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 9 of 21.
“My view is we have three to five years of trying to hold the industry through a difficult period to get the conservation measures in place and then hope to see a recovery in the stock, hoping it is not overly based on climate change and the fish have not moved further north or out of our waters. Issues about bluefin tuna were mentioned. There is an evaluation of the CFP due to be published before June at the end of the Cypriot Presidency. I am hopeful if there is a review thereafter - the evaluation and then the review - that it is at a time like that where we can look at other potential opportunities on quota. The Deputy is right. Bluefin is coming into our waters with great regularity. There was talk about representation for the inshore guys who are primarily guys, or gentlemen. We ensure they are fairly represented.”
“Others have rightly asked if it is going to be another task force that will talk shop. I have given it a time limit, stripped it back to the bare in what it needs to do and proposals need to come out of it. It will need to get a framework of financial supports. I made it clear to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste from the start that this will need ring-fenced funding to assist in getting through. I have no doubt when it is published we will be here again and it will never meet the expectations of the other side of the House. I understand that. That is the way it should be. There should be that tension here to keep all our feet to the fire in trying to achieve the best we can for all concerned.”
“I would like to see more open dialogue not in relation to individual cases but on how we can improve things while retaining the rules, regulations and protections. If rules and regulations become undermined and are not properly enforced, we will end up in a situation with the auditors at European level holding the Government to account. I know that is not what fishermen want. They have seen the way things have developed and the systems now in place such as electronic tracking. We have taken a decision to proceed with the designation of Killybegs but we now have to go through a process of some further equipment that needs to be put in place which we are working on. A good few people spoke about how we managed to get from here to the other side in terms of the reduction of quota.”
“I take the point - the Killybegs one is particularly arduous in the guesstimation of what is in the hold of the boat. You do the guesstimation based on all the principles and if it turns out to be a mismatch with what ultimately goes through the factory, which is all recorded anyway, there is a price to pay. I have not been able to figure out how that makes sense. We have work to do on it and we will. I want to encourage that. The SFPA was before the committee previously and I do not think it worked very well. The SFPA will have to look at its engagement with the committee in its understanding of what the committee does and seeks to represent. Perhaps then the committee will understand, if it is fair and open, what the SFPA has to do. The committee now provides that opportunity.”
“It goes before the committee and has a role there. It is like An Garda Síochána - Ministers do not engage on individual issues but there is work that can be done. Having had a number of engagements with the SFPA over the past number of months and hearing the response in here, there is a recognition that the activities of the past of a different generation of fishermen have changed and perhaps the SFPA in its terms and conditions or the way it views the world has to align with that. We have to try to build a culture of trust between the two sides but at the same time be clear that the SFPA has a legal mandate which it has to protect, which it is doing. There could be an engagement there. There is work that can be done in terms of the rules and regulations.”
“It is not obvious at the minute but we will keep all of that on the agenda. The work continues to get the allowable catch agreed by the end of March. We are hopeful there will be some positive in that for us. Positive would be an allowable catch agreed by all the parties - coastal states and the European Union - which we can stand over scientifically and leads to sustainability because that is critical. We cannot have a situation where we mind the fish and do everything right and others which have 80% of the opportunity operate with raw abandon. There is no point then in us then being best in class because it will not work. We have work to do in that regard. A couple of other issues were raised. I have addressed some at committee previously. The SFPA regularly comes up for discussion. I cannot interfere with the SFPA.”
“I was very upfront and direct previously - a case not dissimilar was litigated previously in the ECJ. It was found that the decision in relation not so much to the invoking of the Hagues but whether or not they are accepted it is a matter for the Council. The Council decided with a blocking minority to prevent them from going ahead. That decision is taken so it is hard to see a legal pathway. I do not want to be the one responsible for putting a further financial burden on the State taking a case until we see there is a pathway through or a possibility. If there is any chink there, we will certainly go after it. I am regularly in contact with other member states. We are trying to find diplomatic ways to engage with each other to see if come next year there is a less hostile environment.”
“We could be here a long time if we got into that. They were ahead of the game in establishing their fishing rights and they were grandfathered in to the agreements that came. We are working off the back foot. When we joined the European Union our sector was very small and underdeveloped. It has done well. Some really great ingenuity went into it around the coastline in particular the pelagics and in other areas. They have really developed and now they are hit with the quota reductions. It is one thing having a quota but when the quota gets reduced then you are on the back foot. We fought hard on the Hagues. A couple of people spoke about the Hagues and whether we will take legal action. We are still waiting for the Office of the Attorney General to peruse that in detail.”
“Until you get into that conversation, it seems like, God, how did Ireland fall asleep at the wheel. Historically, there are countries with relatively small amounts of coastline who are mariners at heart and had been commercially fishing. They were explorers back in the day, etc.”
“I know it is a burden on the minds of a lot of people who say we have fish in our waters, other people can fish them, why should we not be finishing them principally. When we entered the European Union our waters became a shared resource of the European Union. Somebody made the point and it is often made to me by members of my own family, how is it that Belgium with a relatively small coastline has such a fishing opportunity in Irish waters particularly the Irish Sea for monkfish and others? Your fishing effort in the past, historically, and your boats in the water prior to joining the Union had nothing to do with how much coastline you had; it was how those citizens established an opportunity and went out and fished. There is no correlation.”
“I genuinely thank everybody who participated in the debate today. There will be differences between us politically and some will seek to make political points. I fully understand; I know how that works but they are here because they care about the various communities they represent which, some greater than others, have a stake in the fishing industry. There are other counties that do not. We even had Deputy Maxwell who is from an inland county but has an interest in it. I appreciate the level of engagement and debate and the genuine understanding of the challenges the sector is facing. There is a historical context to all of this which some are more familiar with than others. In relation to the establishment of the quota available to Ireland, some of it relates to our track record and history and when we joined the European Union.”
“There was a time when other stocks were available and they could switch. It is the same with some of the inshore fishermen. They are struggling and need our support. I thank the Members who sought this opportunity to have a discussion. I look forward to the rest of the contributions.”
“The immediate issue is to get that arrangement and relationship back on track and get everybody locked into whatever the number is, whether it is the upper or lower figure, whether it is the MSY, the Blim or the approach we are taking or whether it is 174,000 tonnes or 299,000 tonnes. We have to figure out how to share it among all concerned, get on with it and start the conservation measures that are necessary. That needs to happen. As the Minister said, the mackerel fishery for us is principally in the first half of the year, probably the first three or four months. As such, we need to know what the total allowable catch is for this year and give that information to our fishers in order that they can plan their activities. There are not too many other options for them.”
“This is an opportunity for all facets of the sector to bring forward proposals and ideas. Of course, we will not be able to fund all of them and we will never have the quantum of money available to us to meet everybody's needs. This is about having a baseline and sending a signal to the sector that the Government sees the importance of it and is prepared to stand by and support it during the period of stock recovery. There is little point in us investing in that and bringing forward ideas if others outside the Union are effectively going to fish it out anyway. We are on a hiding to nothing if that is the case.”
“As the Minister outlined, we saw this right from the start when the fishing industry, the Minister, I and others met with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste back in December. We knew where the scientific advice was going. The Minister was very clear at the time that we needed to put in place a framework of supports to assist the fishing sector in all its guises through that difficult period. What we have to see with these reduced quotas, which are in line with the scientific advice, is a timeframe for conservation. We need to see it almost in a positive light, but there is nothing positive for the people who do not have fish to catch and process and have to raise their kids. The work the Minister outlined has begun, with the task force led by Michael Berkery.”
“They joined with us, and then we had positive comments from others, including France, Poland, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark. Bit by bit, we are building alliances around a recognition of the importance of getting a deal done on a comprehensive sharing arrangement that would transcend the current position. I hope we can get something that is lasting for the next number of years. When we talk to the scientists in the Marine Institute, it is very clear that they have concerns about the state of mackerel and other stocks. If we could get a comprehensive sharing arrangement over a number of years, we would have the potential then to see some recovery. That would give certainty to the fishing fleets, the processing sector and coastal communities.”
“A meeting will be held early next month in Copenhagen between the EU and the third countries under the coastal states arrangement. I am hopeful that we will see some advances there. There will have to be compromise on all sides, but it has to be fair for everybody. That is what most impacts our sector and fishers, men and women. The next round of those coastal states consultations will take place on 5 and 6 March in Copenhagen. If there is a decision or some outcome from that, we expect to see it before the March AGRIFISH Council, which will be held at the end of March. I will continue to highlight that in the coming months. Yesterday, we raised a point on this issue under "any other business", and we got considerable support from a number of countries, in particular Germany, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Belgium.”
“The question rightly put to us on a regular basis by fishers in Ireland is why we would bother conserving when we are only in control of 20% and the others take a raw abandon approach to the other 80%. Are we, they ask, just saving it for those countries? That is a valid question that is asked every day, and one I continuously put to the Commissioner, as we did again just yesterday in Brussels. What we are trying to do is push the Commission, on behalf of the European Union, into a more energised approach to negotiations. We need to get this matter resolved because our coastal communities are impacted very significantly. It is a source of annoyance when they continue to see open and fair trade with Norway in particular, yet Norway is, to anyone's mind, misbehaving in relation to the conservation of this important stock.”
“It is clear from a casual observation that the approach being taken by the third countries is excluding the science. They are suggesting they are accepting some element of it, but then they do not include Greenland or the EU in the way they have allocated that cohort of stock. It is using a bully-boy approach of grabbing all they can and leave the rest of us to decide whether we want to ignore science or accept it. The EU has about 20% of the overall catch in the sharing arrangement for mackerel. At a European level, we are minded to follow the science, rightly so. We are trying to be good citizens and work towards conservation. These countries, which control potentially 80% of the catch, are ignoring the headline advice.”
“However, the four parties to which I referred - Norway, the UK, the Faroe Islands and Iceland - have based their arrangements on a total allowable catch of almost 300,000 tonnes, which is significantly greater and with less emphasis on conservation. This represents a reduction of 48%, as opposed to the 70% which Europe opted for. This figure is based on an alternative catch scenario given by ICES based on application of the maximum sustainable yield, MSY, rule, ignoring that the stock is below Blim and is based on a 57% probability that the stock will recover to Blim in 2027. I know that is a bit long-winded. It has taken those of us who are involved in this some time to understand the methodologies used in the scientific analysis.”
“EU countries were unaware that they were even attempting to put a deal together. They announced it as a fait accompli . It does not take a genius to figure out that they are not serious about an appropriate sharing arrangement or a recognition of the necessity to conserve the stock for the future of all member states that fish that species. The ICES headline advice for mackerel for 2026 is 174,357 tonnes, representing a reduction of approximately 70% on the 2025 total allowable catch. This advice figure is based on a 50% probability that the stock will recover to what is referred to as Blim, or biomass limit, in 2027. Blim means the level of spawning stock biomass, in other words, the amount of sexually mature fish in a population, below which recruitment, that is, reproduction, is impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown.”
“For geopolitical and other reasons, including relationships that exist between other countries in Europe and these third countries, there seems to be some resistance to invoke the unsustainable fishing regulation. It is well past time for that to happen. It has to be used as a methodology of ultimately getting a sharing arrangement that we find acceptable and that operates within scientific limits. Even since the December Council, where the fishing opportunities for 2026 were adopted, we have seen questionable actions taken by third countries in how we manage the mackerel stock of the north-east Atlantic. In December, Norway, the UK, the Faroe Islands and Iceland agreed on management arrangements for mackerel for 2026 which excluded the EU. By the way, they excluded Greenland as well.”
“I have raised this matter on a number of occasions at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, including in October and January when I called for urgent EU action needed on the north-east Atlantic pelagic stocks, particularly mackerel. I have also emphasised the need for unity by way of a concerted EU response, including the option of triggering the unsustainable fishing regulation. Commissioner Kadis advised us at the December Council that measures would be explored by which action can be taken against third countries whose actions have caused such substantial damage to this shared natural resource. I reiterate that it is imperative that we do so. However, it is worth noting that not every member state agrees with the position we take on this.”
“In my time in this role, at every opportunity, I have called for action against those countries which overfish mackerel. We must be wider than that. We focus on mackerel but the level of overfishing by third countries is impacting across all species and impacting other countries equally. Given that Ireland holds the largest share of the EU quota for mackerel in the Western Waters area, Ireland's catching and processing sectors are the most exposed to the impacts of reductions in this stock. 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.”
“I thank the Minister, Deputy Heydon, for his continued support and the full stretch of his Department, in particular, in the area of marine and fisheries. As the Minister indicated, the most significant element of the reduction in fishing quotas for 2026 is the reduction in the mackerel quota. It has had a very significant impact, not just on the catching sector but also on the processing sector because we control so much of that stock and have developed that fishery over many years. While there are many reasons a fish stock can fluctuate over time, for example, climate change and increasing sea temperatures are impacting on the stock's ability to reproduce, it is clear in the case of mackerel that the years of overfishing caused by third countries setting unilateral, unsustainable quotas is taking its toll on the stock.”
“In the first instance, a useful tool to address this might be for some section of the local authority to act as a co-ordinator, identified with local councillors, etc., to try to bring the policing component in and the funding structure for services that cater for poorly treated or badly maintained animals. There is solid legislation to address this, but it is in putting that legislation into operation that there seems to be a gap. That might be something some of the Senator's colleagues on the local authority might try to bring together with some effort in that area. I am sure the Government will support that.”
“I concur with the Senator regarding the volunteers involved in the various rescue efforts out there. I thank them sincerely for the work they do, and there is some financial support there. I take the Senator's point regarding legislation, but you can have all the legislative provisions you want,and there is a considerable amount, but there is not an operational campaign or capacity to address it. Listening to what he has said and thinking as we are discussing the matter, there is certainly room for a co-ordinated approach to addressing this issue. The legislative provisions are there in respect of sulky racing, but it is about addressing it when it happens. I see it in my own constituency, where, on Sunday mornings or at times when there is less traffic on the road, a small cohort of people will carry on. That needs to be targeted.”
“Under the Act, people in possession of a protected animal, including horses, must ensure the animal is kept and treated in a manner which safeguards their health and welfare. Failure to do this is considered an offence under the Act. In this regard, our Department and the authorised officers appointed under the Act, including An Garda Síochána, customs agents, local authorities and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, NSPCA, undertake appropriate enforcement action where breaches or shortcomings are identified. In December 2025, the Department provided funding of almost €6.5 million to 94 animal welfare charities throughout the country under the animal welfare grants programme. Of that figure, just over €4 million was awarded to charities involved in the care and welfare of horses.”
“The drivers of all vehicles used on public roads, including horse-drawn carriages, are required to comply with road traffic legislation and to behave in a safe manner, paying due care to other road users. The enforcement of such road traffic legislation is, as the Senator has identified, a matter for An Garda Síochána. I will certainly pass on his comments about this to the Garda. Of course, it is a resource issue, but it is for the Commissioner to allocate resources based on perceived risk and needs. We are committed to the continued robust enforcement of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, which provides a modern framework for regulating and applying standards in the area of animal health and welfare.”
“These powers can be used in respect of straying horses, which includes horses put on land without the owner’s permission, and that includes public land. Local authorities may also prosecute offenders under this Act. Our Department provides financial support to help local authorities with the cost of these seizures. The use of sulkies on public roads, which is the issue the Senator also specifically raised, as with the use of all vehicles, including animal-drawn vehicles, is covered by the relevant provisions of the Roads and Road Traffic Acts. Policy in connection with this legislation would be a matter for the Minister for Transport. I am not passing the buck and will certainly raise the Senator’s concerns with the Minister for Transport, Deputy O’Brien.”
“It is part of an education process that is trying to inculcate at a younger age an understanding of the needs of the animal and how they might be in a position to better care for their welfare as they progress through life. Regarding the welfare of equines living in urban areas, the Control of Horses Act 1996 was introduced to provide for the control of horses and to make provision for the licensing of horses in urban and other areas where horses cause a danger or nuisance to people or property. The Act is currently under review within the Department. The operation of the Act comes under the remit of local authorities. Under the Act, local authorities may take a range of actions, including the prohibition of horses in certain areas, issuing of licences and the seizure of horses in contravention of the Act.”
“To encourage the good care and welfare of horses throughout the country, over €2 million has been spent by the Department on urban horse projects to help address the issue of their care and welfare, with €170,000 allocated for these projects in 2026. The projects have proven very successful and work specifically on equine welfare in marginalised communities. I accept there are still unscrupulous individuals who have no regard for a horse or its welfare. The projects provide education for young people in responsible horse ownership, including compliance with legal requirements and the proper and appropriate care of equines, with the objective of achieving higher standards for any horses they may come in contact with.”
“I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. As he referenced, the programme for Government contains a commitment to prioritise equine welfare and to build on existing inspectorate supports across the country, ensuring a consistent approach to dealing with horse welfare. The welfare of equines is protected by legislation. However, I must emphasise that primary responsibility for protecting the welfare of equines rests with the owner or keeper. As the Senator has identified, in some cases owners or keepers show scant regard for the welfare of their animals. I am fully committed to supporting sustainable initiatives in line with the programme for Government and Ireland's animal welfare strategy 2021 to 2025, which is currently in the process of being renewed by the Department.”
“I will definitely meet with the Moy Action Group. There was a public consultation based on the proposals for next year, which were due to be concluded by the end of the year. There were many submissions because of the significant changes were put forward, and I have taken some time on that. I have allowed the 2025 regulations to continue in the interim period. I have written to the chairman of IFI, made some suggestions to him based on the responses to that and indicated how I think we could proceed. I will update the House as soon as we have some more information. I assure the Senator it is a work in progress. I might wait until the conclusion of that to meet the group concerned. I think that is the greatest amount of latitude I am going to get from the Acting Chairperson, but I am happy to work with the Senator on that.”
“I thank Senator O'Reilly for her continued interest in this area. She talked about IFI. Yes, there were very significant issues in IFI. There have been some significant changes and numerous investigations and the PAC is still addressing ongoing legacy issues. There was a new board put in place and I have full confidence in that board. There is a new CEO about to be appointed and there is now a pathway to much brighter days to address the concerns. I probably do not have time to get into all of what Senator Kyne talked about, but when there is a new CEO in place we will certainly be working to address the great western lakes issue. He talked about the allowable catch and the pike issue, and I will take that up with the new CEO. We will certainly work through that. Senator Duffy continues to raise issues.”
“I was not referring to her in this House, but I did reflect that there are some who seek to hype a difficult situation which does not need any hype. It has got plenty of legs from the communities impacted and we do not need any extraneous arguments entered into. We know how we got here, we know what we have to do, and when we do not have fish, we have to find ways for the State to support the sector. That is what we are about. One or two Senators asked when we hope to kick off the task force under that seafood directive. Hopefully, Monday week will be our first meeting. We are writing out to stakeholders and we expect we will have our first plenary meeting on 16 February. However, there is work going on in the background at departmental level, and I will conclude on this because I want to mention one or two others who were there.”
“I thank Senator Murphy O'Mahony for her compliments. She is regularly in contact with me to raise the issues of fishermen and women in the constituency she knows best. She has been a very strong advocate for the way forward being for us to challenge at European level the real negative impact of overfishing or unsustainable fishing practices. That is something I and the Department are absolutely committed to, but we have to be mindful that if others are prepared to walk away from that, we will have to look to see where that leaves us from an equality perspective. I look forward to the Senator's continued input. Senator O'Reilly may have been concerned about something I said about extreme elements.”
“The Senator also talked about the real challenges there, and when we want to get this report concluded. I would like to have an interim report by the end of quarter 2 addressing the pelagic situation, which is the initial impact on our fishing fleet as a result of the reduced opportunities for this year. It is also important we continue to address some of the issues that have bedevilled the industry for several years and are also of grave concern to the inshore fishing sector. I wish to continue working on that after quarter 2 and move towards developing that five-year strategy for the fishing sector, which is identified in the programme for Government. That work will continue. Senator O'Donovan also talked about the illegal, unreported and unregulated, IUU, fishing and the impact that is having.”
“It is principally climate change and pollution that have impacts there. Senator Noel O'Donovan talked about quite a number of things. He talked about the legal opinion and I referred to him on that when I discussed the challenge. He talked about the 78% versus the 48% and I think I have addressed that. He questioned where the Commission is on the topic. The Commission wants to remain at 70% but there is a body of belief emerging, particularly about mackerel, that if we have such a small percentage of the overall allowable catch when you take into consideration the third countries I referred to such as Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and the UK, us taking a very conservative approach is only helping 20% of the stock. If somebody else is fishing the 80%, there is no equality there.”
“I expect some of that will be about an incumbency on certain State agencies to look at more dynamic testing of sites that are licensed, etc., and to inform the development of a protocol in order that when an event like this happens, we have a template to respond rather than trying to pull it together in an ad hoc way, which was done in the past. The Senator talked about the marine protected areas, MPAs, and it is very much my hope to have the MPA legislation finished before the summer. We are progressing well with that. We are all dedicated to improving water quality. Water quality is such a fundamental part of ensuring biodiversity in our rivers and ensuring we have healthy fish life. However, there are many other challenges to the fish stocks, both in our oceans and our rivers.”
“While we were unable to identify the source of the irritant that was in the water that led to such a significant fish kill, we followed procedures all the way. We have sought independent external advice from the Joint Research Centre of the European Union. I hope to be able to publish a report from it very shortly which, amongst other things, will review all the actions that were taken and will set a pathway forward as to how we might be in a better position for something like this not to happen again.”
“If we can find a legal pathway, however, I am certainly up for the battle in that regard. We have not found such a pathway yet. Others and Senator Andrews talked about access to Irish waters. It is a case that as we entered the European Union, those waters are now a shared resource. We saw what happened when the UK pulled out. It effectively brought the control of its waters with it. We had a heavy price to pay in terms of the stocks we gave up to retain access to that space. He talked about the inshore fishermen and yes, they are really important. Senator Malcolm Noonan talked a lot about the inshore fisheries. He referenced the River Blackwater. I mentioned in my opening statement that it was not the end of the road.”
“Senator Andrews rightly identified that the Hague preferences were something we felt we had a legal entitlement to but, unfortunately, that fell on deaf ears by the capacity of others. When we started out in the European Union, the veto existed where one country could block decisions. That is not the case any more and we found that to our pain last December. Others have asked me about the potential for a legal challenge. That is something we are still exploring but there was an ECJ case previously which found that the decision around the Hague preferences was a matter for the Council of fisheries ministers. That is where it becomes complicated. That is already a decision that must be taken as to whether another case taken against that would be successful. It is hard to imagine at this stage.”
“That is where some people seek to hijack a difficult situation which the sector is going through and present to those who are not as intimately involved in it that somehow, Ireland was robbed, stolen from, abused and mistreated. It is the case that when we came into the European Union, we had a very underdeveloped fishing fleet. Others were fishing our waters with much greater intensity because they had a history of that. We have managed to build an industry and it is now challenged because of the overfishing. Of course, I will continue to fight to try to ensure we have a fair crack of the whip and that overfishing is addressed to the greatest extent possible.”
“I do not want to ascribe any misdeeds to anybody but when you juxtapose the word "betrayal" with the outcome of the Council meeting, that is an unfair parallel. Every country that had quota within the European Union for those stocks took the same quota cut. I am certainly not suggesting that Senator Andrews is suggesting this but there are some who extrapolate that and say that we were unfairly treated in December. We were treated the same as everybody else. Historically, some countries have a much greater quota than us. I see some state that a country only has a certain amount of shoreline and then ask how, as we have infinitely more shoreline, they can have a greater quota. Quotas were not provided to countries based on the length of their shoreline. They were based on what was the fishing effort and the catch in the reference year.”
“In my view, it is a matter of the Commission giving very serious consideration to using the tools it has through the use of the unsustainable fishing regulation or let us set a TAC where we are effectively all on a level playing pitch. I noted from the contributions of other member states that quite a number indicated and used the terminology "a level playing pitch" and I think we have to get there through whatever means. I will continue to pursue the Commission on that and I will be meeting the Commissioner perhaps next week in Strasbourg but certainly the week after in Brussels. Senator Andrews talked about the impact of the cut in our quotas, the cut in the fishing effort and the impact that is having.”
“It is in regular contact with us and forms part of our stakeholder engagements. It is regularly in consort with us through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. On the pelagic side, the question exists of why have others managed to follow a 47% cut and we have taken a 70% cut. At the outset, I outlined the scientific reasoning behind that but I challenged the Commission and asked it how can I ask our fishermen and fisherwomen to abide by a very dramatic cut in a fishing opportunity to protect the species while we only control about 20% of that region's quota, taking into account the third countries. We only control 20% of that quota and 80% is held by the third countries. If they are going to fish at a rate much higher than us, it does not bode well for the conservation measures.”
“Senator Boyle is a regular contributor and very intimately involved in the fishing sector in Killybegs. He is someone whose opinion and advice matters to me a lot. He concentrated mainly on the inland fisheries side of things. That is something we are working through in the Department to address some of the key issues that existed. There has been a long, concerning history. I now think we are at a seminal moment. We are about to appoint a new CEO, which I think will give a very significant shift in direction. We have lots of really good and positive people working within the organisation. There is now an opportunity to gather around a new CEO and drive ahead with that. The Senator raised issues with the National Inshore Fisheries Forum . I am familiar with the grouping.”
“It could also be useful for providing other defence capabilities, which we are concerned about - particularly in relation to that Russian grey fleet that regularly traverses our waters and where we do not even have primary radar to have any capture of that. I agree with him on our technological advances, particularly in relation to drones, both subsea and above in our airspace. I recently met with a section of the University of Limerick and there are some very interesting projects and ideas there. I look forward to working with all concerned on that. He talked about the use of drones for top cover search and rescue. That certainly should be looked at. It is about protecting coastal communities, as he said. I am very much in tune with that. We must continue to work with a focus on the massive and wonderful resource of our oceans as well.”
“As I have a relatively short period to respond I will do the best I can and will engage with Senators afterwards if I have not had a chance to address all the matters. Senator Gallagher set out the concerns that exist across this House and across the communities affected. I think he is acutely aware of the challenges we face. Senator Craughwell raised a number of issues. He raised that of the Gaffney family regarding a particular issue. I know that is a complex case and I believe I will be meeting with members of the family tomorrow. He talked quite a bit about the defence infrastructure and how the use of certain technology could be useful in addressing illegal fishing.”