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 14 of 21.
“It is particularly upsetting that the charge has been led by those who benefited most from access to Irish waters every year since 1983. I know, from discussions of the Council outcomes with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs yesterday, that Members will share the concerns I have outlined today, that they are equally appalled at the actions of those other member states and that they wish to know what actions will be taken. I acknowledge the support I have had from Irish seafood industry representatives over the past number of weeks. They have spoken as one and supported the approach I have taken in discussions and negotiations. An intensive schedule of work has to be undertaken over the coming weeks. I intend to work with colleagues in addressing that.”
“The Hague preferences were created to account for Ireland’s underdeveloped fleet and to counter the impact of access to Irish waters provided to vessels of other EU nations. These amounts of fish allocated to Ireland from other member states protected our fishing fleet from periods of severely depleted stocks. Deputies will be aware that, regrettably, a group of member states chose to block the invocation of Ireland’s Hague preferences this year; I have outlined the countries concerned. I am extremely disappointed that these member states have chosen to block the protection of our fleet at our time of most need. I said at the Council I felt it was comparable to an act of betrayal by colleagues of the fundamental terms and conditions of an insurance policy that is being paid for in fish by Ireland since 1983.”
“This is Ireland’s most important stock and we need to sustain it in the long run. The impact of the scientific advice and resulting reductions in available quota, combined with Ireland not receiving its Hague preference quotas, will have significant operational and economic feasibility impacts on the seafood sector. The 2026 quota outcomes reflect the continued balancing act between maintaining viable fishing opportunities and protecting fish stocks in line with scientific advice under the Common Fisheries Policy. For Ireland, this reinforces the importance of maximising value from available quota and maintaining high standards of quality and market positioning. I will address the non-application of Ireland’s Hague preferences in the TAC and quota regulation.”
“The higher catch is associated with a higher risk, as I said, that the stock will not recover to its Blim in 2027. It may ultimately deplete the stock, take much longer to try to save it and, therefore, impact for a much greater period. The four-party agreement indicates that their combined share is 79.45%, which is equivalent to 238,000 tonnes, and 37% above the headline advice of 174,000 tonnes. The EU will now have to make a decision on whether it remains faithful to the ICES headline advice of 174,000 tonnes or takes its share of the higher figure of 299,000 tonnes. There are many issues to be carefully considered here. A higher TAC means more fish for our fleet but the one issue we need to be mindful of is that overfishing by some third countries has led to the collapse of the stock and a careful balance needs to be struck.”
“Despite this, however, the four parties - Norway, the UK, the Faroes and Iceland - have agreed that the 2026 TAC should be 299,000 tonnes. This is based on the alternative catch scenario given by ICES based on application of the maximum sustainable yield rule, ignoring that the stock is below Blim. The really important thing about Blim is that it is a term set that gives the best chance of the stock recovering. That is something we all want to see. We want to see conservation measures that ensure we have long-term viability for our coastal communities and fishing stocks. When you deviate from that, you risk the potential for ultimate elimination of a stock. We now have a challenge in how we address this based on what were our partners up to now have done.”
“Even since the Council last week, we have seen questionable actions taken by other third countries in how we manage the mackerel stock in the north-east Atlantic. As recently as Monday evening, Norway, the UK, the Faroes and Iceland agreed, without the EU, on management arrangements for mackerel for 2026. The ICES headline advice for 2026 is 174,357 tonnes, which would represent a 70% reduction in last year's activity. This is based on a 50% probability that the stock will recover to its biomass limit, Blim, in 2027. I will define Blim for the benefit of the record of the House. Spawning stock biomass is the weight of the sexually mature fish in a population. Blim means the level of spawning stock biomass below which recruitment, that is, reproduction, is impaired, or the stock dynamics are unknown.”
“Ireland has consistently called for action against those countries that over fish mackerel. Given that Ireland holds the largest share of EU quota for mackerel in the western waters area, the devastating impact of the decline in this stock will be acutely felt by both the catching and processing sectors. On behalf of the Government, I have called for the EU to send a clear message that actions that threaten the sustainability of our shared stocks are not acceptable. At the recent AGRIFISH Council, the importance of a concerted EU response was discussed by ministers, including the option of triggering the unsustainable fishing regulation. This is something I have sought for some time and will continue to pursue.”
“This represents a decrease of one third - €100 million to €105 million - on the estimated value of the 2025 quota. These figures reflect quota outcomes for Ireland across the main pelagic, demersal and nephrops stocks for 2026. As a result, while the overall scale of opportunity remains substantial, the distribution of quota across key stocks presents ongoing challenges for fleet planning, processing throughput and coastal communities that are highly dependent on specific fisheries. It is important that we do not focus our ire on the scientific advice here. The advice is merely reflecting years of overfishing by other countries and we, the EU and specifically Ireland are suffering the consequences. The question arises as to what we are going to do about it.”
“The advised 70% reduction in the total allowable catch for mackerel is compounded by a 41% reduction in blue whiting, a 22% reduction in boarfish and further reductions in nephrops or Dublin Bay prawns as they are known. We were aware of these concerns for some time as were many in this House because we had a discussion here and at the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs about this impending scientific advice but it was effectively crystallised at the weekend and, therefore, has created significant shock in the communities that are most affected by and depend so much fishing in the first instance, the processing sector and all the supply chains that are very much part of the industry. Ireland’s fishing opportunities for 2026 amount to approximately over 120,000 tonnes with an estimated first-sale value of €205 million.”
“Most of the stocks covered by this regulation are shared with third countries - predominantly the UK and Norway. There are only two stocks for which Ireland has quota that are autonomous Union stocks. These are sole and plaice in a location referred to as 7bc, which is off Ireland's west coast. The TAC for these stocks have been set at 15 tonnes annually for 2024, 2025 and 2026 in line with ICES advice and, therefore, were not under consideration in this proposal, which came to a conclusion early last Saturday morning. It is clear that the outcomes of this year’s December AGRIFISH Council will result in severely reduced fishing opportunities for 2026. The scientific advice upon which the council’s decisions were based reflects the impact of overfishing of the mackerel stock by certain third countries.”
“The despair is twofold. The first concerns the actualisation of the total allowable catch, TAC, being set at the headline ICES advice by the EU, particularly the resultant quotas for pelagic stocks, while the second concerns the fact that Ireland’s invocation of the Hague preferences, which are a key element of our relative stability, was blocked by a group of larger member states led by France and Germany, involving the Netherlands and aided by Poland. The conclusions reached in Brussels are a culmination of bilateral and trilateral negotiations by the EU with third countries. This was followed by the internal EU matters of the Baltic, western Mediterranean and the EU main TAC and quota regulation, which covers stocks in the Atlantic, the North Sea and adjacent waters and includes the fish stocks of relevance to Ireland.”
“I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on what is an important matter. I thank the Deputies for seeking the opportunity for statements on fishing opportunities in 2026. I welcome the timely opportunity to discuss the concerns affecting the fisheries and seafood sector. I welcome the contributions of so many at the Oireachtas Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs and look forward to continued engagement today. I wish to reassure the Dáil that as Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries and the marine, I recognise the importance of maintaining a vibrant fishing sector both for the communities that rely on it and the wider economy. Importantly, I also recognise that these same coastal communities are feeling dismay and despair at the outcome of the AGRIFISH Council negotiations in Brussels last week.”
“-----for giving me a little latitude and flexibility. I think it was important because of the real engagement that we all had this evening and the fact that it is being done in a collegiate way. The normal battle lines seem to have been put aside for the moment, although I am sure they will be back on another occasion when they will be slightly different. I do not know whether it is permissible, but maybe we could recognise a former colleague of mine, the former Senator Coffey, who was with us in the Seanad, went on to greater things and has now gone on to much greater things. He has proven to all of us that there is life after politics, so we recognise his presence too and thank him for that.”
“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-----”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I thank the proposers, Senators Manus Boyle and Noel O'Donovan, the Fine Gael Senators who put together this comprehensive motion, and the other Senators who have contributed in a very collegiate and supportive way. I have spent a considerable amount of time in this House and I am constantly reminded that it does business in a very different way from how business may be done elsewhere. It is good to be part of that again.”
“I will continue to drive to get a better system in place with the structures that are there. I want to review the structures to see whether we can make changes, legitimately and legally, or whether it will be necessary to bring forward amending legislation and look at the overall structure of the way the licensing regime works in order to ensure it will be more fit for purpose and will deliver appropriately while also protecting and preserving the environment and ecology of areas and delivering for local communities.”
“We must give certainty and security to the families who, in the main, operate these businesses. They have invested their hard-earned money and their blood, sweat and tears to get themselves to a certain point, only to find they cannot get their licence renewed. As the Deputy rightly noted, the section 19A(4) process allows them to continue but prevents them from getting the appropriate grants they need to advance their business. It is incumbent on us to get this right. I have had quite a number of meetings. Last Thursday, I was at the Marine Institute trying to get to the bottom of what else we need to do. Additional resources have been provided and we have taken on extra head count. We are making progress but the progress made to date is not good enough. I have to take responsibility for that.”
“I thank the Deputy. He has raised a really important issue, which is that fishing is really about protecting and preserving our coastal communities through gainful employment by way of the natural resources available to those communities. The reality is that the scientific advice clearly indicates that wild stocks are being depleted for a multiplicity of reasons. These include overfishing by third countries, particularly Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, of important pelagic stocks. Climate change is undoubtedly having an impact, with other aspects of the environment also having an impact. We have an opportunity on the aquaculture side to do much more to protect and preserve livelihoods in these communities. I do not accept that we cannot do better in terms of the delivery of the licences.”
“As the applications concerned are under consideration as part of a statutory process, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on individual applications.”
“Renewal applications are currently permitted to operate what is referred to as a section 19A (4) application. A major delay in processing these applications was the requirement that they be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment report. Almost all the applicants concerned have now submitted finalised applications and environmental implementation reviews. A total of 14 applications have undergone a round of public and statutory consultation, with consultation expected to be held in respect of a number of further applications over the coming months. All applications and supporting documentation are made available on the Department's section of the gov.ie website as part of the consultation process.”
“Appropriate assessments started to become available from 2011, which allowed licensing to continue. As the competent authority for aquaculture licensing, the Department is responsible for ensuring that all applications received are screened in the context of the birds and habitats directive. This work is undertaken by the Marine Institute and externally contracted ecological resources. The current policy in regard to shellfish applications is for the Marine Institute to also provide the Natura impact statements in respect of all applications received. This is a huge resource demand on the State. In addition, an application for a marine finfish licence must be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment report. The Department currently has 36 applications on hand for marine finfish aquaculture.”
“That process included data collection, the setting of conservation objectives by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, identifying the scientific interests to be protected in the bays, the carrying out of an appropriate assessment of the licence application against those scientific interests, and appropriate licensing, taking account of, among other factors, Natura 2000 requirements. This work involved multiple surveys being carried out by a range of contractors. Profiling of aquaculture activities was carried out for all the designated bays to define the likely interaction between such activities and the conservation features. All of this preliminary work to prepare the foundation for the consideration of the licence application process took place from 2009 onwards.”