Pat Cox
Question:41 Mr. Cox asked the Minister for the Marine if he will elaborate on the explanation given to IFO delegation on 21 April 1993 in relation to Doc. 5765/92 Peche 104, as referred to in the IFO Information Bulletin No. 3/93.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Common Fisheries Policy Review.
The Deputy is referring to a meeting which I had with the Irish Fishermen's Organisation on 21 April during which a wide range of questions of interest to the fishing industry was discussed. One of these related to the review of the Common Fisheries Policy, which was concluded in December last. The document to which the Deputy refers is the Irish memorandum on the review of the Common Fisheries Policy which was submitted to the Council of Ministers in April 1992.
This memorandum set out the constraints under which the Irish fishing industry operates and suggested ways in which these could be ameliorated in the context of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. The memorandum identified four areas in particular where the Irish Government felt attention was required. These were the allocation of fish stocks to Ireland; targets for the size of the Irish fishing fleet; the protection accorded to coastal fisheries; and the amelioration of Ireland's burden of fisheries control costs.
These issues were pursued vigorously all through 1992 with the full backing of the Government. The campaign to improve Ireland's position, apart from the normal political and diplomatic processes, included the exceptional step of initiating a case in the European Court of Justice on the matter of fleet targets.
A satisfactory outcome to the review of the CFP was reached at last December's Fisheries Council. Ireland received a favourable outcome on fleet targets which will enable the existing fleet to be largely maintained as compared with the substantial reduction sought by the European Commission.
As regards protection for coastal fishermen, the existing 12-mile limit arrangements, which could have lapsed allowing access up to the beaches, were preserved. On the matter of the costs of fishery protection, the council made an important Declaration which opens the way for the first time for the support of the current costs of providing sea fisheries enforcement services. This matter will, I hope, be advanced substantially at the forthcoming June Council.
The key outstanding issue, however, relates to Ireland's allocation of fish stocks. As the Deputy will be aware, we are not satisfied that these are fair or reasonable and have sought appropriate adjustments. This would, of course, require other member states to give up some of their existing entitlements. That is a very important point. That is the sort of battle we have to fight. If we are to get extending fishing quotas, we are asking other states to give up some of their quotas. It is a very tall order, but we will do our best. They have not been prepared to contemplate this to date but we are determined to press the case.
In this regard, the major achievement made at the December 1992 Fisheries Council was the obtaining of a Declaration from the Council that the outstanding issues in the Irish memorandum — and the allocation of fish stocks was the major outstanding issue—would be considered by the Council before 30 June 1993 on the basis of a written report by the Commission. This provides a framework and a basis for further pushing the Irish case, although no one should underestimate the difficulties which arise in this connection.
I have arranged to meet with the EC Commissioner for Fisheries and the President of the European Council of fisheries Ministers with a view to emphasising the importance of this issue to Ireland. I will also be contacting the other Fisheries Ministers in advance of the June Council.
I am aware of a concern by the IFO that, should the Council be willing to accommodate Ireland, this could be technically ruled out by the terms of the CFP regulations adopted last December. This concern is unfounded. If additional allocations were to be made available to Ireland, this could be done without any amendment to the basic regulation which does not set out the specific allocation keys. This is a political problem needing a political solution. That is what I would like to think will happen. The question of the fish quota is a very difficult one. I have no doubt that it will be addressed at the Council next month.
Will the Minister agree that part of our problem relates to the bad deals done in the past? Would he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that our fishing industry is in the state it is, given its potential in relation to employment opportunities? We are way behind in terms of processing and it seems we are second class citizens when it comes to recognition within Europe of the vital part the fishing industry can play in generating wealth in this country and giving employment. Given that we have one of the highest unemployment rates within the EC, surely our Community partners must recognise that it is time to rectify the bad deal imposed upon us some years ago and see that we get adequate quota share and also take steps to deal with the ongoing problem of illegal imports from outside the EC into our country and into the EC in general?
I accept that the so-called deal we got in the past was not in Ireland's national interest. However, since 1972-73 we have become members of a Community which has common cause and common case in so many areas. I agree that although we have 3 per cent of the total allowable catch in 16 per cent of the fishery waters, nevertheless we are obliged to commit ourselves to the Common Fisheries Policy, warts and all. There is a discussion in relation to its beneficial advantage to this country, but what we are trying to do at the June council is to get additional fish quota. That is an uphill battle because to get additional fish quota we have to request other countries to give up part of their quota. That will be very difficult to do.
As a general overview of the fishing industry, I agree that in our country the fishing industry has been low in the scheme of human evaluation. We are an island nation. I do not think we realise that even now-and I am not talking about the fishermen or the people in charge of the fishing organisations who are people of courage in the first instance and people of integrity in the second, and they know their business. What I am saying is that as a people we have not come to realise the huge advantage we have around our coast in the context of our maritime tradition. Not only do we have opportunities in the context of sea fisheries but in the context of inland fisheries, another resource that we are not properly protecting and that we have not come to see in the context of tourism. I am very seized of the views expressed by the Deputies. I am very aware of the problems. The fish are sometimes not seen even in the context of a discussion on food.
Could the Minister indicate to what extent if any fish caught by Irish fishermen have been destroyed in the past year because they were surplus to the Irish quota? How soon does he expect progress on the breakthrough he believes can be achieved in regard to assistance for coastal protection? In regard to the review of the Defence Forces, which obviously includes the Naval Service, to what extent will that influence reform of the Naval Service into, for example, a coastguard?
An allocation of £200,000 was made available for coastal protection this year. This, of course, is derisory because parts of our coastline are literally being washed into the sea with every storm. The fact that only £200,000 is available to protect our coastline is nothing short of a seagoing joke.
I would be shocked to discover that fish are being killed in order to comply with quota levels and the Common Fisheries policy. We are talking about sending troops to Somalia, but to destroy fish or food of any description is extremely unlucky and conceptually and socially wrong. It is an outrage. I will investigate the matter for the Deputy and if I find it to be true, I will either raise it at a committee meeting or correspond with the Deputy directly. If the Deputy wishes to table a question on this matter again I will have the information for him then.