Conor D McGuinness: 'Big Five' Firms Dominate EU Fishing Quotas

I'm taking the question on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Porter McLoughlin. Five Dutch corporations now control more EU fishing quota than entire sovereign states, including island nations like our own. They also clearly wield significantly more influence than member states when it comes to quota negotiations, and the outcome of the December Council meeting shows that. And these corporations, these five, operate across multiple jurisdictions through complex ownership structures and operate fleets under flags of both EU and non-EU member states. Does the Minister accept that there's a serious concentration of control here, a conflict of interest, and a real concern about corporate influence distorting EU fisheries policy? Thanks very much, Deputy. So, as you know, the European beneficial ownership laws apply across the economic sectors, including the seafood sector, and I understand a package of new EU anti-money laundering rules, including rules in relation to beneficial ownership, was adopted as recently as 2024. The common fisheries policy basic regulation does not specify requirements regarding ownership of vessels, other than providing that a union fishing vessel is one flying the flag of the member state and registered in the union. The Irish Register of Fishing Boats is publicly available on our department's website. As regards quota allocation, the CFP provides that it is a matter for each member state to decide how its fishing opportunities, which are not subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions, are allowable to the vessels in its fleet, or are allocated to the vessels in its fleet. In allowing fishing opportunities, the CFP requires member states to apply transparent and objective criteria, such as the contribution to the local economy. A system of transferable fishing concessions allows for member states' quota to be allocated to an individual fisherman or woman, or a group of fishermen and women, which is available to them to transfer, lease, or sell to other vessel owners. This is commonly known as an individual transferable quota system. The last reform of the CFP set out the options for member states to introduce ITQ systems for their fleets. The European Commission had proposed that such a system be mandatory for all member states. Now, Ireland was successful in strongly opposing a mandatory ITQ system on the basis that it would inevitably lead to a concentration of ownership in a small number of international fishing companies, with little or no links to Ireland's fishing opportunities. So, from an Irish perspective, we were very clear we didn't want to see what happened in other jurisdictions. However, there were other differing views at European level, but at least we were allowed to decide that as a competency of the Irish state. In Ireland, fish quotas are a public resource owned by the state and are made available to fishing vessels based on an overall policy framework, which has been developed over the past 30 years. The result of this long-standing policy is that the Irish fishing fleet has retained a strong economic link with our coastal communities and has delivered economic activity, including vital employment in these communities. Minister, the reality is this. There's an oligopoly at the heart of European fisheries. And if the government will not name the problem, others will, and I'm prepared to do so under parliamentary privilege here. And it's the so-called Big Five Dutch-based corporations. Parle-of-Liege, Vanderplas, Cornelis Vrolijk, Van der Zwaan, Alde Seafood, and the de Boer family. And they control an extraordinary share, almost 20% of EU fishing efforts. One in six fishes caught in EU waters across the entire European Union is caught by one of these outfits. And likely much more. That's only what we know about. And they do this through a corporate maze, vessels flagged across multiple member states, and ownership structures that make meaningful transparency almost impossible. And at the same time, these same interests, as you know, are operating in non-EU waters, including Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Norway, often in contexts where there are serious concerns about overfishing of our shared stocks in the North Atlantic, particularly the Plagic sector. They're in effect Taigal Ghaithaibh. They're playing both sides of the system, influencing policy here while maximizing profits everywhere. Meanwhile, Irish fishermen, as you know Minister, because I know you've travelled and you've met with them, they're tying their boats to the harbour wall, coastal communities are being hollowed out, we have a minuscule but utterly disproportionate share of quota in our own territorial waters, and this is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. And I think you must accept that EU fishing policy is being distorted by this fact, and it warrants more than just self-congratulations on why Ireland achieved this small concession from the European Union. I mean, this means, this needs all of government to investigate this and to take it very, very seriously. Could I ask members and the Minister to stick to the time involved here? Allocators. I don't want to get into a crossfire with members. Thanks very much. Better efficiency. So thanks Deputy for that clarification. Now I'm fully aware of the concerns that are expressed by fishermen about the capacity of large corporates who have ultimately bought up quota in other member states because other member states chose to privatise their quota. From our perspective, we have protected that in the interest of coastal communities. Now when you talk about the CFP, there is, as you know, an ongoing evaluation which is expected to be published probably in May of this year, that I expect will lead to a review of the Common Fisheries Policy, and it's in that instance that opportunities arise in relation to how the next formation will be. Obviously we have a very significant interest in that because we believe there are certain species now entering Irish waters based on climate change that would benefit our fishermen and women, and we will be working hard to try to achieve quotas in those areas. Deputy McGuinness. This is about sovereignty and fairness and the very survival of our coastal communities at its core. And everybody knows who these corporations are. There's published reports, there's investigative reports, there's clear evidence of the scale of their control and influence. They wield more control than a sovereign member state. This is the European Union, and previous Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael administrations ceded sovereignty over our territorial waters to the European Union, and now the European Union is looking us in the face and regifting it to these corporates who are running rings around us, who are laughing at us all the way to the bank, whose well-placed lobbyists are doing better in quota negotiations than we are. And the result of that is fishermen all around our coastline in our respective counties who are tying their boats to the wall and can't get out to sea. And coastal communities that don't have the ability to fish, they don't want handouts, they don't want support, they don't want lectures about heritage and how great they are. They want to get out and fish. Meanwhile, we have these corporates who are allowed to do what they want in our waters and in other EU member states' waters, and indeed in third states' waters. So the question is really simple. Will you and will the Taoiseach take a strong line and vindicate our sovereignty and ensure that these companies aren't laughing at us and aren't running all the way to the bank? Minister? I think the issue is a little bit broader. There is a suggestion that somehow they do better in quota negotiations. They don't, quite frankly. Quotas are based on track record. If the quota goes up based on scientific advice or down, each country loses a share based on that species. So that would be to correct that. Where I do think the issue, and it speaks to the heart of what you're talking about, the idea of playing both sides of the fence, being within the European Union and accepting the rules there, but also gaming it a little bit by having considerable interest in third countries, where, as you know, the third countries that we have sought from a European perspective to negotiate with in relation to sharing arrangements has effectively not happened, notwithstanding the best efforts of the European Union to try to get a comprehensive sharing arrangement in place between ourselves and those third countries, that we would look to protecting the stock and have effectively a level playing pitch for all fishermen and women. And that's where I think that malign influence is causing difficulties. And issues like that will be raised as part of any review of the CFP.