Vol. 498 No. 1
33 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if he will ensure that existing fish quotas are protected and improved; and if he will further ensure that Irish fishing interests are protected at the forthcoming fisheries EU Council meeting. [26754/98]
I am pleased to have this opportunity to brief the House on my strategic approach to next week's Fisheries Council. The negotiations will focus on the setting of total allowable catches and quotas for next year.
The EU Commission has tabled its proposals for 1999 in light of the scientific recommendations, stock assessments and management advice from the ICES Advisory Council on Fisheries Management and the EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee.
The Commission requested the scientists to adopt the precautionary principle in preparing its advice for 1999. The precautionary approach provides that uncertainty about, or lack of data on, stocks requires very conservative management measures. The scientific advice for 1999 in relation to a number of fish stocks is extremely pessimistic. The Commission has generally followed the advice and is proposing significant cuts in the TACs of certain stocks to allow the stocks to recover or, in some cases, to prevent collapse.
The context within which I am working to maximise Irish fishing possibilities next year is therefore very difficult. We cannot simply ignore the scientific advice. The fishing industry has been fully briefed on the science and the proposals and I will be working with their support to negotiate the best deal in the circumstances for Irish fishermen in the Council. My overall objective will be to maximise the fishing possibilities for the Irish fishing industry next year, while ensuring that essential conservation objectives are met through the setting of prudent sustainable TACs which will enable the restoration and viability of stocks. I will be urging my EU colleagues and the Commission to work to strike the right balance between biological and economic imperatives. We must secure the future of stocks while providing realistic economic opportunities for the fishing industry next year. The achievement of balance will be very difficult and the negotiations will be tough and long.
The agenda for Council will also include the formal signing off on the EU Norwegian fisheries agreement for 1999. The annual negotiations with Norway concluded last week. The 1999 overall mackerel TAC remains unchanged at 484,000 tonnes. This is good news for the Irish pelagic fleet. In addition, under sustained pressure from the Irish delegate, Norway's share of the blue whiting stocks in western waters has been cut by a further 10,000 tonnes for 1999. This will give scope for the Irish fleet to continue to develop this promising fishery next year. We got a good deal for Irish fishermen and the processing industry in these negotiations. I am glad to say that the industry has generally welcomed the package.
The Council will also be formally signing off on a number of measures to improve control and enforcement. The main effect of the measures will be to tighten up on flagship activities, improve monitoring and inspection in the transport and market chain and reinforce co-operation across Europe on control issues. I believe that these new measures, which I pushed for strongly at the October Council, will help to create the much needed level playing field in the Fisheries Council.
This will be a very tough Council. I do not underestimate the difficult challenges of delivering on my objective to maximise sustainable fishing opportunities for 1999 while ensuring the long-term future of fish stocks in our waters. As I have said, I am liaising very closely with the industry on our negotiating stance. The House can be assured of my full commitment to getting the best possible deal for the Irish fishing industry next week.
Would the Minister not agree, in the context of Ireland's position on fisheries, that while we have 16 per cent of European Union waters, 5 per cent of European Union catch levels and under 3 per cent of total tonnage, we are arriving at a situation similar to that of last year where we are considering a reduction in quotas? Would the Minister agree that is a contradiction, on the basis that we are trying to modernise our fishing fleet?
What hope does the Minister give to those who fish for herring when a major cut in herring stock levels is proposed in the different fishing areas? In other quota species, when the catch level was not reached, they used to swap for other fish.
I wish the Minister well at the fisheries negotiation but there is no cause for optimism about the Government's promise in its election manifesto that it would retain existing quotas. During the election campaign the Minister said he would increase fishing quotas. I would appreciate if the Minister would give hope to fishermen that the December meeting will come up with something worthwhile for them.
They will be difficult discussions, there is no question of that. It is typical of the December Council, it is like that every year. On the other hand the European Union is preserving the stocks so we are keeping our fishermen in business. It may be difficult but the fishermen themselves know the difficulties. They will be there at the negotiations and they are aware of what the scientific data indicate.
Notwithstanding that, there have been some improvements. The annual negotiations with Norway concluded last week and the 1999 overall mackerel TAC remains unchanged at 484,000 tonnes. This is good news for the Irish pelagic fleet. In addition, under sustained pressure from the Irish delegate, Norway's share of the blue whiting stocks in western waters has been cut by a further 10,000 tonnes for 1999. This will give scope to the Irish fleet to continue to develop this promising fishery next year. We got a good deal for Irish fishermen and the processing industry in these negotiations. The industry has generally welcomed that package.
In relation to each of the other quantities, we have a substantial amount of scientific data on the different areas around the coast which we have assessed. We will be matching our scientific data with that of the European Union and we believe it is not necessary, in our circumstances, to implement the cuts being proposed by the Commission. We will be seeking the retention of the 22,000 tonnes as against the Commission's proposal for 19,000 tonnes.
The time allowed for the question has expired.
On a point of order, I waited five weeks to put down a specific question and, as an Opposition spokesperson, all I get is a minute and a half while the Minister has spoken for four and a half minutes. This is totally wrong.
The Deputy should talk to the members of the committee who make the rules. The rules do not allow me any latitude.
Could the Chair not have intervened before now?
The Chair's function is not to change the rules but to apply them. The Chair cannot change the rules.
I am afraid this new arrangement is a protection of the Minister.
The Deputy should talk to other Members about that. I cannot change the rules as we go along. The Deputy has made his point, and I have explained the matter. The Deputy is well aware of the rules.
Does the Chair not think I am entitled to a response?
It is not a matter of what I think.
If the Minister spoke twice, surely I should get a chance to speak twice.
I must apply the rules of the House.
The rule is an ass in this case.
That is a reflection on some of the Deputy's colleagues who makes these rules.
I hope we will change that.
Question No. 34 falls as the Deputy who tabled it is not here. The rule prohibits me from taking the question at this stage. The Deputy should have notified the office and had the name attached to the question changed. That is the rule in relation to priority questions.
