Mr. Pat The Cope Gallagher, MEP:

Tá mé iontach sásta go bhfuair mé cuireadh teacht anseo inniu chun labhairt le Baill an tSeanaid mar gheall ar na cúraimí atá orm mar bhall de Pharlaimint na hEorpa. Mar a dúirt an Cathaoirleach, is iomaí uair a bhí mé istigh anseo thar thréimse 14 bliain nuair a bhí mé ag glacadh reachtaíocht thar ceann Ranna Stáit éagsúla - Roinn na mara, Roinn na Gaeltachta, an Roinn iompair, an Roinn comhshaoil agus an Roinn Sláinte - agus thar ceann an Rialtais. Ar ndóigh, bhí mé san Eoraip ón bhliain 1994 go dtí 2002, agus tá mé ann arís ón bhliain 2009. Níl a fhios againn cé chomh fada is a bheidh mé san Eoraip. Tá mé ansin go fóill. Tá mé ag plé le cúrsaí éagsúla, ach go háirithe le cúrsaí iascaireachta. Tá an-áthas orm go bhfuil mé anseo inniu chun labhairt faoi na cúrsaí tabhachtacha sin.

I was extremely pleased to receive an invitation from the Leader of the House to address the Seanad regarding the responsibilities that I have in the European Parliament. I major in fishery issues, which is understandable given that I come from Donegal and represent the Ireland North-West constituency but I also have responsibility for the rest of the country as I am the only full Irish member of the fisheries committee of the European Parliament. The substitute member is Mr. Jim Higgins, MEP, who is also from my constituency. We work closely together and network with all of the other Irish Members of the European Parliament.

As I have already said, I was a frequent visitor to this House over a period of 14 years, from 1987 to 1994, and again from 2002 to 2009. I worked in various Departments, including those dealing with marine, Gaeltacht, agriculture, environment, transport and health. I have very fond memories of the exchanges I had in the House over that period.

With the Cathaoirleach's permission, I would like to take the opportunity, as a Donegal man, to pay tribute to a former Member of this House who passed away two weeks ago, the late Mr. Bernard McGlinchey. He was a member of the Seanad from 1961, when he was elected as a young man of 29, and at each subsequent election until 1977, when he was nominated by the Taoiseach at that time, Mr. Jack Lynch. He was again nominated after the February 1982 election by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey. I do not think there is anyone in the House today who served with Bernard McGlinchey but he was a great orator. Anyone who is interested should refer to the Oireachtas website and the debate in 1975 on the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill. He spoke on 30 April for three hours and the Cathaoirleach at the time hoped that was the end of it, until Bernard proposed the adjournment and commenced again the following morning and spoke for another five and a half hours. He spoke on the Bill for a total of eight and a half hours.

He was responsible for highlighting the word "filibuster". At that time, there was consternation within Government circles with this and the Government decided to do something about it. Mr. McGlinchey was, therefore, responsible for the time limits placed on the contributions of individuals. I assure the House that I will not be trying to emulate Mr. McGlinchey or to break his record. In fact, he broke his own record because on another occasion he had spoken for five hours and 20 minutes. It is a unique record, never to be equalled.

Bernard McGlinchey was an honest, generous and decent man who was always available to assist politicians, individuals, families and communities throughout the length and breadth of Donegal and further afield. Bernard will be remembered well and I pay tribute to all of those Members who attended his funeral in Letterkenny. May the green sod of Conwell lay gently on his breast.

To deal with the business which is the basis of my invitation to the House, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Seanad in my capacity as a Member of the European Parliament for the North West constituency. I am a full member of the fisheries committee, which brings with it the position of co-ordinator of my group and shadow rapporteur on a very important dossier, namely, the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. The reform of the CFP is vitally important to the entire Irish seafood sector and not just to the coastal regions of the country. That sector employs over 11,000 people and contributes up to €700 million to national income. The fish processing and aquaculture sectors create jobs in rural, peripheral coastal regions and on the small islands, where there is often no other source of employment.

I reiterate my long-held belief that the Irish fishing sector is the one sector that paid too great a price for our membership of the European Union. I am not saying this as a criticism of any of those who negotiated on our behalf in the run-up to 1973. I believe that none of those negotiators foresaw the developments that would happen in the Irish fishing sector. At the time, we had a predominantly in-shore fleet and the quotas looked adequate. Of course, however, we are fishermen and fisherwomen and those in the processing sector were very ambitious people. They began to invest heavily in the sector when they saw opportunities developing in the 1980s. Consequently, we now have a fleet that could do with a substantial increase in quotas.

Since my election to the European Parliament, first in 1994 and again in 2009, as a member of the fisheries committee I have made every effort to get a better and fairer deal for Ireland under the CFP and will continue to do so. Members will appreciate that it is not easy, especially when one is dealing with 26 other countries. I read with interest the recent report on the reform of the CFP by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine and pay tribute to all of those who were involved in compiling it. I welcome the support outlined in the submission by the Joint Committee for a very important amendment, known as the Hague preferences, dating back to 1976, which would make available to Ireland additional quantities of quota of key stocks, albeit only small amounts. That was a recognition of the underdeveloped state of the Irish fishing sector at the time of our accession in 1973.

Successive Irish Governments have been forced to use up political capital in efforts to get other member states to recognise the Hague Preferences when total allowable catches and quotas are established each December. When I had responsibility for the marine, I remember having to travel to many other countries for bilateral meetings with fisheries Ministers in advance of the TAC and quotas Council meeting to try to convince them to support us. This was done on an ad hocbasis each year.

My amendment was passed with an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament some months ago. Its aim is to ensure the Hague Preferences will be permanent and apply automatically in future. Some countries believe it should simply be left in the recitals and not written into the basic regulation because they do not benefit from it. However, they benefit in other ways. Many of countries opposed to it benefit because the Common Fisheries Policy entitles them to fish in the most prolific fishing grounds in the European Union, which are off the coast of Ireland. I believe that is a small price to pay. We had an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament and I hope that will be reflected when a final decision is taken.

Yesterday evening we had a trialogue with the Commission and the Council. The rapporteur on my behalf and on behalf of the entire committee made it very clear to the Commission and the Presidency, headed by Ireland at the moment, that this is a critical issue as far as Ireland is concerned. We will have to wait and see.

In reply to a parliamentary question tabled by a former Minister of State with responsibility for the marine, Deputy Browne, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, noted that France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium were strong opponents of the Hague Preferences. Therefore, the agreement of the Council will not be unanimous, but I know the Minister and the Presidency will make every effort citing the support in the European Parliament across all parties from right to left. Even though all these countries signed up to the resolution on the Hague Preferences in 1976, there is a significant new factor at play. The quest to recognise the Hague Preferences on a permanent basis is no longer a quest from a minority of states - from Ireland and the UK, which also benefits - but has the strong backing of many member states. We have a unique opportunity which will not arise for another ten years and we should grasp it now.

I am also involved in a trialogue, fighting to have the Irish Box recognised in a similar way to other biologically sensitive area. The Irish Box was established in 1986 and redrawn in 2003. Its purpose was to protect important nursery and juvenile areas, as without restrictions this area would be heavily targeted. If we are to have a sustainable and an environmentally-sustainable fishery, we much protect such boxes.

We hear reference to discards from time to time, mostly from those who do not understand the practicalities of fishing. The problem of discards is central to the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. The issue of discarding of undersize fish or out-of-quota fish is complex and multifaceted. The simplistic solution as proposed by the European Commission and supported by many who do not understand the practicalities - in particular celebrity chefs in London - is to land everything that is caught. It is flawed and unworkable. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers have both agreed to similar timetables to gradually phase out the practice of discarding. Anyone betting his or her political future on zero discards would have no future because there will never be zero discards.

The final timetable will be agreed in the context of the ongoing trialogue negotiations. During the discussions in the European Parliament, I urged adopting a particular approach, which is primarily to avoid discards if possible and, if not possible, to minimise them. Incentives should be provided to the sector to, if necessary, adapt nets, use new types of nets or change the panels and mesh size to allow the fish to swim through. Fish that are caught and discarded are merely used as food for other fish because the mortality is in excess of 95%. The focus of the debate should be on avoidance of unwanted by-catch and the overall minimisation of discards through the use of more selective gear and temporary or spatial closures.

While the European Parliament was debating the reform proposed by the fisheries committee, I was successful in securing agreement for a new article to be written into the proposal to deal specifically with avoidance and minimisation. It is much more popular to say we are totally opposed to discards. Politicians cannot just be popular but must also be pragmatic, realistic and practical in this regard.

In the trialogues of recent weeks, which should be completed in coming weeks, the Council has indicated it is willing to accept this new article. I have included a provision for each member state to produce a discard atlas, similar to the discard atlas that came about as a result of the joint initiative of the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, two State agencies for which I have the greatest respect. Bord Iascaigh Mhara, established in the 1950s, has made a major contribution to developing and marketing our industry. The Marine Institute is recognised across Europe as being the leading institution on marine issues here. Bord Bia now has responsibility for marketing and was represented at the seafood exhibition in Brussels near the King Baudouin Stadium, which is a key exhibition for all those involved in the sector.

The atlas indicates the complex nature of discarding and provides a range of workable and stock-specific solutions. A menu of options including viable incentives will be required to deal effectively with the problem. I believe this must include a realistic de minimisprovision for quota with year-to-year flexibility.

The other buzzwords are maximum sustainable yield, MSY, which I fully support. All with an interest in and understanding of the industry realise that those working in the sector at the moment - processors, producers and those up or downstream - are only the custodians. We must ensure we protect our stocks for future generations. Of course, we can exploit them but must do so in a sustainable manner. Some say we should be at MSY and others say we should be above MSY. Being above could mean being only a tiny percentage over and we will not split on that. We will find a form of words to incorporate "at or above" MSY.

Another key aspect of sustainable management is the implementation of the long-term management plans.

These are vitally important in terms of protecting resources and ensuring the livelihoods of communities which depend on fisheries.

In any business, one must plan ahead and one cannot do that on a yearly basis. It is extremely important, therefore, that we get the Council to agree that there should be long-term management plans. When I initially became an MEP and served on the Committee on Fisheries, we were of the view that we could resolve all of the problems that exist in the first few years. We were responsible for producing many worthy reports but we then realised that what we were recommending was not being implemented by means of Commission proposals. At that time, the co-decision procedure was not in place. There has been a major change in the attitude of the Council and the Commission since the introduction of that procedure because they realise that they must work closely with the Parliament. I could provide a number of examples of the benefits to which this has given rise.

Inter-institutional wrangling is taking place at present. I could say that the Parliament is right and the Council is wrong but I would then be obliged to take account of Articles 43.2 and 43.3 of the Lisbon treaty. The first of these articles grants delegated powers to the Commission and the second deals clearly with the co-decision procedure. We must put the industry ahead of the Parliament, the Commission and the Council in respect of achieving that to which I refer. On two occasions I received the support of 99% of the Members of the European Parliament in the context of delaying a report I compiled - I will refer to it later - in order that we might highlight the necessity of achieving consensus. The inter-institutional wrangling between the Parliament and Council in respect of the interpretation of Articles 43.2 and 43.3 has prevented the implementation of these important plans for the past four years. This situation is untenable and deeply frustrating.

At the beginning of the Irish Presidency we had a closed political discussion with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, in Strasbourg. The Minister made a strong commitment to the Parliament that while other states had indicated at the commencement of their Presidencies that they would focus on this matter and do their utmost to resolve it - of course, nothing was done - he would make every effort to ensure that it will be resolved. I do not believe he could have done more than that. I urge the Minister to continue his efforts to seek a solution during the latter part of Ireland's Presidency.

I wish now to comment on regionalisation. If one looks at a map of Europe and takes account of the position from Scotland down to Greece and from eastern Europe across to the Canary Islands, one will come to see that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. It is necessary, therefore, to have a degree of regionalisation. I have advocated that we should take a fresh approach to the management of fisheries within the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, through regionalisation and more localised decision-making. In other words, a bottom-up approach. The Commission proposal on regionalisation was limited and lacked ambition. When we first met the relevant Commissioner in order to discuss the issue of regionalisation, she was extremely keen about and very much in favour of it. When she spoke to our legal advisers, however, she discovered that there is a limit to what we can do. This is because we must operate within the framework of the Lisbon treaty. The Parliament and the Council have developed new models to strengthen the regionalisation chapter within the CFP and the focus is on technical and conservation measures. I understand that these models will be legally acceptable within the framework of the Lisbon treaty.

I wish to offer a few practical examples of how I envisage regionalisation under the CFP. In February a report on technical conservation measures, which I was responsible for compiling, was adopted through the co-decision procedure by an overwhelming majority of MEPs. This was despite the fact that it relates, in the main, to the area from just north of Donegal Bay all the way across to the north of Scotland, namely, ICES Division VIa. In my report, I recommended the removal of outdated and unnecessary fishing restrictions that had been in place since the introduction of the cod recovery plan in 2009. The stocks of cod in the area to which I refer have been decimated. However, that is not the position with regard to the stocks of whiting and haddock but those fisheries are closed as well. We had to find a formula whereby fishermen would be allowed to fish for whiting and haddock with a small by-catch of cod and we succeeded in doing so. The cod recovery plan utilised a broad-brush approach and applied the same rules to those who use small fishing vessels of approximately 10 m in length - I refer, in particular, to fishermen who live on the islands off the coast - as it did to vessels of 150 m in length. As a result, the operators of 10 m vessels were obliged, if it was possible to do so, to sail out 50 miles from shore in order to make their livelihoods. This was not practical because of the health and safety issues involved in fishing in the dangerous Atlantic waters off the west coast.

I succeeded in convincing my colleagues in the Committee on Fisheries and the European Parliament that the restrictions should be lifted and that the vessels to which I refer should be allowed to fish for haddock and whiting in the area in question. Another species for which they are allowed to fish, and with which Senators may not be familiar, is that of the lesser spotted dogfish. This species is not edible but it can be used as bait when catching lobsters and crab. We had a tough time of it when we negotiated this matter with the Cypriot Presidency and we were pleased to secure an agreement which allows people to fish for these species with gill nets. There would have been no advantage if the use of gill nets had been prohibited. This issue should have been resolved some years ago. However, many of those involved took the advice of the Commission and this was at the expense of small fishermen. I refer to this matter in the context of regionalisation because it should have been dealt with by the UK and Irish Governments and, perhaps, the French Government, if its vessels were fishing in the general area, through the use of technical measures. This is typically the way regionalisation works. We hope that regionalisation, if it is adopted, will be used to deal with issues of this nature.

The framework of the CFP has never contained a recognition of small islands and small coastal fleets. I am confident, however, as a result of a decision taken by the Committee on Fisheries, that the inshore and small islands sector will receive special recognition. A tangible benefit of such recognition must be the provision of support and funding under the new CFP. There are many communities of the type to which I refer on the north and west coasts of Ireland and they are characterised by their dependence on small vessels at the mercy of the adverse weather conditions to which the Atlantic Ocean gives rise. This is a unique, dramatic and harsh aspect of our common European heritage which we lose at our peril.

Under the current CFP, control mechanisms and sanctions differ between member states. This is a source of great grievance. People may ask why I did not do something when I had responsibility in this area. I made every effort to take action but I was informed at every turn that because of legislation which obtains in this country, it could not be adapted. However, action may finally be possible if we can encourage the European institutions to agree on common controls and sanctions.

We all know from our experience on the coast that a minor offence might be committed, but that minor offence would become a criminal offence and those fishermen who committed the minor offence would then have on their record the criminal offence and that does not make sense. I believe that minor offences should be dealt with by way of administrative sanctions. That is the situation in other countries and I hope we could achieve that. However, the European Parliament position includes several amendments which I tabled while calling for common control and sanctions.

There has been considerable debate about transferable fishing concessions, TFCs. There was a clear proposal from the European Commission to introduce mandatory rather than voluntary TFCs. It was a serious threat to the fishing sector in this country because if it was implemented as proposed it could have meant that larger countries and bigger companies could have come in here to buy up all of the vessels here, fish in our waters and possibly bring the fish back to their mother countries and process them there. I am totally opposed to it. Many countries favoured it but thankfully the Parliament has removed in the entirety all references to TFCs. The principle of subsidiarity must continue to apply in terms of allowing member states to decide the most appropriate method of quota allocations.

I will give the Seanad an update on the trialogue negotiations. These meetings involve negotiations between the three institutions. I attend on behalf of the ALDE group and participate in the negotiations, which are now entering a crucial stage during the Irish EU Council Presidency. The meeting last night went on until 9.30 p.m. I am more confident now that we are making progress and that we will see a conclusion during the Irish Presidency. All those involved are keen that it concludes under the Irish Presidency because we have a good deal of experience. We will be followed by Lithuania, which will have many files to deal with in the second half of the year, especially with regard to total allowable catch, TAC, and quotas. I am keen to complete it but it will depend on the progress we have made. There is only a limited opportunity to secure a deal during our Presidency, bearing in mind that Ireland and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are dealing with the agriculture sector. While it is no more important in the eyes of some, both are equally important and we are keen to run them concurrently.

I believe the Common Agricultural Policy will be dealt with during the June Council and three or four days have been set aside for it. The May Council, which is only a matter of weeks away, may deal with the Common Fisheries Policy. This does not give us much time. As an Irish representative, I am particularly keen that this should be dealt with during the Irish Presidency. The last trialogue meeting will be on 28 May, which gives us little time. Anyway, we made a good deal of progress yesterday.

I met the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, earlier this week in Brussels. We discussed the progress and what we could do and how we could help each other to progress the issues. I am satisfied that everything that can be done is being done in the knowledge that we want to achieve the goal of reform. I am somewhat concerned that if we do not achieve it under the Irish Presidency, we may not achieve in under the Lithuanian Presidency and then we will be into 2014. There will be European elections that year and I believe at that stage reform might not happen. A roll-over would not be good for Ireland. It would be better if we could conclude a deal sooner.

I wish to share with the Seanad my views in respect of an urgent and immediate matter of concern to the sector. It relates to the unsustainable overfishing of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic, especially by Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Those countries increased their quota and set it bilaterally at over 150,000 tonnes each some years ago. At one stage it was as low as 6,000 tonnes in Iceland and approximately 25,000 tonnes in the Faroe Islands. In short, the scientists recommend a total allowable catch of 650,000 tonnes but in total almost 1 million tonnes is being caught now. That does not auger well for the future and it is a serious problem. I had a fisheries committee delegation in Ireland earlier this year. They have seen first-hand the serious consequences of this overfishing, both from a stock point of view and because of the effects of overfishing on the price of fish. In short, this is having a devastating effect not only in the north west, where most of the pelagic boats are based, but in the west and south west as well.

I was appointed by the EU Parliament to deal with sanctions against countries fishing unsustainably. To be honest, what was presented to me was rather weak. With the support of my colleagues in the European Parliament we strengthened the legislation and the changes were carried by an overwhelming majority in the Parliament. The basis of the legislation is that in the case of countries that are fishing unsustainably, the Commission can introduce trade sanctions. We gave Commissioner Damanaki much stronger tools than were initially proposed. Regrettably, six months later she has not used them. I raised this issue again in the Parliament last week by way of an oral question. I have made it clear that she must deal with this immediately and without delay. She must respect the views of the vast majority of those in the Parliament who supported the changes and introduce sanctions but not only as a matter of tokenism. There should be effective trade sanctions which make it clear to Iceland and the Faroe Islands that they cannot continue to do this in an unsustainable way. The threat of the WTO is hanging over us. We should worry about that if it is pursued through the WTO but we should initiate these as soon as possible.

I thank the Leader and other Members for their kind invitation to address the House on the issue of fisheries. I am delighted that I have been given this opportunity and that so many Members are here with a particular interest in this area. From time to time the interest in the fisheries area at national level does not compare to the interest in other sectors but the fact is that there are many people working in the sector and it is worth €700 million to the economy. Mar fhocal scoir, gabhaim buíochas don Teacht as ucht cuireadh a thabhairt dom teacht isteach anseo. Éistfidh mé go fonnmhar leis an méid atá á rá ag na Seanadóirí agus beidh mé sásta cibé ceisteanna atá acu a fhreagairt.