Inland and Marine Fisheries: Statements
Seanad Éireann — 2026-02-04
============================================================

Timmy Dooley (FF), Clare

As I have a relatively short period to respond I will do the best I can and will engage with Senators afterwards if I have not had a chance to address all the matters. Senator Gallagher set out the concerns that exist across this House and across the communities affected. I think he is acutely aware of the challenges we face. Senator Craughwell raised a number of issues. He raised that of the Gaffney family regarding a particular issue. I know that is a complex case and I believe I will be meeting with members of the family tomorrow. He talked quite a bit about the defence infrastructure and how the use of certain technology could be useful in addressing illegal fishing.
It could also be useful for providing other defence capabilities, which we are concerned about - particularly in relation to that Russian grey fleet that regularly traverses our waters and where we do not even have primary radar to have any capture of that. I agree with him on our technological advances, particularly in relation to drones, both subsea and above in our airspace. I recently met with a section of the University of Limerick and there are some very interesting projects and ideas there. I look forward to working with all concerned on that. He talked about the use of drones for top cover search and rescue. That certainly should be looked at. It is about protecting coastal communities, as he said. I am very much in tune with that. We must continue to work with a focus on the massive and wonderful resource of our oceans as well.
Senator Boyle is a regular contributor and very intimately involved in the fishing sector in Killybegs. He is someone whose opinion and advice matters to me a lot. He concentrated mainly on the inland fisheries side of things. That is something we are working through in the Department to address some of the key issues that existed. There has been a long, concerning history. I now think we are at a seminal moment. We are about to appoint a new CEO, which I think will give a very significant shift in direction. We have lots of really good and positive people working within the organisation. There is now an opportunity to gather around a new CEO and drive ahead with that.
The Senator raised issues with the National Inshore Fisheries Forum . I am familiar with the grouping. It is in regular contact with us and forms part of our stakeholder engagements. It is regularly in consort with us through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. On the pelagic side, the question exists of why have others managed to follow a 47% cut and we have taken a 70% cut. At the outset, I outlined the scientific reasoning behind that but I challenged the Commission and asked it how can I ask our fishermen and fisherwomen to abide by a very dramatic cut in a fishing opportunity to protect the species while we only control about 20% of that region's quota, taking into account the third countries. We only control 20% of that quota and 80% is held by the third countries. If they are going to fish at a rate much higher than us, it does not bode well for the conservation measures.
In my view, it is a matter of the Commission giving very serious consideration to using the tools it has through the use of the unsustainable fishing regulation or let us set a TAC where we are effectively all on a level playing pitch. I noted from the contributions of other member states that quite a number indicated and used the terminology "a level playing pitch" and I think we have to get there through whatever means. I will continue to pursue the Commission on that and I will be meeting the Commissioner perhaps next week in Strasbourg but certainly the week after in Brussels.
Senator Andrews talked about the impact of the cut in our quotas, the cut in the fishing effort and the impact that is having. I do not want to ascribe any misdeeds to anybody but when you juxtapose the word "betrayal" with the outcome of the Council meeting, that is an unfair parallel. Every country that had quota within the European Union for those stocks took the same quota cut. I am certainly not suggesting that Senator Andrews is suggesting this but there are some who extrapolate that and say that we were unfairly treated in December. We were treated the same as everybody else.
Historically, some countries have a much greater quota than us. I see some state that a country only has a certain amount of shoreline and then ask how, as we have infinitely more shoreline, they can have a greater quota. Quotas were not provided to countries based on the length of their shoreline. They were based on what was the fishing effort and the catch in the reference year. That is where some people seek to hijack a difficult situation which the sector is going through and present to those who are not as intimately involved in it that somehow, Ireland was robbed, stolen from, abused and mistreated.
It is the case that when we came into the European Union, we had a very underdeveloped fishing fleet. Others were fishing our waters with much greater intensity because they had a history of that. We have managed to build an industry and it is now challenged because of the overfishing. Of course, I will continue to fight to try to ensure we have a fair crack of the whip and that overfishing is addressed to the greatest extent possible.
Senator Andrews rightly identified that the Hague preferences were something we felt we had a legal entitlement to but, unfortunately, that fell on deaf ears by the capacity of others. When we started out in the European Union, the veto existed where one country could block decisions. That is not the case any more and we found that to our pain last December.
Others have asked me about the potential for a legal challenge. That is something we are still exploring but there was an ECJ case previously which found that the decision around the Hague preferences was a matter for the Council of fisheries ministers. That is where it becomes complicated. That is already a decision that must be taken as to whether another case taken against that would be successful. It is hard to imagine at this stage. If we can find a legal pathway, however, I am certainly up for the battle in that regard. We have not found such a pathway yet.
Others and Senator Andrews talked about access to Irish waters. It is a case that as we entered the European Union, those waters are now a shared resource. We saw what happened when the UK pulled out. It effectively brought the control of its waters with it. We had a heavy price to pay in terms of the stocks we gave up to retain access to that space. He talked about the inshore fishermen and yes, they are really important.
Senator Malcolm Noonan talked a lot about the inshore fisheries. He referenced the River Blackwater. I mentioned in my opening statement that it was not the end of the road. While we were unable to identify the source of the irritant that was in the water that led to such a significant fish kill, we followed procedures all the way. We have sought independent external advice from the Joint Research Centre of the European Union. I hope to be able to publish a report from it very shortly which, amongst other things, will review all the actions that were taken and will set a pathway forward as to how we might be in a better position for something like this not to happen again.
I expect some of that will be about an incumbency on certain State agencies to look at more dynamic testing of sites that are licensed, etc., and to inform the development of a protocol in order that when an event like this happens, we have a template to respond rather than trying to pull it together in an ad hoc way, which was done in the past. The Senator talked about the marine protected areas, MPAs, and it is very much my hope to have the MPA legislation finished before the summer. We are progressing well with that. We are all dedicated to improving water quality. Water quality is such a fundamental part of ensuring biodiversity in our rivers and ensuring we have healthy fish life. However, there are many other challenges to the fish stocks, both in our oceans and our rivers. It is principally climate change and pollution that have impacts there.
Senator Noel O'Donovan talked about quite a number of things. He talked about the legal opinion and I referred to him on that when I discussed the challenge. He talked about the 78% versus the 48% and I think I have addressed that. He questioned where the Commission is on the topic. The Commission wants to remain at 70% but there is a body of belief emerging, particularly about mackerel, that if we have such a small percentage of the overall allowable catch when you take into consideration the third countries I referred to such as Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and the UK, us taking a very conservative approach is only helping 20% of the stock. If somebody else is fishing the 80%, there is no equality there.
The Senator also talked about the real challenges there, and when we want to get this report concluded. I would like to have an interim report by the end of quarter 2 addressing the pelagic situation, which is the initial impact on our fishing fleet as a result of the reduced opportunities for this year. It is also important we continue to address some of the issues that have bedevilled the industry for several years and are also of grave concern to the inshore fishing sector. I wish to continue working on that after quarter 2 and move towards developing that five-year strategy for the fishing sector, which is identified in the programme for Government. That work will continue. Senator O'Donovan also talked about the illegal, unreported and unregulated, IUU, fishing and the impact that is having.
I thank Senator Murphy O'Mahony for her compliments. She is regularly in contact with me to raise the issues of fishermen and women in the constituency she knows best. She has been a very strong advocate for the way forward being for us to challenge at European level the real negative impact of overfishing or unsustainable fishing practices. That is something I and the Department are absolutely committed to, but we have to be mindful that if others are prepared to walk away from that, we will have to look to see where that leaves us from an equality perspective. I look forward to the Senator's continued input.
Senator O'Reilly may have been concerned about something I said about extreme elements. I was not referring to her in this House, but I did reflect that there are some who seek to hype a difficult situation which does not need any hype. It has got plenty of legs from the communities impacted and we do not need any extraneous arguments entered into. We know how we got here, we know what we have to do, and when we do not have fish, we have to find ways for the State to support the sector. That is what we are about.
One or two Senators asked when we hope to kick off the task force under that seafood directive. Hopefully, Monday week will be our first meeting. We are writing out to stakeholders and we expect we will have our first plenary meeting on 16 February. However, there is work going on in the background at departmental level, and I will conclude on this because I want to mention one or two others who were there. I thank Senator O'Reilly for her continued interest in this area. She talked about IFI. Yes, there were very significant issues in IFI. There have been some significant changes and numerous investigations and the PAC is still addressing ongoing legacy issues. There was a new board put in place and I have full confidence in that board. There is a new CEO about to be appointed and there is now a pathway to much brighter days to address the concerns.
I probably do not have time to get into all of what Senator Kyne talked about, but when there is a new CEO in place we will certainly be working to address the great western lakes issue. He talked about the allowable catch and the pike issue, and I will take that up with the new CEO. We will certainly work through that.
Senator Duffy continues to raise issues. I will definitely meet with the Moy Action Group. There was a public consultation based on the proposals for next year, which were due to be concluded by the end of the year. There were many submissions because of the significant changes were put forward, and I have taken some time on that. I have allowed the 2025 regulations to continue in the interim period. I have written to the chairman of IFI, made some suggestions to him based on the responses to that and indicated how I think we could proceed. I will update the House as soon as we have some more information. I assure the Senator it is a work in progress. I might wait until the conclusion of that to meet the group concerned. I think that is the greatest amount of latitude I am going to get from the Acting Chairperson, but I am happy to work with the Senator on that.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-02-04/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:35+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-02-04