Before we begin I want to bring to the attention of our witnesses the note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at my direction as Chair. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by the witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from proceedings.

I remind members, as I do every week, of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any member who is partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution they confirm to me that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The agenda for the meeting is the post-Council briefing in respect of the December meeting of the AGRIFISH Council. The committee will hear from the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Dooley. He is accompanied by Ms Sinead McSherry, director, general fisheries in the Department. I remind members that while the Minister of State may call on his official to speak briefly for clarification purposes during the meeting where a specific or technical point arises, the Minister of State is the witness whereas the official is not. The official can clarify issues for the committee but any follow-up questions from members should be put directly to the Minister of State as he is the accountable person before this committee.

Cuirim fáilte mór roimh an Aire Stáit. Táimid ag tnúth leis an díospóireacht seo. This is a timely and important meeting. We all know the context in which it is taking place. I invite the Minister of State to give his opening statement. Then we will go to a question and answer session. I remind members to show their hand when the Minister of State finishes. I will take note and we will get to each member. Each will have seven minutes to put questions and receive answers and then we hope to have a second round.

I thank the Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity the committee is giving me to set out the context and the results of the recent AGRIFISH Council meeting. It gives me an opportunity to follow through on the meeting of 9 December where I discussed the upcoming AGRIFISH Council and fishing opportunities for 2026.

It is clear the outcomes of this year’s December AGRIFISH Council will result in severely reduced fishing opportunities for 2026. I had already flagged that to the committee on a number of occasions. The scientific advice upon which the Council’s decisions were based reflects the impact of overfishing, particularly of the mackerel stock, by certain third countries. The advised 70% reduction in the total allowable catch for mackerel is compounded, as I said previously, 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, and also some of the white stocks. This is especially difficult from an Irish perspective because those are among our most important stocks. Ireland has consistently called for action against the countries that overfish mackerel. Given 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. I, on behalf of the Government, 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 AGRIFISH Council the importance of a concerted EU response was discussed by ministers, including the option of triggering the unsustainable fishing regulation. I am pleased that after continued pursuit of this matter by me and a small number of others, that the Commission is finally indicating a desire to do so. This is something I have sought for some time and will continue to pursue.

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. Ireland’s fishing opportunities for 2026 amount to approximately over 120,000 tonnes, with an estimated first-sale value of €205 million. This represents a decrease of one third, worth between €100 million to €105 million, on the estimated value of the 2025-2026 quota. These figures reflect quota outcomes for Ireland across the main pelagic, demersal, and nephrops stocks for 2026, based on allocations without the benefit of Hague preferences. Quota levels for several key stocks reflect the application of scientific advice aimed at ensuring long-term stock sustainability. 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 really importantly the coastal communities who will be most affected and who are highly dependent on specific fisheries. 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.

The committee will be aware that, regrettably, a group of member states chose to block the invocation of Ireland’s Hague preferences this year. I am extremely disappointed these member states have chosen this time when we are in greatest need and when our fleet needs the greatest protection. 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 quotas. I told my colleagues at the Council late on Friday night and into Saturday morning I was particularly disappointed the December Council had omitted the Hague preferences which are for me and many other a fundamental element of relative stability without a comprehensive examination of relative stability as a whole. I said it is 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. It is particularly upsetting that the charge has been led by those that benefited most from access to Irish waters ever since 1983.

As I have previously committed to our industry, the Minister, Deputy Heydon, and I will establish a task force under the auspices of Food Vision 2030 to develop a framework of supports for the sector to address the substantial challenges in the time ahead. We will appoint an independent chairman to oversee this work. The Taoiseach has made it very clear he wants this done in a timely and expeditious manner. We will bring in external assistance where necessary to supplement our own very capable and competent staff but unfortunately we are short staffed, like most Departments, to take on this additional work. However, we will get the work done in a timely manner and put in place, to the greatest extent possible, a comprehensive set of measures to address this very significant impact on our fishing industry and on the coastal communities who depend so much on it.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. Deputy Mac Lochlainn was first to indicate and then Senator Craughwell.

I thank the Minister of State. Obviously the outcome of the fisheries Council could not be more serious in terms of the threats to our industry. The Common Fisheries Policy has been deeply unfair to our coastal and fisheries communities for a long time. Brexit and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement were a betrayal of those communities. This latest development has to be the final insult. We now need to get real in how we deal with these matters. It is time to speak truth to power about what has been going on. I intend to deal with it at this meeting today and in the statements in the Dáil tomorrow.

There are what are called the big five Dutch companies which have massive control over quota across the European Union. They have 230 vessels and hundreds of subsidiaries. They also have significant investment in Iceland and the Faroes. They have invested in recklessness and they have benefitted from this latest development. The view is that this big five group of corporations based in the Netherlands have more power than member states themselves in negotiations. That is an appalling state of affairs.

There was an exposé by the French NGO BLOOM, and it is not the first, into some of these companies. This could not be more grave. What is being alleged is that major corporations which have made a massive power grab of quota across the European Union now appear to have more muscle than member states. This is a serious threat to our democracy across the European Union. Will the Minister of State support calls for an urgent investigation as to how we ended up with these countries blocking the Hague preferences? That is my first question.

My second question follows. The Department of the marine has had a weak approach historically to our own natural resources. This was exposed in the Barlow case that went to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has adjudicated on this. When you look at the defence offered by the Department of the marine it clearly stated that our waters and our seabed are not our natural resource. They are the property of the European Union. The High Court upheld that position but the Supreme Court overruled it. Therefore the standing position of the Supreme Court is that Article 10.3 defines our territorial waters as the resource of the Irish people. In 1976 in return for access to our waters the Hague preferences were agreed. The Hague preferences were not just for Ireland but for Britain and Ireland. These Hague preferences are clearly connected legally to access our waters.

There needs to be an urgent investigation as to how those countries formed the vote they did. I will deal with that in more detail in my statement to the Dáil tomorrow where I have a unique privilege to speak on these matters. However, on the Hague preferences it is clear there is definitely strong legal grounds based in our Supreme Court ruling of 2017 for this State to challenge the removal of the Hague preferences, whatever about the injustice of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Will the Minister of State support the calls for an investigation into the influence of the big five, these Dutch corporations which have been named - I will not name then now - by the French NGO BLOOM? Is the Minister of State actively considering every possible device available, including legal challenge, to address what has happened?

I thank the Deputy for his measured response. I have known for a long time his deep understanding of this issue. It is welcome. I do appreciate it because it is a challenge for all of us as to how we get through this. He raised questions about the big five and the control they seem to exercise. It might be the big five but I think there is really only one at the end of the day, which is by far the most prevalent. It has really been facilitated by the actions of a number of countries over the years where they allowed their quotas to be privately owned, so quotas were ultimately sold. Ireland took a different position. As the Deputy knows, the quotas we have in stocks is a national asset which through various different grandfathered approaches, etc., based on tonnage and capacity of the boats, the entities are allocated quota from the national ownership. That has prevented that kind of predatory behaviour. I will happily work with the Deputy or anyone else who has information. I take the Deputy’s point about the French issue. That is not something that has been brought to my attention but I will happily look at it. I am not going to call for an investigation until I have a better understanding of what we are investigating. I am mindful of the dominance of certain key players. What is particularly disturbing to me is the capacity to be dominant within the Union, to have significant interests outside the Union in third countries and then playing ducks and drakes when we are trying to do agreements between the Union and the third countries through the coastal states agreement.

We may talk about it later but I have been reading material that has been released in the last 40 or 50 minutes on activities of third countries. That is equally challenging and shows a concerted effort to undermine the activities of the Union, in particular in relation to trying to conserve fish stocks. I see this in terms of recognising the scientific advice - and not as an act of treason some might suggest - that we must conserve the biomass of the various different species to ensure there is some kind of a future for the next generation. If we do so appropriately over the next three to five years and allow stocks to rebuild and use the muscle and financial position of our State to help communities to get through that period, we can have a future in the fishing sector. If we are going to be challenged every step of the way by those who are acting within and outside the Union and challenging the very viability of the future of fishing stocks, then we will have to take a different approach.

I will be straight with the Deputy. I have challenged the Commission on this. I have made it very clear that I think it has not pushed as aggressively as it might in relation to this. It has to go beyond DG MARE. It has to be an issue that is addressed right from the Presidency down and across our entire relationship with those third countries which all have very valuable neighbourhood agreements with the European Union. They work both ways. Fishing must come back in centre stage. It is important for the coastal communities, for the fishing industry and for the biodiversity of our seas which are an integral part of our challenge, particularly in terms of climate change.

On the second question-----

On legal action.

As part of the team I had with me at the end of last week and over the weekend, I had a representative from the Office of the Attorney General who provided advice based on issues as they arose. It was clear that the judgment by the European Court of Justice, which was litigated previously, indicated that the Hague preferences, and their invocation or acceptance, was a matter for the Council, so the Council could decide whether or not to accept our invocation. There was a blocking minority. The way the system works, with which the Deputy will be familiar, is that if the Presidency, which was Denmark in this instance, was not in a position to get what it would have thought a majority to get it through without a blocking minority, it just did not table it at all. Four countries are required, with the population spread, to facilitate a blocking minority and that was present. It included the Netherlands but it was effectively led by France in the instance. Truthfully, when one considers the losses that France would have taken for allowing the Hagues to go through, it was minor. The Netherlands was certainly bigger but not big in the overall context. Then there were Poland and Germany - Germany to a greater extent and Poland to a lesser extent. The four of them together, through various connections, came to block. We tried negotiations with some of the countries individually but there were others that they were able to pull into the mix, quite frankly.

I do not expect a definitive answer now but would the Minister of State agree to get legal advice based on the 2017 Supreme Court decision in the Barlow case in terms of Article 10.3°? To me, the Supreme Court clearly stated that these territorial waters are our natural resource and to give them away means legislation would have to be laid before the Houses and voted on by the Parliament of Ireland.

I know.

On the Hague preferences, this is an act of supreme bad faith and the matter needs to be put before this Parliament for us to agree. At the very least, I would like to see a legal opinion on how the outrageous decision to go after one of the smallest countries in the European Union and block the Hague preferences is consistent with the Supreme Court decision. Surely there must be a legal challenge.

It is a serious issue. I have asked officials to go through this in detail and pursue whatever possible approach we can. For clarity, I did invoke the Hagues even though they were not on the agenda, and when they were not put on the agenda, I voted against the final decision. Some of the other countries had thought that Ireland should try to do a deal for the scraps on the edge. I thought that if we went down that road, we would throw away what the Hagues meant and rather than be brought off for coppers at the edge, I felt it was better to invoke the totality of the Hague preferences, as enshrined in the CFP. It was made clear to me that they were not in the legal text of the CFP but were in Annex VII. I intend to pursue every possible measure. Through our officials, we have started a process where we will engage in getting a legal opinion. I am not going to commit to pursuing a legal action until I at least have lawyers who are prepared to say, “You have some kind of a case that we can litigate on your behalf”, but I certainly am not ruling it out at this stage.

Next we have Senator Craughwell and then Deputy Gallagher.

One could say that Ireland has done very well from being a member of the European community except for fisheries. Since I was a boy I have heard fisheries cry of being hard done by. Indeed, while I was growing up in Galway, the harbour was a busy place most evenings when the trawlers came in and sold their catch. I do not see too many trawlers there now and there are only a few harbours around the country with trawlers.

Any time we hit a crisis, there is talk about putting together a committee chaired by an independent chairman with a job to report, which leads me to the following questions. When will the chairman be appointed? What is the timeframe for that group? How soon can we expect a report?

I am not sure what funding can be put in place to save fish factories if there is no fish coming in. I have met the Minister of State in the west, and he has visited Donegal and various places, so he knows the livelihoods that depend on the industry.

The Minister of State mentioned that his Department is understaffed when it comes to dealing with issues like this. Has a business case by his Department been put to Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation? I ask because, God knows, when that Department gets its hands on something, it can delay it for months and, in some cases, years. What sort of co-operation has he got? I am going leave my questions at that because I know there are people here from fishing communities who will want to ask a lot more questions.

I know the Senator's interest because I have met him on a number of occasions when I visited a number of fishery harbours. As a Senator, he keeps in very regular contact with his electorate who are councillors and many of them have significant interests there. The presence of the Senator here and his interest are well recognised.

I do not disagree with the Senator’s characterisation about how well Ireland has done from our presence in Europe but I think when you look at the way other sectors of our society have developed under our membership of the European Union, it is fair to say that our fishing sector has not followed that trajectory. That, I suppose, has a lot of do with where the fishing sector was at when we joined the Union. One could argue the same about farming and other sectors but I remember my late colleague, and a former Minister for the Marine, Brendan Daly, characterised our fishing fleet as being small and near shore when we joined. While we have expanded a little bit, we have not done as well as other sectors. I think that is largely because of the decisions that were taken to expand EU waters more broadly and those very bountiful seas that were the exclusive competence of Ireland at a stage now have others in there. Other countries which had more developed fleets were better able to exploit that more quickly. There is a context to all of that.

The Senator asked the independent chairman. It is my hope to do that this week. Then we must put together terms of reference, which we have worked on for a while. As I have shared with the members, we knew largely this was coming.

The Senator asked what kind of supports can be put in place. We still have about 120,000 tonnes that we can process. I would like to look at ways to encourage boats that steam past some of our ports to go back to their native countries with fish to process. Diesel is not inexpensive at the moment so can we find ways to attract more of those boats to bring fish ashore, albeit these are fleets from other countries? If we could processes that here, let us look at that. I want to bring in the State agencies under the auspices of my Department. Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, is very much part of it. Bord Bia has some important views on this as well. I want to bring in other agencies that are with us, such as the Marine Institute and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA. I also want to bring the Department of Rural and Community Affairs into this and see how I can work with my colleague, the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Dara Calleary. We have also got to look at some of the supports we give to people who do not own any boats but are involved in the sector. What can we do from the social support side?

There is a very significant amount of State resources that we can deploy but I must be mindful that there are state aid rules. The Taoiseach has made it very clear to me and the Minster for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Heydon, that we need to push back into the Commission in relation to this and that we cannot see such a dramatic cut in activity and expect to just say that we cannot do this because of state aid rules. These are rural and coastal communities, so one cannot just drop another factory in there. One cannot drop in a data centre in either because we are still working on getting grid development into many of these areas.

While I agree with a lot of what the Senator said, I am not as pessimistic as him as I cannot be. I have got to keep trying to find ways forward here for these resilient people who have come through so much and shown such capacity to transform over the decades.

I will be working with others. That committee will meet early in January. I hope to be able to share the chairperson of same with committee members later this week.

Anecdotally, I am told that a lot of our bigger trawlers are landing fish in Norway rather than in Ireland. We have to find a way to incentivise them to come home. If there are financial supports to be put in place, maybe that is where we should be looking. I am aware of the state aid thing, but the EU has fairly screwed us anyway.

There are issues for domestic flagged ships moving to other countries based on more attractive conditions perhaps, etc. Maybe it is the price of fuel. There is a myriad of issues. We have to try to understand that better. That is why through the representative bodies and producer organisations, POs, that represent the major fishing operators I want to work with them. In my opening statement, I neglected to give regard to the industry leaders mainly led by the Irish Fishing and Seafood Alliance, IFSA, which is a group of the POs who have come together who are in Brussels and provided me with assistance and support throughout. They understand who we are representing and some of them are working in the sector every day of the week. I am thankful for their support and positive comments notwithstanding what I have heard elsewhere about how we handled this. I want them to be very much part of developing a response to what is their industry. I do not intend to impose something. Fishing is not my competence, but my competence will be deployed to work with everybody here on the committee and them to try to find a solution.

On the scale of the loss in the first instance, we already flagged 2024 to 2025 prices is about €73 or €74 million. Obviously, with the reduced availability of fish, particularly of mackerel, prices have shot up. That gives inflated figures, but notwithstanding that we have a lot to do to try to make up that. There is the added value and added benefit to these communities through the supply chain. Senator Boyle is online and he knows and is in regular contact with me about issues here and the impact that it has on the supply chain all the way.

I appreciate and understand from the members of the alliance that the Minister of State kept them briefed - he alone kept them briefed - during the course of the negotiations and took on board a lot of the advice he got from them. This is the first time in the history of the Common Fisheries Policy that the scientific advice was accepted 100%. I said to the Minister of State the last day that the first thing that would happen is the 70%, 41% or 20% would be reduced. That happened all down through the years. This is a treble whammy. First, there was Brexit. Second, the scientific advice was totally adhered to. Third, there were the Hague preferences. The Hague preferences were there for 49 years. We all know the reasons for the Hague preferences. It is 49 years of customs and practice. It is as near as we will get to having it as a legal base. It is not there, but it has been accepted all throughout those years.

The Minister of State went to Germany, Poland and was in contact with France. Those are the very countries that let us down. At the time, did they highlight to him that they would vote against the Hague preferences? As the votes are weighted, one of those bigger countries would not have been able to get this through. The Hague preference would have meant so much to us. The Minister of State referred to getting other nationals into the Irish ports with their fish. He knows, I know, and every fisherman knows the reason they are not coming in. The elephant in the room is the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority which showed disregard for this committee when it was with us a few weeks ago. We will have them back again on 27 January or 10 February. It has to be answerable to the Minister of State and us.

We are going to insist that the Minister of State and the Government change the legislation which protects the organisation by section 68. I have spoken with a skipper from Northern Ireland who would land into Killybegs with a substantial amount of fish. It would not be helpful to the fishermen but would be helpful to the fish factories and those who are working in the factories. Why are they not coming? They were in Letterkenny court last week due to not even a major infringement. It was because the skipper was not able to match the estimate of what was in the basket and the actual basket. It is like coming in here with 1,000 balls in a basket and asking, "How many are in that?" It is totally ludicrous. The sea fisheries should be a common fisheries throughout all of Europe. It is the same, but it is not the same.

Under no circumstances will those foreign vessels come into Ireland until such time that the Minister of State, the committee and the Government do something about the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority, who hold no disregard. It is all the same people and same salary. It does not matter what the quotas are. Should we now be looking at reducing the number of personnel? I would not wish it on the Department to take some of those into the Department now that it is understaffed. I have tabled a question to the Taoiseach to find out who he spoke with and what Prime Ministers in advance of that meeting and what response he got. It was wrong. The Government went out to those countries, left those countries and was possibly buoyed up that we had friends there. We have no friends in Europe. They are taking full advantage of us. The only mistake we made in 1983 was that we were far too honest. On the Minister of State's description of my former boss, Brendan Daly, when I was there in 1987 to 1989 with him, he was right. At that time, our base was much too low. Had we been a little bit dishonest like other countries in Europe that inflated the amount of their landings on paper resulting in a knock-on effect in the years to come. That is why we are where we are now.

This committee needs to be set up soon. It has to benefit everybody, such as the owners of boats. They are going to have problems repaying. The banks should be called in to ensure repayments should not have to paid in the appropriate times. We find that 80% odd of the global mackerel is going to Norway, the United Kingdom, Faroe Islands and Iceland. That leaves something like 21% going to other countries. That is the EU, Russia and Greenland. That is the way it is divided up. We have such a small percentage. I have a table here and it is depressing to read. I will give one figure as a result of the meeting. At the point of sale, mackerel has lost €75 million. They are being landed in parts of the country where there is no alternative source of employment. The Minister of State is quite right we cannot just airlift a factory into those areas. It is frightening when we see all of them. It is €200 million; it is devastating. It is the blackest week. I was there; I have done that. I was there when we had 70,000 and 80,000 tonnes. In 2014, we had 100,000-odd tonnes. I was in Europe at that time consulting with the Minister at the time. It was a tremendous outcome. Now we are where we are.

I have no doubt that it does not matter what the Minister of States does. I know he did his best. He tried hard and the organisations have recognised that. He will continue to work with them to try to get some sort of deal. Whether we have a legal basis or not, there is a Council meeting this week and I will be saying to the Taoiseach, that it might not be on the agenda but under any other business he should point a finger at Europe. Did the Minister of State get any support from the Presidency or the Commission or did they ignore him?

The Deputy has given a very good overview of the situation and how we got to where we are. I will start at the end. I felt the Commission took a very hands-off approach. I chat and meet regularly with the Commissioner. It was very clear to me from the start that we were on our own. The Commission was passive and not involved. It said it was a matter for the Council, member states or bilateral.

They did not involve themselves. They did sit in on the trilateral between ourselves and the Presidency. The Presidency was certainly very hands-off. The attitude was that we should work it out between ourselves. Deputy Gallagher and I - perhaps most people here - have chaired meetings. We have been in roles where we have worked through various difficult decisions. Generally, the chairperson is independent but tends to facilitate. I do not want to be too negative towards my colleague, Jacob Jensen, who sat in the chair. He had a difficult job. He had a lot of irons in the fire, but I certainly felt that the Presidency took a very hands-off approach. They are independent. I recognise their independence, but it can often be better if they tend to facilitate things a little bit more.

Deputy Gallagher raised a number of issues, with the most important and critical one being that we move quickly to establish that committee. He has identified who should be in there and what kind of issues we should face. I have taken note of them. Because it will be done very much in consult with the various entities that are part of what is referred to as the fishing industry, their views and thoughts, as well as those of the processing sector will be very much factored in, and how we can achieve and address some of the issues that are challenging at the minute, such as to get landings here, etc. We can look at all of that in the context. I am anxious that it would move quickly. To me, it is not just about setting up another committee - Senator Craughwell talked about being around, as we all have, for task forces, reports and so on, but this needs to happen and it needs to move quickly as we head into a year where there is the potential for very significant negative impact in these communities.

I take the Deputy's point about the banks. Yes, there are some entities. I would like to address the canard that is out there that all fishermen are terribly wealthy. Some have done well, including in other sectors of society. Some people have done well in the leisure sector. Some people do well in construction. It is not a crime to do well. We need to set that out there. There are others who have done well but have invested very significant amounts of money in the creation of jobs, etc. They employ a lot of people. Some people have done well in the tech sector. It is not a crime. What we now need is to work with these industry leaders and entrepreneurs to try to find a pathway through, so that we have some semblance of a sector when the fish stocks recover.

Could the Minister of State refer later to foreign vessels and trying to track them?

Yes, very briefly. That is an issue that is going to have to be looked at by the independent chair and the committee. I am sure it will be an issue that is raised there. We have to recognise that we must have control systems if we are to get respect in Europe. I know there were issues in the past. I think we have moved well beyond that and there is a recognition with the level of technology that is now deployed that some of the concerns of the past are in the past. It will be for the committee to make recommendations.

I thank the Minister of State. I call Senator O'Donovan and Deputy Cahill is next.

As I mentioned, I am substituting for my colleague, Senator Boyle, today, and while I might not be able to share his accent, I certainly share his passion and concern. I will read his statement. He has a number of questions at the end:

Firstly, I apologise for my absence, due to a health issue. Also, thank you to Noel O'Donovan for taking my place and for reading my statement. I want to acknowledge the Trojan efforts made by Minister Dooley, Tánaiste, Simon Harris, Minister, Martin Heydon, and all the fishing representatives. To say I am utterly disappointed would be an understatement. The fact that after all the efforts made and the effort I personally have put into this, lobbying so hard and achieving so many positives, with fishing interests being made part of the programme for Government, and the motions we got passed recently, it certainly seems wasted at this moment, judging from the sombre mood of all the coastal communities and stakeholders who have expressed their anger to me over the weekend.

The European Union, allowing this ambush to happen by the five countries is not only unsettling, it portrays a no-confidence mood for me and certainly for the people I represent. We know the vested interests this group of countries has, and their loyalties to the major Dutch company that, let us face it, is in control here. The European model we signed up for, many years ago, promised opportunity, balance, responsibility, democracy and, most of all, respect. We have seen none of this, especially over the last days of negotiations. The European flags that fly in our fishing ports around the coast - I am very surprised they have not been taken down, as I, along with everyone I talk to, feel so abandoned and discriminated against - the flags that fly in solidarity of a Union, but if the last week proves anything, it shows there is no union.

Minister Dooley, I listened to your interview on RTÉ, and you said a compensation package will be discussed for the people affected. To me, language like this is defeatist. We are a nation with a natural resource that is being effectively taken from us, and all we are doing is sitting idly by, licking our wounds. I ask you, Minister, what are we doing about this to recover lost quotas and are we going to fight back? Are we going to allow this disgraceful behaviour take away all we have and leave us with nothing? When are we going to make that call and say "enough"? When are we going to get control and send shivers through the heart of the European model to get our respect back? I, for one, am ready to do whatever it takes. Are you?

Our fishing industry is failing fast, while other EU and non-EU countries are thriving on our natural resource. It is long past time to press the reset button and stop this discrimination.

I thank Senator O'Donovan very much. I also thank Senator Boyle for the preparation of his statement and his questions. I recognise his passion. He has been in regular contact with me. I spoke to him, as I did to as many members of the committee as I could, late into the night on Friday night, just to apprise them of where we were at. I thought that was the right thing to do. I know he was deeply traumatised. I hope that call has not led to his not being here today. I know he was deeply upset and annoyed by the situation.

At best, coming out of this we would have hoped to hold on to the Hague preferences, but that has not happened. That is a loss of about €13 million, based on the 2024 to 2025 figures. The big hit is the scientific advice, which is the €75 million. I cannot make any promise on how we can regain that in the short term. The only way I know is that we follow the scientific advice and we try and encourage stocks to develop. Later this year, I hope to bring legislation to the House, based on clearance that we got from the Government recently, to identify areas suitable for marine protected areas, which will benefit biodiversity generally in the oceans but also identify spawning grounds, etc. for conservation and preservation. That, together with reduced fishing activity as a result of not having the quota, is a positive for the future, and we have got to work around that.

In response to Senator Boyle's point about the notion of being defeatist and putting reports in place, I have made it very clear that all the fishing representatives and the people who are on trawlers and who work in the industry do not want compensation, they want fish. They want to work. When it reaches the point that the fish are not there, we have to look at compensation or supports - financial instruments to allow them to get through a difficult period. That is what I have to do now, because the scientific advice on the depletion of the stocks is very significant. We have to look at that, and we will. That is why I am establishing the committee to work with the industry. In fairness, that is their ask - to help them to work their way through the next couple of years. I am not going to pretend or to play politics with the lives of these people and suggest that somehow I can magically grab quota from some other country. That is not doable. I know there are some who would suggest that we should leave the European Union. I have heard that over the course of the weekend. I doubt that is going to happen either. I intend to fight on the Hague piece. I believe there is something there. While it is not set out in the main provisions of the CFP, there is the custom and practice and it is referenced in the recitals.

It has been under pressure for a while, but countries generally just mused about it. They made noise about it and were maybe making political statements to their own fishermen, but they did not take it out. This time, they did. If there is a legal route to challenge it, I will.

I thank the Minister of State for those words. On my own behalf, I am new to this committee and new to politics. From listening to Deputy Gallagher, who has been through these negotiations year after year, this has been happening for years. It goes much further than fishing. If you talked to people in our communities over the past weekend, you would know they are questioning the European model. That is what is at the heart of this. It is not just fishing. Senator Boyle was questioning the European flag. We have been railroaded. Yes, successive governments have been involved and there have been departmental failures right across the board, but we are at a juncture where we need to make a stand. I welcome the fact the Minister of State is examining the Hague preferences and what legal case we can take because we need to take that stand.

With regard to common control, we look at the boat that, unfortunately, hit the rocks in Dingle over the weekend. That boat was French-registered and owned by a Spanish company. It landed monkfish, for which it has the same quota as the Irish fishing sector. The fish was loaded by a Spanish truck to take the fish back home. That is what is infuriating the Irish sector. This has been going on for years and years.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We have the industry supporting the Government, which is listening to what needs to be done. We need to come together - the Department, the Government and the industry - to once and for all make a stand. We see today that the Scottish are looking to do a deal on mackerel with the Nordic countries. We are being railroaded. This is a time when we need severe action. We need to take a stand.

As for the timing of the working group, it has to be timely. It has to be within the first quarter of next year. Mention was made of the inshore sector, which will also be affected by this deal in terms of the price of bait. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for inshore, offshore, the Department and the Government to come together and, once and for all, make a stand. We do not want to be here again in 30 years' time.

As I said, I am new to the fishing side of things, but I can judge it. I can see what has happened and what we need to do here, once and for all, for our communities. It is not too late. It is never too late to do the right thing.

While the Senator might be new to it, he has certainly shown a capacity to learn fast. Any time I have had a conversation with him, he is well on top of it.

On that latter point in relation to the inshore, I know this will have a potential impact on the price of bait. However, the inshore sector gets 400 tonnes of mackerel off the top of the quota. It will suffer no reduction. While the pelagic sector will see a 70% reduction in its quota, the inshore still has a ring-fenced 400 tonnes.

I referenced the value of the Hague preferences being about €13 million in 2024-25 prices, at €1,600 a tonne. At the moment, mackerel is fetching about €4,500 a tonne so, for the first time in a while, some elements of the inshore will do better out of this because of the increased cost with reduced supply. I am pleased for them. I would love to have been in a position to increase the tonnage for the inshore people because I know how they operate, and it has been very difficult for them. I had a thought, which I have shared with them previously, that had a deal worked out earlier in the year with Iceland, whereby we might have got more mackerel, it was my intention to share that a little more disproportionately with the inshore sector. In any case, that did not come to pass, unfortunately, and we are facing much bigger challenges. We will be looking at that from the bait perspective. The Senator is right that they will be very much part of the committee that we establish. They are significant stakeholders, and we will engage with them.

The Senator reiterated again the necessity to stand up and fight. I will do that every day. However, I am not going to blow hot air just to appease people politically. I think it needs more than that. There are others who will do that, and the best of luck to them, but it is important that anything we pursue here has a credible base and the potential to at least be successful.

I acknowledge how difficult these negotiations have been for the Minister of State, and how hard he has worked, is working and will continue to work on behalf of the Irish fishing industry. I know that his heart is in the right place. He has not even been 12 months in the door as Minister of State in this area.

It is a big ask. One would think that the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea give Ireland a major advantage as fish is a singular natural resource on our doorstep and at our disposal. However, it is fair to say that we are being deeply wronged by the EU with regard to its system of allocating fish quotas. In our case, it seems obvious to me that it disadvantages Ireland rather than giving it the greatest access. That does not stand up. We have been wronged yet again by the EU in its system of allocating quotas. It is time to call a halt. We were wronged last year, wronged during Covid and wronged when we joined the EU. That seems to be continuing.

I believe it is time that a case is taken in the European Court of Human Rights, no matter what the cost. We are talking about livelihoods, the survival of our fishing communities and the survival of our fishermen and women. This is having a serious knock-on effect on a very basic living requirement. I believe we must protect Irish citizens. As an island surrounded by sea produce, we should be the driving force in the EU, but in reality, it appears that we are the whipping boys, to be honest. I propose that we take this case to the European Court of Human Rights. As I have already mentioned, I believe it is time to fight back. It has consequences for thousands of jobs among fishing families and all of those employed in the processing plants in our fishing harbours and around our country.

I know the fishermen in Dingle Harbour, Killybegs and Castletownbere along with the smaller harbours such as Kenmare, to mention one in Kerry, are furious. I have never witnessed such anger before. It is not just among fishing communities and those involved in the industry. It is also among the public, and that is a fact.

With regard to the scientific evidence, it did not take into consideration the real facts, and that is the overfishing by foreign countries and foreign trawlers. They are the facts. We are paying the price - our people, our fishermen, our industry and those who rely on it for a living.

I do not want to lose my cool. It is hard for us all to keep calm, with what we are experiencing, but we have to do more.

Before I respond directly, in case I was misunderstood in what I said about the 400 tonnes of mackerel for the inshore sector, it is more specific. It is for those mackerel that are caught on hook and line by boats of less than 18 m, which would generally operate near shore and in the inshore area and would have some mackerel quota. That is impacted by the sliding scale reduction of 70%. It is those fishermen and women who catch mackerel on hook and line that have the 400 tonnes assigned directly to them.

On the specific points made by Deputy Cahill, I again recognise that he and I have had many conversations in this regard. He is regularly in touch with me about his community, the fishermen and women whom he knows best and the communities where they provide employment. He knows the challenges this will place on them. Any reduction in activity or in fishing opportunity will have a negative impact on what happens on the shore.

The Deputy rightly identified something, and it is something that I picked up from the start when I was initially briefed by the Department. The Department made it very clear to me that the big issue here is the activities of Norway, principally, because of its size and scale, and those who seek to influence activity there. Again, it is the big players that were talked about. It is one or two really big conglomerates in Europe that are driving this. We must find a balanced way of addressing that because we are importing a lot of fish that is taken from European waters, processed in third countries and sold back to European consumers. We have good neighbourly relations in many ways with all of these countries but fishing has been left, quite frankly, and that must be challenged. We are reaching such a stage now that it is beyond critical because it is impacting on the future viability of the stocks. So even if you were not looking at this from a coastal community perspective or from a fishing perspective but from a basic biodiversity perspective, you are looking at the potential wipeout of a stock.

Recently, I talked to scientists in the Marine Institute who say that over the past five years, 5 million tonnes of mackerel have been over-fished and there is only 2.7 million tonnes of mackerel biomass left in our waters. The Deputy will know that when I say biomass that it is at all levels, from spawn and right the way through to adult fish. That is kind of a frightening statistic. That has to bring firmly into focus the future viability and future availability of this stock - just its sheer future existence and the existential crisis.

Next is Deputy Collins and Senator Cathal Byrne and I will come in.

All weekend I have met and spoken to fishermen. I have been on the phone to them and I have met a lot of them, so I know there is serious anger out there. The Minister of State said that hot air might politically appease these people. These people are visibly upset and extremely angry. I think the political system in this country has been playing the nice boy for many decades and that has led to the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves.

Sometimes you have to have a bit of political hot air for someone to listen because whether or not there are bullies in Europe, they stabbed us in the back last week and that is quite clear to be seen. Even the dogs in the street know that Ireland has been treated unfairly by Europe when it has come to our fishermen. Once again, the so-called Christmas present from Brussels is a betrayal of our coastal communities.

I was here when Michel Barnier promised Ireland a fair deal during Brexit yet we were thrown under the bus. I pleaded with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste at the time not to let Barnier, a Frenchman, negotiate on behalf of Irish fishermen and he proved himself yet again to have done the same damage to us. The Government of the day signed up saying that a no deal was worse but for our fishing families it could not be worse than this. Ireland is an island nation that is rich in fish yet under the Common Fisheries Policy, we were locked into quotas based on historic catches that left us with scraps while foreign fleets fill their boats in our waters. The Hague preferences were designed to protect us from disproportionate cuts but this year they were lawfully invoked and then blocked by just four member states, which is an utter disgrace. Belgium beam trawlers can take 400 tonnes of sole from our waters while Irish boats get 28 tonnes. English fishermen, after Brexit, get 99% of Irish sea herring while we get 1%. This is theft of the highest order. Our communities are being destroyed while others profit from our resources. Will the Minister of State stand with our fishermen and fight this injustice or will he allow Ireland's fishing fleet to disappear forever?

Some of my questions have already been answered by the Minister of State. On whether Ireland formally invoked the Hague preference, the Minister of State said he did. My next question requires a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. Will this Government appeal this decision to the European Court of Justice?

I thank the Deputy for his very measured response. He has an intimate understanding of the sector. The Deputy and his brother, Danny Collins, who is a councillor, were in Castletownbere at the weekend. That was appreciated by the fishermen with whom I spoke because they like to see people show up and not hide when things are bad rather than only show up when things are good. The Deputy is a regular proponent of the fishing sector and the community he represents.

The Deputy is right in relation to the Barnier situation and I think I have said that here. I certainly have said it on the public record that I think we got a bad deal out of Brexit in many ways, and in other sectors as well. The country that Michel Barnier knows best is France and he certainly did not let it down in the way that we would feel that we were let down but that is history now and, unfortunately, there is nothing I can do to unfurl that. Will I fight for the fisherman for anything-----

Will the Irish Government appeal this decision?

I am going to get to that.

Will we fight for Irish fishermen and fisherwomen? Absolutely, we will do that every day. I am happy to do it and I meet with them.

Will the Irish Government go to the European Court of Justice on this issue?

It is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, so I need to take the Deputy through it. There is no appealing the final decision taken at Council. What I have to look at is whether there is a legal pathway to establish whether or not it was an illegal action or an action that was contrary to the CFP by not putting it on the agenda because if it had been on the agenda, then it would have passed by qualified majority. The Deputy has been around so he knows how this game works at a European level. They have all these mechanisms. So they used what is called "a blocking minority" not to have it on the agenda in the first instance. I had invoked it but they did not put my proposal to the floor. So I have to try to understand whether there is a legal pathway to identify that as being wrong. Would that overturn the decision? I do not think so. Would it give me a better or stronger approach for next year? Absolutely, it would if it were proven to be. Will we get it litigated within the year before the ECJ? I cannot tell the Deputy but I will put it to him as straight as I can because I do not want to give him falsehoods either. I will explore, along with the Attorney General and with access to every legal body I can access, whether there is a legal pathway to ensure I, or whoever happens to the Minister with responsibility, put the Hague preferences before a full Council meeting.

Okay. Will the Minister of State seek EU compensation for the social and economic impact on our coastal communities given that the Common Fisheries Policy has failed to protect Ireland? My concern is that after all these discussions Irish fishermen will have to go on the dole and that is the bottom line here. That is the disaster line here.

To put it in context, that would have happened even if the Hague preferences were accepted. We were in freefall. It is wrong to say it is because of the scientific advice. It is because there are not enough fish in the waters for our communities to fish. I will seek every avenue at a European level to provide whatever financial supports are available but I will also do it at home, and I have no doubt the Deputy will help me in that regard when he gets on his feet across from the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and anyone else who is prepared to listen. The Deputy has never been shy in that regard.

What is the Minister of State's present battle plan? What is going to be there for fishing? What is the compensation package? Is that what we are looking at? Are we looking at another decommissioning deal? If so, then that will completely finish the Irish fishing industry and wipe it out.

I am beginning to advise fishermen in Ireland to register trawlers abroad if they want to fish in Irish waters because they cannot do so if they are Irishmen. That is the sad fact and it is true.

We have to be careful with the facts. A person can register an Irish trawler in another country if he or she can get quota over there. There are some Irish who propose to do that where they are negotiating with somebody who has quota in another European country. I welcome that because that would ensure there was more stocks of fish coming in to be processed in Ireland. So I am very much in favour of that approach. It is a little bit more complex than just putting a French or Spanish flag on the back of the boat. It requires being done in concert or consultation with somebody who have the quota available to them.

The future of Irish fishing and European fishing is in free fall at the minute because of the depleted levels of fish stocks in the waters. Until such time as the approach being taken, at least by European countries, in accepting the scientific advice, we are putting in place conservation measures and any supports that are provided by the European Union or by Ireland involve reduced fishing for conservation. That does require the State, or those who benefit ultimately from the conservation of stocks, to provide a financial support and a framework of support for that. I flagged at the last meeting that I intend to push into the state aid rules. I have the imprimatur of the Taoiseach to do that at Commission level. I will be invoking the assistance of other Ministries domestically in doing that too, to protect the very core of those communities so that when the stocks do recover-----

I thank the Minister of State.

-----I believe they will if we do this right. I will continue to pursue the Hague preferences.

The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the senior Minister-----

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Collins and the Minister of State but we are really tight on time. We have to go to Senator Byrne and then I would like an opportunity to speak as well before we wrap up. I am sorry to rush Deputy Collins.

I thank the Minister of State. In recent days there has been an enormous amount of worry throughout the fishing community. Fishers in Wexford have been in touch with me who are very concerned, not just about the quota changes but in particular about the Hague preferences, which have existed as a safety net for fishers in Ireland for the last 49 years. There is enormous concern about what happened at the Council meeting, the fact that we now can have a situation where European countries can come together and put in place a blocking mechanism. I very much encourage the Minister of State to push forward with the case and to bring it to the European Court of Justice. It is essential. I am enormously concerned that if we are not seen to do that now in an effort to protect the Hague preferences, no matter what the ultimate outcome, they will be lost forever and Ireland's negotiating hand, in conjunction with the scientific advice in the future, will be very much weakened.

There are huge concerns about next year's quota as well, in particular given the countries that have seen an increase in quota, effectively at our expense. I share those concerns. I have been asked to bring directly to the Minister of State the views of fishermen in Wexford that we should go ahead with the case. I appreciate that he cannot commit to it here and now, that he is seeking legal advice and that he is in contact with the Attorney General's office about it, but this is a time when Ireland has to stand up. We must make sure that we keep the mechanism that we have to protect our interests in the Hague preferences. If we do not do it right now, ultimately we will not be in a position to avail of it in the future.

I am aware that a case was taken previously, which confirmed that they did exist. Perhaps that is something that could be explored further by the Department. Will the Minister of State give us an update on when he expects the Attorney General to be in a position to give the Government that advice?

I thank Senator Byrne very much. I know his interest in the matter as he has raised it with me on a number of occasions. One of the issues that was of particular concern to fishermen in the south and east, including in Wexford, were the Hague preferences in relation to sole in boxes F and G. I understand that they are close enough to Wexford, and while I am not particularly good on the geography of the matter, I know that many of them fish for that species in that area. The threshold for the Hague preferences was erroneously understood to be 10 tonnes. It was very low. They challenged that on many occasions but the Commission said it was set at 10 tonnes. The fisherman had always argued that it should have been 194 tonnes. Just recently, the Commission provided that corrected information to the sector. As a result, they asked that I would invoke the Hague preferences for sole in F and G, which I did. I think they were respectful of the fact that we were prepared to challenge for it. There had been efforts by France in particular to try to pick us off. France asked us not to invoke the Hague preferences for this and that, in other words, trying to effectively eliminate our belief in the preferences. They were trying to encourage us to not invoke the Hague preferences except for some small number of species that they had no regard for and they do not even fish but they swap for others.

I was not prepared to do that because, quite frankly, I felt it would undermine my hand if we ever had a chance of establishing the legal provenance of the Hague preferences. I felt that any action I might take in being bought off, effectively, could undermine that. That still maintains. I still believe that the Hague preferences are fundamentally intact as a concept. Whether or not we can get a legal path or even a belief that there is a legal path to fight that is a moot point and one on which we will be working with the Attorney General.

I do not have a timeframe yet. We got back from Brussels on Saturday morning and I was back in Brussels on Sunday night for the energy Council, and I got back again last night. I have to sit down with the team and see how we pursue it. We chatted about it this morning before I got here. What I am trying to do in the first instance is to establish that committee, get it working and get the protections and supports in place for the communities and the fishermen and women. In parallel with that, I will work with our legal people. That is a more medium- to long-term objective. The immediate priority now is to address the people who will not be able to fish for those species that are identified for reduction from early January onwards. I think that covers most of what the Senator wanted.

I have a number of questions. Waterford has a coastline of 147 km. Belgium has a coastline of 67 km. Ireland as a whole under these quotas will have 28 tonnes of sole to catch next year and Belgium will get a quota of 450 tonnes. The Minister of State knows this, as we all do in the committee room. Nobody is surprised but there is a depth of anger, despair and shame out there at the moment about the results of the quota negotiations. It was something like an ambush. I do not envy the Minister of State or his team on a personal level for being out there and dealing with it but, by God it was an ambush.

The 1916 Proclamation says: "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign". It also says Ireland "declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation". The democratic programme says "that the nation's sovereignty extends to all...[the nation's] resources, all the wealth and all the wealth-producing processes within the nation" and that it will be utilised in the interests of the Irish people.

What we have is a massive affront to our sovereignty. It makes no difference that it was willingly ceded decades ago by several generations back of political leaders at the time. It is far too late for recrimination or blame, but it is an affront to our sovereignty. We have injury heaped on injury heaped on injury. As Deputy Mac Lochlainn said, now an insult has been levelled our way. The hurt, shame, anger and despair in the community are very real.

As a member state, are we an equal participant of colleague countries in a union, or are we a colony? What is colonialism? It is the subjugation and control of another people or territory so that the mineral wealth, and productive resources of the territory or people, can be extracted for the benefit of the coloniser. It is very difficult to see anything.

I said in the committee several months ago when we had our first engagement that Ireland is seen as a soft touch, and it has been seen that way historically. We see a massive departure between the values of European Union member states from what we hold dear in Ireland, be that over the Mercosur trade agreement that is being railroaded through, the creeping militarisation and the daily and weekly insults towards our policy of military neutrality, and the flag-waving for genocide that we saw from the European Commission and by some member states that I have called out in the Dáil.

Now we see it again with these quota negotiations. What we have seen is the natural resource that belongs to us and to future generations of Irish people being ceded and privatised in the interests of - if we are being absolutely honest - a corporate monopoly. It is not being ceded and surrendered and given to them by us but by the Governments Belgium, France, Germany, and Poland. We need to get to grips with this. I said it to the Taoiseach as recently as last Thursday, and I said it at our last engagement at this committee, that this needs an all-of-government approach. The ambassadors of those countries should be called in. I am glad that the Minister of State voted against it. That is the one saving grace. They should be called in and hauled over the coals over this. This demands a diplomatic response and, as a country, we need to reassert our sovereignty. There has been talk about legal avenues, and that is important, but we need to take political and diplomatic measures immediately.

I will say this to the Taoiseach and other members of Government in the days ahead but I sending this message to the Minister of State and I hope he communicates it to Government as well. We cannot, as I understand it, withdraw from the CFP but we can certainly stop co-operating with the European Union and the EU member states. I think we need to start asserting ourselves. We need to start asserting our rights.

I have some questions. Regarding the role of the Taoiseach, I strongly suspect that he did not lift a phone. I could be wrong and that remains to be seen but I suspect he did not do much heavy lifting in regard to this despite having marched people to the top of the hill and meeting fishing industry representatives. I am very interested to know what, if anything, the Taoiseach did as Head of Government with other Heads of Government in advance of these negotiations, although "negotiations" is the wrong term for what actually happened. In terms of the working group, what will the Minister of State do to ensure that is it composed of fishermen? Too often these decisions are made and we have seen it over the weekend in Brussels. Too often these decisions are made when they are outside the door. Those are my questions.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for his general view. I know he is intimately interested in this area. He makes the point in relation to the amount of sole that can be caught by fishermen on the east coast versus Belgian ones. Unfortunately, that is a historical fact and it was based I guess - and I not going to try to second guess the decisions taken back then - on where the Irish fishing fleet was versus where the Belgian fishing fleet was. It had a greater history. Quota is often based on the historical dimension of quota, no more than it was in the dairy sector. It was based on historical track record, the reference year and what fishers were catching. Deputy Gallagher gave his view that some countries had overestimated their landings in particular years to get quota. I do not know the provenance of that but it is possible. Then, increases or decreases in quota are on a sliding scale. The relative stability, as it is known, is never changed. It is what one has versus the other and is based on a point in time. The Hagues is the bit that I am most annoyed about. In terms of the value overall, it is not huge but it is important because it is fish rather than money and it is fish that gives processing.

I will just stop you very briefly because this is about money, jobs and economic activity in coastal communities. It also about sovereignty. My earlier contribution boils down to that one word, "sovereignty". It also about conservation. You quite rightly said that there is not enough fish in Irish waters to sustain the fishing effort of EU member states that has gone on in Irish waters heretofore but there is enough fish to keep our fishing industry going. Outside of the technical specifics of it, we need a reset, an about-face and an entire change from the Irish Government and how we relate to our maritime resource and how we engage with the European Union on it. That needs to be assertive and I think we need to tell the European Union that we are no longer going to be a soft touch. That is the crux of our contribution rather than the technical specifics.

I get the Cathaoirleach's point and I get the spirit of what he is saying. It is difficult to address that because much of it is historic and to what extent we can unfurl the CFP from the rest of our relationship with Europe is difficult to ascertain. An evaluation of the CFP has been ongoing for some time and I am pushing for that to move from evaluation stage to revision.

I do not want to come before the committee and indicate that if we get a revision that I can get to change the relative stability because it will be done, I presume, on the basis of a qualified majority, so unless everybody else buys into it, that will not happen. We can certainly make a case, and we will be doing so. We will be fighting that aggressively. I intend to work with the committee-----

I am conscious of your time and Deputy Mac Lochainn wants to come in with a supplementary. Would it be appropriate at this point for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as a diplomatic response, to call in the ambassadors of those countries that blocked the Hague preferences? I want your own opinion as a parliamentarian as much as a Minister of State.

From the countries I visited I had great co-operation and great support from the ambassadors and their teams in making the case. I am happy to engage with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as I have done. On what the Minister decides or dictates, I do not want to tell the Minister what to do. Would it necessarily change anything by bringing the ambassadors in? I am not so sure. I spoke with the Norwegian ambassador last week, with whom we have a cordial relationship on energy and on where we trying to go with offshore energy. However, I made it very clear that I have a problem with their fishing efforts.

I do not mean as part of an engagement post-negotiations; I mean as a formal diplomatic protest and démarche to the ambassadors to communicate to their Governments about their conduct over the weekend. That is what I mean rather than an engagement. I am thinking of it as diplomacy to express to them the dissatisfaction of the Irish Government. That is the message I would like you to take back to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste.

I am happy to take that message back.

There has been a development, which the Minister of State alluded to earlier. We have been provided with details of an agreement between the UK, the Faroe Islands, Norway and Iceland in relation to the north-east Atlantic mackerel fishery. A share has been allocated to each country. In the agreement, they are working off a cut of 48%. That is not aligned to what was agreed at the fisheries Council. My understanding is this is in breach of the trade and co-operation agreement, in that in terms of the UK they must apply an equal approach. Will the Minister of State take legal advice on this? There is a wider issue that the reckless overfishing of mackerel, in my opinion, in most people's opinion and objectively, has been rewarded, not punished. I want to get a sense of the Minister of State's response to this developing story.

Yes, I have just had a look at it. It was announced about 20 or 30 minutes before I came here, so I did not get a chance to go through it in detail but I am deeply concerned about it. I sent a message to the Commissioner once I saw it that I wanted a briefing on it as to what the Commission's response might be. As the Deputy knows, the Commission negotiates with third countries on behalf of member states. Rumours were circulating that this might come to pass. I think it is probably an effort by this bloc of countries to try to a little bit outsmart Europe in that if we set tack in line with what it was in place previously, we would be the one accused of overfishing because they have gotten out ahead. I am conscious too that the TCA comes into play and the UK has signed up to this agreement. My understanding was that if agreement had not been reached by a certain point, they would have been back to accepting the scientific advice as to the cut they would have. I want to hear from the Commission what its plan is. I will certainly take legal advice, if necessary. However, in the first instance, I want to hear the Commission's response and how it intends to address this, considering that the EU had already negotiated with Norway last week and with the UK separately. What has happened here is wrong. It shows no understanding or desire to be co-operative about conservation. This is just fishing out the last tonne of fish. It is predatory and is not in the long-term interest of the sector, either for third countries or for Ireland.

I will happily update the committee as soon as I have more information and will communicate with the committee out of season, over the holidays, if I have more information.

I have been contacted by a range of interests. This has caused absolute outrage within our industry. It is unusual to have so many sources giving the same information.

My phone has been pinging away since I came in.

Yes, I can imagine. I will leave it with the Minister of State but it is a very serious development and I would ask that it be confronted in the strongest way possible.

It will be. I thank the Deputy.

That concludes the business of this meeting. I thank the Minister of State for being with us. He has had a busy few days between the AGRIFISH Council and the energy meetings that he was attending as well. We will continue this conversation, as I said earlier, because there is a huge amount of concern, anger and disappointment which has been augmented and extended by the news that reached us before this meeting and which Deputy Mac Lochlainn has just referenced. We will surely be back to talk about this again and would welcome briefings from the Minister of State as things become clearer over the next couple of days.

As there are no other matters for discussion, we will adjourn until 13 January 2026. Go raibh míle maith agaibh agus Nollaig shona.