Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1998

Vol. 493 No. 4

Priority Questions. - Driftnet Fishing.

Michael Finucane

Question:

23 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if he will support France should it invoke the Ioannina principle which allows member states to block regulations normally agreed by qualified majority voting if there is a national interest at stake; and his views on whether this course of action should be taken by him in view of the ban on tuna drift net fishing and the impact it will have on the financial livelihood of the fishermen in the southern coastal communities. [16425/98]

Dr. Woods

The Deputy's question is relevant to the negotiating context in which I succeeded in achieving a four year stay on the driftnet ban, against a background where most member states, the UK Presidency and the Commission favoured an immediate ban.

The following explanation of the "Ioannina Compromise" is not a legal interpretation but my own political assessment of the negotiating situation as it evolved. There is a total of 87 votes in the Council, 62 in favour are required for a qualified majority, 26 votes against are required for a blocking minority, Ireland has three votes, France and Italy each have ten votes which is directly relevant in this context.

The "Ioannina Compromise" was agreed in 1994. When voting, if members of the Council representing a total of 23 to 25 votes indicate their intention to oppose qualified majority decision, Council must try to reach "within a reasonable time", a solution which could be adopted by at least 65 votes. The Presidency of the day is charged, with the Commission, to take all steps to facilitate a wider basis for agreement.

"Ioannina" therefore is not a veto, nor does it confer a power to block a qualified majority decision and certainly not after the event. It creates a situation where Council, the Presidency and the Commission effectively have to take account of the minority view and to work as far as possible to arrive at an accommodation. Given the opposition of Ireland and France to the driftnet ban, combined with a significant level of opposition from Italy, totalling 23 votes, there was a climate of "Ioannina" operating right up to the final vote. My negotiating approach before and during Council was to maintain the support of France and Italy and to fight to gain the maximum in that scenario for the Irish fishing industry. When it came to the vote, I voted against the ban because of the adverse effect on Irish fishermen.

Additional Information

France also voted against. Italy abstained at which point invocation of "Ioannina" was no longer an option. But that was only after the date of implementation had been pushed back as far as possible and getting a framework which will enable us to prepare for a new future in the fishery.

Mr. Finucane

Is the Minister aware the French are furious and have said they hope to invoke the "Ioannina Compromise"? I recognise it is a blocking mechanism which operates. With respect, the Minister said he had succeeded in achieving a four year stay on the driftnet ban. If the Minister refers back over the records he will find that his colleague, Deputy Andrews, said four years ago he hoped to see an end to this issue. Are the new regulations for tuna fishing operational? Has the Minister dropped any potential legal action on this issue, as threatened?

Dr. Woods

The new directive comes into operation right away, beginning from 1998. An amendment was accepted which provided for research and technical development funds. We are pursuing that issue and discussing with the fishermen and BIM the implementation of those in relation to this season; in other words to see whether it is possible to have a trial of the new fishing methods undertaken during this season. That is under way at present. I am not aware of any realistic basis for a challenge. Our collective efforts would be more productively directed at ensuring a future for Irish fishermen in the tuna fishery, through research and reconversion in partnership and through, effectively, managing our continued involvement in the driftnet fishery over the next four years. That management process is under way.

Mr. Finucane

The Minister said he may not be aware of a legal challenge, yet it was he who said he would probably proceed with a legal challenge. Can I deduce from the Minister's reference to research and technology that the regulations will apply as and from this year for tuna fishermen and that the same number of vessels would no longer be able to fish for the traditional driftnet tuna fishing?

Dr. Woods

The confusion may arise from the fact that by voting against I left it open to Ireland to pursue any challenge subsequently. That was one of the effects of my voting against the ban. The number of fishermen who fished in 1997 will be able to fish in 1998. The numbers varied between 1995, 1996 and 1997. We succeeded in having the three years included. Therefore, we believe it will be possible to manage the situation reasonably well this year.