Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I am glad to be back in this position. When I look around and see all of these competitive faces, I think I might struggle to survive an electoral contest with many of them. I am very appreciative of the time and the opportunity afforded to me to speak to Senators today. I welcome this motion, which is timely in light of the work the Department, the Government and I are doing in trying to get through a very difficult time.

I will commence by speaking a little bit on fisheries negotiations from an Irish perspective in the European context. I am Minister of State with special responsibility for fisheries. A number of Senators have welcomed the decision not so much to appoint me, but to establish that role. I am trying to work with others to the greatest extent possible to make that role meaningful. One of my key roles is that I manage the fishing opportunities for Ireland in the context of the quota species covered by the Common Fisheries Policy. As many of the Senators will be aware, the EU utilises the scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, ICES - when I first saw that term, I had to check it because it has a different meaning in other contexts - to determine the relevant total allowable catches across the various different species. Most total allowable catches and quotas relevant to Ireland are set on foot of the formal negotiations between the EU and UK, because we share many stocks; separate negotiations between the EU, Norway and the UK; negotiations between the EU and Norway; and the coastal state negotiations, which involve the EU, UK, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. A complex multiplicity of bilateral negotiations take place. Where Ireland is involved, the EU negotiates on our behalf, whether in the coastal states environment, which involves a number of third countries, or directly with the UK.As the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy is a Union competence, the European Commission has exclusive competence to negotiate on the EU's behalf on fisheries with third countries which have been identified. I recognise and will reflect on what many Senators have said about the activities of third countries. Ireland will continue to be active in raising the real and legitimate concerns that Ireland has on the outcomes in this particular area.

The issue of unsustainable fishing was a common theme for many Senators. The overfishing of key pelagic stocks, such as mackerel, by certain coastal states outside the EU has been raised by Ireland repeatedly over recent years. ICES assesses that the total spawning stock biomass of mackerel has decreased from about 6 million tonnes in 2021 to 2.7 million tonnes in 2025. That is a very clear indication that this overfishing has had a detrimental impact on the fish stocks, in the first instance. That has a significant knock-on effect on coastal communities. With the reductions in quota, it is very clear that the catching of fish, which is integral to those communities in terms of the processing and various activities that take place around that, and the supply chain into the fishing sector are dramatically impacted.

As the largest holder of EU quota for mackerel in the western waters area - the waters off the coast of Ireland - the devastating impact of the decline in this stock is significantly and acutely felt by Ireland. I have been consistently raising this issue with European colleagues since I took on this role. At last month's AGRIFISH meeting, I brought a discussion item to the agenda which was supported by 12 member states. I called for "urgent EU action to save the North East Atlantic pelagic Stocks". I also called for the EU to send a clear message that actions which threaten the sustainability of our shared stocks are not acceptable to the EU. Ireland asserts that a strong and common European position that is in the best interests of all fishing parties should be adopted. It is critical to ensure that these stocks are fished in a sustainable manner and that comprehensive agreements, which protect the EU's quota share and subsequently Ireland's quota share, can be reached to govern fishing opportunities for the coming year.

Although there is shared concern among member states about the impact of third country actions, particularly those of Norway, in respect of the pelagic stocks, the same member states are also anxious to conclude bilateral EU fisheries negotiations with Norway in respect of other species which, in some cases, provide greater opportunities for them and are of greater significance. For example, access to Norwegian waters for arctic cod is of importance to certain member states and is covered by the EU-Norway agreement. Additionally, two access agreements of importance to the North Sea member states are also involved. Commercial fishing operations with interests in a number of member states and beyond also want the agreement to facilitate their fishing interests. Consequently Ireland is, on occasion, isolated in EU co-ordination meetings when calling for strong measures. I think many Senators are aware of understand and know this fact. I have remained resolute in the face of consistent political pressure. I have set a policy mandate that Ireland does not to agree to any access or quota transfer for blue whiting in the context of the EU-Norway discussions. I do so from a principled position that we cannot be seen in any sense to reward in any way the behaviour these coastal states have engaged in. At a time when the scientific advice is recommending a cut of 70%, if that is not a trigger point, then what is?

While I am getting positive soundings for what we are saying, I am conscious that other member states have their own stocks that they want to get agreement on. For that reason, it is a balancing game. We remain engaged with member states and with the Commission. Before I came down from my office I had another conversation with the Commissioner and other member states. We are trying to arrange meetings over the coming weeks with all member states to set out very clearly how devastating the impact of Brexit has been for us. I do not need to remind Senators that there is a proposed 70% cut in mackerel this year. That is a really important stock. We took a 20% cut last year, on scientific advice, and Brexit introduced a cut of 26%. When we look at all of that together, we can see the devastating impact it has had.

Certain member states are at pains to remind Ireland that the Irish EEZ is considered EU waters under the CFP. I challenge them to consider how they would feel if third country fishing boats were given access to their waters despite their national position. That argument is gaining some traction with the Commission. There is a desire to say we are in this together. We have to try to get a consensus rather than rolling a country, which they can do under the qualified majority. We do not have an absolute veto any more, of course. We must try to do this in a collegiate way that looks to the future and to the conservation efforts needed to try to rebuild the stocks.

I will turn to the worrying position for 2026 and what the ICES advice is telling us. In September and October, the 2026 ICES report published deeply concerning advice for stocks of significant interest to Ireland. I have already mentioned mackerel, but blue whiting, boarfish and nephrops are in there as well. I am not a fisherman, so for a while so it was a challenge for me to contend with some of the terminology in this sector. I understand now that the term "nephrops" covers species like prawns and langoustines, which we get infrequently in County Clare. We enjoy them when we get them. The scale of these reductions has caused grave concerns for the seafood sector and for people in the coastal communities the Senators and I represent, which are economically dependent on it. As many Senators said in their contributions, these businesses, along with the other parts of the supply chain that many of them mentioned, keep fishing towns going. I refer to shops, fuel merchants, net menders, etc. These are all parts of the ecosystem of coastal communities. It is not as if there are lots of alternatives that can be swapped into these communities. They have been built around this industry. Therefore, there is an onus on all of us to find a way through this very difficult time.

These negotiations have not concluded yet, so the final numbers for quotas are unknown. An analysis by BIM, based on the scientific advice and on last year's average pricing for fish stocks, indicates a reduction of approximately €75.5 million. I need to qualify that this is overall first sale value across the Irish fleet. Reductions of approximately 47% for pelagic, 10% for demersal or whitefish, and 20% for shellfish in the nephrops space are envisaged. That is just the value of the fish when they are landed and sold. There are other losses as well in terms of what the processing sector will lose and what the continued onward sale of that will mean to other operators and wholesalers, etc. If we do not have the raw material, we cannot get the added value. While €75 million is the quantifiable number, the economic impact will be significantly greater than that. These values do not account for the economic impact along the whole value chain, particularly for fish processors and ancillary services, as I have mentioned. Members of this value chain, particularly in the processing sector for pelagic species, have expressed significant concern as to the viability of their businesses without the supply of raw material direct from Irish vessels. Lower supply means higher prices and consequently means having to compete throughout Europe for raw materials, so that is a further challenge. I have asked BIM to conduct an analysis on the multiplier effect of these reductions across the seafood sector. Working with the Minister, Deputy Heydon, a further memo to the Government will be brought forward when the full implications of the 2026 fishing opportunities are known. Two weeks ago, we drafted a memo which the Minister, Deputy Heydon, as the senior Minister, brought to the Government. It set out in the first instance a notification outlining that €75.5 million, but also setting out for the Government a very clear picture of the challenges faced. Senator Kyne had the privilege of sitting at the Cabinet so he knows how this works. When you come from the Department, you flag to your colleagues the concerns and then you look at how to manage that into the future.

Moving on from international negotiations, I would like to update Senators on how fishing opportunities are allocated between member states. A number of Senators spoke about how we might get more quota or a reallocation. The aim of the CFP is to allocate fishing opportunities internally among member states in such a way as to ensure the relative stability of the fishing activities of each member state for each fish stock or fishery. This is provided for in Article 16 of the CFP regulation and is further explained in some recitals of the CFP regulation. I think it is explained in recitals 35 to 37. For each stock a different allocation percentage per EU country, known as the relative stability key, is applied for the sharing out of the quotas.The share allocation of stocks between member states was established as a principle of the CFP in 1983. I do not want to indicate to anybody that I will be able to change what was enshrined back then. It was based on the average catch of each member state over a period of reference years, which is referred to as the "track record". There is no doubt our fleet was underdeveloped at that stage. It would not be fair for me to say that previous Ministers failed when they were unable to overturn what had happened. The reality is that our quotas, or our percentage of them, were based on what our fishing industry was at the time. Due to the work of some great innovators, particularly around the Killybegs area, we have developed that fleet in the intervening years. They have developed new fisheries. That has been what has assisted us in growing to some extent.

People often ask how we can change the relative stability key, or the percentage of the quota that is shared out, in order that Ireland can get more of the EU quota in percentage terms? This is a reasonable question in light of the level of fishing activity by other member states in our EEZ. However, I have to clarify to the House that any change to the existing system of quota allocations would require a majority of member states to agree under the qualified majority voting system. This would require other member states to give up their existing quota shares. Any change to relative stability would involve a loss for some other member states and therefore poses particular challenges in a qualified majority voting context. I say that to explain to Members the context in which any changes would come about. That is while the CFP remains as it is currently. The only exception to this relates to what are known as the Hague preferences, which are based on a special recognition agreement of the underdeveloped nature of the Irish fleet and the heavy control responsibility on us when Ireland joined the EU. The Hague preferences are quantities of fish that Ireland and previously the UK can invoke under certain circumstances. If Ireland does not achieve quotas greater than these trigger figures, they may invoke the Hague preferences. These additional fishing opportunities, traditionally referred to as the Hague preferences, have been allocated to Ireland each year since the late 1980s. This effectively means that quota from other member states is allocated from their share to Ireland. I have been fully forthright with other member states, and I signalled quite clearly at the November AGRIFISH Council meeting, that on full analysis of the finalised quota figures in the draft regulation to be presented at the December AGRIFISH Council meeting, we will invoke the relevant Hague preferences for 2026.

What makes it more contentious now than ever is that last year was the first year that the quota from an Irish perspective went below that trigger point for mackerel. It was there and it was used for other pelagic stocks in the past, but last year was the first time we invoked the Hague preferences, much to the annoyance of a number of member states which heretofore were not impacted as negatively as they feel they were on that occasion. For that reason they are actively attempting to undermine it. We have made it very clear that this is a red-line issue for us and that the Hague preferences as enshrined in the CFP, albeit in the recitals, are a fundamental component of the policy and we will defend them vigorously. BIM modelling shows that invoking the Hague preferences across the relevant stocks would increase Irish quota by approximately 7,300 tonnes and raise landed value by just over €13 million. That €13 million is very important. In other sectors, €13 million might not be considered a major number but when one sees the implications for that across coastal communities, it is very significant. This is really important. I note that this would only go a small way towards making up for the overall loss, estimated at over €75 million, arising from the scientific advice. I have explained what that €75 million means and what it does not include.

It is important to note that the Hague preferences are not set out in the Commission's TACs or in the quota regulation proposal, and must be agreed by the Council. As I said, a number of impacted member states are actively campaigning against us but I am confident, based on the reference in the recitals of the CFP, that they can be deployed and accepted by other member states. Let me assure this House that I will not be found wanting in battling for Ireland's Hague preferences to be secured. I am in ongoing contact with the Commissioner for Fisheries and Oceans, Costas Kadis, on these matters of huge importance to Ireland, in addition to the political leaders with responsibility for fisheries across the EU member states. Similarly, my officials in Brussels and at home are working diligently to progress with mandate we have provided them with.

As Senators noted, the programme for Government recognises the valuable "role of fisheries in the future of our country and the communities that rely on this activity for their livelihood". Furthermore, it notes the commitment of this Government to "Defend Irish fishing interests" in the context of fisheries negotiations between the EU and third countries. Ireland's seafood development programme, which is funded by the Government and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund 2021-2027, is the primary funding programme for the seafood sector. Specific supports to individual inshore fishermen include the small-scale coastal fisheries, sustainable fisheries, V-notching and seafood training schemes. Financial supports are also available to inshore fishermen and women to support economic diversification under the FLAG schemes, which were mentioned by a number of Senators. If the Leas-Chathaoirleach will give me a small bit of latitude, I will conclude shortly. I want to work further with inshore fishermen, to whom financial supports are available. I have reached an agreement in the last day which I have shared with the producer organisations for the inshore fishermen. We have found a way to provide upfront payments to them, rather than them having to spend their own money and applying for it later. This is something they had asked for. I am committed in trying to assist them in every way I can. An additional Exchequer-funded fleet safety scheme is also available to inshore fishermen and fisherwomen to improve safety on vessels.

In March of this year, I announced an allocation of over €27 million to the Department's 2025 fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure development programme. This comprises an investment package of €23.4 million for the six fisheries harbours and €4.3 million to assist local authorities in carrying out small-scale projects for the development and repair of piers, harbours and slipways in their ownership. I will endeavour to continue this investment as public finances and annual budgets allow.

I welcome this timely motion proposed by Senators. I can confirm that the Government can accept amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I think amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are yet to be moved but if they are moved, we will certainly accept them. These amendments have been submitted by Senators Collins, Conor Murphy, McCormack, Tully, Nicole Ryan and Andrews of Sinn Féin. However, the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 4 and 5, as submitted by Senators Sarah O'Reilly, Mullen and Keogan, as I am advised that they are unnecessarily prejudicial to a legitimate control and enforcement agency of the State. I am sorry I have to do that. Senator Sarah O’Reilly is a very strong contributor at the committee and has shown a great passion and understanding of the fishing sector. I want to thank her for her ongoing work on this. I am sorry that I have to disappoint in this regard but I know where she is coming from. I saw some of the footage from that committee. I understand that from time to time it is difficult for officials to go before a committee. One could almost do a comparison with bringing the gardaí into a committee to ask them about certain investigations or how they do their business. That might provoke a certain response. I have the capacity to talk to the SFPA. I will have a conversation with it about how it might engage in as full a way as it can with the committee - recognising the constraints it is under, what the law provides and how it has to protect its role - and try to engage in as proactive a way as possible because the committee is ultimately the oversight for the SFPA. I know it is difficult because it cannot get into individual cases but there has to be a better way to talk about the generality of the issues that arise.While I do not have the capacity to direct the SFPA in that regard, I will offer comforting words, if they are of benefit, to ask for an engagement that will hopefully meet the needs and expectations, but I say that without prejudice, recognising the independent role of the SFPA.

I agree with many of the speakers that the proposed quota cuts present real and significant challenges to the viability of our fleet and the ancillary services that support the seafood sector in rural communities. As I stated, a detailed economic assessment of the impact on the fishing communities will be undertaken by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM. This will include the impact on areas across the fleet. As Minister of State, I have committed to working closely across government to assess what supports may be available to the sector in the context of state aid rules and future available funds. I have had very good engagement from the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. I know Senator Boyle had numerous conversations with the Tánaiste when he was Minister for foreign affairs. He is now Minister for Finance, so we hope some of those comforting tones that he provided will transfer into financial supports. He has been in touch with me. I know he is committed to the sector. Collectively, we can move it forward. Further, the Minister, Deputy Heydon, brought that memorandum to the Government and we will continue to update colleagues on that. I thank Senators. I thank the Acting Chair-----