Vol. 613 No. 1
113 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if the level of fishing effort is in accordance with Council Regulations 1954 of 2003 and 1415 of 2004 fishing effort in western waters; if he has evidence that Spanish effort is not increasing, particularly in the area previously known as the Irish Box; if levels are being monitored; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2221/06]
New fishing effort levels were established for western waters following intensive negotiations during 2003 and 2004. The new regime established fishing effort levels for whitefish, scallop and crab fisheries based on the actual levels of fishing effort exerted by the various fleets over the five-year period 1998 to 2002.
The implementation of the new western waters regime also involved the establishment of a biologically sensitive area to the south and south west of Ireland, the so-called new Irish Box, where specific effort limits were also established. On the basis of a case made by Ireland, this area was scientifically proven as being especially sensitive owing to its importance as a spawning and nursery area to important whitefish species such as hake and megrims in particular.
The fishing effort levels laid down in Council Regulation 1415 of 2004 are subject to detailed reporting requirements by all member states concerned. These maximum effort levels are legislatively enforced at EU level and any breach of those limits by the fishing fleets of any member state is subject to possible infringement proceedings by the European Commission against that member state. Therefore, the European Commission is in an effective position to monitor the situation and take action in the event of non-compliance with the limits.
I am not aware that there has been an increase in effort beyond the permitted levels by the fishing vessels of any member state. As these levels reflect the fishing activity in the period 1998 to 2002, they do not allow for increases in excess of that employed at that time. The fishing effort limits established provide the necessary protection for fish stocks in waters around Ireland, both inside and outside the Irish Box.
What assurance can the Minister of State provide regarding the monitoring of fishing effort levels in this area? Are fishing effort levels being monitored? It has come to my attention that some Spanish interests are attempting to have the fishing effort levels of large deep water freezer trawlers currently fishing in the NAFO waters transferred to Area 7. Can the Minister of State assure Irish fishermen this will not be allowed to happen as it will result in increased fishing in the area?
Can the Minister of State provide assurances on the level of monitoring? Who is undertaking this monitoring currently? The Minister of State may not be aware of such an increase in effort but how can he be sure it is not happening?
The Irish Naval Service monitors fishing activities of foreign fishing vessels as part of normal patrol missions. The Naval Service can board vessels at sea and inspect fishing gear used by vessels according to methods and criteria established and prescribed by EU fisheries legislation so vessels comply with requirements and minimum mesh sizes. Vessels are also boarded at sea and the catch inspected for compliance with EU fisheries legislation governing minimum sizes of fish. The Naval Service can also verify the proper recording of catches.
Many vessels land at Irish ports so the Department's land-based inspectorate carries out regular checks of all vessels when they discharge fish into Irish ports. Foreign vessels, like Irish vessels, are required to give prior notification of landing, including information of the catch on board and where it is proposed to land. Inspections carried out by sea fisheries officers check when the vessels land in Ireland and check the advance notification information against the catch records in the EU fisheries log book and against the fish landed.
I can give assurances that as far as is possible and practical, we carry out all necessary checks. I understand Deputy Perry's concern as there is a perception that such checks do not take place. These checks will continue to take place.
What is the opinion of the Minister of State regarding deep water freezer trawlers and the attempt by some Spanish interests to have fishing effort levels of large deep water vessels currently fishing in the NAFO waters transferred to Area 7? Will he resist this?
This is a separate question. I will examine this in detail and if it will be detrimental to——
It will be detrimental and this is a major concern. It would clean out the Irish Box.
I will try to establish if this is the case. We signed up to the Common Fisheries Policy in January 1993, which was reviewed recently. We are obliged to comply with EU regulation. Perhaps this is a matter over which I can exercise some control and if not I will highlight it with the EU Commission.
114 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if measures will be forwarded to establish a strategic gas reserve; the reason Ireland is only one of three EU member states not to have such a reserve; his policy on further securing Irish gas supplies; the Irish production of natural gas; the amount of Ireland’s supply of natural gas which is imported; the estimated reserves of indigenous natural gas left; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2222/06]
While Ireland does not currently maintain a strategic gas reserve, commercial reserves of natural gas are held by licensed natural gas shippers and suppliers, including BGE. Several other EU member states, including the United Kingdom, operate a similar regime.
I have been informed by BGE that, at current levels, its Kinsale reserves would supply 50% of non-daily metered customer requirements, that is, for small business and domestic use for up to 50 days. This is in addition to stocks held by BGE in the United Kingdom.
The Commission for Energy Regulation has responsibility for monitoring on an ongoing basis the security of natural gas supply. The commission publishes an annual gas capacity statement. This provides a seven-year rolling forecast of capacity, flows and customer demand to assess the adequacy of the Irish gas transmission system, including the interconnectors. The gas capacity statement also considers whether projected supplies of gas, from indigenous sources, imports and storage, are sufficient to meet forecast demand. A key finding of the 2005 gas capacity statement is that even under unusually cold weather conditions, the Irish gas transmission system will cope with forecast demand.
Bord Gáis Éireann, in its role as the natural gas transmission system operator, has developed contingency plans in the event of a curtailment in gas supplies. Those plans include switching gas-fired power generation plant to alternative fuels, seeking voluntary reductions from large industrial gas consumers and utilising BGEs reserves from the south-west Kinsale reservoir.
I am aware that the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, is in discussion with Marathon Oil Ireland Limited about the development of commercial natural gas storage facilities at south-west Kinsale. It recently completed a public consultation on the proposed regulatory regime for the storage facility. Further consultation on a natural gas storage licence will commence shortly. It is planned that the storage facility will be operational by the middle of 2006. In the context of the all-island energy market development framework, the scope for a common North-South approach on storage and liquefied natural gas is also being jointly explored.
There is no EU obligation to establish or hold strategic reserves of natural gas. My Department is working to transpose EU Directive 2004/67 on measures to safeguard security of natural gas supply, which will further define the roles and responsibilities of gas market players relative to security of supply, in the context of the liberalised natural gas market.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The directive also provides for the establishment of a gas co-ordination group to facilitate the co-ordination of national measures between member states in the event of a major supply disruption. The group met informally on 4 January in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine impasse and the group will meet regularly from now on given the need for the EU to co-ordinate more effectively on security of gas supply.
The 2005 gas capacity statement by the Commission for Energy Regulation shows that in 2004, 81% of Ireland's natural gas was imported via the interconnectors with 19% supplied by indigenous production. At the end of 2004, total remaining indigenous gas reserves in fields under production or development are estimated to have been approximately 960 billion cubic feet, that is, just less than a trillion cubic feet. Taking account of subsequent production the estimated remaining reserves at the end of November 2005 were approximately 940 billion cubic feet.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I send him best wishes for the new year and his last full year as Minister. The Minister referred to 50% of non-daily metered customer requirements being supplied by Kinsale. What does that mean? How much natural gas would this country have in the event of what happened between Russia and the Ukraine, which only lasted for a day or two, continuing and becoming much worse? The UK is completely integrated into the European gas network, effectively at the end of the pipe increasingly supplied by Russia. How long could we survive on Kinsale gas if another grave crisis occurred?
It has been European Union policy since last year to urge all member states to have a strategic gas reserve. What attitude did the Minister take in 2004 at the EU Council discussion on this matter? Was Ireland opposed to it? As far as I know, only three states, Ireland, the UK and Sweden, do not have strategic gas reserves. If we were to establish a further strategic gas reserve, how and where would it be done? What would be the responsibility for BGE and the CER?
We have a massive reserve off the north-western coast at the Corrib field. It is projected to be able to meet approximately 60% of Irish needs for ten years at a minimum. Everybody feels we must get that gas ashore by agreement with local people as soon as possible. In that context, I understand the Minister has the final report of Advantica Consultants. Will the Minister publish it and, if so, when? What reports has the Minister received recently from Mr. Peter Cassells, the facilitator for a resolution of the Corrib dispute?
Regarding the question on strategic reserves, at present it is in terms of 50% of non-daily metered customer requirements, which includes small businesses and domestic, for up to 50 days. We use approximately 15 million to 20 million standard cubic metres per day during the winter gas demand period. Of that, approximately 9 million to 12 million standard cubic metres per day is power generation demand. Residential, industrial and commercial demand is approximately 3.5 million to 4 million standard cubic metres per day. The pipeline system itself, including the interconnectors and the ring main, contains a stock level of approximately 20 to 30 million standard cubic metres. The Kinsale field can produce approximately 1 million to 1.5 million standard cubic metres per day without storage and 4 million to 4.5 million standard cubic metres per day with storage.
The figures on which the newspaper report quoted by the Deputy was based were out of date. The claim that Ireland is one of only three EU countries which does not hold strategic reserves appears to arise from a report by the Austrian energy regulator. As I noted, the data in the original statement were not up to date and the figures quoted show the storage capacities within each EU state, rather than their strategic reserves.
The final part of the Deputy's question pertained to the Corrib gas field. While this is a separate issue in some ways , it is also closely connected. Its estimated gas reserves are in the order of 875 billion cubic feet. As the Deputy noted, these reserves have the potential to make a significant contribution towards Ireland's natural gas requirements. The immediate flow of gas would reduce our imports by approximately 60%.
As for the status of the Advantica report and the mediation process undertaken by Peter Cassells, he has briefed me twice. As recently as one week or ten days ago, he brought me up to date regarding the people he has met and the issues which have been raised. That was the last time I spoke to him. He has met officials from the Department a number of times and he estimates that he should provide me with final conclusions on the mediation process in the spring, over the next month or so. While the Advantica report is with the Department at present, as the Deputy is aware, the technical advisory group must make recommendations to me on the basis of the final draft report. I expect this to take place in the next few weeks and I will then consider them. However, the report will be published.
115 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the steps he intends taking at Council of Ministers and European Commission level to effect radical reform of the European Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that Irish naval vessels have real-time information on the actual quota allocation that is available to each vessel fishing in Irish waters. [2519/06]
The Common Fisheries Policy was comprehensively reviewed in 2002. One of its key outcomes was a greater emphasis on fisheries control. The reformed Common Fisheries Policy contains a specific chapter dealing with control and sets a variety of requirements that all member states must implement to ensure that fisheries resources are adequately protected.
While I understand the potential benefits underpinning Deputy Eamon Ryan's suggestion, there would be considerable difficulties with its implementation. It would require all member states to have domestic quota management systems that allocate a quota to each vessel for every fish stock. This level of allocation is not the practice in every member state and such harmonisation is unlikely in the foreseeable future for complex reasons, including quota ownership. Therefore, quota management systems are likely to remain a matter of policy choice for each member state.
However, a number of systems are in place that facilitate control of fishing vessels of other member states. For example, each member state must report to the Commission the level of uptake of their national total allowable catch for each fish species. If the total allowable catch of any species is exhausted, the control services of every member state are immediately alerted by the Commission that a fishing stop is in place for that species.
Ireland also receives notification directly from individual member states of lists of fishing vessels that have access entitlement under the Community legislation on western waters. Ireland's control services also routinely receive information listing the entitlements of listed fishing vessels to participate in specific fisheries. It also advises the flag member state of the logged catches of vessels boarded. It is, accordingly, a matter for the flag member state to take action, including possible prosecution, against any vessel that exceeds internal catch limits established by its administration. This co-operation can be strengthened and the impending establishment of the Community fisheries control agency in Vigo will deliver closer co-operation, thereby making a valuable contribution in the fight against illegal fishing activities.
In response to an earlier question, the Minister of State assured the House that there is, as much as possible and practicable, a proper control system in place. I assure him that almost everyone involved in this business agrees that there is an utter lack of control in fisheries management, that there is, in effect, an utterly corrupt regime where it is impossible for the Naval Service to ascertain the individual quota for a boat and therefore police the system. In effect, there is open fishing. In those circumstances, is that any surprise?
I want to hear the Minister of State's response to this country's marine scientists, who at an Oireachtas committee last week made the remarkable statement that the figures for the system — the TACs and quotas — are plucked from thin air because no one believes the landing figures given that the system is untenable.
Rather than the Minister of State coming here today and stating it is not possible to fix that fundamental flaw in the system and to even approach Brussels and say that we have a serious problem here, and rather than saying that due to complex difficulties we cannot have real time quotas, I want to know what the Minister will do. Will he continue to be the only person to claim that this system is working when if one talks to any honest fisherman, anyone in the science community or anyone who knows anything about this, they state that this is a corrupt, uncontrollable system? What will the Minister of State do about it?
I respectfully suggest to the Deputy that perhaps at some time in the future he visit a number of ports in the country — I can arrange that — and establish for himself what precisely happens when fish are landed. As I stated in reply to Deputy Perry, fishermen must advise in advance that they are landing. They have their log sheets and the sea fisheries officers can inspect them, whether they relate to bulk fish or pelagic species of demersal fish.
Since I took over for marine, together with the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, I have been satisfied that our record has been a fair one. On the suggestion of corruption, that is a matter for investigations that are taking place and we are not hindering those investigations in any way.
May I suggest——
I am entitled to reply and defend the system and the sea fishery officers who do their work. We have those systems in places. As a result of the recent review of the Common Fisheries Policy, we have these responsibilities and we are taking them seriously. I am a great believer in, and the one person who realises the importance of, managing quotas now that the landings are restricted so that we can get full advantage from this. We monitor the system on a regular basis so that we do not have a glut of fish and with the lesser quantities being landed, we can ensure better quality and maximum prices.
I draw the Deputy's attention to the Commission's control scoreboard of last week, from where this all has possibly emanated. It is important not to take the headline from that because that scoreboard was not a fair and balanced assessment of the situation. It referred to three of 60 species. Anyone who understands the industry knows that one cannot cut off to the last tonne or kilo at the end of the year. It referred to black scabbard, prawns and scad. All those were deducted from the quota in the previous year and therefore there were no losers. In Europe, those who understand the industry will agree that there should be an additional 10% at the end of any year, where a shortfall should lead to a carryover and an excess should lead to a reduction.
I will facilitate any Member of this House, and particularly the spokespersons, in visiting ports. It is easy to criticise from the comfort of our offices in Dublin.
Representatives of the our Marine Institute told the joint committee they do not believe the landing reports. Without referring to individual cases, the system is crooked and utterly corrupt. I seek an honest answer from the Minister of State. Boats from various European countries, including France, Spain and Belgium, can openly fish in Irish waters. How can the Naval Service police the quota system when it does not know the quotas of individual boats? That is the fundamental flaw in the system. Unless the Naval Service has same day information regarding the quota a country has issued to a boat for each species, we have open fishing. Given the number of trawlers fishing in our waters and the technology available on them, our seas will be wiped clean. We have some of the best fishing grounds in the world but we are losing them because the Minister of State is turning a blind eye to that fundamental flaw. Is it acceptable that Irish naval vessels should not know what quotas are available to foreign vessels?
I cannot be held responsible——
He is the Minister responsible.
I cannot be held responsible for the Common Fisheries Policy, which does not provide for individual quotas for a period for each vessel.
The Minister of State should change that.
We have that in Ireland. I advocated change.
When and where?
I have done that on numerous occasions.
The Minister of State should provide us with that information rather than leaking reports. I know what is going on.
Action speaks louder than words. We have built quotas into our system, as far as is practicable, but that has not been adopted by all member states. The system pursued in Ireland is not corrupt.
No, but the entire European system is corrupt.
I will try to impress this on colleagues at every opportunity. However, I must be realistic. The Common Fisheries Policy was reviewed in 2003 and it is not possible to make this change. I have no difficulty raising it because, as the custodian of the resource, I have an obligation to future generations. If the Deputy was fully familiar with this issue, he would know the Irish and UK fishing industries have always supported technical conservation measures with a view to ensuring the long-term viability of the industry. I will raise this at every opportunity but I should not be labelled with responsibility for all of Europe because I am not the commissioner.
116 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the availability of broadband and relevant infrastructure here has almost the worst record in Europe; if he intends to issue directives or instructions to the various service providers and the regulator in an effort to accelerate the programme towards achieving relevant targets in view of the fact that in the European league Ireland’s position has dropped from the top three to the last two with consequent implications for domestic and commercial customers; if the precise obstacles impeding development in this area have been identified; the action he proposes to take; the timetable involved to catch up with developments in other European jurisdictions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2523/06]
The provision of telecommunications services and the development and roll-out of telecommunications technology is primarily a matter for the industry itself. The telecommunications market is fully liberalised and regulated by the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, which is independent in the exercise of its functions, in accordance with the provisions of the Communications Regulations Act 2002.
In comparison to other European counties, private broadband service providers in Ireland were relatively slow in launching competitive, affordable broadband. However, the position is improving rapidly. In late 2004, the Government set a target of 400,000 broadband subscribers to be achieved by the end of 2006. I have, however, challenged the industry to strive for 500,000 subscribers by then. The Government's broadband target is to be within the top half of EU countries by the end of 2007. Since 2004, broadband subscriber numbers have more than doubled and the current take-up for broadband is approximately 10,000 per month and continues to increase across a range of technologies.
The latest quarterly data report published by ComReg on broadband delivery rates indicates broadband subscriptions had increased by 19% as of September 2005 to 208,000. DSL remains the largest platform for broadband access, representing 78% of subscriptions and a growth rate of 16% in the last quarter. The proportion of broadband subscriptions delivered over access platforms other than DSL has increased over the past 12 months. The estimated end December 2005 figure for broadband subscribers is 250,000, according to the regulator. In 2004 there were more than 80 Internet service providers whereas today more than 156 companies are listed by ComReg, with at least 45 different broadband offerings across a variety of technologies, including DSL, fibre, cable, leased lines and satellite technology. Wireless broadband technology is improving rapidly and the lowering of equipment prices has made this technology much more attractive of late. The use of fixed wireless local access is increasing, especially in rural areas that cannot obtain ADSL connectivity and the development of Wi-Max offers considerable potential in the future. New technologies can deliver broadband to virtually any broadband customer in Ireland.
Ireland is the lowest cost country in the OECD for international connectivity, our regional broadband pricing is on a par with the best in Europe and the price of basic broadband access is at the EU average.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department's website, www.broadband.gov.ie, gives prices, service levels and contact details for each service provider offering a wide range of broadband products.
The rate of broadband uptake is dependent on a combination of factors. These include access by private sector service providers to suitable infrastructure as well as competition between broadband service providers and demand conditions for broadband in the economy. In addition to setting challenging targets to the telecommunications industry, the Government has taken a number of policy and investment initiatives to improve broadband availability.
In March 2004, a number of policy directions were issued to ComReg by my predecessor, the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, relating to competition, broadband, wholesale and retail line rental, interconnection and leased lines, and national and cross-Border roaming. The direction on broadband required ComReg to use regulatory and enforcement tools, where necessary and subject to relevant requirements under European and national law, to support initiatives to develop broadband and remove regulatory barriers, if any exist, to such initiatives.
Local loop unbundling, LLU, is mandated by a European Council regulation and responsibility for its implementation is a matter for ComReg under the Communications Regulation Act 2002 and the transposed EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services. I have no powers to issue instructions to service providers on broadband.
Given that the level of investment by the sector in high-speed broadband infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the demand for broadband, my Department is addressing the local infrastructure deficit by building high-speed, open-access, fibre-based metropolitan area networks, MANs, in 120 towns and cities nationwide. This is taking place on a phased basis, in association with the local and regional authorities, using European Regional Development Fund and Government funding under the National Development Plan 2000-2006.
Phase one of this programme has so far delivered fibre-optic networks to 27 towns and cities. The programme has been extended to a further 90 towns nationwide. Design and procurement is well advanced in most regions and construction is due to start early this year. These networks will be completed during 2006 and 2007. They allow the private sector to offer world-class broadband services at competitive costs.
My Department also offers funding assistance for smaller towns and rural communities to become self-sufficient in broadband through the county and group broadband scheme. This scheme is technology-neutral, allowing the community to select the most suitable broadband delivery platform for the area. To date, more than 150 projects have been approved for funding under the programme. In addition, a joint industry-Government fund of €18 million has been established for the broadband for schools programme, which will provide every school in the country with broadband during 2006. Full details of the regional broadband programme can be found on my Department's website, www.dcmnr.gov.ie.
Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland, which had a similar start date in respect of the provision of broadband facilities, now has 100% service? Is he further aware that the original target set by his Department of 500,000 connections has been miserably missed and that a Forfás report issued at the end of 2005 clearly indicates a serious deficit in terms of broadband penetration as compared with other industrialised countries with which we are in competition? Can the Minister take any initiatives to accelerate the speed with which broadband is made available and allow for the delivery to the customer of the benefits of deregulation and local loop unbundling, removing all the obstacles that have proven so significant in regard to broadband provision?
Provision of broadband services in Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom roll-out, which began considerably earlier than our own. As the Deputy mentioned, there is now 100% availability in the North. However, the figures for uptake of broadband technology there are no better than those for the Republic. It may be the case that one can bring the horse to water but one cannot make it drink.
The rate of broadband uptake in the Republic has accelerated in the last 18 months and there is no part of the country in which it is not available. I agree with the Deputy, however, that the cost is prohibitive in some rural areas. The initiatives we have undertaken to ensure broadband is rolled out, including the MANs programme, the broadband for schools programme and the county and group broadband scheme, are well known to the Deputy. The response to these efforts by the Government to ensure the rapid spread of broadband throughout the country has been positive.
It is good that a number of reports have highlighted the necessity to continue efforts to make broadband available. Many of these reports, however, including that issued by Forfás and other international reports, would benefit from more precise measurement techniques because they do not always compare like with like. While our basic provision of broadband is one megabyte, some of the other European countries with which we are compared provide less than half that bandwidth for broadband.
In regard to the Deputy's final question, I reiterate that I have powers in this respect. My predecessor used those to issue directions to ComReg on competition and costs. That is kept under constant review. The other area where I can be helpful and proactive is in bringing forward legislation — as I will during the first half of this year — that will give extra powers to ComReg.
Given the experience of the past two years, does the Minister believe it will be possible to deliver to the customer, whether industrial or domestic, the benefits of deregulation and local loop unbundling? Does he see any obstacles not possible for resolution given that the original target was for 500,000 connections more than a year ago, these targets have been revised downwards since on two occasions and it appears there is no chance of achieving these modified targets?
He is the Minister for U-turns.
One could put an S-hook on it.
I am not aware of the target to which the Deputy refers. Since my predecessor's time, the target in my Department has always been 400,000.
Some 500 connections by the end of 2004.
I challenged the industry because I believe it can deliver 500,000 connections by the end of next year. There have been many challenges in this regard. The regulator attempted to expedite the local loop and bundling, and that ended up in the High Court. No matter how good the regulation, the system in place from a European point of view and from our national legislation point of view is that once a direction is given a person or company has a right to appeal and go to the courts. There is not much I can do to prevent them from doing so. The last decision of the regulator was fought in the High Court precisely because they tried to remove Eircom's right of appeal to the LLU direction given. ComReg is continuing to work with the fixed line incumbent and the alternate operators to try to agree a methodology for an early roll-out of LLU. I will assist the process in any way I can.
117 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on the common fisheries policy; and the arrangements governing the Irish fisheries’ need to be subject to a process of review and reform. [2449/06]
The Common Fisheries Policy was reviewed in 2002 and this led to a new basic regulation that will govern EU fisheries policy until the early part of the next decade. It is not realistic, therefore, to expect a further reform process in the interim.
The 2002 reform embraced all the key areas such as access to resources, conservation, control and enforcement, structures and fleet policy. Ireland's approach to these issues was informed by an expert group consisting of representatives of the Irish fishing industry, which was chaired by Mr. Padraic White. With the benefit of this detailed input, Ireland participated actively in the reform process and the reform package finally agreed contains many of the recommendations of Ireland's national strategy review group.
The reformed Common Fisheries Policy reflects many of the concerns expressed by Ireland. These include a much stronger emphasis on stock conservation and in that regard we have since seen the introduction of recovery programmes for a number of cod stocks. Work is also under way on an action plan to address the problem of the discarding of juvenile fish catches. Other elements of the reform package include stronger control and enforcement provisions, continued recognition of Ireland's entitlements for additional quotas under the so-called "Hague Preferences" and new regional advisory councils, RACs, giving fishermen a strong voice in shaping future fisheries policy at EU level.
While it is invariably the case that any member state may wish to change a certain element of the CFP at a given time, such as a wish to get a greater share of the resource or, as Deputy Ryan pointed out, changing the methodology for catch limitations, it is necessary to deal with the overall situation in a holistic manner. The 2002 reform was successful from our viewpoint and we will participate in future reform processes in a similarly progressive fashion.
Will the Minister of State agree that the Common Fisheries Policy has delivered a bad deal for Ireland historically and that potentially a valuable natural resource has been squandered or surrendered to Brussels? Despite the fact that we have nominal sovereignty over 11% of EU waters, with a catch quota system of 4%, we are being told that we are net beneficiaries of subsidies and so on from Europe. However, given the billions of euro worth of fish that have been caught in these waters by foreign vessels which has contributed significantly to the decline of the fish stocks in these waters, we are more of a contributor than a beneficiary in that regard.
Does the Minister of State agree that radical reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is urgently required and that part of such reform should involve reclaiming national jurisdiction over our fishing waters? In conjunction with what Deputy Eamon Ryan said, a nationally designed strategy should be implemented to ensure that our stocks are preserved and that, crucially, our fishing communities are beneficiaries in this respect. This would involve a radical shift from the current system where most of our processing is done abroad to a proactive approach towards a domestic processing sector. Will the Minister of State submit a proposal to the EU agenda to the effect that such radical reform be made a priority as a matter of urgency?
I welcome that the Minister of State said he is an advocate regarding the quota system. I concur with and would be supportive of his view that it should be determined not on the basis of fleet but on the basis of individual vessels.
The Common Fisheries Policy was a bad deal. I was never happy with it and, as Minister of State, there is no point in my saying it was a good deal. I am not criticising those who negotiated it. Our party was involved. The then coalition was in Government on 1 January 1983. I am not criticising anybody for that because Members from all parties——
Fianna Fáil negotiated it.
The Deputy's party signed it.
Spread it out.
I emphasise that I am not being critical but the parties involved in the negotiations at that time did not foresee the subsequent developments that would take place in our fishing industry. At that time we had very much an inshore fleet. The industry, particularly the pelagic and demersal segments, has made substantial investment over the years in terms of the purchase of larger, more modern and safer boats with RSW tanks and they can carry ice or have the facility to make ice. With that facility the quality of the fish landed is much better and our fishermen can mix their produce with that of other countries. If we were to negotiate that deal again, I would like to think that our attitude would be different but it is much easier to be an historian than a forecaster.
On the point of the waters off our coast, we have the most prolific fishing grounds in the European Union but, unfortunately, we must share those with the other maritime nations in Europe. I would like to think we did not have to but we cannot dine à la carte in Europe. As Deputy Ferris suggested, we have 11% of EU waters and approximately a 5% share of the European quota, but that brings us into areas in which we would not normally be able to fish. In terms of our waters, I estimate that we have approximately 20% on average of quotas in the waters around our coast.
I am also an advocate of management. I want to see more fish landed in Ireland and more value added to them. I have no difficulty in addressing that. Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, has addressed it. It works closely with the industry whether it be producers or processors.
It would be simplistic for me to say that radical reform of the sector is on my EU agenda. I have raised that issue quite often in Europe and indicated clearly that countries such as Ireland — it being an island and the only country with two sea crossings into Europe — should have some advantages. However, if we are to gain from that or from any changes, it means that other countries will lose out as a result. Therefore, such a scenario can only be described as zero sum game.
I do not have any great difficulties with the views expressed by Deputy Ferris. At all times I try to ensure that we endeavour to maximise the quantity of fish landed. The Deputy was correct in saying that many of the boats to which we referred are Spanish boats landing produce, largely in the south west, to be put into containers which are brought back to Spain. That is of no benefit whatsoever to us. It is possible that the trucks being used are not Irish as well. I certainly feel that we should try to address that. We cannot force the other member states to do this, but they should do it if we are to make progress. I ask the Deputy to remember one thing — if more value is added to fish, that does not mean they will become more expensive. When fish are at their prime, they are fresh. They get them when there is an abundance. The more continuity of fish landings we have, the better the chance we will have.
