Vol. 436 No. 6
4 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for the Marine the progress, if any, he achieved towards prohibiting Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels from decimating fish stock in the Irish Box from 1 January 1996 at the EC Fisheries Meeting in Brussels, which was held on 22 November 1993.
61 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for the Marine if he intends challenging, through the EU Court, the proposal to grant greater access to Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets to Irish waters from 1 January 1996; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
104 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for the Marine if he intends challenging through the EU Court the proposal to grant greater access to Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets to Irish waters from 1 January 1996; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 61 and 104 together.
Under the Iberian Act of Accession the fisheries aspects of the Act fall for review by the end of this year. Accordingly in June last the Commission submitted proposals to the Council of Fisheries Ministers to modify the terms of that Act in certain key respects. The principal elements of that proposal envisaged:
(i) the abolition of the basic and periodic lists of boats entitled to fish in Community waters; and
(ii) the removal of all special controls on the Spanish and Portuguese fleets and their replacement in the meantime by unspecified measures applying on a Community wide basis.
In addition, the Commission made no proposals for the renewal of the Irish Box which under the terms of the Act of Accession is due to lapse by the end of 1995. Instead, the proposals tabled envisage full access for the Spanish and Portuguese fleets to all EU waters outside twelve miles.
There was no substantive discussion of this matter at the June Council but I did take the opportunity of indicating that any significant change in the present arrangements, including any changes to the Irish Box, would have major direct implications for control, conservation and territorial fishing patterns in the Irish zone and that I had major difficulties with the Commission proposal.
The matter was considered in some detail at the Council of Fisheries Minister's on 22 November last. The Commission proposal, as well as a tentative Presidency compromise, came up for discussion. I made it clear in the strongest terms that neither the Commission proposal nor the Presidency compromise was acceptable. I explained to Council the importance and sensitivity of the issue to the Irish Government and Irish fishermen. I stressed that, from a control perspective, the track record of the Spanish fleet in the Irish economic zone was most unsatisfactory. In particular I pointed out that (a) one out of every two Spanish vessels boarded is detained for serious fishery offences; (b) nearly three quarters of these vessels were in breach of the terms of the Iberian Act of Accession; (c) apart from these breaches, the vessels concerned also had serious infringements relating to log books and undersized fish; (d) since Accession, 40 per cent of the vessels on the basic list have been arrested for serious offences; and (e) recently, a new problem — secret holds — had come to notice and eight vessels have been detained over the last year. I also stressed that the capacity of the Spanish fleet far exceeded the resources available to that fleet.
Similarly, the Presidency compromise proposal presented serious problems for me. It envisaged (i) the repeal of the basic and periodic list systems, (ii) the provisions of alternative Community-wide measures, and (iii) the removal of the Irish Box. It also failed to link the level and pace of the easing of specific controls on the Spanish fleet with the resolution of the serious over-capacity problem in the fleet. In response I insisted that the list system and the Irish Box be retained pending the adoption of suitable alternative measures and that the possibility of applying measures which are specific to the Spanish fleet be maintained.
This matter will come up for decision at the Fisheries Council on 20 and 21 December. I can assure Deputies that I am fully aware of the gravity of the issues involved and that no effort will be spared in securing the best possible outcome. In advance of decisions to be taken at Council, I do not feel it would be prudent to speculate on possible actions in the EU Court although I should mention that I have placed a reserve on legal grounds on the proposals at present before the Council.
For the added information of Members, I have been in touch with the President of Council of Fisheries Ministers since this parliamentary question was tabled and he has agreed to meet me next Tuesday to address the various proposals before the Council on 20 and 21 December.
It will be observed that the time for dealing with priority questions is now quite exhausted.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Minister. He should make a more challenging case to the Europen Union to ensure that access to Irish waters by Iberian fishing vessels will not be allowed from 1 January 1996. Access should be deferred for five years pending results of negotiations the Minister is seeking to initiate. He should take off the kid gloves in his approach. In view of the numerous violations of fishing regulations by Spanish boats during the past ten years, the Minister will have to take this matter to the European Court of Human Rights. He will have to go to the end of the road to preserve our fishing stocks.
I will place a reserve on the question of a legal challenge to the European Court of Justice. I made one of the strongest interventions in the history of fish councils in relation to this problem. I spoke for a period in excess of 30 minutes and set out the Irish case in a strong, deliberate and succinct way. There was dead silence during the currency of my intervention. As a direct result of my contribution I believe it may have convinced a number of countries who have a common interest in the removal of the Irish Box that their interests may be contravened by the Iberian Act of Accession. From this country's point of view the common fisheries policy was a bad deal and it continues to cause us serious problems. I am fully aware of the seriousness of the position from the point of view of the Irish fisherman. I am not certain there is much we can do about the Irish Box but in its place I can introduce the strongest possible conservation measures and other measures directed at the Spanish fleet which will indicate our concerns about its performance to date.
We must now proceed to other questions.
I must protest. The Technical Group and the Green Party have been discriminated against again by the current procedure for priority questions. I sought to raise a matter to prevent the serious loss of life and the risk of tragedy at sea. The procedure must be changed.
I understand how the Deputy feels. The Deputy and the House will agree that the Chair does his best to ensure that priority questions are dealt with fairly and adequately within the time limit. Obviously it fails. The matter is before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and it is my hope that the utilisation of time for priority questions will be regularised on a more practical basis.
Will that happen shortly?
Next week.
