats do not own the quota. What the Commission proposes is that we change the ownership or control model of quota from being State controlled and owned to being controlled and owned by companies and people who own trawlers so as to give them certainty in terms of quota. The problem with that is that it is like having privatisation of fishing quotas, because this creates a trading market for quota. In that scenario, the wealthiest people would buy up more and more quota, the fleet would get smaller, the boats would get bigger, the number of fishing ports would decrease and we would have consolidation in the industry.

Many people want consolidation, because it is easier to monitor in terms of fish stocks and so on. However, that is not what I want in terms of trying to feed local coastal economies with economic activity. Commissioner Damanaki, with whom I have a very good relationship, knows this. She is genuine about what she is trying to do, but what she proposes does not suit Ireland or the Irish fishing model. There is huge danger that not only would there be huge consolidation within the Irish fleet, whereby the wealthy guys would buy up everybody else's quota, but those people might then be bought out by foreign interests. The Commission may say that is not the intention and that it will put restrictions in place to ensure the trading of quota can only happen within national fleets. However, under EU law one cannot stop a Spanish fishing company setting up in Ireland and buying up quota through buying Irish trawlers.

Irish white fish quota could easily be bought up by Spanish interests, because they have a huge interest in increasing their quota in white fish. The Dutch might also try to buy up a large part of the pelagic quota, because they have colossal vessels that make our biggest vessels look small. Much of the fishing industry in Spain and the Netherlands is not about family owned trawlers or groups of trawlers. It is about multinationals running fleets of trawlers and they have the buying power to buy quota. It may make sense to the Commission to change the system in terms of managing quota, but it makes no sense in terms of keeping coastal communities intact and reliant on fishing. We are insisting on flexibility to allow Ireland not be forced to opt into the ITQ system. We do not have a deal on this - far from it - but we have made a strong case and the Commissioner knows where we stand on it and that I am very firm on that.

Another issue relates to discards. This is something on which I agree with the Commissioner, although I do not agree entirely with her solution. The idea that we would continue to dump hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish over the side each year because our trawlers do not have the quota to catch them and do not want to bring them ashore means we are throwing dead fish back into the sea at a time when we are trying to improve stocks. Dumping fish that is marketable on shore is immoral. In some species we are killing three, four or five juvenile fish in order to catch one adult marketable fish because we do not have the necessary targeting mechanisms or do not use the technology and design that exists now to allow juvenile fish to escape. This is not acceptable. The situation needs to change. The industry accepts that and is working with me on that. We are making progress with some pilot projects and will continue to push hard to make the change. I hope Ireland will give leadership in Europe on the discard issue.

I have answered the question on adding value so will move on to the question on the Fisheries Act. In the programme for Government we have made a commitment that we will try to introduce legislation that will move away from criminal sanction for certain breaches of the law and replace it with administrative sanctions. Nobody likes sanctions, but we cannot fail to introduce administrative sanctions, despite the industry's dislike of them. If people break the rules, there must be consequences. I am uncomfortable - and was uncomfortable in Opposition - with the fact that fishermen who break the rules in a relatively minor way acquire a criminal record which affects their capacity to, for example, enter the United States or other businesses. I see that as being over the top. Therefore, we have given a commitment to look at this issue. We have asked the office of the Attorney General to examine the issue and it will not be an easy provision to make. We are now looking at the issue because of a commitment in the programme for Government on which I would like to deliver.

The legal solution is not as straightforward as one might have thought. The former Deputy, Mr. Jim O'Keeffe, put legislation together on this issue which was used as a basis for testing the issue with the office of the Attorney General. We now need to return to the Attorney General to see if we can progress a short Bill that will ensure that fishermen who do not significantly breach the regulations are not punished in a way that does not fit the crime and are not given a permanent criminal record. This is not to say that we do not need to enforce the rules. We do. We need to protect fish stocks and the rules are there because they are needed. However, the sanction must be appropriate and we are making efforts in that regard.