Mr. Pat The Cope Gallagher, MEP:

I thank all of the Senators who contributed to the debate, including Senators Ó Domhnaill, Comiskey, Harte and Rónán Mullen, and latterly Senator Ó Clochartaigh, former Member of the European Parliament and substitute member on the fisheries committee, Senator Colm Burke, and Senator Michael Mullins. I am delighted at the level of interest across the parties and Independents contributing to this important debate.

There is a view nationally that there is little focus on the fishing sector but if one visits the peripheral coastal parts of the country, it is extremely important in those areas. From Donegal right down the west coast, around the south west, the south and the east, it is extremely important where, as I stated in my contribution, there are few other opportunities to create employment, whether full-time or part-time. Part-time employment in the fishing sector is extremely important. There are many who are working on small farms who make themselves available to work on processing in the fish factories during the winter period.

A number of Senators referred to discards, transferable quotas, maximum sustainable yield, MSY, the coastal regions and the small boats. I will try to deal with them as quickly as possible, bearing in mind that the House is possibly under time constraints. Senator Ó Domhnaill referred to mackerel and the serious situation in the north-east Atlantic and asked what can be done. The European Parliament has gone as far as it can go. I had the privilege of being the rapporteur on that report. It was fortunate that I had that because I fully understand as an Irish MEP the serious implications of the over fishing of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic. The scientists tell us that the total allowable catch in that region should be 650,000 tonnes. Last year and the previous year, as a result of Iceland and the Faroe Islands not agreeing on an overall quota per country and then acting unilaterally, we are now fishing approximately 1 million tonnes. That cannot be sustained. I would prefer if we did not have to introduce the trade sanctions, which I brought to the European Parliament and which received almost its unanimous support. I would much prefer if those countries returned to the negotiation table and we could work out a pragmatic, realistic and practical solution to this. They know this legislation is hanging over them and I would hope that it would motivate them to sit down and talk to the Commission by way of the coastal states, which are the European Union, Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. It is important to them as well because, as I state religiously, we can now talk about sustaining the mackerel but if we continue like this, in three years' time there will be no necessity for meetings because there will be no fish there.

As an example of what happened, a number of years ago there was total overfishing of blue whiting by some of these coastal states and now blue whiting is in jeopardy. The quota of blue whiting, which is an important pelagic fish, is vastly reduced. This could happen to mackerel. The legislation was not introduced for the European Union only; it applies to any country fishing unsustainably. We should be able to impose sanctions against member states which exceed their quotas. Transferable concessions would have been an absolute disaster for this country. When the proposal came before us it was very clear the Commission had the view it was a way to reduce the capacity of the fleet. It may have been in theory, but it would have decimated the catching sector in the country. Large consortia from other countries would have come to Ireland very quickly and bought these concessions. The fish would then be transported back to their countries in mainland Europe and we would not have benefited one iota. If other countries want to do this on a voluntary capacity that is their business, but I am very pleased it will not be mandatory and that it is off the agenda.

Maximum sustainable yields are absolutely necessary. It is a formula which can be used to ensure we can exploit the fishery in a sustainable way. Scientists can advise each year on the amounts of fish by way of total catch which can be fished without affecting stocks. We are well below maximum sustainable yields at present and we must get back up to them if we are to respect the responsibilities we have as politicians as the custodians of the sector.

Regionalisation is not nationalisation and I gave examples in my initial contribution. When an issue pertains to a number of countries in any one basin, whether the Baltic, north-east Atlantic or Mediterranean, the countries involved should try to achieve consensus. If they do so their recommendation should go to the Commission for approval. If they cannot agree then a decision cannot be taken at regional level and must go back. This is what was being debated at 9 p.m. last night. If consensus cannot be reached, who will decide? It is my view it should be decided by co-decision between the Parliament and the Council. Even though we succeeded in achieving a type of regionalisation outcome from my report on area 6A, it could have been done much more quickly and in a more expedient way but those regulations are not in place. However, we did achieve it and I am very pleased.

With regard to the size of vessels, 80% are small. All vessels under 10 m can go out immediately and fish haddock with a by-catch of cod using the traditional method of gill netting. Those vessels over 15 m will be invited very soon to express an interest to the Department. An issue arises with regard to effort but I am quite confident the Department and the industry will succeed in ensuring enough effort is provided for vessels between 10 m and 15 m. While all vessels are entitled to express an interest, we should try to ensure those vessels are accommodated for haddock and lesser spotted dogfish, which will not be sold at market but is a replacement for the expensive bait required for pots for crabs, lobster and crayfish.

Senator Comiskey referred to the ecosystem and it is extremely important that we have a healthy ecosystem. Even if discards are being dumped, the value is not minimum. I do not know how one quantifies the value, but it is food for the other fish. I would like to think we would avoid and minimise discards. It will be a matter for the Commission to work out a system to deal with edible fish which are being dumped. Some take the view they should be made available for worthy and charitable causes. Others state they should go on the market. This detail can be worked out. The Common Fisheries Policy will deal with principles rather than the detail.

A number of Senators referred to the Hague Preferences. The amendment I tabled in the Parliament received overwhelming support. I canvassed all of the groups and practically all of them, from the extreme right to the extreme left, were very supportive. While many major countries may not favour this, our Minister has a grave responsibility to ensure negotiations at the Council of Ministers include a small payback for the benefits the other countries have in fishing what were once the most prolific fishing grounds in Europe. Yesterday evening, when we discussed the Hague preferences, the Presidency made it clear that Ireland wants to support it but many countries are against it. There are good justifiable reasons for exerting maximum pressure on other countries to support this. As far as Parliament is concerned it is a red letter. There is room for further negotiation. If the Common Fisheries Policy were to fail on the Hague preference it will not fail.

With regard to when we may secure this it is a question of everyone being committed. We all want to complete the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy during the course of the Irish Presidency. We are not absolutely certain yet, but the Commission, the Council and the Parliament are anxious to do this although not at any price. Good sense is prevailing. The more we see the end line and the more we see efforts to achieve the objective, attitudes will change. I hope we can expedite these discussions.

A question was asked on what can be done for small boats. It is a reasonable question. Is it possible to ring-fence the quota? It is not the case that a substantial percentage of the overall quota is required to assist these small vessels. It is a matter for the member states. The European Union decides on the total allowable catch, the Council of Ministers decides on the quotas for each country and then it is a matter for national governments. When we met the industry in Killybegs and Galway in February, MEPs indicated their support for this but it is not within the competence of the European Union, it is a matter for member states.

Reference was made to the view of the European Court of Auditors with regard to the fact that €2.74 billion has been expended on scrapping. We can make wide sweeping statements that this has not worked. From 2005 to 2006 I was responsible, and anyone from the south east will remember when the vessels fishing scallop were under extreme pressure. Not all of them could survive. I initiated a targeted decommissioning or scrapping scheme which culminated in an agreement to reduce the capacity by 50% while quotas were retained.

The other 50% went on to fish twice as much as previously yet survived. The other vessels, as a result of the contribution of the member state of Ireland and Europe, received what they considered to be reasonable decommission but I think that it was fair. The only mistake that was made at the time, and I often think about it, that a future decommissioning scheme should not just be for the owners of vessels. It should include crew members.

Senator Harte referred to super vessels. Yesterday, I visited the major European Seafood exhibition near the Heysel Stadium. It would take days to see it all. I visited all of the Irish stands and a few stands that belonged to other member states. I made it clear to one member state that I cannot accept aspects of super trawlers or factory ships. We cannot prevent them from fishing but from hereon we can try to ensure that their catch is the same fish that they land. High grade selection machines on board retain larger fish and release smaller fish under the ship but this cannot continue. Last night I made that point very clear when we spoke of catch composition and landing. I believe that all fish caught must be landed. It is obvious what is happening if the larger Irish vessels fish mackerel four or five per kilo yet super boats only fish one to two per kilo in the same waters. The matter must be dealt with because it contributes greatly to the large percentage of discards in Europe. Fishermen want to end discards and it is in their interest to do so.

In practical terms, the cessation of discards cannot happen immediately. When fishing vessels cast their nets they cannot email the fish to tell them they are on the menu. It does not work that way. In clean fisheries, such as pelagic fish, the discard atlas starts much earlier. It is much more difficult to do the same for a mixed fishery. I am in favour of ending discards but I firmly believe that we will never have zero discards. However, we must try to reduce it to a minimum. If we leave live fish in the sea then they can develop, grow and provide fishing in the future.

With regard to the question on the Faroe Islands, they act independently now and receive financial support from Denmark. The islands act independently when it comes to fisheries. Recently we saw evidence of that when they decided to step back from the negotiating table when discussing Anglo-Scandia herring, a straddling fish stock based in the north-east Atlantic and north Atlantic.

There was a question about the BIM proposals to provide licences for fish farms on the west coast of Ireland. I have always been a great supporter of fish farms. When I was appointed Minister of State at the Department of the Marine in 1987 I wanted to familiarise myself with fish farms so I travelled to the Marine Harvest in Fanad, County Donegal. I remember one photograph that was in its office of 100 people attending its Christmas party. That meant that Marine Harvest employed 100 people. The company taught us a lot of what we know about fish farming.

It is up to the Department to make a decision on fish farm licences and procedures are in place. It is in the interest of fish farm investors that they maintain the highest environmental standards. If they do not then everybody will lose, the environment and investors. The licence process is in the pipeline but it is not a competence of the European Union. The European Union will launch guidelines in the next number of weeks and we anxiously await them. I shall share them with the Chamber at that time. Yesterday evening we decided not to discuss aquaculture until such time as the guidelines are released.

People often ask me what can be done about fish farms. The process is too long and cumbersome if someone wants to establish a small or large fish farm in any part of the country. Too many agencies are involved and it is time we had a one-stop-shop to deal with the sector. At present one must approach the Departments of the environment and the Marine. The process should be swifter. There should be a goal set to make decisions, whether to grant or reject a licence, in a period of 12 calendar months. Yesterday when I walked through the exhibition I was envious when I saw large specimens of farmed salmon from other parts of the world, including Ireland. We can do a lot more for the sector such as import substitutions. This country and the European Union imports too much fish and the solution is import substitution.

The granting of fish farm licences is a matter for the authorities, various Government agencies and ultimately the Minister. Compliance with the highest environmental standards is essential. I think my response dealt with the question on inshore fishing raised by Senator Rónán Mullen. The matter very much relates to the competence of the member state.

A decision was taken a number of years ago and eel fishermen from the midlands realised the implications that it had for the eel fishery. On numerous occasion we were told that eels would return in 99 years. That is the type of flippant remarks that were made at the time. Recently I have been told that it could take 20 years.

That concludes my general remarks. I hope that I have deal with everything but if I have not it was not meant as an insult. I am delighted to be part of the negotiating team that is acting on behalf of the Parliament in regard to this. Trilogues, TLOS, can be difficult. For one Minister to be responsible then he or she must don a European hat, as our Minister has done at present. By the same token when it comes to issues for Ireland we, as MEPs, North and South, leave our national politics behind and work closely in the best interests of Ireland.

That leads me to my last point which has nothing to do with fish. I wish to comment on the membership of the European Parliament. I am not trying to protect my seat. As Senators will know, there are 12 Members but there is a proposal to reduce the figure to 11. Due to a cap stipulated in the Lisbon Treaty we must cap the membership at 751. Croatia will become a member in July and, therefore, Ireland must lose a seat at the next election. We cannot accept the proposal. As Senator Colm Burke will know from the time he spent in the European Parliament, it can be a difficult job for 11 or 12 members to cover all of the various committees. When I was elected to the European Parliament in 1994 there were 15 members. It is simply not possible with 12 Members. A Member can be a full member of one committee but a substitute for another so it is not possible to do all of the work with just 12 Members. I voted against the proposal but it was carried. The final arbitrators will be the European Council.

If one country uses the veto, then we will have to go back to the drawing board. Let us hope that will not happen, however, and that good sense will prevail. Europe should examine the template here in Ireland where the constituency boundary commission operates from time to time. Something like that at European level could decide on this matter objectively. It looks like being 11, but that number makes it very cumbersome. How then can one divide constituencies in Ireland into three or four-seater ones? Do we ring-fence parts of Dublin or greater Dublin?

I think it should be left as it is and I would hope that the Presidency, which we are currently chairing, could use its influence to send this issue back to the negotiating team. It could be left until 2019 to try to find a more realistic and practical solution. That would be in the interests of anyone who has ambitions for Europe. Some may ask what does it matter whether it is 11 or 12 seats, but it does. It matters more so since the Lisbon II treaty. I have experienced that from my previous mandates and the current one, because Lisbon is giving us co-decision. We can thus be much more effective and play a more important role in representing our country.

Go raibh míle maith agat arís, a Chathaoirligh, as ucht an deis labhartha seo a thabhairt dom. Tá an t-athamharc ar pholasaithe iascaireachta an Aontais Eorpaigh atá á dhéanamh againn tábhachtach don tír agus níos tábhachtaí do na háiteanna thart ar an gcósta agus na n-oileáin beaga ina bhfuil an oiread sin daoine ag brath ar an tionscal seo.