Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1998

Vol. 492 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Drift Net Fishing.

Mr. Finucane

The European Fisheries Council meeting on Monday, 8 June, was a black day for Irish tuna fishermen with the phased banning of drift nets over the next few years. It is sad to see how Spanish fishermen and environmentalists combined to convince the majority of EU Ministers to bring the drift net ban into effect. The ban will hit drift net fishermen in the south as the tuna fleet operates out of Castletownbere, Union Hall and Dingle. It is most regrettable that the Minister was not able to convince other Ministers that, based on scientific evidence, there was no justification for the drift net ban. This fishery was of vital economic importance to the south west communities. The ban comes on top of the collapse in herring prices and is a further hammer blow for these communities.

In reply to a parliamentary question on Tuesday, 31 March 1998, the Minister indicated that EU financial support will be made available. As the emphasis will now shift to compensation, the Minister will have to consider compensation arrangements in respect of lost future revenue and aid for conversion to new gear if the fishermen decide to continue in this fishery.

Reporting of this issue has given the mistaken impression that the drift net ban will operate from 2002. It is important to bear in mind that there is to be a phased reduction this year of 40 per cent. On behalf of fishermen I welcome the fact that at the Estimates meeting today it was decided the phasing out will not apply to Irish fishermen this year. I am aware that the Minister still has to assess the regulations which will apply to tuna fishermen.

Surely, the Minister is aware that Spanish fishermen, who primarily use a different method of fishing, namely trolling, advocated the drift net ban in pursuit of their own selfish interest in the fishery. Up to the talks in Luxembourg they consistently stated they did not use drift nets. Were they being economical with the truth as it has now transpired they have about 100 vessels using drift nets?

In his response to this issue on 31 March the Minister, in a reference to the proposal to ban drift net fishing for tuna, stated the proposal exceeded international legal requirements. If this is the case what course of legal action does he intend taking to get the decision revoked? It is interesting to note that following his walkout from the Fisheries Council meeting in Luxembourg in December 1997, he again stated the Attorney General would review the legal implications of the decision regarding the horse mackerel allocation. A statement was made that everything political and legal would be explored to see how the quota share out could be overturned. Six months later these commitments have a hollow ring.

Should the Minister fail in his legal efforts regarding tuna fishing, it is most important he ensures there are adequate compensation measures for the fishermen and I hope he will provide appropriate reassurance for them.

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Dr. Woods)

I welcome the opportunity to brief the House on the outcome of last Monday's Fisheries Council meeting when I secured, in the face of overwhelming opposition, a four year stay on the ban on drift net fishing for tuna.

During marathon discussions over ten hours I faced down on five occasions the original proposal to implement the ban within two years and won Council agreement to postpone the ban for four years until January 2002. I also copperfastened assurances on the availability of research funding from the Commission and a further window of opportunity to pursue additional financial support measures to assist the industry convert to other means of fishing. Deputy Finucane is correct when he says the Spanish admitted in the course of the Council meeting that they had 100 vessels using drift nets.

Having secured every possible concession against all the odds for Irish fishermen, I then voted against the ban. I was joined only by my French colleague in this action while Italy abstained. The size of the majority vote underlines the essentially political nature of the decision. Twelve member states, with a combined 64 votes, were in favour of the ban from the start with the full support of the Commission. The House should be under no illusion about the way the odds were stacked. I voted against the ban for the reasons I have opposed it all along. I do not accept that there is scientific justification to back up the ban which goes beyond the international requirements of the UN resolution of 1989 which allows for drift nets of 2.5 kilometres. This was the standard by which our fishermen abided and operated. They were in full compliance with the UN resolution.

There are strict control measures governing the tuna fishery and I have consistently pointed out the risk that the ban would simply put more pressure on white fish stocks which are already over fished in our waters by the fleets of other member states. I took a strong principled stance from the start of the negotiations in January which were being driven as a priority by the UK presidency. At the Council in March, I made my position on the legal and scientific issues abundantly clear and had the support of France in doing so. Most significantly in March I won Council recognition of the human consequences of a ban and agreement to put off a decision until the socio-economic consequences for Irish fishermen and coastal communities were addressed in a framework which would allow funding for research into alternative techniques and for reconversion and retraining of fishermen. My objective was to ensure that irrespective of a drift net ban, Irish fishermen would be helped to remain in the tuna fishery. My strategic approach between March and this week was to work intensively at all levels to push the date of implementation as far back as possible and create an explicit commitment to allow for research and other funding options for the sector to be pursued, particularly technology transfer.

I worked intensively with Minister Cunningham and Commissioner Bonino in the interim period, as well as liaising directly, and in person, with the German and French Ministers and other colleagues, right up to Monday. Throughout these negotiations, I have been in close contact with the tuna fishermen in the south west. Their backing was critical for me and I was very glad to see them in Luxembourg to forcefully underline their case to the media and the public generally.

While I have at no point relented on my principled opposition to this ban, up to and including the Council negotiations on Monday, I have consistently and I believe successfully, fought the case for postponement and a framework which will allow us to work with and support Irish fishermen to ensure their continued participation in the tuna fishery.

The stark reality at the outset was that the overwhelming majority of member states, the UK Presidency and the Commission favoured the ban. My negotiating approach in the face of 64 votes from the start was to fight, inch by inch, to gain the maximum in that scenario for the Irish fishing industry. With a total of 23 votes, we did not even have a minimal blocking minority. I must acknowledge the positive spirit in which the UK Presidency was prepared to work with me in the past two months. I am also appreciative of the support of my French colleague who shares my fundamental concerns about this and worked with me throughout. The fact the decision which was inevitably arrived at on Monday gives us four more years and a clear window of opportunity to develop support plans to remain in the fishery underlines the importance for a small country like Ireland of taking a tough and principled negotiating stance in Europe. I will be working intensively with the industry in the coming months to ensure we use the next four years to best effect to prepare for a new future in the tuna fishery. I have no doubt I will have the support of Deputies in this endeavour.