2026-03-19

79. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will campaign for the reform of European beneficial ownership laws to ensure transparency and accountability on the ownership of fishing vessels and the allocation of fishing quota by states across the European Union and in quota transfer deals with third-party countries. [20934/26]

I am putting this question on behalf of my colleague Deputy Mac Lochlainn. Five Dutch corporations now control more EU fishing quota than do entire sovereign states, including island nations like ours. They also clearly wield significantly more influence than member states when it comes to quota negotiations. The outcome of the December Council meeting showed that to be true. These five corporations operate across multiple jurisdictions through complex ownership structures and operate fleets under the flags of both EU and non-EU member states. Does the Minister accept there is a serious concentration of control here, a conflict of interest and a real concern about corporate influence distorting EU fisheries policy?

As the Deputy knows, European beneficial ownership laws apply across economic sectors, including the seafood sector. 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, CFP, basic regulation does not specify requirements regarding ownership of vessels, other than providing that a Union fishing vessel is one flying the flag of a member state and is registered in the Union. The Irish register of fishing boats is publicly available on my 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 allocated to the vessels in its fleet. In allocating fishing opportunities, the CFP requires member states to apply transparent and objective criteria, such as contribution to the local economy. A system of transferable fishing concessions allows for a member state's quota to be allocated to individual fishers or groups of fishers, with that quota then being available to them to transfer, lease or sell to other vessel owners. This is commonly known as an individual transferable quota, ITQ, system. The last reform of the CFP set out the option 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. Ireland was successful in strongly opposing a mandatory ITQ system on the basis it would inevitably lead to a concentration of ownership in a small number of international fishing companies with few or no links to Ireland's fishing communities. From an Irish perspective, we were very clear that we did not want to see what happened in other jurisdictions happening here. There were differing views on this at European level but we were allowed to make a decision on it as a competency of the Irish State. In Ireland, fish quotas are a public resource owned by the State and made available to fishing vessels based on an overall policy framework that 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 those communities.

The reality is there is an oligopoly at the heart of European fisheries. If the Government will not name the problem, others will. I am prepared to do so here under parliamentary privilege. I refer to the so-called big five Dutch-based corporations, namely, Parlevliet & van der Plas, Cornelis Vrolijk, Van der Zwan, Alda Seafood and the De Boer family. Between them, they control an extraordinary share - almost 20% - of EU fishing effort. One in six fish caught in EU waters across the entire European Union is caught by one of these outfits. The actual number is likely much more; that is only what we know about. They exercise this control through use of a corporate maze, with vessels flagged across multiple member states and ownership structures that make meaningful transparency almost impossible. At the same time, as the Minister of State knows, these same interests are operating in non-EU waters, including off 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 in the pelagic sector. In effect, these corporations are ag imirt an dá thaobh. They are playing both sides of the system, influencing policy here while maximising profits everywhere. Meanwhile, Irish fishermen are tying their boats to the harbour wall and coastal communities are being hollowed out. The Minister of State knows this as he has travelled to meet with them. We have a minuscule and utterly disproportionate share of quota in our own territorial waters. It is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

I call on the Minister of State to respond.

The Government must accept that EU fishing policy is being distorted by this reality. It warrants more than just self-congratulations and pointing to the small concession Ireland received from the European Union.

You are way over time, Deputy.

This issue needs an all-of-government approach. It must be investigated and taken very seriously.

I ask Deputies, the Minister and Ministers of State to stick to their allocated time. I do not want to get into a crossfire exchange with Members. I ask for greater efficiency in the use of their time.

I will try to keep to the time. I thank the Deputy for that clarification. I am fully aware of the concerns expressed by fishermen about the capacity of large corporations that have bought up quota from other member states that chose to privatise their quota. We have protected our quota in the interest of coastal communities. There is an ongoing evaluation of the CFP, which is expected to be published in May of this year. I expect it will lead to a review of the CFP, as part of which opportunities will arise in relation to what the next formation will be. We have a very significant interest in that in a context in which certain species are now entering Irish waters as a result of climate change, which could be of benefit to our fishers. We will be working hard to try to achieve quotas in those areas.

At its core, this issue is about sovereignty, fairness and the very survival of our coastal communities. Everybody knows who these corporations are. There are published reports and investigative reports. There is clear evidence of the scale of their control and influence. They wield more control than does a sovereign member state of the EU. Previous Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Administrations ceded sovereignty over our territorial waters to the European Union and now the Union is looking us in the face and regifting it to corporations that are running rings around us and laughing at us all the way to the bank. Their well-placed lobbyists are doing better than we are in quota negotiations. The result is that fishermen all around our coastline, including in the Minister of State's county and my county, are tying their boats to the wall because they cannot go out to sea. The coastal communities that do not have the ability to fish do not want handouts, supports or lectures about heritage and how great they are. They want to get out and fish. Meanwhile, these corporations are allowed to do what they want in our waters, in the waters of other EU member states and, indeed, in the waters of third states. My question to the Minister of State is really simple. Will he and the Taoiseach take a strong line on vindicating our sovereignty and ensuring these companies are not laughing at us all the way to the bank?

The issue is a little broader than what the Deputy has presented. There is a suggestion that somehow these corporations do better than us in quota negotiations but, in fact, they do not. Quotas are based on track record. If the quota goes down based on scientific advice, each country loses a share based on that species. I wanted to correct that point. Where there is an issue, and it speaks to the heart of what the Deputy is saying, is with the idea of playing both sides of the fence, being within the European Union and accepting its rules but also gaming it a little bit by having considerable interest in third countries. The negotiations we have sought on sharing arrangements with third countries, from a European perspective, have not happened, notwithstanding the best efforts of the European Union to try to get a comprehensive sharing arrangement in place between us and those third countries whereby we would look to protect the stock and have, in effect, a level playing pitch for all fishers. That is where I think that malign influence is causing difficulties. Issues like that will be raised as part of any review of the CFP.