Vol. 474 No. 6
17 Mr. Browne (Wexford) asked the Minister for the Marine the reason for Ireland's fishery compromise proposal during his recent term as President of the Council of EU Ministers; if he will give details of the compromise proposals; the way in which it will affect the Irish fishing industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3844/97]
I am glad to have the opportunity to advise the House on the background to the Irish Presidency's compromise proposals on fishing fleet capacity and the rationale behind them.
During the Presidency tangible success was achieved on Ireland's main priorities, notably progressing realistic conservation measures, agreement on the introduction of satellite monitoring and improved co-operation on fisheries control. The dominant issue in fisheries during the Presidency was the Commission's proposal for up to 40 per cent cuts in the European fishing fleet. These proposals were unveiled by the Commission in the weeks before we took over the Presidency. The drastic "blunt instrument" approach of the proposals made them highly controversial from the start and they were objected to strongly by virtually all member states. Moreover, in so far as the Commission's proposals would apply to Ireland's specific situation, they were totally unacceptable.
The reductions in fishing effort needed to be focused on the stocks most at risk and on the fleets overfishing those stocks. Getting the balance right between fleets and available stocks involves a wide range of factors including conservation and better enforcement. The serious socio-economic and social consequences of drastic fleet cuts over a short period also had to be addressed. It was therefore clear from the outset that the Commission's proposals did not offer a way forward and that a total impasse existed. My objective in taking a fresh look at the problem was to break this impasse which was not in the interests of the EU and certainly not in the interests of the Irish fishing industry.
Based on the outcome of discussions at the October Council, my political bilaterals with fisheries Ministers in November and intensive analysis of the complex technical issues involved, we constructed a comprehensive and radical alternative proposal aimed at delivering a rational, targeted and fair solution to the overfishing and overcapacity problem in European waters.
The key features of the Irish Presidency compromise are: reduction rates to be targeted on the critical stocks in specific fishing areas and calculated by reference to the extent to which these stocks are in trouble using the most up to date scientific assessments; an exemption for small-scale coastal fishing fleets; a choice for member states of reduction method, either fishing effort management which is known as "days at sea", capacity reductions or a combination of both; a weighted approach to calculating reductions for national fleets which means that the extent to which a fleet actually fishes the stock in trouble would be factored in; reduction targets to be set for three years followed by a mid-term review of all measures in place to protect fish stocks as well as a further scientific assessment of the state of stocks; improvements to vessels for safety purposes to be exempted when calculating capacity; no discrimination between trawlers and boats using fixed fishing gears; the decision-making process on member states' programmes to be fully transparent and verifiable; the principle of relative stability and the national entitlement to take up quotas to be observed.
The Irish proposals were welcomed by all member states as a basis for going forward and I also won a firm commitment at the December Council to an agreement by April next. By ensuring that negotiations proceed on the basis of the Irish compromise and that there would be no indefinite postponing of a decision, we got the best possible outcome from all perspectives. A firm deadline for a decision safeguards the future availability of EU funding for the fleet. The Commission has made it clear that, without a decision, Structural Funds are under threat. A decision in April will protect that funding. Intensive negotiations are now under way to finalise the decision as there are complex technical matters to be sorted out. We have created the basis for a solution and in doing so we have shaped and influenced the outcome in the best interests of the Irish fishing fleet and, overall, in the interests of the European fisheries resource.
(Wexford): I welcome the Minister's clarification because fishermen, especially in my part of the country, said they were being kept in the dark on the proposals discussed and negotiated by the Minister which have never been fully explained to them or to the fishing organisations.
How does the Minister propose to control, or what proposals were put in place to control, the high capacity boats of the Netherlands and the UK which disregarded regulations and targets in past programmes? The Dutch were some 70 per cent over target in the last programme. What definite proposals are in place for levelling the playing pitch in this area?
What plans or proposals were included in negotiations to secure funding to allow Irish fishermen to upgrade the quality of their boats to allow them to compete fairly with the fleets in other EU countries? As the Minister will be aware, we have an old fleet and fishermen are not in a position financially to do anything about it. Has the Minister any definite proposals or funding in the package he has announced today?
The fishermen's organisations were kept fully informed. I accept the Deputy's claim that there was a breakdown in communication but we endeavoured to explain the situation to the various organisations.
As regards the level playing pitch, it is envisaged in our proposal that the starting point would be where one is supposed to be at the end of MAGP 3, which means the cuts which existed under that must be included. There can be no wiping out and starting anew because that would be grossly unfair to those countries, including us, which have had to make great sacrifices in reducing tonnage. I assure the Deputy that there is much anxiety not alone on the part of Ireland but on the part of other members states that those who have not met their targets should do so and start from the point where they ought to.
As regards renewal of the fleet, if the Commission's proposal for a 40 per cent reduction had gone ahead, there would be no possibility of Ireland doing anything to improve its fleet. That was another reason we were extremely concerned. I accept that investment in a fishing fleet is necessary on an ongoing basis. As the Deputy will be well aware, the level of funding allocated to the Operational Programme for Fisheries was insufficient to meet all demands. For that reason, I have, in the course of the mid-term review, argued my point in seeking additional funding under that programme. If that becomes available, I would be only too pleased to see moneys being allocated towards upgrading our fleet. However, we should not ignore the progress made under the modernisation grants by my constituency colleague, Deputy Andrews, my predecessor and myself. There has been considerable improvement by the modernisation programmes carried out on fishing vessels as a result of existing funding.
Having met the organisations, we are considering a pilot scheme to observe the effects of new boats in the white fish fleet and a firm of consultants is examining the socio-economic effect of replacing existing vessels with new ones. If large sums of money are invested in new vessels, there must be catches and quotas to justify repayments on boats and to make the overall venture viable. There is a danger that many others dependent for a living on fishing, perhaps on a part-time basis, will be displaced. All these factors must be taken into account.
