Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Nov 1992

Vol. 424 No. 8

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Fishing Fleet.

Gerry O'Sullivan

Question:

14 Mr. G. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Marine if, in view of the disastrous effects on the fishing industry, and on employment in this country, any reduction in the Irish fishing fleet as outlined by the EC Commission will have, he is prepared to use the veto in any meeting of EC Ministers to safeguard Irish interests; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Toddy O'Sullivan

Question:

39 Mr. T. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Marine the steps, if any, he proposes to take to protect the Irish fishing industry in view of the Commission's decision to drastically cut the tonnage of the Irish fishing fleet.

Patrick McCartan

Question:

58 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for the Marine the steps, if any, he intends to take regarding the decision of the EC Commission to restrict the size of the Irish fishing fleet; if, in view of the implications for the Irish fishing industry, he intends to initiate a legal challenge to the decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 39 and 58 together.

I am very aware of the grave consequences for the Irish fishing industry and particularly for employment in the industry should reductions of the order now being contemplated by the EC Commission be implemented. At this juncture I am in fundamental disagreement with the Commission on its proposals to further reduce the already decimated Irish fishing fleet and will continue to oppose the proposals until a satisfactory resolution of this issue is achieved.

The Commission's decision on the transitional Multi Annual Guidance Programme for the Irish fishing fleet for 1992 requires an effective reduction of the order of 17 per cent in the capacity of the fleet by the end of the year.

This decision is totally unacceptable to me as it fails to adequately address the current capacity needs of the Irish fleet. Against the background of our being unable to take up our allocations of fish quotas because of insufficient fleet capacity, it is absurd in my view that the Commission should be attempting to further inhibit the catching capacity of our fleet. The Commission's proposals would inevitably lead to job losses in both the catching and processing sectors and to a sharp decline in economic activity in our coastal regions which are so dependent on fishing.

For these reasons, the Government in August last initiated court proceedings in the European Court of Justice. In our application lodged with the court, the Government have sought to have the Commission's transitional decision annulled.

The Commission's proposals on fleet reduction in the context of the Multi Annual Guidance Programme for the period 1993 to 1996 were considered at some length in the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 19 October last. In these deliberations I made it abundantly clear that if acceptable fleet proposals for Ireland were not tabled by the Commission, the issue would have to be referred back for discussion at the next Council of Ministers meeting in November rather than be decided by the Commission. At my insistence the Council agreed that, in the interim, no decision would be taken which was at variance with the views of any individual member state concerned and that any such cases would be referred back to the next Council on the 23rd of this month.

This was an important breakthrough in procedure which effectively prevents fleet cuts being imposed by the Commission over the heads of member states. This will help towards obtaining a satisfactory resolution of Ireland's concerns.

I must stress, however, that we face a very tough battle on this issue. As part of the Commission's proposals to systematically reduce the size of the Community fleet to preserve stocks and regulate the level of fish catches in member states, a reduction of the order of 30 per cent is envisaged for the Irish fleet over the next four years. In Ireland's case such restrictions are totally unjustified since we do not have enough capacity to catch our existing quotas especially for the more lucrative whitefish. This represents a loss of up to £20 million annually to Irish Fishermen.

At the recent Council I renewed my demands for an increase for Ireland of at least 5,000 tonnes in the capacity of the fleet. This represents less than one quarter of one per cent of the total Community fleet. An increase of this order to an Objective One region would be insignificant in overall Community terms but to Ireland would represent a real improvement on the current unsatisfactory situation.

Finally, I would like to assure Deputies that I will continue at every opportunity to press Ireland's legitimate claims until a satisfactory solution is achieved. I will go to whatever lengths are necessary to achieve that result.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and fully endorse and support the stand that he has taken on this important issue. Would the Minister agree that Ireland was not responsible for overfishing in EC waters and should not be penalised by way of a reduction in the size of the fleet? Would he further agree that instead of reducing the size of the fleet we should be increasing it in order to create the maximum number of jobs? Finally, would the Minister respond to the question I tabled which was, whether he would be prepared to use the veto on this issue at the Council of Ministers?

First, I accept that this is a major issue for the fishing industry. While we agree with the Commission that there is a need to conserve stocks — and we are among the best in that regard — our fishing fleet is so small that the impact is almost negligible. While we do not disagree with the overall policy of the Commission we are not in a position to catch our quota as we do not have the ships. In those circumstances it is ridiculous to suggest that the size of our fleet should be reduced, and we will not accept any such proposal. I mentioned that we made a procedural breakthrough at the recent Council of Ministers meeting. This was important because we were not in a position to influence a decision made at Commission level. Therefore the Commission could make a decision over our heads. It has now been accepted at both Council and Commission level that no decision will be taken over the head of any member state. When that decision was being made I sought clarification that this would mean any single state concerned. Therefore the Council of Ministers will seek agreement on this matter.

Question No. 15.

A Cheann Comhairle, may I ask one supplementary question?

We cannot afford to dwell unduly long on any one question; there is a time factor involved.

I accept that but this is a major issue.

A very brief question, Deputy.

Is it the case that the Minister does not envisage the veto being used at any stage in the negotiations?

In relation to the Luxembourg compromise as it is known, in the first instance the veto may be used only at the Council. As I have said, the ball is now back at their feet. Mentioning one's vital interests is an indication of just how seriously one takes the issue. At present the Commission is re-examining the position and we will have to await the outcome.

Top
Share