Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Nov 1999

Vol. 511 No. 5

Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Fishing Fleet.

Michael Finucane

Question:

4 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the fact that further development of the fishing fleet will be impeded if the financial instrument for fishery guidance proposal is introduced recommending that a 30 per cent excess tonnage will have to be taken out of the fleet capacity to justify purchasing a new or second-hand vessel and making development of the fishing fleet prohibitive; and if he will ensure this does not happen. [24817/99]

The negotiations on EU Structural Funding for fisheries, post-1999 were concluded at the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting on 21 and 22 November. My utmost priority was to ensure that a satisfactory financial regulation was agreed by Council which would allow for continu ing investment in the industry under the next round of Structural Funds.

I had fundamental problems, in principle and in practice, with the Commission's proposed terms and conditions for grant-aiding fleet renewal. The major difficulty for Ireland related, as the Deputy points out, to the provision which required that a 130 per cent tonnage replacement policy should be applied to all new and second-hand vessels entering the fleet with grant-aid support. With the backing of other member states, I held out against the hardline proposals at the June and October Councils and forced the Presidency and the Commission to reconsider the terms of the detailed rules governing public investment in the fleet.

I am pleased that at the Council meeting on 21 and 22 November I successfully faced down the Commission's proposals to introduce the requirement for a 130 per cent replacement capacity. The agreement I secured at Council provides that where annual EU fleet targets are met a principle of one for one replacement and not 130 per cent should continue to apply as a pre-condition for grant-aiding new and modern second-hand fishing vessels. I made it clear to the Council that I could not accept any attempt to either overrule fleet capacity requirements which had already been provided for separately in a 1997 Council decision or to pre-empt political negotiations and decisions on the next fleet programme which will be determined in 2001. This would have seriously impeded our plans to modernise the inshore fisheries sector, where half of our fishermen are employed, and the whitefish sector, at a time when modernisation is critical to make it safer and more competitive with other EU fleets.

I also won Council agreement for my proposal that within the grant aid provisions there should be specific support for young fishermen to become boat owners in the industry. That agreement provides that fishermen under 35 will be eligible for a grant of up to 50,000 euros. In addition, I ensured that small scale coastal fishing vessels of up to 12 metres, groups of vessel owners or a family of fishermen can avail of a 150,000 euro premium for development.

The agreement secured at the Council of Ministers represents a realistic balance between the conservation of fish stocks and the need to ensure a safe, modern and high quality work environment for fishermen.

An integral part of the Common Fisheries Policy is related to these structural matters for the fisheries sector to help revitalise areas dependent on fisheries. While I am pleased the Minister faced down the other communities which support the measure, I am sure they put the same interpretation on the papers as the Minister. I am delighted it resulted in a ratio of 1:1, as concern was expressed about the proposal. It was always believed the matter should be discussed under the next multi-annual guidance programme. Is this matter likely to be on the agenda in 2001 or can we, in the context of the national development plan and fleet modernisation, assure fishermen that it will not be revisited then?

I would like to be able to give that assurance. That is the time when the size of the fleets will be reconsidered and when the multi-annual guidance programme will be revisited. People will make different suggestions on how the fleets can be contained. We will not have the same problem at that stage because our difficulty is that our fleet urgently needs to be modernised and upgraded because it is old. If the proposal had been accepted, it would have penalised anyone upgrading their fleet. We must watch that carefully when the time comes.

The Deputy said others had the same view. They may sometimes have similar views but they are not always the same because everyone has different interests. We had to be careful to ensure the areas which needed support were looked after. My officials played a major part in the difficult and long drawn out negotiations. Our proposed wording was eventually accepted, although some other countries did not get what they wanted.

I made that statement because the Fisheries Council in Brussels stated on 22 November that many delegations insisted on a 100 per cent ratio basis across the board. Given the uncertainty about returning to this issue again in 2001, surely we should modernise and upgrade our fleet in 2000? As regards the financial package available under the national development plan in the next few years, surely we should try to get as much of this work as possible done next year and continue to modernise our fleet?

We are set up to do so now.

Top
Share