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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Sentiment score: 0.18

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. 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. 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.

Sentiment score: 0.22

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. There are six of the inshore guys represented on that. We have to look at that separately. There are a lot individuals, small communities and small boats involved. We have to look for a medium- and longer-term support structure for them too.

Sentiment score: 0.14