Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Nov 2001

Vol. 544 No. 4

Priority Questions. - Fishing Vessel Licences.

Alan M. Dukes

Question:

64 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the basis on which he has issued fishing licences to five vessels (details supplied) which have entered the Irish register without complying with the tonnage requirements; the nature of the licences issued; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that two of the vessels have since been enlarged; if he has approved their enlargement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29015/01]

The five pelagic fishing vessels referred to by the Deputy are licensed under section 222B of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, as amended. These licences, were granted subject to and pending resolution of outstanding replacement capacity issues at national and EU level.

Under existing licensing policy, 100% replacement capacity must be provided before vessels in the fleet can be replaced by new vessels. The full replacement capacity has not yet been provided in the case of these five vessels. All five vessel owners have submitted data in support of their cases that the increased tonnage capacity relates exclusively to safety improvements. I am aware, in particular, that two of the vessels concerned were lengthened some years after their introduction into the fleet to address serious stability and operational safety concerns.

The 100% replacement requirement will be determined in light of decisions by the Commission on applications for safety tonnage credits in each case. Under the 1997 EU Council decision on the fourth multi-annual guidance programme for the EU fleet, increases in capacity resulting exclusively from safety improvements may be credited to individual vessels. These must be justified on a case by case basis and approved by the Commission. My Department has been liaising with the vessel owners on their safety tonnage applications, which are being evaluated for transmission to the Commission. In the event that the safety tonnage credits are not approved by the Commission in respect of all the tonnage in question, the vessel owners will be obliged to meet the tonnage shortfall.

Two of the vessels concerned are also showing a shortfall in engine power replacement capacity. My Department is in regular communication with the owners of the vessels concerned regarding this shortfall and has advised them that the excess power must be addressed without delay.

What is going on here? Five vessels have been issued with licences subject to a number of issues being resolved. Another vessel, the largest in the Irish fleet and one of the largest in the world, has already been discussed. Why does the Minister so often find himself in a position in which he issues licences to a small number of vessels in advance of various criteria and conditions being met, while at the same time refusing to issue licences to other bona fide persons, whose applications are in accordance with the licensing scheme and who have complied with all requirements on matters such as replacement tonnage and replacement power? Is there a reason extraordinary efforts are made for a small number of vessels, about which arguments are taking place with the European Commission, while for a substantial number of other vessels a rigid approach is taken, under which every "I" must be dotted and every "T" crossed before a licence is issued?

Will the Minister of State inform the House if the enlargement of these five vessels is related solely to safety and stability? Has any of it been related to an upgrading of the fishing equipment and the storage equipment on vessels?

It has all been related to safety credits.

We are in constant contact with the European Commission and we intend to regularise the position with regard to the five boats. Two other vessels have been issued with licences on an excep tional basis pending resolution of safety tonnage issues and my officials are following up on a third which has come to our attention in the past few weeks. That is in addition to the five vessels the Deputy mentioned in his question, but the circumstances are similar. It is not a question of just cutting this off at five vessels. The Deputy will understand that it is very important to us to have a safe fleet. Obviously the bigger the equipment, the safer that equipment will be. We have an ageing fleet and we want to bring it up to modern operational standards. It is our intention to ensure that the tonnage required is either found or credited for safety reasons. It is our intention that there is no skulduggery whatsoever. I stress that this is being done for safety reasons.

Why is there a particular problem with these five vessels and the other three the Minister of State mentioned? How long has this anomalous circumstance obtained? How many temporary licences have been granted to these vessels and how often have they been extended? Does the Minister of State agree that it is very, very odd – to say the least – that in relation to these five vessels and the three others this approach is being taken by his Department when a much simpler request regarding a much smaller vessel for the replacement of a timber vessel by a steel vessel was turned down even though all the tonnage requirements were met? That is only one example as given by my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, on the last occasion Marine questions were taken here.

Deputy Sheehan was looking for three boats to be replaced by one.

In relation to the five vessels mentioned here, the first temporary licence was issued in 1996. It goes back that far. It was issued by the Deputy's colleague.

That was five years ago, yet the Minister of State still has not resolved the issue.

That is a measure of the problem caused by the Deputy's colleague. I do not think it was Deputy Gilmore and I would not dare to suggest that it was.

Top
Share