Timmy Dooley
Clare · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“I thank both Senators for the amendments they are putting forward and the sentiment behind them. I will deal with the points about the emergency. The Government made it very clear that a decision was taken, based on a decision taken by the previous Government in November 2024.”
“The State has taken a view, however, that is consistent with our desire and our commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, and onwards to 2040 and 2050, that this facility is strategic, as it says, that it is only for storage and that it is not meant to be a market play and cannot be a market play.”
“It is, but it is not an either-or situation. If €1 billion could sort it out with more batteries, wind or solar then that is the route we would be taking. We are investing very significant amounts of money in our electricity grid.”
“As the Senators know, the piece of kit – effectively the ship – will be leased in. There are a number of these around the world and they move on. First, we are not investing in the kind of infrastructure that had been a feature of discussions in the past.”
“All fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. The Senator is right that methane has a much higher concentration and is more impactful by what is referred to as the carbon dioxide equivalence. It is much greater than carbon dioxide but it also has shorter life in the atmosphere. It dissipates over time whereas carbon dioxide does not.”
“If we were to do it, however, to get the private sector to pay for the security - I think it is accepted on all sides that there is a necessity for some security in terms of the gas supply - and if the Government were to say it would provide that through a market-led private consortium and initiate an auction to allow entities around the…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,042 lines we hold for Timmy Dooley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 21.
“Again, this matter will be addressed in forthcoming legislation on the operation of the facility and those measures can be addressed as part of that. It is not drafted yet but as I said, there is an opportunity for the Senator to participate in the pre-legislative scrutiny and when it comes back to the House. However, I will not accept this amendment on the basis that I do not think it fits this legislation. However, it is an item for discussion under the operational piece.”
“I do not see a reason for this at this stage but I may have to defend a different position in a couple of months because the legislation has not been put together or fully formatted yet. However, the principle is certainly a sound one.”
“While not wanting to sound repetitive, I will. Effectively, this is about the planning and permitting we need to get through to get the fast-tracking of the construction phase. The Bill coming through later this year is where that discussion can take place. I agree with the Senator that a good review can be welcome; there is nothing wrong with it. As to what the timing might be, we certainly will be looking at that. It was probably part of the discussions and if it was not, it will form part of discussions around pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill. That is where Senators can have dialogue with our officials who will be drafting this. Certainly, the principle behind what the Senators are suggesting is a point well made.”
“However, I get the Senator's point about having a plan towards the end of life and her point about any future Government that may not be as environmentally conscious as the Senator suggests we are; I thank her for that, I appreciate it. I have no doubt that were any of the Members in government it would remain, but we can never predict what the future holds. Neither, of course, can you prevent a future Government from making its own decisions that might differ with where we are at now. We have to look at this practically, and we need to send signals as to what would constitute the elimination of risk and what would allow you to be in a position not to have that security reserve in place. We will be addressing that at a later stage, and I am sure we will try to find some common ground on that.”
“As I said previously, there will be further legislation and policy measures that we will bring forward later in the year to ensure the operation of the strategic gas reserve in accordance with the decision that was taken back in March and that will also include addressing the end-of-life provisions. I do not want to create any false hope but as we progress by bringing more energy ashore by getting more renewables on the grid, the expectation is, of course, that the dependence on fossil fuels will reduce significantly, particularly in respect of gas used for electricity generation. That is obviously an important part of it. There are other elements of our economy where we have a good bit more to do, particularly on transportation, etc., and there is a lot of work on there.”
“I thank the Senators for the amendment. I would welcome having all of them in government as some stage. I have no doubt that they would find it challenging on occasion, maybe not as challenging as me because they would not have the firepower coming back at them to challenge them as well as they are doing to us on this occasion. The scope of this legislation is limited to what is necessary to allow an application to get through development and to get the consent to be submitted towards the end of 2026. This is critical to achieving the accelerated delivery of the project, which is at the core of this legislation.”
“GNI had a number of engagements in the local community where its representatives were available for a number of hours in the evening to allow people to come and chat through their concerns. That is advancing with the committee that has been established because like any other major piece of critical infrastructure, there is a community benefit fund and we need to look at that for the next piece of legislation in terms of how that is recognised, whether it be statutorily or otherwise. I certainly would favour that piece of it. There is also then the putting in place of the appropriate governance that is necessary to manage whatever that funding stream is to assist the community and see some benefit and gain for it. That is very much part of our thinking there, so we are aligned on that.”
“A robust, fit-for-purpose gas safety framework is essential to protect lives and property, and it is of the utmost priority as we seek to deliver the strategic gas emergency reserve. Liquified natural gas is one of the main methods used for storing natural gas, and it is a method deployed at scale internationally and subject to thorough international and EU legislation and regulation. On the point about consultation, on Tuesday of next week I have organised for members of the local community to meet with Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, which is very much part of that engagement. It rightly recognises that there will be concerns about a large-scale project like that.”
“I thank the Senators and, as I have said, I recognise their bona fides and their good faith. Any application for approval to carry out designated development under this process will be subject to environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment. Key features of this process are a public notice of an application and publication of the application, as well as public consultation on the contents of the application. Members of the public and designated authorities may also make submissions and observations as they would to the Minister relating to the determination of an application by the Minister, and these submissions must be considered when the Minister is making a decision on an application for designated development under the Bill.”
“Doing that without the continued use of some gas or liquid fuel will be difficult, based on the science of the here and now. That is where we see hydrogen as being a potential component of the energy mix. We need to get there, however, and we need to do so with as much of the potential risk covered as we can. It is not about trying to reduce the price of energy by bringing in another more harmful fossil fuel. It is quite the opposite. That is where we are aligned in terms of our objective but I know that the Senator views it differently and I recognise that.”
“I thank the Senator. From our perspective, the fact that the reserve is State-led and transitional in nature, meaning it is for emergency-use only, will ensure that it does not support increased gas consumption. That has been the kernel of the issue for us, with a view to minimising the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as mitigating the risk of standard fossil fuel assets. I am being somewhat repetitive, but the single purpose here is to provide security. It is not about growing the use of fossil fuels. It is quite the opposite. We have a clear policy agenda around where we are going to power our economy and where we are going in terms of electrification. I have been open with Senators about the challenges we face for electrification out to 2050 as we try to get to net zero.”
“Further legislation and policy measures will, as I said, be brought forward later this year to ensure that the operation of the gas reserve is in accordance with the Government decision of March 2025, which was very clear that it would be in State ownership. I have already rehashed for Senators on a number of occasions the fact that the decision was taken not to involve private enterprise. It will be off market or out of market where it concerns the supply of gas to the reserve.”
“As the Senators have identified, the amendments relate to the ownership of the strategic gas emergency reserve. The strategic reserve will be in the form of a floating storage regasification unit, which is the ship that we talked about. It is to be owned on behalf of the State by the system operator, Gas Networks Ireland, which Senators, and particularly those who are members of the committee, will be well familiar with. An application for development under the project-specific pathway provided for in the Bill is limited to Gas Networks Ireland or such other public body as may be specified by the Minister.”
“It is intended, as I mentioned previously in relation to one of the other amendments, to bring a memo to Government later this year to draft the strategic gas emergency reserve operational Bill. There will be provisions contained in that relating to the operation, use and cost recovery mechanism, as well as a number of other policy matters identified by Oireachtas Members in the pre-legislative scrutiny report, which was done, as Senators know, with the committee.”
“I thank the Senator. This amendment relates to the cost recovery mechanism that will apply to the strategic gas emergency reserve. The standard approach for cost recovery for security of supply measures and investments to meet EU regulations is through the existing regulatory framework and achieved over the lifetime of the asset. Identifying opportunities to minimise the potential impact of this cost on energy consumers is a key work stream of the project and is currently under way. The scope of this consenting legislation is limited to what is necessary to allow an application for development consent to be submitted later this year, which is critical to achieving accelerated delivery of the project.”
“It would have a long-term impact on our economy, not just on our hospitals and schools and those that use energy but on some of our large energy users that are very large employers. The negative impact of a loss of gas could do very significant damage to the reputation of the country, which has taken a lot of time to build up. It has been built on the back of successive Governments' industrial policies and Ireland's attractiveness for inward investment. The IDA and others have put so much time and effort into it. It would be remiss of any Government in possession of a report on our energy security that identifies a strategic risk not to respond in the way we are doing, the very significant cost notwithstanding. It is the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances that we find ourselves in.”
“It is, but it is not an either-or situation. If €1 billion could sort it out with more batteries, wind or solar then that is the route we would be taking. We are investing very significant amounts of money in our electricity grid. This year, the State will put about €3.8 billion into EirGrid and ESB Networks to strengthen the grid to enable it to take more renewables. That will allow them to borrow about €18 billion, which will be spent between now and 2030. The State is making very large investments in our overall energy architecture and infrastructure. That notwithstanding, there is - for want of a better expression - a gaping hole in our energy security. I would much prefer to see €1 billion being spent on anything else than on this but it is an imperative. It has been identified as a very significant risk to our energy security.”
“The Trojan horse here is about getting away from fossil fuels and towards a cleaner, safer and more secure supply of a resource and an energy that is within our own remit and grasp. I thank the Senators for their contributions.”
“Instead of depending on electrons, which is the electrification everybody is talking about, there is a recognition now here and across Europe that we will need some liquid or gas molecules as part of the future. Hydrogen is more likely to be the source of that energy. The Department is working on a longer-term strategy on hydrogen. We have had good engagement on it. I spoke at a couple of events recently. As part of the pre-Presidency work Hydrogen Ireland had brought its counterparts from around Europe to an event in UCD to show that there are opportunities emerging here from the potential for hydrogen as we capture more offshore wind and convert to hydrogen. There is a better future ahead.”
“All fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. The Senator is right that methane has a much higher concentration and is more impactful by what is referred to as the carbon dioxide equivalence. It is much greater than carbon dioxide but it also has shorter life in the atmosphere. It dissipates over time whereas carbon dioxide does not. Let me be clear that I am not making the case for methane. I am just making a point. From our perspective, we are trying to put in place that security piece on a transition. We recognise that the wind is not always blowing, the sun is not always shining and battery storage is not where it needs to be right now. Of course in all of those there will be greater advances and I have indicated that we have great hope for hydrogen and ammonia as the ultimate enablers to decarbonise our entire energy mix.”
“To be consistent, we purchase oil and gas on the commodities markets and that is the intention here. We are not going to stray from that. We need to look at the bigger picture as to what our ultimate objective is. I do not agree with the Senator's comments about a Trojan horse. Our objective is to have a safety mechanism to address any rupture to the security of supply as we transition from the use of fossil fuels to a greener economy. If I was arguing that we should now be taking fracked gas from the United States or wherever, through an injection point into the grid as a method of reducing the overall cost of energy, the Senator's argument would be well made. I am not minimising the Senator's argument but it would have more validity. We are just looking at this as a methodology for transitioning away from fossil fuels.”
“The review has been completed, so that position changes. The security element is now decided by the Government and by Government policy to have a facility for storing LNG. Procurement of that will be done on the open market, will be based on commodity prices and will not dictate one way or another what the source of that is. That is the appropriate way to deal with the situation. At all times, it is about minimisation of LNG usage in our grid mix. It is only in case of an emergency. I have told the Senator what I believe the Government's position is on that emergency and what is involved there. We will not be accepting the amendment.”
“My understanding is that is changing significantly at a global level and it will be possible to have a reserve without the necessity to utilise it or boil it through on a frequent basis. I will get the Senator more information on that. The Senator raised the 2021 policy statement on the importation of fracked gas. That statement was to remain in place pending completion of the review of Ireland's energy security. When we put that in place, it was clear that we did not want fracked gas in our network as a competitive element. However, it was recognised that if we had to build a strategic reserve, liquefied natural gas would be the source of that and there was potential for fracked gas to be part of that. We made it clear that the policy statement would only remain in place until the security review had been done.”
“Absolutely. There was quite a campaign against that. We all saw the damage hydraulic fracturing could do to certain environments and the impact it could have on groundwater. That stands, but it is a whole different ball game for us in terms of the procurement of supplies to fill a strategic reserve. That is effectively traded on international markets. We go to the markets, as the State will, through GNI to procure the gas. It is a commodity. I do not think we can start to decide who we take it from and who we do not. I need to get clarity for the Senator about the latest technologies for boil-off of gas and whether it has to be filled every couple of months.”
“I understand clearly the Senator's position on fracked gas and I share it. I mentioned Tony McLoughlin, Eamon Scanlon and a number of others who worked on behalf of campaigns. There was a group in Fermanagh, a group in Clare, a group in Sligo and there may have been others.”
“A future Government might take a different view and it would also be able to change the law in those circumstances to facilitate whatever its ultimate policy might be. We have to be mindful of what this is attempting to do. It is attempting to put the legal framework in place to implement a policy that has been clearly set out as to what we are trying to achieve here. I would ask the Senators in good faith to accept that. Of course, if the Senators push their amendments, I will have to reject them. I accept where the Senators are coming from and the points they are trying to make. From the Government's perspective, we are on the same side as the Senators in terms of what they want to achieve. We think that what the Senators are proposing is unnecessary and is already catered for.”
“The State has taken a view, however, that is consistent with our desire and our commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, and onwards to 2040 and 2050, that this facility is strategic, as it says, that it is only for storage and that it is not meant to be a market play and cannot be a market play. The ownership will be in the hands of GNI, which has responsibility for the infrastructure and not for the provision of gas. That is not its thing. It buys gas into the system from different sources. I am not going to be able to convince the Senator, but I can reassure her that what she suggested is not what is at play here. I do not foresee any future Government taking decisions such as that. I think Senator Higgins's point was she wanted something in the legislation because a future Government might take a different opinion.”
“If we were to do it, however, to get the private sector to pay for the security - I think it is accepted on all sides that there is a necessity for some security in terms of the gas supply - and if the Government were to say it would provide that through a market-led private consortium and initiate an auction to allow entities around the world to bid for it, as sure as night follows day, that would increase the use of gas. LNG would be coming in at a lower price, so more of it would be placed into the grid system and the market generally, and that would have the consequence the Senator spoke about. If that were the approach the Government had decided on, we would be taking a completely different approach. The Senator would rightly be identifying those issues and we would have an extra €1 billion to utilise on something else.”
“She has a very clear position on that, and I accept she has reached that point from her own thinking. I can assure her, however, that as a politician on this side of the House, I do not accept that position. The policy position and the legislation are very clear that this facility is only for an emergency. Why else would we do it in this way? If we were going to do it in a manner that allowed for a market-led approach, then we would not be putting the burden on the State to build the facility at that cost of €1 billion. That is €1 billion that could be utilised for something else.”
“I thank the Senator very much. This Bill is going through the planning laws and addressing the issues that arise in the construction of the jetty, what all that is about and the facility that has to be built on the shoreline to allow it, in the event of a necessity, to connect into the gas grid. That is that bit. The operation is an entirely separate issue, and that is why we will have dialogue about it, legislation on it and a discussion on it. Trying to put the two together, quite frankly, would not be the best approach. The Government has taken that decision, and we will happily go through all of that as we work it through. I take the Senator’s point about the Trojan horse. There is nothing that I will be able to do to convince her otherwise.”
“This is just about the construction phase, addressing planning and getting us to a point where we can move ahead with all of that.”
“I am sure we could speak about them for a number of hours here. I would not have to mention many and I am sure the Senator would identify them. The Government is absolutely committed to driving ahead with the agenda of previous Governments in moving away from fossil fuels. Much and all as I would like to say that we can do that today, we have to recognise that we have to transition, bring our economy with us and cover, insofar as we can, any potential interruptions to supply. I hope the Senator will understand that from our perspective. I have set out the issues with commerciality and the ownership of GNI. As I said, there will be a Bill relating to the detailed operations of the entity, and we can have further discussions about it. I am not asking the Senate to have faith.”
“What has happened since 2022, however, again referencing the invasion of Ukraine and the impact that had on the supply of oil, and the recent US initiative in the Middle East, the impact that is having on the Strait of Hormuz and the consequent impact on the global price of fossil fuels, creates an economic imperative, even if we choose to ignore the climate initiative or the necessity to address it. It is about having a supply of our own energy on our doorstep so that we are not dependent on the goodwill or bad actions of others. We are driving ahead with that really aggressively, to the extent that recently the Taoiseach set up an office known as the offshore energy clearance house. This is to ensure there are no unnecessary delays or any of the bureaucratic stumbling blocks that often arise and delay major projects.”
“We have sent very strong messages right around the world about where we are going with our energy mix. We are pivoting away as fast as we possibly can to a greener, brighter future for us, with less impact on the environment. Even if we move beyond the environmental necessity or imperative of doing this, it also gives us an edge in terms of energy security. We have been debating for a number of years the necessity of doing this from the perspective of carbon emission reductions.”
“I thank the Senator very much. I think I made very clear what my understanding is and also what the Government’s position has been for some time. An emergency is when or if, and hopefully never, a significant rupture happens to one of the interconnectors and we need an emergency backup to get us through difficult times. Of course, all efforts would be taken at that stage to mitigate, insofar as we can, the demand and manage it. Certain circumstances, however, could arise where we would have no choice but to use what is in the strategic reserve, and that is what it is there for. Turning to the Senator’s point about the position we have taken on green bonds and all of that, I still think that there is consistency in the approach and the policy here.”
“It is not meant to be an infusion of gas into the network in a market-sensitive way. That is not how it is going to play out. On the ownership piece, because GNI is a State entity, it is managing all of that. To me, that effectively answers the worries and concerns the Senators might have had in regard to those particular amendments.”
“I know all the Senators present have a long track record of campaigning on these issues but it is not the Government pivoting towards using more gas at all; it is quite the opposite actually. This is a recognition that we have to get to a better place, and we do. We can talk about sunsets, but the fact that it is a temporary facility in the first instance would send a very strong signal on what the policy is about. When we get to a point where we do not have to depend on it any more, it will be moved on to the next location. There will be some infrastructure on shore but it will be limited enough. That might cover the point. There were three issues. I have given my thoughts on the emergency. The commercial piece is very clear. This is managed by GNI in a non-commercial way. It is purely for storage.”
“I am not a scientist but where there are very significant reserves of gas, it tails off towards the end, so there is not the same rate of supply on a daily or monthly basis as when the reserve was at its full capacity. The Corrib reserve is going to peter out. Corrib gas is down to maybe 10% of what we utilise now. Senator Higgins is right that the previous Government, when we were in opposition, supported then Deputy Bríd Smith and others on ending licensing of further drilling for oil and gas because we just did not think there was a long-term future in it. I still do not think there is. I stand over that decision, yet I am able to explain the necessity that we have today, which is to give ourselves resilience in the event of something unforeseen happening to that reserve. I respectfully differ with Senator Higgins.”
“That was at the core of the Government decision at the time. It was the core of the policy paper and it is still very much the case, as set out here. Senator Higgins is right that this legislation is about getting through the building of the facility. There will be further legislation in relation to its operation. The Senator asked me directly about an emergency. From my perspective, an emergency is in the event of a rupture to the gas supply. As she is aware, we have an adequate supply coming through two interconnectors from Scotland, but it is effectively North Sea gas. We have some gas coming from the Corrib reserve. That has six or seven years of supply left, so it is dwindling.”
“As the Senators know, the piece of kit – effectively the ship – will be leased in. There are a number of these around the world and they move on. First, we are not investing in the kind of infrastructure that had been a feature of discussions in the past. Other sites were identified by corporate players outside of Ireland that saw opportunities on a commercial basis to use LNG as a tertiary source of gas supplied into the network. The State did not engage with that option. It looked at ownership and control. At the core of this policy decision, which the legislation is attempting to implement, is that this would be retained and owned by the State. It was not a market play or another opportunity to reduce the price of gas, etc. It was not about an additional quantum of gas being utilised. It was purely about the strategic reserve.”
“I thank both Senators for the amendments they are putting forward and the sentiment behind them. I will deal with the points about the emergency. The Government made it very clear that a decision was taken, based on a decision taken by the previous Government in November 2024. It looked to Gas Networks Ireland, a State entity, to bring forward a series of measures as a solution to the very real threat, albeit one we hope to never have to deal with. The then Government made very clear at that stage that this would not be a market play. It was not an injection point into the grid that effectively allowed for a competing entity to sell gas into the Irish market. If that was the case, we would have done it in an entirely different way. That was a very clear policy statement. The fact is that GNI will have ownership and control of the entity.”
“This applies to a lot of the amendments today because this is just about making the appropriate changes to allow for the appropriate assessment to be done to get through the decision the Minister will take on the planning and the construction works that have to take place around it. Another point raised was regarding in what event it might be used or whether it could lead to greater usage of gas. This is not at all the intention. The intention is to have it as a strategic reserve. Technologies are advancing and Senator Higgins mentioned the idea of flaring and boiling off. Technology is improving. I am no expert on this but I have read a little about it and it can be done in a closed loop way. Previous technologies required a boil-off every number of weeks or months.”
“I accept the motivation of the amendments but the Bill is about getting through the planning phase. There will be another Bill towards the end of the next term, which will consider the operations of the facility when it is constructed. In the discussion we are having now, I want to fully explain where we are going on it, and it is at that stage we will engage on how we deal with an emergency and what the operation of it will be. Our discussions then might be more fruitful in terms of that legislation. I will not accept the amendments and we will have a conversation again on the legislation when it is published and I will happily come back and go through it in detail.”
“Even in addition to batteries, it will require some liquid fuel. The one that has the best chance to emerge will be hydrogen. We are developing a hydrogen strategy in the Department. We are planning ahead but we must also be clear about the here and now and what we do today, tomorrow and next year in the event of a rupture to the gas supply. This was not as acute until more recent years, and particularly as a result of the renewed assault by the Russians into Ukraine and its usage of the grey fleet we know it uses, on occasion menacingly hovering in waters close enough to our EEZ, and sometimes within it with no clear intent. It would be foolhardy of us not to put in place the capacity in the event of a rupture to the gas supply to get us through those difficult days.”
“We are undertaking a national designated maritime area plan, which is effectively a plan to identify suitable sites around our coastline for offshore renewables. We will have this completed by the end of 2027 and this is aimed at having an additional 15 GW of electricity on the grid by 2040. We are very clear on the direction of travel. The component referred to in the Bill is purely about getting us there. We know, it is accepted, and I take the point on trying to reduce insofar as we can the use of gas and encouraging insofar as we can large energy users to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, even in that interim. Longer term, a recent report from the ESB would indicate that to get to net zero by 2050 will not be done on just wind or solar alone but will require batteries.”
“Yes, we have fallen behind on the deployment of offshore wind turbines. Yes, we were the leaders at a stage, but we have a very strong pipeline in place. There are about 5 GW going through the planning process at the minute, at various different stages, as part of what are referred to as the phase 1 projects. Those are developer-led projects. Sites have been identified and have to go through a significant amount of clearance. This is under way. We hope that about 5 GW will be energised by 2031 or 2032. We expect by 2030 that much of this construction will be under way. The State pivoted through initiatives of the previous Government to take a plan-led approach to developing offshore renewables.”
“On Senator Stephenson's point about the very significant cost, she is correct that the gas will be used by private companies. Private companies use gas and in the event of a rupture, they would be in the same position as every other gas user. Gas users include hospitals, schools and large centres of employment that require gas. That is what it is about. It is not as if we are doing something just for the benefit of corporates' balance sheets; it is about ensuring the economy can ride out an event. Such an event is unlikely, I hope, but it is possible. What is really important is that, from a Government perspective, as was the case with the previous two Governments, we regard gas and oil as transition fuels. We have a very clear agenda for powering our economy from renewable sources.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on this Stage. I thank Senators Stephenson, Higgins, Cosgrove and Collins for their contributions. In fairness, having listened to them outlining the background to their amendments, I can fully understand where they are coming from. I share their concerns about the climate and take their points about the really negative impact of fossil fuels and the burning of them on our climate, and the impact that they are having domestically, across the rest of Europe and in countries where we see starvation as a result of the abuse of this source of energy. This is a last-ditch measure that we have had to introduce to put ourselves in a position to have security of supply in the event of a rupture in one of our connections to the North Sea supplies through the UK.”
“This is not just about making a request without having our homework done. It requires quite a bit of negotiation to secure broader support across the Union in order to effect necessary changes in the Common Fisheries Policy that address the kinds of requests that are coming. I fully understand the basis for that request and the need to address the viability of the inshore sector.”
“The Berkery report will be published shortly. That report was guided by the exceptional crisis arising from the significant loss in quota as a result of the scientific advice of last year. That is the direct response. The Mulvey report was broad based. It set out to ascertain where the sector is at, so it had a different requirement from the Berkery report. I will set out what is happening at European level. An evaluation was done of the Common Fisheries Policy. Our preferred option is that we now move to a significant review of the CFP. It is in that context that European agreement can be reached on addressing certain crises. Based on our experience, the Minister and I feel that were Ireland to put a proposal on its own, without the support of other member states, it might not land in the way we want.”