Cuirim fáilte mhór roimh gach éinne agus rompu siúd atá ag féachaint isteach orainn ar an teilifís. I welcome the witnesses, our members and those watching the business of this committee.

Before we begin, I want to bring to witnesses' attention a note on privilege. Those who have given evidence before will be aware of this but I will read it into the record, nonetheless. 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 the Chair's discretion. 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 these proceedings.

I remind members 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 do not think any member is participating via Microsoft Teams, but if any member is doing so, I ask that prior to making their contribution they confirm to me that they are on the grounds of Leinster House. 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. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The agenda for today's meeting is the proposal for an inshore fisheries income stabilisation and climate compensation scheme. We are joined by the following representatives of the National Inshore Fishermans Association: Mr. Michael Desmond, cathaoirleach; Mr. John Menarry, vice-chairman; Mr. Eamon Dixon, director; and Mr. Gus O'Donovan, director. I thank the National Inshore Fisherman's Association for participation in this meeting and for putting together a comprehensive proposal on this item. I will give Mr. Desmond five minutes to make an opening statement to go through that proposal and then we will open up to questions and answers with members here. There are clocks around and everyone should keep an eye on those. Members will have ten minutes to put questions and get answers, and we will go around the houses like that.

I ask Mr. Desmond to give his five-minute presentation.

I thank the Chairperson and members of the committee for inviting the National Inshore Fishermans Association here today to speak on behalf of our members.

The document before the committee did not come from consultants, economists or policy advisers. It came from meetings around harbours, kitchen tables and wheelhouses all around the coast, where fishermen sat down together over the past two years and asked a very simple question: how do we survive the next five years? For the first time in living memory, the problem facing the inshore sector is not a bad season, a bad market or a single regulation. It is the combination of everything at once and it has pushed the sector to the brink.

I will outline how this proposal was developed. Over the last number of years fishermen have experienced: continual quota losses from annual negotiations; major increases in operating costs on fuel, bait, insurance and maintenance; spatial squeeze because of offshore renewable energy projects; severe price volatility; a drastic reduction in safe fishing days; and most importantly a huge increase in imported inferior-quality shellfish from South America and Asia that we cannot compete with on price. Fishermen were telling us the same thing in every harbour - that they are not going broke in one year, but are slowly being squeezed out.

The proposal before the committee today is the result of designing something practical, not theoretical, that reflects real fishing life. We looked at agriculture supports, artists' supports, weather loss in farming and climate adaptation policy, and we asked why a primary food producer at sea has no income stabilisation mechanism whatsoever. That is how the basic income stabilisation payment and climate compensation model was developed, not as a subsidy, but as a stabiliser to stop collapse.

I will now outline the current reality in the inshore sector. Right now, the economics of inshore fishing no longer add up. A skipper can invest €200,000 to €400,000 in a small boat, licence and gear, work full- time, land high-quality food, and still earn less than minimum wage in a one year. In many cases crews are leaving not because they want to, but because they cannot plan a family life around an income that can disappear for months due to weather alone.

We are now regularly losing 80 to 100 fishing days per year to climate-driven conditions. At the same time: bait prices are becoming unsustainable; small boats cannot diversify due to closed fisheries; young people cannot secure loans because income is unpredictable; and older fishermen are exiting early with no replacement generation. This is no longer a profitability issue; it is now a continuity issue. Once an inshore fleet disappears, it will not be rebuilt.

This sector is not just about fishermen. Every single inshore fishing job supports multiple onshore jobs in transport, processing, marine services and local businesses. If the inshore fleet contracts significantly, coastal towns will not feel a slowdown; they will feel a structural economic loss. Unlike in many industries, these jobs cannot relocate.

We are not asking the State to make fishermen wealthy. We are asking the State to recognise that a climate-exposed primary food sector cannot operate with zero income stability while every comparable sector has support mechanisms in place for them. This proposal is a stabilisation framework designed to: keep fishermen fishing, keep coastal communities functioning and keep domestic food production alive because without intervention now, the decline of the inshore fleet will not be sudden, but it will be permanent.

We will now move to members' questions and answers. I am going to slip out for a short period because I have another matter to attend to. I will ask Senator Boyle to assume the Chair in my absence.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and also for turning up last week in the audiovisual room. It was great to see them there. As Mr. Desmond said, this document was prepared at kitchen tables and going around speaking to fishermen. It is 100% accurate. I cannot pick any holes in what is proposed. It is totally accurate. It is coming from people working at the coalface who know what is going on now, and they need help.

Some people have contacted me already about the bait crisis. They told me they were getting boxes of bait for €8 last year and it has gone up to €20 already, and will go higher. That is something we really need to look at. If they cannot get the bait, they will not get it into the pots. Fuel is another big one. A man told me over the weekend that insurance costs are now going up and that is a really big one. I know this is a good proposal, but we need to be a bit stronger on them because they have changed over the last couple of months.

We really need to push these figures. The witnesses are the people who are out on the boats. They know what it takes per day. People told me that they ran their boats for maybe €100 a day between fuel and bait, but that cost is now sky-high. Insurance is another big problem and crewing is a problem too. Young people do not want to go out. I know a man around our area who took out a young fellow last week. He worked one day. When they came back into the pier, the young man told the man not to bother calling him the following morning. I know how things are working against fishermen.

The National Inshore Fisherman's Association's document is good, but we need to add a wee bit more. Coastal communities are suffering. We have lost enough without losing inshore fishermen. Will the witnesses come back to me on those couple of points? I know fishermen are looking in today and they are all talking about bait prices, fuel and insurance. The witnesses are the people who are out there, and I want to get their views on these issues.

I totally take what the Senator says about the price of bait. We estimated that figure at the back end of last year. It is only now that pelagic fish is being landed because it is mostly pelagic fish that we use for bait. It was very hard. If you take the price of the mackerel that is being landed in Killybegs at the minute, I think it is somewhere around €4,000 a tonne. Herring is €500 or €600 or possibly even higher. That is when it is landed. When it is processed and comes back to us it will be more. Last year, we paid something around €20 for a 20 kg carton. This year that is probably going to be up around €30, for sure. I asked one of the guys who supplies bait to me about it the other day. He said that he will do his best to get some to us at €30 a carton, but that it will probably go higher as there is only a certain amount available. He added that once the bit he has stored is used, he cannot guarantee that he will even be able get us bait. We only had a shot at it in the document at that time, but the Senator is right in what he says. The price is going up all the time. It is very hard to predict if it will even be available to us later in the year.

From the point of view of an inshore fisherman with a small boat, diesel has held its own the last year or two. It has been up and down slightly. Diesel was always our highest running cost in the past, but bait is now starting to pass that out. Bait is becoming our highest running cost. That is from a pot fisherman's point of view.

Fishermen really need good mackerel for the crabs and stuff. I talked to other fishermen who tried different species of fish and it does not work.

It probably does not. You need a mixture, for sure. You have to have some pelagic, either mackerel, herring or scad. Some blue whiting gets used for some pot fisheries as well, but not that much. A little bit more is coming into it over the past couple of years, but even that is hard to access and we know that it is increasing in price as well. For us, it is very hard to estimate the exact cost of the bait, but the Senator is dead right that it has only increased and will continue to increase. That is because of the scarcity of it. The quota cuts can be directly related back to what happened in Brussels in December. There is no other way around that.

I also had a discussion at the weekend about the price of salt. Fishermen are trying to buy bait that they will then salt, but the price of salt has gone up too.

You could also take into consideration the price of bait storage. We never had to do this in the past, but we will definitely have to look at it now. As members will know, not every guy has his own cold storage at home, but the cost of renting cold storage has to be taken into consideration when some bait is available. That is also an added cost to our expenses at the end of the day.

How do the witnesses see the crewing issue being resolved? From what I hear, it is now down to a one-man job. A fisherman has to do it himself because he cannot get crew. I know that young fella who went out on a boat on Saturday. He came into the pier at six o'clock that evening and told the man who owns the boat not to bother calling him again.

That is another very important point. We raised it the other day when we were at the brown crab working group, which was the first meeting of that consultative committee. It is my personal point of view that we definitely need to do something.

If you look at all of the other industries, there is some way of bringing young people into them. There are apprenticeships and all of that type of thing. There is an incentive for them to get started and to get into it. We in the fishing industry need to put our heads together, with the Government, to look for some way of bringing young people into this industry. We are trying very hard to make it profitable. We are doing our best to do that, but we then need to look at who we are making it profitable for. That is why we need to start talking young people on board.

If we look back at the fisheries college in Greencastle 20 years ago, there were probably 20 or 30 guys in each class. That has died away. If someone goes in to become an apprentice carpenter or plumber in the morning, there is money available while they are doing that apprenticeship. If that was the case for fishing, we would be able to ask young lads to consider it. They would get €200 or whatever a week while they are doing their apprenticeship. When they go aboard a vessel, which is where they get their real experience, they would also get a part of the crew share while they are aboard as well. Something like that has to be looked at.

You have to look at the importance of inshore fishing, or any fishing, to their communities. As the Senator said, we live in rural communities all around the country. There is not a whole lot of other employment in those rural communities. They are strategically located, and it is an indigenous sector that we are in. If we disappear, there will be nobody there. Who will train the next generation? It is a critical time, and the Senator is dead right that something should be done to bring young people into the industry.

I see insurance costs rising, even in my own business. Inshore fishermen have top-of-the-range equipment. Everything is on the boat. This is what really maddens me. A fisherman has to get his boat surveyed and it costs so much. He has to wait for maybe three or four weeks for a man to come from Galway or somewhere else. I do not know of many accidents that have happened on inshore fishermen's boats. Why is the price of insurance going up? Is it because the insurance firms now class it as one man out in a boat now and they see it as very dangerous? Inshore fishermen's safety records are good.

Is the Senator talking about insurance alone? The way insurance is calculated for fishing vessels is slightly different from the way it is for cars and stuff. It seems to be right across the fishing divide that the insurance is based on. In my case, I have been trying to get the price of my insurance down for a number of years and I just cannot. It is going up all the time. You are not allowed a no-claims discount or anything like that because of the way it is based. It just keeps pushing up and up. It is a huge cost, and you cannot go without insurance either.

We have been told we have not been affected by Brexit. One of the big impacts of Brexit has been the loss of options in the insurance market for fishing vessels. I think there are now only two companies that will quote, which is the main reason insurance has gone up. It is because of the lack of competition. There is another big issue we have with insurance for fishing vessels, and I think it is something that a lot of people do not know about. When people's houses go up in value, they have to insure it for the new value. The replacement cost of my boat has probably doubled since I bought it due to a number of factors, but I can only insure that boat for what I paid for it. If I lose my boat, I get what I paid for it, but I cannot afford to replace it.

What happens if a fisherman adds something extra to his boat?

If you add extra to it, it can only be based on the purchase cost, whereas with every other insurance it is different. If the value of your house goes up and you do not insure it for the full value, the insurer will cut you.

I get Mr. Menarry's point.

I have one of the smallest boats in the fleet, but the insurance is still a mental price, so I did not insure her. She sank at the pier last Monday due to bad weather. It was phenomenally bad for half an hour. I have been tying up at the same pier for 20 years. My business effectively went underwater.

If I had a shop in Enniscorthy, Mitchelstown or any place that flooded, I would be entitled to compensation straight away from the State, but because I am an inshore fisherman I am not entitled to anything whatsoever out of it. I could not afford the insurance because of not being out since Christmas due to bad weather and, as I did not insure her, I suffered. That is why the financial part of our document is so important to us. We are caught no matter what way we go. If we got that financial support, it would help us to pay for the insurance. Until something is done about the actual price gouging by insurance companies, we need the money to be able to pay them, which we cannot do now because of the bad weather during the wintertime.

I am sorry to hear about Mr. Desmond's boat. I really am.

Senator Boyle did not get long in the hot seat. I thank the witnesses very much for coming in today. This is a very welcome proposal. I know this is their first pitch and it is important they emphasised at the outset that this was not the work of some consultants or advisers. This came from rooted conversations at kitchen tables, piers and harbours around the country. For many years, I have looked at the situation of farmers, for example, who have the single farm payment, so they have been subsidised for many years under the Common Agricultural Policy. When I talked to fishermen, the response always was, understandably, that they just wanted to fish and did not want any financial supports. I always admired that but we are now at a point where the State does need to intervene.

This is huge stuff. This is about the heritage and tradition of our coastal and fishing communities. I am from the Inishowen Peninsula, as the witnesses know, and I think of all the wee piers and harbours that the inshore fishermen have fished out of, a lot of which are not used any more, sadly. If I work my way down the coast of Donegal, right down the west coast and up to Clogherhead, I think of the communities, the times I drove to some of these remote places all around Ireland, sweeping down into wee piers, and hundreds of years of tradition. That is what we are protecting. I met with some inshore fishermen last year. I will not say where, but I will say it was in the south east and keep it at that. One of them described how he had to fish single-handedly. There just was not any income for anybody else in his family. He was a strong man but he broke into tears because what he was saying just hit him. There was an oarman with him and it was really emotional. That is what has been happening here.

We are now at the point where the State intervenes. The State has to intervene and come up with a sensible financial assistance package that keeps inshore fishermen. These are proud people. I admire the witnesses for coming here today because it would not have been easy to have those conversations. Let us be clear that the proposal to do this scheme is not a replacement for having fish. We need to make sure that inshore fishermen get a fair allocation of the various species of fish and are not just stuck dealing with shellfish all around the coast. That issue is stand-alone and we need to work for that but this is about common sense. It is about having a financial package that keeps people on the water. That makes far more economic sense than pushing people onto the dole.

I have given the example of farmers and the single farm payment. I will also look at the recent example of artists and the basic income scheme. That is a sensible scheme. A new offer will be coming very soon on that. Some of the artists who availed of it told me that it had kept them working. That is what we want. We want to acknowledge that these are people who play a very valuable role beyond economics that goes back, in this case, hundreds of years, which is integral to communities and keeps those piers operational. We all know of some of the piers where there is hardly anybody any more. I am visualising those in my own county, and I will not name them, where realistically there is no fishing activity any more. We want to avoid and prevent that.

I am a very strong supporter. I normally would not speak for so long without asking questions, but I wanted to make that clear. I hope that by the end of this hearing, our committee will write to the Minister for fisheries and the marine to issue strong support for the proposition. Obviously, we need to negotiate the numbers and figures. I know the witnesses are open to that, but the basic proposition is something that we should strongly support. I want to get a sense of the conversation they have had with fishermen. We want to reassure fishermen that we will continue to try to secure the maximum amount of fish. This is about common sense so that they are not, through circumstances beyond their control, trying to keep the wolves away from the door or the banks away, which is a constant battle. This is about giving them that bit of security so they can go out and continue to do what they have always wanted to do and love. Will the witnesses talk about that process? Any one of them should feel free to come in to talk about their own community, what it means to their community and the process they undertook. That is all. I will not come back in again so they can speak as long as they want.

The first point is about the language that is used. Why is it that primary producers are told they are subsidised but artists receive supports? Even the wording is put against us and then the general public thinks farmers are getting free money. This is about supporting rural Ireland and keeping jobs in the communities by subsidising. The inshore sector has been totally stripped of our resilience, probably since before Covid times, between no support during Covid, the Ukraine war, Brexit and all these things.

On the point about bait, fish costs have increased, quotas have been cut, and there are fuel costs for freezing, storing and transporting bait, which all eat away at the resilience of the sector. Mr. Desmond made the point that cuts are being made, including cutting back on insurance. Some people get lucky but, unfortunately, he has not been that lucky. If the resilience is stripped too far down, when things like that happen, people and their businesses are going to be lost. When people hear the word "fisherman", they think of an angler and that there is just one person. There is so much more. We are nothing like that. Even an individual fisherman is a business. For every one job at sea, it is said there are seven ashore. That one person is supporting seven more on shore. It is said that in the south and south west of England, it is 15. That shows how far we are falling behind.

If we get these supports, get back on our feet and improve our businesses, there is potential to double employment in the sector. The inshore sector makes up the largest proportion of the fishing industry in this country, supporting in or around 7,000 jobs. Let us make that 14,000 jobs. If we get fishermen back on their feet, we will not need the supports. We can learn to walk, stand on our own feet again and be twice as good as we were before. The repayment to the country would be tenfold.

The Deputy mentioned rural communities. We have to look at the wider context of rural communities in Ireland as well. Fishermen and fisherwomen are just one part of that community. Those communities are made up of a lot of people. There are shops in the towns, and there are farmers and people working in the tech industry and all of that, but they are all part of that community. They all come into that local town to spend their money, be it in the supermarket, drapery shop or wherever they go. They spend their money there. Inshore fishing people are very much part of that. The boats that are lucky enough to have crew are nearly all locals. They are all from the local community and they all spend their money in that community; it is not leaving it. When we talk about communities around the country, most of the industry seems to be going away to the bigger towns. That seems to be the case in Mayo anyway.

We are and our families are involved in our local communities. I sometimes make a comparison when it comes to people who fish and their families. They participate in their local GAA clubs, for instance. Those families are always involved in something else in the community. Parents help out in the GAA club, the rowing club or whatever. We are an integral part of communities. If we lose this now and if our industry keeps declining, a very important pillar of these communities will be lost. People need to look at this in the context that it is so important. We are not just a small group of people saying, "If we lost inshore fishing from the community, sure what the heck?" If you lose us, you are losing the families we come from and the potential of those families in the future. That is really important.

In our opening statement, we did not include sense of anger among fishermen when we were having these discussions with them. We are not in the situation we are in today by accident. It was a case of cut after cut. Our ports are now ghost towns. At the piers that we work from, it is all holiday homes. In wintertime, there is nothing. A lot of people feel that this has happened by design. There is a vision for offshore renewable energy in our inshore waters. There is a vision for marine protected areas. There is a strategy for Natura 2000 sites. There is a strategy for coastal tourism. Where is the Government's vision for us? Where do we fit into the picture? We are not in it. All the rural TDs are talking about imported beef and a figure of 1%, but 90% of the shellfish in Irish supermarkets, hotels and restaurants come from Mercosur countries, other South American countries and Asia. Thousands of acres of mangrove forests in Asia are being uprooted to make huge fish farms for prawns and shrimp. The stuff is then flown in here, labelled as Irish and placed in packages with a beautiful picture of a bay in west Cork, Dingle or Donegal and a heartwarming story about a family business on the outside. On the back, in tiny writing, it is stated that the produce is from India or Thailand. These products are being flown to Ireland, with a carbon footprint being created, and Timmy Dooley and others are telling us that we must go green. We cannot compete against these products. They are not being imported by accident. If these products are being produced to proper environmental standards and there is not slave labour or whatever else involved, how are they so cheap?

Our shellfish is so good. We have all been funnelled into shellfish because the pelagic quota was taken from us. As a result, we are putting extra pressure on the stocks. The shellfish we catch is wild and healthy. We need to think about the name this stuff gives us on the global market. If people who visit Ireland think they are eating Irish shellfish, they are not. Something needs to be done about that.

That is a fair point. At one of our previous engagements, the point was made that Dublin Airport is one of the biggest fisheries ports in Ireland with the amount of stuff that is being landed there. From there, it is transported onwards to be sold in Irish supermarkets. Food labelling is a huge issue, and we discussed it in our private session earlier when Senator Sarah O'Reilly raised it. This committee will examine that matter. It really frustrates me when I am in a supermarket and I see the Tricolour or - Mr. Desmond is dead right about this - images of Bantry Bay or a beautifully scenic cliffside location on the label, but on the back it states that the product is Vietnam or Thailand.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for putting together their proposal. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, has said that EU rules prevent income support for fishers. Will the witnesses comment on that and provide examples of the visual decline they have seen in their communities. Will they paint a picture for us of what has happened in their local communities over the past 50 years, of how this has affected them and of the decline that has taken place?

It is stated in the briefing document states that one small-scale fisherman creates seven jobs and that 900 fishers create 7,200 jobs. That is what Deputy Mac Lochlainn was talking about when he stated that subsidising fishermen actually subsidises entire communities. That is what we should really be looking at.

I come from a small village near the pier in Ballyglass in County Mayo. When I was growing up, there were 15 houses in the village. Somebody from each house was involved in fishing, whether it was a young lad, a dad or somebody else. Obviously, drift net fishing for salmon has a huge industry for the entire country. It was lucrative in summertime, and people wanted to be involved. Back in those times, we saw the beginning of crab fishing off the Mayo coast. Once the salmon season was over, people went back out with the pots to catch crabs. In every village in rural Mayo up to, maybe, the late nineties, there was a fisherman in seven out of ten houses. I am not making that up; it is a fact.

What would the reduction be in numerical terms, given that we are down to 900 fishers.

It is very hard to put an accurate figure on that. In terms of the village I mentioned, only two or, at a push, three houses have fishermen in them at this time. That means there has been a reduction of between 60% and 70%.

The Senator mentioned financial support for the fishing community not being allowed under EU state aid rules. That situation is hard for us to understand, particularly as a precedent was set over the past few years. Around the time of Brexit, we had what were referred to as "fuel aid payments". These were one-off payments. They were insignificant in the scheme of the increase in expenses, the cuts that we experienced and everything else. At the same time, a precedent was set with those aid schemes. There was one last year. Online surveys were used to try to get a broader picture of the status of things in the fishing sector. Again, there was a one-off payment for that.

If members look through the document, they can see that we are not just looking for handouts. We are quite willing to provide data, different services to the community or whatever may be necessary or of assistance. There has definitely been a precedent has been set over the past couple of years in terms of aid. Two years ago, we had the tie-up scheme for whitefish vessels. The purpose of that was to reduce pressure on particular species. There was no scheme for shellfish vessels because shellfish are a non-quota species. There was no scheme for the inshore sector at all. It is hard to swallow that income supports are not allowed under EU State-aid rules.

It is hard to put a number on the decline that has happened because there would not have been the same registrations and whatnot for fishing vessels to years ago. Many of them would have been currachs and half-deckers, so would not have had licences, numbers or anything like that. In the village I come from, Crosshaven, which is not far from Cork city, over the past 20 years there has, at the very least, been a decline of 60% or 70% in the number of people directly employed on the boats.

It has definitely declined by 60% in the last 15 years on that one small pier. I am not fishing long enough to tell the Senator about 50 years ago, unfortunately.

I am listening to Mr. O'Donovan. It is all losses. There are losses from Brexit, losses in quota and losses through weather. How often would the witnesses have to be tied up or not out at sea? Is that happening more frequently?

Could I come back in on the point made about the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley? We met with EU Commissioner Costas Kadis on 30 January. He stated that if a national country wants to amend the EMFAF to directly support the inshore sector, that can be done. All the Minister has to do is to write to the EU Commissioner and ask for it. There is also the EU social fund, the EU strategy and adaptation to climate change. The purpose of that strategy for adaptation to climate change is to build resilience, improve knowledge and reduce vulnerability. That ticks a lot of the boxes for our document. When Commissioner Costas said that about changing the EMFAF, I thought it could only be done in the sections. I went back at the end of the meeting and asked him directly, and he said it can be done at any time. At the request of the previous fisheries Minister, a register is being developed to increase de minimis aid to €40,000 over a three-year period. There is also that. There are plenty of options there to get finance from if it is wanted. If the will is there, it can be done.

The Senator asked about the days at sea. We would be lucky to get 200 now.

Is that increasing?

No. The weather is getting worse and worse. It is more volatile all the time. If the Senator saw the news a few weeks ago, surfers were coming from all over the world, even from the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn, because the Irish west coast now has the biggest waves in the world in winter time. Where are they? They are up against the coast where we are supposed to fish out of. We cannot get out. That morning, my boat sank last week. I am tying up there for 20 years and I still got caught. I was not expecting it and it was not forecast. It was violent wind for half an hour. It is getting worse and worse. It is well documented through climate change and the number of named storms. Just this week, I would not be able to get out any day if I had a boat. The forecast is just too bad. What people do not realise is it is gale force tonight and tomorrow it is calm - there is no wind - but the swell stays up for days afterward. We are too small to get out. We are lucky to get out half the year now.

Does Mr. Desmond know of any research that the Government has done on the potential job losses and the economic viability of what is happening in the sector? Does he know if any research has been done? Has the Government done any in-depth research about his situation and all these things that are happening, particularly with the losses?

I would say it is the opposite. The Government is telling us that there will be jobs in the offshore renewable energy sector for us and there will be jobs safeguarding MPAs through these different environmental umbrella groups, but as for ourselves, no. I am not aware. Is Mr. Dixon?

I am sure BIM is probably collecting data. I know that it is due to release some results of some data collections that it did last year or the year before fairly soon. We do not have them to hand. That is another thing. We had to use some of the figures in the document from BIM from past data that was there because sometimes it takes a year or two to get relevant data to come through that you can stand over. I think we are due to get some of that fairly soon again now. That will probably state wherever it is believed. A lot of the time, who feeds into that data from the industry needs to be taken into consideration as well.

I would know that in the bay I am from at home there is a 70% to 80% decrease in the number of fishermen there now compared with two decades ago. Last weekend, I was the only boat tied at that pier when the weather came.

On the data, we have a part of a report from BIM. Its accountants, whoever they are, are magicians. Our costs increased and turnover decreased, but our profit increased. As I explained to the Minister of State, how do we go into a task force when we have BIM saying our profits have increased - our turnover has gone down, our costs have gone up, but we need more money? As fishermen, the mistake I must be making in business is that I am making too much and not spending enough. How do you go into a task force with information from the State body saying we are fine and our profit has gone up? I do not know how that works.

I have another comment on that. When you look at it from a financial point of view, a lot of the shellfish we catch, particularly from St. Patrick's Day to October or November, during that time, the price of the product is stagnant because we are more or less on a fixed price from a producer factory, or lobsters are going for live export and stuff. Their price tends to be set at a fixed price for the entire summer period. If you could manage to get them at Christmas time, which is difficult if you live on the west coast, you would probably get a higher price for them at Christmas. One time at Easter, they used to be a higher price as well. That has kind of dropped away, but you would be anxious to get out early to try to get stuff for Easter. That seems to have dropped off. We were probably getting as much for crab 20 years ago. The prices were the same as they are today from those factories. They would probably tell the Senator it is because their market is staying something similar as well, but that is the price we are getting. If the Senator puts that in the context of how our operating costs have grown since then, it is very hard to figure how we are even trying to stay in business at this stage.

On state aid, if the Senator looks back, BIM and the Department will say there is no money, that state aid is not possible and cannot be done. However, there is no longer a fishing sector in Ireland. We are now called the seafood sector. There is all this biotech. If we get an email as representatives to attend a meeting tomorrow, we are not fishing representatives anymore; we are representatives of the Irish seafood sector. These companies that are importing all the fish from the other side of the world are also part of that.

BIM has receivedb€15 million from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund to give to biotech companies. It gave an award before Christmas to a company that is producing feeds which prolong the shelf-life of the food going into the farms in Cambodia, Peru and everywhere else. The people that are supposed to be looking after the Irish seafood industry are the ones who are putting us out of business. We are like sheep being afraid of the wolf and it is the shepherd who eats us after. He takes a bite every day. That is what is happening to us. Why can money not be found for our industry out of the strategic investment fund? These companies are under the Irish seafood sector, but the fish is coming from the other side of the world. It makes no sense.

That is something that we are going to have to examine for sure. I will go to Deputy Whitmore for her ten minutes now.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for doing the report. It is a valuable document to have. The statement from the Minister that there cannot be support for the fishermen does not stack up at all. Even if we are just looking at the very basics of the impact of climate change and biodiversity loss, the whole concept of just transition should apply to the fishermen in the same way it applies to the midlands. When you look at the midlands and when those jobs were at risk, an amount of money was pumped into those areas, and it was correct that it was.

I cannot see why the Government is not doing similar for our coastal villages and inshore. Things are changing. The National Inshore Fisherman's Association knows where I stand on a lot of this. I want a sustainable fishery, which means there may be instances where we need to move away from certain practices. It is important if that happens that fishermen are either supported to move to new practices or paid. A few actions that could be taken were identified so they are still out at sea. I understand if someone has been at sea their entire life and so has their family, it is part of who they are and you cannot ask someone to leave that behind. It is important the Government supports them to move to that more sustainable future.

I find it frustrating to hear that the political will is not there. It is similar to farmers. Farmers produce food and their practices in some instances are not sustainable but they are assisted to move away from them, as they should be. It is the exact same for fishermen. I do not understand why there is not the same focus. It is very difficult to add a value to the cultural, tourism and rural community perspective - I could not see it in the document. When people come to Ireland and go to our coastal villages, they want to see boats and fishermen and have that sense. They perform an important cultural function as well. It is important the Government supports that, even from the perspective of the money, if the EU money is not available. The previous Government set aside €3.5 billion for climate and biodiversity measures. I would much rather see that money set aside to assist fishermen. I think Mr. Desmond spoke about the MPAs and nature restoration. They are not separate from fishermen. It will all have to come in together. In order to make them successful, it will have to involve fishermen. I would much rather see than money spent supporting fishermen, developing marine protected areas or putting in the changes we need in a way that is sustainable from an environmental perspective and a rural economic perspective. I will continue to push for that.

We spoke about Article 17. There are mechanisms within Europe that will enable a focus on the work inshore fishermen do. There absolutely is. Inshore fishermen are continually being squeezed by the bigger players and a lack of political will in more and more difficult situations. There is a range of potential initiatives. Was that to look at the different options that could be taken on board or would they operate at the same time? I think there are seven or eight different elements.

Running concurrently.

They could run concurrently. Mr. Dixon could do one thing in Mayo, I could do another in west Cork and Mr. Menarry could be doing another in Donegal. Different groups could do different things.

It would suit the needs better if there was a choice they could pick and choose.

It is very important to note everyone cannot switch to one thing at one time. It is the ancillary businesses and buyers. You have to maintain your markets. We saw that when we lost access to the Chinese market, which was very valuable. It was great for the shellfish industry. When Covid hit, that was lost and now processors and buyers are struggling to get back into it. Every time you lose access to a market, there is somebody affected. We might be inshore fishermen in the most remote parts of Ireland but we were at a stage where if I could catch a crab today, within 48 hours it would be on the market in China or Hong Kong. We are inshore, local and Irish but we deal with the world stage. There are people everywhere who could be ready to take our market. If you lose those markets, it is very hard to get back into them. Then we have to cut prices to get back in which has knock-on effects.

The Deputy mentioned sustainability and an environmental perspective. From an inshore point of view, we have been developing a hook and line fishery for mackerel for the past ten or more years. We have been working on it really since the salmon ended. Markets were a difficult issue for us for a long time but over the past couple of years we have been able to try to get into markets in a reasonable format. We have been looking for an increase. We have less than 1% - it is probably a bit more now since the quota has dropped so much in the past two or three years. Up until then, we had less than 1% of the national quota for mackerel. At the moment, that fish is not there but in the future when Ireland's overall TAC for mackerel begins to increase again, there needs to be an increase in that hook and line fishery to make it sustainable for the guys involved. It is a unique fishery. A very small percentage of the overall Irish quota will make that a very sustainable fishery for the inshore sector. That needs to be clearly kept in mind when the quotas begin to grow again. They are down low at the moment and there is no room to do it but when extra fish start to become available that must be looked at. It is an absolute given for survival into the future. Some members in the past asked us what we need to do further down the road. Short-term is what we are talking about in a financial aspect but going further down the road there needs to be a future as to where we are going. It does not need to be a long one. Even if it is for the next five to ten years, it needs to be in place. As part of that, when those extra quota shares become available, we need to be allowed grow it then, particularly mackerel, which is crucial for the inshore sector.

The outlook for fishermen it is similar to that for farming - it is the lack of certainty. It seems like a lot of the programmes brought in provide a fund now but they do not know what will happen in two or three years and what will be available. It has to have longevity.

If you are investing to get into any of those fisheries, even if you have a vessel and you are not buying the licence, to buy gear it is €20,000 or €30,000 of an investment. That is a huge investment for an inshore guy at the moment with how scarce money is. If there was something to offer an equal opportunity for the next ten years, that guy will make that investment and take a chance on it. We need that. It is only setting a path so you know you will be sustainable for that period and hopefully profitable as well.

If that hook and line mackerel fishery currently has 1%, what percentage is needed? It is a doubling? What would make a difference? 1% is far too small. Any increase would have a much greater impact for inshore fisheries than elsewhere.

In the past, we operated on just 1%. In the two Covid years and I think a year after, the quota for some reason was not enforced upon us. In those two to three years, we landed roughly between 1,200 to 1,500 tonnes in the inshore sector from the hook and line. There is potential for more vessels to be involved. We have always said we want somewhere between 5% and 10% of the national quota to make it a viable fishery. The other guys have to survive as well. We are not here to put anybody out of business but every year come September or October, if there are excess quota still left in that fishery it can be pushed back into the main fishery to allow the larger vessels or it can be used for swaps before the end of the year. No fish is lost out of the system when you do that.

I think Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned basic income for artists, which is a good and really important scheme, but I see fishermen as being as culturally important to Ireland as the artistic, creative side of things. There should be political will.

We will do what we can from here for the witnesses as well.

It is all very well to talk about a task force and everything else, but we were working on this document long before the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, announced there was going to be a task force. We cannot stress enough how we need this money immediately. We are holding on with our fingernails. The very first time we met the Minister of State, 12 months ago now, we told him we needed financial help. Here we are now, 12 months later, and there is going to be a task force. We all know how task forces go. There are preliminary actions and so on. Our members have had mortgages sold to vulture funds. If, because of the volatility of our incomes owing to Covid and Brexit, we phone Ireland's leading vulture fund, we will be given options 1, 2 and 3. Option 1 is coastal residential. I am referring to our homes. People have no idea how bad it is for the smaller players in the industry. The county sheriff has sent bailiffs to some of our members’ houses to take their possessions because they could not pay the taxes. The reason they could not pay Revenue was that they had to use the money they had for it for survival during the bad weather in the wintertime. It is an endless cycle.

We need this committee to impress upon the Minister of State that support is needed immediately, especially after Christmas, given what is entailed for families. We need the support now. We cannot see how money can be pulled out of ISIF for all the large companies that are importing fish from the southern hemisphere or promoting it but cannot be found immediately for us. There is no reason this cannot be addressed immediately.

In my lifetime, I have experience of two task forces. One was for the salmon fishery and one was for Brexit adjustment reserve, BAR, funding. We lost the salmon fishery through the first one. Through the second, we did not get one single solitary penny of funding. The €200 million was given back to Europe rather than giving it to us. Therefore, our faith in task forces is not great.

That is very legitimate.

To be fair to everybody, we are going to move to the next speakers. We have three speakers and 30 minutes. Any answer not yet given might be relevant to one of the next questions, so there will be opportunities. We will proceed to Deputy Michael Cahill.

I welcome the representatives of the inshore fishermen. The industry, as we are all aware, is facing very stark challenges. To be honest, it is a very sad day when we are talking about financial supports. I support the case being made, obviously, but it is a sad day that it has come to this. The bottom line is that fishermen want to fish.

We have seen savage cuts to quotas over a number of years, including quite recently. The industry is facing huge challenges and fishing communities, fishermen and fisherwomen are on the very fringe of extinction. That is how serious this matter is.

I welcomed the documents submitted and the presentation. A proper plan has to be put in place sooner rather than later. I listened to what was said about the need for the Minister of State to act now, before it is too late. We need to try to reverse the quota cuts if possible. I am not sure it is. We are surrounded by some of the best fishing waters in the world, yet here we are talking about an industry on its knees.

We are paying a very high price for overfishing by foreign trawlers. We are repeating a lot of what has been said at pretty much every single meeting of this committee since I became a member not too long ago. Deputy Whitmore referred to the culture. Fishing is one of the oldest industries in our country, yet it is on the verge of disappearing. I know many people involved and many who have gone out of the business. There are no young people getting involved, and the reason is as obvious as night follows day. As a committee, we need to do everything possible to support the inshore fishing industry.

I have a couple of questions. I will ask them before we proceed to Deputy Paul Lawless.

I grew up in Gaeltacht na nDéise in west Waterford. I remember my dad fishing out of Heilbhic when I was young. I remember going down the pier. It was a hive of activity and a very exciting place to be as a youngster. There were boats coming and going, people with vans strapping things down or collecting fish, and nets being mended. There was plenty of work for young lads who were enterprising and did not mind getting involved in mending nets, cleaning out boats or lifting things. When I go to Heilbhic now – I do not live very far away – it is empty. There are a couple of boats but not much activity. Boats are tied up as much as they are out, if not more. The vans are passing not nearly as frequently as they used to. There is much less fishing activity. At other small harbours along the Waterford coast, including Passage East, the inshore part of Dunmore East, Boatstrand, and the area down to Ardmore, Ticknock and Baile na nGall, there is little or no activity. On the road up to Dublin this morning, I reflected on how this epitomises what has happened: the slow, steady, designed decline of the fishing industry broadly, but particularly the inshore sector. Mr. Desmond said the industry was holding on by its fingernails a year ago. There is very little left to hold on to and very little fingernail left. It occurs to me that we are about to see the end of the inshore fishing way of life and industry unless something dramatic and drastic happens immediately. That has to be the clear message from this committee.

Young people, my neighbours, and friends I went to school with have no notion of fishing. They could go fishing in the morning but they have no notion of doing so because they do not see a future in it or a way to have a livelihood.

A couple of speakers have already mentioned the cultural and heritage aspects. I live in the Gaeltacht and am raising a family there through Irish. If the Gaeltacht is allowed to fade out, it will not come back. The living language community there has always been there and it was not manufactured. If the Irish fishing industry is allowed to die, that will be the end of it. If the inshore fishermen go, they will not come back. No matter how many schemes there are, no matter who is in government and no matter what we might like to do from these benches, we will not be able to recreate it. It has always been there.

The delegates' document is very comprehensive and refers to the multiplier effect of inshore fishing in local economies, but it does much more than that. It sets out the emergency that exists and what has to happen now. The document uses the word “support”. Mr. Desmond implied really aptly that for other sectors the word "support" is used, but that for the fishing sector "subsidy" is used. This issue is about keeping a way of life and keeping our coastal communities alive. I keep asking myself whether the Government wants to surrender our coastline, whether it wants to surrender our coastal communities and whether it is giving up on Irish fishing. By any metric, the answer to these three questions is that successive governments have demonstrated through policy positions that they emphatically do want to surrender our coastline and coastal communities and give up on our fishing industry. We need to take a stand here. The delegates, having been here, will appreciate that we are limited in what we can do, but our job on this committee is to hold the Government to account, point to policy positions and point out wrongdoing and shortcomings on the part of the Government, including the Minister. That is what we are going to do. The delegates' document sets out the conversation very strongly. What I have said is more of a statement than a question but I will give a chance to respond. Mr. Menarry has his hand up. When he has concluded, we will hear from Mr. Desmond.

Reference was made to the question of whether we are being squeezed out by design.

When the quota cuts came in and the pollock was closed on 1 January, the inshore sector was stopped and could not fish. We talk about other fisheries in this document. The bass stocks, for example, are healthy; the science says they are healthy. There is provision to prosecute a fishery for bass with a small out-take that would not affect the stocks; the stocks would still grow. Yet we cannot do it. There are so many roadblocks put in our way but, when it is going the other way, it can be done overnight with the stroke of a pen and you can be stopped. We cannot get access to these.

Another point I would like to make is that we all hear about the supply chain and the food chain. There is something systematically wrong for all primary producers in this country when it is easier to make a living off the back of a primary producer than it is as a primary producer. I said it here before. We are told we are all links in the chain but the primary producers are the anchors that hold those chains in place. If you lose those anchors, your chain is gone.

The first link in the chain, to borrow Mr. Menarry's metaphor, is what creates the wealth. Everything else is a multiplier of that wealth. The way Mr. Menarry has put it is the message that the Government just does not seem to get, but we have a duty to make it listen.

When the cost goes up for the other suppliers in the chain, we have to take less.

The Chair is 100% correct. The two most important words that have been used are "by design". This is not happening by accident. Every single policy change in the fishing industry for the last 20 years was to benefit the minority at the cost of the majority. The only thing that was ever shared fairly among fishermen in Ireland was the criminal justice Bill, when we were all treated as criminals. That was the only thing.

The Chair also made a brilliant point after the December Council when he asked if we are a sovereign nation or a colony. We seem to be a colony of the EU now. We think we are a colony within a colony because of what has been done to us with the taking of all these fisheries. Everyone knows the damage that seals are doing to the fish stocks around our coast but no one is going to take it on. We are allowed go fox hunting, badger culling, deer culling and everything. If salmon fishing was reopened and we took a portion of what the seals are taking, the stocks would improve but no one is willing to tackle it, presumably because it would cost votes. Yet, minks, badgers, foxes and everything else can be culled and none of them are doing the same level of damage to the wildlife. The seal does not have a predator so its prey will become extinct. We can fish for salmon, bass and trout and not take half of what they are taking if the numbers were brought under control.

Did Mr. Dixon want to come in? He was going to make a point earlier.

I was almost alone as the dedicated inshore representative, from right across the entire inshore industry in this country, on the last task force. That was probably a lot of responsibility for one guy. The National Inshore Fishermen's Association, NIFA, was just coming into producer organisation status at the time. It was not allowed to sit on that task force, which was unfortunate as well. I know Mr. Desmond is saying we definitely need to get this document recommended but next time, in this task force, we need to get equal representation. We are not looking for majority representation or anything but we need to get equal representation in that room. The inshore fisheries forums are a very unique way of providing that representation because those guys are elected onto their regional inshore fisheries forums from all around the country anyway. Local fishermen select them, etc., so they are well capable of representing. Each one of them would represent somewhere in the vicinity of 300 vessels or so. They need to be part of task force.

We just need to have a balanced view inside. I know there is an independent chairman but there needs to be a balance inside that should stretch across all of the committees at Government level in this country when it comes to the fishing industry. Certainly, on the task force this time around, we need to have an equal voice in the room. That was not the case the last time. As Mr. Desmond said earlier, €200 million ended up going back to the EU at the end of it, which was disgraceful, to be honest.

I thank Mr. Dixon. We might go to our last two speakers. I know Mr. O'Donovan wants to respond to those questions but I am sure there will be an opportunity. Due to time, we will take seven and a half minutes each, and I will go to Deputy Lawless and then Deputy Conway-Walsh.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on this committee. I welcome the witnesses to today's meeting. I thank them for their work on the audiovisual room briefing and for what they are doing. They are not just fighting for their sector but also for coastal communities, which is so fundamentally important. Everything the witnesses have outlined here today is testament to that. I am here today to urge my support in relation to it. I commend the report the witnesses have done and their opening statements. I recommend and endorse to the Minister that we should address what is happening.

I believe the Government has surrendered coastal communities and the fishing sector. It started most significantly with Brexit. It was continued with the Hague preferences. It is clear that unless something happens and we ensure there is a fair compensation scheme to get us over these quota cuts, we may not have an inshore fishing sector in the future.

I was very struck by the seafood survey and the fact that NIFA was asked to outline its bank accounts, etc. Meanwhile, there are massive landholders in the country who receive Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, payments and do not have to outline their bank accounts. That is wrong. I believe that, through the Chair, this committee should outline to the Minister at the next available opportunity that this practice must end.

In relation to the state aid rules, it is the direction of Europe that member states will have a greater flexibility in regard to the next CAP. The multiannual financial framework is now being worked on for the next CAP and this committee must stress, in a very important way, that flexibility must be exercised in regard to protecting fishermen. The witnesses have been sidelined for far too long. I ask the committee to raise this with the Minister at the next opportunity and ensure fishermen benefit from the flexibility that is going to come in with the next CAP.

Fair representation for the inshore fishing sector on the task force must happen. Until that happens, there should basically be no agreement in relation to the task force. A task force that does not provide fair representation for 90% of fleets or vessels in the country, and the sector that supports 65% of employment in the fishing sector, must be changed so that there is fair and equal representation on it. That must be a red-line issue for the committee and the task force.

I want to say very clearly that food labelling must be addressed. I am on the agriculture and food committee. It is a key priority for me. In Aontú, we intend to bring forward a Bill in Leinster House to ensure food labelling is tightened and the origin of food is labelled very clearly. It is absolutely wrong that Dublin Airport and our airports have become the biggest ports in this country. That is a shame on all of us and in regard to food regulation and labelling. I extend the invite to the fishermen and look forward to working with them on bringing in regulation. It is our intention in Aontú to bring forward legislation. We will be working very closely on it as a priority with the food committee. I ask this committee to work on it as well.

In relation to hook and line and the missed opportunities in regard to shellfish processing - this may be for Mr. Dixon - Ballyglass Harbour is the only realistic deep-water harbour with these capabilities in regard to inshore activity. Can Mr. Dixon outline the loss, in terms of economic leakage, of not having a processing facility in north Mayo and Erris? What does that mean in terms of economic loss to the region and in regard to the hook and line mackerel?

Could Mr. Dixon explain that in more detail? What would he like the committee do or raise with the Minister at the next opportunity? I would also appreciate any other comments or feedback on that.

To put the hook-and-line fishery into context first, we have spoken about it a little bit. From now on, when we go back to stock, particularly with the mackerel stock quota allocation to Ireland increasing again in the next couple of years, which it will, please God, we will need to take into consideration that hook-and-line fishery is an integral part of that quota. The allocation being given to us needs to increase as those years go on. When increases begin to happen in the Irish TAC, hook-and-line fishery needs to increase with it. There is no doubt about that.

Ballyglass is just a typical inshore fishing port We have a reasonable pier with access for inshore vessels all of the time. Larger vessels sometimes struggle to get in there, as they need the tide to be high. For a lot of years we have tried to improve the facility there. Before the Deputy's time, we spent close to €100,000 altogether down there doing feasibility studies and everything else, trying to get that pier increased to meet the volume of stuff that could actually come in there. As it stands, we are still probably one of the most progressive small ports in the country. There is huge potential. When the hook-and-line fishery is on, anybody from here can drive to Mayo and have a look at what happens there. That could be any pier. It could be a pier in Kerry, Cork or over in Waterford. Where the major fishery harbours are, we all know there is a lot of activity. Sometimes it is only for a short period of the year. I have been going to Killybegs all my life and I have been fishing for over 40 years now. The activity has dropped off there at certain times of the year as well. It is very quiet in summer time. There is only a handful of small boats still trying to continue fishing all year around there. We fall down when it comes to the funding of harbours that are not part of the Department's remit. We fall into local government and it is very hard. First we need to do all the studies and stuff, then we need to have all the other relevant Government agency stuff, like a licence to start at all. It is hard and sometimes takes time to get those. They are important. It is all part of a longer plan to make us sustainable and more viable. They definitely need to be looked at at Government level.

I do not know if I answered the Deputy's question there or left out part of what he needed to know. We can definitely push on the sustainability ourselves and we are all the time trying to improve on that. We are very respectful of the processing plants that are in the country. They take our product all the time. There is an opportunity for somebody to come and build a processing plant somewhere in north Mayo.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for letting me in. I am not a member of this committee but I was particularly keen to attend today because the inshore fishermen were here. I want to address the issue with the task force first. It is in indication of how the Minister and the Government are going to treat inshore fishing. Inshore fishing is vitally important for communities like my own and the other coastal communities in Mayo and beyond. For the inshore fisheries, there are six fisheries forums involved here. Have the witnesses had an indication from the Minister that each of those six forums will have a voice on the task force?

Not to date. We have written to the Minister to request it. We have not had any real, direct contact with the task force or with the chair of the task force. We have been unable to get an email address for that guy over the past couple of weeks. We have prepared a lot of documents. We are sending them to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and we are hoping they will be passed on but we have had no direct consultation with either the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, in the past couple of weeks, or with the new chair of the task force, Michael Berkery.

Mr. Dixon is hoping the Department will pass the documents over. That is the best he can do. It just seems like the inshore fishermen and fishing families are being blocked out of the decision-making. If terms of reference are set up and they are not fair or equitable from the beginning, are we going to end up in the same situation again when there is not a proper voice for us? When I say us, I mean all the coastal communities that are representatives by NIFA

Mr. Desmond mentioned it earlier. Any inshore person around the country would say their prediction for the task force is not good. In the past we have not done very well when it has come to task forces. As I said earlier, I was the only dedicated inshore representative on the previous task force and we saw what happened at the end of that. Maybe that was all my fault, but we tried. During that task force, I convened many meetings outside of it and tried to put forward a lot of good initiatives to get more funding for the inshore sector. Mr. Desmond was involved and Alex Crowley was the chair of NIFA at the time so he was as well. We put them forward but every single time, we were told they would not work for X, Y and Z reasons. Then it always came down to the consensus in the room, which was led by another group and we were never considered when it came to that. That cannot be the case going forward.

One thing about the inshore fisheries is that there is a solution presented for every problem. If there is just one person there and there is a weighting on that task force, obviously it is going to be weighted in another direction. This just has to stop. It is critical. This is why we have the likes of €200 million being sent back. In areas like Belmullet, County Mayo and other coastal counties, we are absolutely desperate for every penny we can get for our natural resources. It just is not right.

I apologise if this has been suggested, but we need to write to the Minister to clarify that all the submissions that NIFA has made, albeit they cannot get the contact details for the chair, which is a bit absurd as well, are being taken on board and that there will be the proper equity in terms of representation. In the absence of the details of the chair, we should be able to ensure that the terms of reference are okay.

On the quota, it seems that there are attempts to privatise the quota here in the way it is done.

It is basically already privatised. Quotas have been privatised in everything but name. If you have policies that restrict access to those quotas, dictate how those quotas are distributed-----

What I want to ask is what opportunities we have. Mr. Dixon and I come from a community where we have had our biggest natural resource given away in our oil and gas. What opportunities do we have to pull back, level the playing field and ensure there is not creeping privatisation on the quota?

Pelagic quotas in everything but legislation have been privatised by ministerial policy. Ministerial policy in this country dictates how any quotas are distributed. It is up to the Minister of the day to choose to change that policy. I brought this up with the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley previously and one of his AOs or POs jumped in and said we have one of the fairest distributions of whitefish quota probably in Europe. That is fine. It is great that we are getting access to Rockall cod and haddock and Porcupine Bank prawns every month. That is wonderful. However, then we have herring, traditionally an inshore fishery for hundreds of vessels around the coast, and we hear talk of track record being used for access to fishing.

The inshore sector does not have a track record. We have historical records and we have books written about the inshore sector's development of these fisheries, yet ministerial policy restricts our access to these quotas.

I completely agree with what Mr. Menarry is saying but in a recent NIFA meeting I asked the Department directly. I was part of a discussion and I asked whether Irish fishing quota was still a national resource. It clearly states in the minutes that they believe it still is, so it is time to do something. A big mistake that was made in the previous task force was as, Mr. Menarry mentioned, the distribution of Irish whitefish quota. For every tonne of whitefish quota distributed to the industry, a vessel of over 55 m gets 1 tonne and a vessel under 55 m gets a half a tonne, no matter what. That is the way it is being distributed at the moment and that is for the month or whatever is ahead. It is distributed on a monthly basis. Following the previous task force. the majority of the inshore sector was completely excluded from that. We have a right to that quota because we all hold polyvalent licences, which is very important. It gives us the right to apply for a licence each year to use that to go fishing. However, when it came to financial aid under that task force, our right to that whitefish quota in particular was completely ignored.

On that point, in the Brexit task force the pelagic vessels got what was called a liquidity scheme. Liquidity is the cashing in of an asset, so to say whether they are private or not does not make sense. How can you cash in something that does not belong to you?

Unfortunately, we are bound by time in this room as another committee will need it shortly. That brings us to the end of this meeting. Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as a bheith inár dteannta inniu, as an gcáipéis a chur faoinár mbráid agus as ár gceisteanna a fhreagairt. I want to thank our four witnesses NIFA for preparing that document, for circulating it to us and for discussing it here at the committee. The committee will meet in private session next week and we will be sure to discuss exactly what steps we will take out of this, particularly in relation to Deputy Conway-Walsh's suggestion and the issue she raised about the task force. I will engage with the Minister directly on that today because that does not strike me as good enough or good practice, so we will try to get to the bottom of that, but the witnesses have given us a huge amount of food for thought. They have used this forum to articulate the urgent situation the industry is facing. We were aware of that but it is good to hear it and we will certainly be discussing how best we can engage and how best we can advocate. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.