JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD debate -
Thursday, 3 Jul 2008

Seafood Operational Programme: Discussion.

Chairman

We will recommence the meeting. I apologise to our guests for the delay. I welcome Mr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary, and Ms Josephine Kelly, principal officer, at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The committee wishes to hear an update on the seafood development operational programme 2007-2013.

Before I call them to make their presentation, I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Beamish to make his opening statement.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I thank the Chairman and the committee.

The item under discussion is the seafood development operational programme for 2007-2013 and members have been circulated with a presentation regarding that programme. The seafood development operational process commenced in 2006 in the sense that the Structural Fund for fisheries was the last such fund to be agreed at European level. It was at least a year behind the other Structural Funds, largely due to a debate in the Council over what could or could not be funded in the fisheries area under the new Structural Fund round. At EU level, therefore, the Structural Fund was very late in being agreed.

The debate was approaching conclusion during 2006 when the then Ministers established the seafood strategy review group, the chairman of which in Ireland was Dr. Noel Cawley. Its objective was to draw up an integrated strategy in conjunction with the industry which would apply over the period 2007-2013 and pull together all the appropriate development strands based on analysis of the situation applicable in 2006. Following from that, under the European fisheries fund rules agreed in late 2006, Ireland was required to draw up and present a national strategic plan for the period 2007-2013. In line with this plan, a seafood development operational programme was to be drawn up. That is the development sequence that has been followed. The operational programme flows from the Cawley seafood development strategy and from the national strategic plan.

The Cawley group was established in June 2006. It consulted widely with the industry throughout the second half of 2006 with all the stakeholders and various interested parties and drew up its report at the end of that year. That report was broadly reflected in the national development plan in January-February 2007. It was publicly launched on 28 January 2007. That effectively provided the blueprint for the development of the industry over the Structural Fund period.

In February 2007, following the publication of the Cawley report and its reflection in the national development plan, the initial drafting of the national strategic plan was carried out and was sent, as required, to the Commission in March 2007. Discussions on that national strategic plan were held with the Commission from March to October 2007 with various revisions and comments from the Commission.

The Government set up a group to implement the Cawley seafood development strategy, the so-called seafood strategy implementation group, a broad based group of all stakeholders and interested parties across the industry. The national strategic plan was also discussed with and eventually signed off by that group. The plan was submitted to the Commission in November 2007 following final sign-off by the seafood strategy implementation group.

The operational programme flowed from the national strategic plan. In March 2007, an initial draft of the seafood development operational programme was drawn up and from April to June revisions were carried out following discussions with the European Commission, DG Fish, on that initial draft of the operational programme.

I realise the process involved is rather lengthy to describe. Under the strategic environmental assessment regulation, the member state is required under EU law to have such a draft operational programme assessed by an independent consultant who then carries out, after public consultation, a strategic environmental assessment independently of the draft operational programme. That strategic environmental assessment of the draft operational programme is then given to the European Commission by the consultant. The programme is then assessed by the Commission which takes into account the strategic environmental assessment. That assessment process commenced in July 2007 and in September the draft was submitted to the Commission for comments. A meeting was held about the operational programme. In December-January following, there was public consultation on the strategic environmental assessment.

In March 2008, following the completion of that assessment, the operational programme was officially submitted to the Commission. In June, a revised operational programme was submitted.

I will discuss the period between March and June of this year. Once the operational programme was submitted with the strategic environmental assessment on 6 March, the Commission absorbed the operational programme and there was a meeting held with it on 24 April. The proposal comprised the total funding under the European fisheries fund, EFF. The operational programme only deals with the co-funded moneys that will be available to the industry. It is only dealing with the areas where there is co-funding from Europe. It does not deal with areas where there will be national measures. The total EFF funding agreed under the criteria for the allocation of Structural Funds in the Finance Council, ECOFIN, and at summits amounted to €42.26 million. Under the fisheries fund, that is divided across a variety of axes as they are called.

Axis one deals with fleet restructuring, axis two deals with aquaculture development, axis three deals with areas of marine environment protection, including reducing discards, by-catches, fuel efficient practices and so on, and axis four deals with bottom up projects similar to the Leader programme. Of the €42 million that was split, some €32 million was allocated in axis one for the whitefish fleet decommissioning scheme. A sum of €3.7 million was allocated for axis two for aquaculture development. Some €6 million was provided for axis three dealing with marine environment and inshore. These are only the co-funded measures using up the allocated European fisheries fund moneys, not the full suite of measures with which I will deal later. These are only a part of the picture. That is what was submitted to the Commission.

In April, the meeting was held with the Commission to discuss the operational programme following the strategic and environmental assessment. At that meeting, the Directorate General for Fisheries, which had at that point become Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and the Directorate General for Environment attended the meeting. This is a new phenomenon in the sense that the Directorate General for Environment now has a strong say in this round of Structural Funds. The Directorate General for Fisheries would have liked to see some of axis four reflected in the available funding at that time, although that has since changed somewhat. It was satisfied with the operational programme, subject to some editorial adjustment.

The Directorate General for Environment, on the other hand, took a strong line. It effectively took the view at that point that it could not support grant aiding the development of aquaculture as proposed in the operational programme in a situation where Ireland had failed to implement various EU environmental directives. This was a new view which had not arisen in the operational programme process up to then. The Directorate General for Environment pointed to European court cases on habitats, the birds directives, dangerous substances directives and shellfish waters directives. These are broader cases across a whole range of areas. It took the view that it would not support an operational programme of grant aiding aquaculture in that context. That position was taken on board for consideration and there was a discussion on the best way to deal with the situation.

A revised operational programme was submitted to the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries for initial comments on 10 June and we are still awaiting a response. In the revised programme, the EFF funding and the co-funded measures have been dealt with by retaining the decommissioning programme of €32 million. At the moment, the measures retain the allocation for aquaculture development, but there are ongoing discussions with the industry and the Cawley seafood strategy implementation group. There was a meeting to discuss the operational programme as recently as last Thursday night in Donegal with the seafood strategy implementation group to ensure there was full stakeholder involvement. The issues arising from the operational programme were discussed openly along with the options for advancing it and whether to leave the aquaculture development co-funded element in the operational programme is a matter under active discussion. Axis three, dealing with measures on the environment and inshore management, remains and the possibility of including axis four on sustainable development of fisheries areas and the creation of coastal action groups was also included as a possibility.

Members will see this allocation is part of a total package of EU co-funding of €42 million, which is quite modest. The co-funded elements are only part of the suite of measures required to implement the overall Cawley integrated seafood development strategy. National measures, which would have to be funded fully from the Exchequer, would provide additional funding for fleet restructuring, fleet development, fuel efficiency, inshore diversification, etc. As for aquaculture development, the co-funded element does not match the current or historic level of funding provided to the aquaculture industry. Whether aquaculture development remains in the co-funded element can only ever be part of the picture. Obviously, aquaculture development is a high priority in the context of the Cawley seafood development strategy. The seafood industry training measures include three training schemes for the catching, aquaculture, processing and marketing sectors. The overall concept embodied in the Cawley strategy is for step-up development measures to restructure the seafood processing industry. The funding encourages an upward development of the companies in the processing sector. There is also the marketing investment measure. These are the nationally funded measures including market research, market development and promotion, innovation support, competitiveness and performance and finally socio-economic sustainability measures.

Deputy Michael Creed

I welcome Mr. Beamish and Ms Kelly to the meeting. I have no doubt it is an extremely busy time for them given the hiccup with the operational programme and developments in the industry generally. It is a challenging time and I have no doubt that their input, advice and contribution will be critical to the industry coming out on the far side in a stronger more resilient position to take advantage of what I believe are substantial opportunities for a focused industry.

The Department made reference to the Cawley report and that blueprint is critical for the future of the industry. I have some queries regarding the operational programme and the European fisheries fund which the Department might clarify. The European fisheries fund is €3.8 billion in total. The co-funded aspect of this is €42 million and this is the Irish Government's share. If my mathematics are correct, this works out at something less than 2% of the total fund. Do we have access under other headings to a further share of the €3.8 billion European fisheries fund?

Regarding the Department's consultations, when does it expect to be in a position to finalise the operational programme? Does it make the Department's task more difficult given that several, or perhaps all, of the issues giving rise to delay are outside the immediate control of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I refer in particular to the issues dealing with the implementation of directives under the aegis of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Is the Commission looking for a specific timeline to which we must adhere and implement the directives listed, namely, the wildlife directives, the shellfish directives and so on? One of the other issues raised was that in the original operational programme we did not submit a proposal for a rural development type initiative under axis four. Is it the case that while that axis was intended to cover rural or coastal communities, coastal communities are covered by the existing rural development arrangements under the Leader programme and others and for that reason we did not pursue a specific coastal communities development proposal? Allied to this, is specific additional funding available to be drawn down which we could add to the rural development fund under the Leader programme? In the revised operational programme have we made a submission or are we adhering to our position that because of the Leader programme we do not need to pursue the issue of rural development under that heading?

Deputy Tom Sheahan

I welcome Mr. Beamish and Ms Kelly.

Is it correct that there were two main reasons for our operational programme not being accepted? What are the environmental issues affecting aquaculture activities? Under axis 4, coastal action groups are to be similar to Leader programme type project groups. For the life of me I cannot understand the reason for this. I understand the €5 million fund announced by the Minister is to be dispersed by Leader groups to coastal action groups as hardship payments to driftnet fishermen. Given that it is being processed and apportioned by Leader groups, is there a need for coastal action groups?

The positon on aquaculture development is more alarming because the industry has massive potential. If the European Union does not row in behind, I will be concerned.

The national measures funded by the Exchequer funded are in respect of fleet development and safety issues. I do not expect we will have the pleasure of the company of the delegation too often. As such, I should say it is my understanding that under the heading of fleet development, no one can receive grant aid. On safety issues, I will be parochial; there are seven boats in Cromane that cannot harvest mussels because of a licensing issue. However, a similar boat, a replica boat, can be hired in the North of Ireland under a different licensing authority to harvest the mussels.

I would appreciate it if the delegation addressed these issues.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I welcome Mr. Beamish and Ms Kelly. We are delighted to have them in Clonakilty in order that we can access--

Deputy Michael Creed

--their expertise.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Absolutely, but I am sure that would apply to anyone. I doubt if they would turn anyone down. The Deputy can call to me first and I will take him out.

I welcome the introduction of the decommissioning scheme. There are a few issues that may be causing a difficulty in the take-up of the scheme. When it was first mooted, the relevant years were 2005 to 2007 but this was later changed to 2006 and 2007. This meant that some fishermen who had ceased fishing in 2005 and were prepared to participate in the scheme found they were no longer eligible. I hope there were will be some discretion to allow them avail of the scheme. I do not know how many are in this position but I know a couple of individuals affected. Aquacultural development is vital at a time when fishermen are leaving the industry. I expect some of those availing of the decommissioning package will move into the business.

Will the delegates explain what environment and inshore management entails? The most important issue concerns axis 4, sustainable development of fisheries areas and the funds to be allocated. This is a very important issue for coastal communities. Will the delegates enlighten the committee on how they see the measure being rolled out, whether responsibility will be transferred to Leader groups or whether is it envisaged that the measure will be rolled out by the Department?

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I join other speakers in welcoming Mr. Beamish and Ms Kelly and thank them for putting before the joint committee the proposals as outlined and revised for the Seafood Development Operational Programme 2007-2013. I note that total EFF funding for the programme comes to €42.26 million. Axis 1 is the whitefish decommissioning scheme, to which €32.55 million or 75% of the total will be allocated to reduce fishing fleet capacity. There are applications to decommission 46 vessels. When the sum of €32.55 million is divided among 46 applicants, it will not amount to much by way of compensation for any one of them.

Be that as it may, the delegates have lost sight of the position of deckhands on decommissioned boats. There is no provision in the seafood development operational programme proposal to pay compensation to deckhands who have spent 30 and 40 years fishing in the waters off our coastline. What measures can be introduced to retrain such a person? Will all deckhands be thrown to the winds? It appears that under the decommissioning scheme, the owners of boats will be compensated, but there is no compensation for the men who manned and worked those boats and tried to make a living to rear a family. It is alarming that this EU scheme which arose from proposals contained in the Cawley report provides for a sum of €42.26 million, yet there is no provision made for deckhands. I am amazed that such a short-sighted proposal was submitted to the European Union without seeking a provision for deckhands. I receive numerous telephone calls daily from deckhands who say they have nothing on which to live. Will they have to sign on for the dole or what can be done for them?

The second measure is axis 2 under which €3.717 million will be provided for aquaculture development. I was a firm believer in the development of the aquaculture sector when it was first mooted and I still am, but regulations should be imposed to prevent the over-development of mussel farming in restricted areas in inland waters. This has resulted in the production of poor quality mussels. It can be contrasted to a farmer putting 20 cows in a field that has sufficient grass for only ten cows. It defies logic. The same principle applies to aquaculture. Aquaculture development should be monitored to ensure that mussels grow to their full capacity. If over-intensification of mussel farming takes place in a restricted inlet, the mussels produced will be unfit for use. Such mussels are not as big as the nail on my small finger. Those are the size of the mussels being served in restaurants throughout west Cork. I do not know if Deputy Christy O'Sullivan eats mussels, but if he does he should be aware of that.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

They are bad for the gout. They have a high protein content.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

One would not have gout if one worked hard. It is fine to give grants for aquaculture development, but the industry must be strictly monitored. Instead of the force established in Clonakilty keeping a watchful eye on skippers, morning, noon and night, to ensure they do not land an extra box of fish, some of their time would be better spent ensuring that proper procedures are followed in aquaculture. If that is not done, those in the industry will produce mussels the size of bantam eggs. Common sense must prevail in this sector. We cannot allow over-use of inland waters for mussel lines.

The third measure provides €6 million to develop environmental management systems, EMS, for inshore fishing operations to promote their uptake in industry. I would like Mr. Beamish to spell out what such funding will be allocated for, as I am at a loss to understand. The fourth measure relates to the allocation of funds for the creation of coastal action groups to support sustainable development of fisheries area. We have Leader groups serving all the coastal areas of the country. Will the establishment of these action groups to dish out funds under the axis 4 allocation result in a duplication of work in this sector?

Deputy Michael Creed

Sons of quangos.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

It will be another quango. We need an explanation of the second, third and fourth measures. The first measure provides that only €32.55 million will be allocated for the decommissioning of the fishing fleet, with no provision for the deckhands or the share fisherman, as they are known. They have been forgotten and are at a loss to know where to turn for their future livelihood.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Mr. Beamish might also comment on aquaculture licensing. I tabled a parliamentary question concerning a company that has been awaiting a licence for more than two years. That is not acceptable.

A total of €42.26 million EFF funding will be allocated for the decommissioning fund, of which €32.5 million will be allocated for the whitefish fleet. I might have misunderstood this provision, but we have been told on several occasions in the Dáil that this allocation will be Exchequer funding. Mr. Beamish might indicate whether it will be EFF funding or Exchequer funding.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

A change has occurred regarding scallop licences. People who held these licences have been fishing for scallop for many years. Logging of such fishing was not required. As a result of the change in the system, licence holders are barred from scallop fishing. The licence holders did not realise that this provision was added to the licence until they went to renew their licences. One of the delegates might explain what has happened in this respect. This change is unfair, given that these people have been involved in the industry for many years. Some of them have put in place conservation measures and they manage the industry well. What has happened to bring about this change or was it simply introduced over night?

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I will take a few points together as many questions were raised. If I forget to reply to any point, members might remind me, as it would not be my intention not to respond, other than when a point relates to a policy area, on which I am precluded from commenting.

There is confusion regarding the figures of €42 million and €32 million and I will try to make the position as clear as possible. The allocation under the fisheries fund to Ireland - it was not something fisheries had anything to do with - is based on the convergence criteria under which all the Structural Funds to Ireland were allocated, namely, the point at which Ireland was at in terms of convergence criteria etc. Ireland was allocated €42 million out of the total fund, which was handed down on the basis of the overall agreed allocation criteria.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Cecil Beamish

It is related to convergence criteria generally; it is not specifically related to fisheries. If Deputy Creed checks the other funds, he will note the allocation criteria. This is the main Structural Funding available to fisheries, essentially spaced out in allocations over seven years. The €42 million is not available to be taken today. When we talk about decommissioning we are not saying there is €42 million European fisheries fund money available today to be spent on decommissioning or anything else - it is €42 million allocated over seven years.

Deputy Michael Creed

That is a massaging of the figures.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

No, it is not. I just want to explain the reality.

Deputy Michael Creed

The allocation of €42 million that has been put up-front is Exchequer funding. Will we be compensated for such funding?

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I will come to that point. Because of the delay involved in all the procedures that had to be gone through - which I outlined in my presentation - under EU law to get an operational programme to a point where it is approved, it was recognised that this process was not adequate to meet the urgent need for a decommissioning scheme in the country, and such urgency in terms of the fishing industry did not start today or yesterday. Early this year a national decommissioning scheme was put in place fully funded with national money to allow decommissioning to move ahead of the operational programme.

Deputy Michael Creed

It is a case of cloaks and daggers.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

No, I do not understand that. The operational programme process required a strategic environmental assessment which I have set out. That of its nature has a logistics limit and a time limit. What is proposed in the Cawley strategy is not new, given that the White strategy, which was in place before it, proposed the same measures. We had decommissioning in 2005-06. The Cawley strategy proposed that one of the first measures needed upfront was decommissioning - with which everybody concerned agreed - to try to get the fleet into better balance with the necessary resources to allow it to be sustainable, profitable and so on. Therefore, the first thing we had to get up and running was a decommissioning scheme. It was clear that the fisheries fund moneys, spaced out over seven years, were never going to be adequate to address needs. Therefore, the money provided which was approved last week or the week before in the grant announcements amounted to almost €42 million. It is coming out of the national decommissioning scheme funded by the national Exchequer. However, the Commission has accepted that if the operational programme is approved and relevant measures are in place, as money comes in, it can be accounted for. Up to now, Exchequer money is being used to fund the payments made under the decommissioning scheme. The money will have to be paid out under the scheme as set out in the terms as it is called down. The €42 million is Exchequer money.

As regards the allocation of the co-funded elements, as the operational programme comes up for consideration, the Commission is even more of the view that most of the money should go towards restructuring. It states that is where the priority lies. Therefore, it will be allowing other member states to move around their operational programmes to do what was set out in the Irish programme - to have the bulk of the money go towards structural adjustment. That is recognised across Europe as what is required because the issues are not peculiar to Ireland. They are generally driven by oil prices and stock.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Am I missing a point? Will the €42 million being put up by the State be recouped in the next seven years through the EFF?

Mr. Cecil Beamish

It will in part. It was not today or yesterday that the urgency was identified. It was identified in the Cawley report and the White report in 2005-06. To get the fleet in balance and have it quantified, to move ahead of the operational programme process, state aid approval was needed to allocate Exchequer funds. If that is where it ends up, the sum of €32 million in EFF funding will gradually come, as set out in the paper I have presented to the committee. The operational programme about which we are talking is only part of the total number of measures that can be put in place to implement the seafood development strategy. That has always been the case because co-funded moneys would not be enough to meet the whole strategy as set out. They are national measures but it makes no difference to the recipient of the Commission grant from where the funding is coming. Therefore, the debate is somewhat academic. Is that clear?

Deputy Michael Creed

Yes, entirely.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

I am no academic but Mr. Beamish should be straight with people. In fact, the State is providing the €42 million but it is coming from the EFF.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

That is the problem.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

As Mr. Beamish says, the fishermen do not give a barney from where the money is coming. I agree that the money should be put up front by the State but it is being packaged as State funding when it is not.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

It is State money.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

It is not.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

It is Exchequer money. It has to be put up front because, if one looks at the profile in paying €32 million in equal tranches over seven years, it will never allow the level of decommissioning approved to be reached when needed. There are no cloaks and daggers. The seafood strategy implementation group has all of this information which is out in the open. Nobody is playing games. Exchequer money was used to enable decommissioning to move ahead.

I have a long list of questions to which I had better move. Scallop stocks presented the issue in respect of decommissioning in 2005-06. The scallop fleet was too large for what was available. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Padraic White, an exercise was carried out in 2005-06, in which the sustainable level of effort was examined. It was decided that the sustainable size of the fleet was X - I cannot remember the exact figure. It was also decided that Y amount of the existing fleet would have to be removed by decommissioning to bring the size of the fleet down to a sustainable level. It was like a sub-sector of what was going on in the whitefish sector. Decommissioning was made available and the scheme was taken up by people involved in the scallop fleet at the time. From the viewpoint of those left in the fleet who wanted to have a viable business after decommissioning, the scallop fishery would have to be ring-fenced for those remaining in the fleet, as identified at the time. There were criteria for those who had been targeting scallop. Decommissioning happened in 2006. Thankfully, scallop stocks recovered and a number of people want to get to back into the business. Therefore, this is an example which shows this system can work. That is the broad picture.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I am talking about individuals who did not participate in decommissioning, but whose licences are being returned with these restrictions added. They have been fishing for scallop all their lives.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I will ask my colleague, Ms Kelly, to comment.

Chairman

Does Ms Kelly wish to contribute?

Ms Josephine Kelly

Decommissioning was recommended in the Padraic White report which indicated that we needed stability for the scallop fleet. It was not viable to have a situation where, when stocks started to recover, vessels would pile in on top of each other in the fishery. It is a form of boom and bust fishing; it is not management. The recommendation in the Padraic White report was that sustainable management arrangements should be put in place. He recommended that we do two things: first, we should remove a certain number of boats and, second, that we ring-fence the scallop fishery for those remaining in the fleet in order that the business would be sustainable. At European level, there is a restriction on the number of days the Irish fleet can spend fishing for scallop. There is a serious issue concerning the state of stocks if there is what we call a "boom" when everyone piles in because there is an opportunity to do so. Sustainability and a managed fishery were recommended by Padraic White. The Minister of the day went ahead on that basis and implemented the recommendations.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I can understand that anybody who participated in decommissioning understood what they were doing. However, I am talking about those whose licences are being returned and who did not avail of the decommissioning scheme. They engage in this type of fishing for a very short period of the year to earn a livelihood. They have applied their own conservation methods. Having spoken to people outside the industry, I know they are responsible in that regard. They now find, however, that their licences are being returned without the necessary authorisation to fish for scallop. I may speak privately to Mr. Beamish about the matter at another time.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

Decommissioning does not only involve the people who receive the grants. It is mostly about those who remain because it is intended to create space, in terms of the resources available, to enable their businesses to be viable, sustainable and profitable. The main objective of decommissioning is not to give grants to leave but to create space for those who remain. When the scallop fleet was downsized with public money, there was an identifiable fleet which had been targeting scallop at the time of the crisis, which fishery would be ringfenced to allow access to the resource because it was viewed that that was the fleet which had been targeting scallop and which would be viable in the long-term. To do this, preclusions had to be provided for to stop anybody else from coming back into the industry as soon as stocks recovered. We cannot go into the specifics of an individual case but we are talking about people who may want to fish for scallop now. I can only talk about the general position.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I hold a watching brief on behalf of the person about whom Deputy O'Sullivan is talking. Mr. Beamish is probably aware that he has contacted the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen. The person concerned has fished for scallop for the past 40 years.

Deputy Michael Creed

Can we leave the constituency matters of Cork South-West for a meeting in the Clonakilty office?

Chairman

This is getting out of hand.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

Under an Act passed in 2003, decisions on individual licences are taken by a statutorily independent licensing authority within the Department and which operates under a policy set down by the Minister. It is not set down for individual or ad hoc cases. It is a general policy. There is an appeals process if somebody is not happy with the decision taken by the licensing authority. The matter is not dealt with by us. The licensing authority for fishing boats which reports to the House each year implements the policy set down by the Minister. Ad hoc decisions are not taken. There is an appeals process if somebody believes a decision is unfair.

It might help if I went through the four axes because some members asked for clarification. However, before I do so, I refer to Deputy Tom Sheahan's point about the Cromane mussel boats. The issue has to do with certificates of compliance relating to maritime safety. It is dealt with by the Department of Transport, not the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The matter must be taken up with that Department.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Is the Department not the licensing authority?

Mr. Cecil Beamish

We do not deal with maritime safety standards, maritime safety criteria and certificates of compliance.

The first axis is fleet restructuring and decommissioning. The point has been made that no one can get money to build boats. That is true in a general sense. In the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2002 the major issue was whether member states would continue to provide funding to build new fishing vessels in a situation where there were stock and fleet imbalances. The major decision taken was that there would be no more funding under the Common Fisheries Policy for the construction of new fishing vessels. There are some possibilities in regard to safety measures, fuel efficiency and so forth but since 2002 grant aid for the construction of new fishing vessels has been ruled out.

The second axis is aquaculture development. As members said, aquaculture development is central to the national seafood development strategy, the Cawley strategy. Obviously, it is very important. The funding element of the joint co-funded operational programme is only part of the picture. The co-funded operational programme can only ever be part of it, as there are national measures. There may be a perception that because there is not an operational programme in place, no funding has been going to the sector. That is not true. Funding has been allocated to it this year as permitted under the old arrangements in place. I think people understand what the co-funded element involves.

I refer to environment and inshore management. We are dealing with marine environment protection schemes. This relates to issues subject to much discussion in recent days and weeks, including discards, bycatches and how to reduce them and how to come up with more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly techniques of fishing whereby one reduces fuel intensity and tries to reduce the targeting of juveniles, etc. It is working in that area, as well as the branding and marketing areas.

Axis 4 was not initially included but was intended to be included among the national measures because only a sum of €42 million is co-funded. The PESCA initiative was similar to what is now being provided for in axis 4 and was run through BIM. As has been said, fishing communities are dispersed and, in many cases, isolated. What they receive is intended to act from the bottom up and has tended to be targeted. The arrangements to be used are still under discussion. However, they do not rule out a Leader programme type approach and it does not involve the setting up of another quango. The coastal action groups are based in the communities. It might be done in conjunction with the Leader groups but the discussion is ongoing with BIM.

Ms Josephine Kelly

Axis 4 has been seen as a very important new element which has been very successful on the agriculture and rural development side. The Ministers pushed to have it included under the fisheries fund as a new initiative. The intention was that it would be nationally funded. Since it became clear that it was not part of the operational programme, the Ministers have received much correspondence from members and Deputies. The European Commission obviously wanted to see it. In response to the requests made and the importance attached to having it as part of the operational programme, the Ministers have decided to include it in the operational programme. It will be part funded through the allocation of national moneys.

Deputy Michael Creed

Is it in the revised operational programme?

Ms Josephine Kelly

Many parliamentary questions were tabled on the issue and the Ministers decided to include it. It has been included in the revised provisions.

In terms of its delivery, no one wants to spend money on new quangos. BIM has expertise in fisheries matters and it is important that it is married with experience. The Leader groups and BIM can work together to deliver appropriate programmes under this axis for coastal communities with a background in fishing and aquaculture.

Deputy Michael Creed

I wish to make an observation on decommissioning. It is relevant to make it now because the Minister has placed the emphasis on an EU funded package on the basis that the State aid element has been €42 million. This is the reference to smoke and mirrors, or "smoke and daggers" to quote the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. In reality, the figure is not €42 million because over the period of the operational programme €32 million will be refunded to the Exchequer. Therefore, the State is not putting in €42 million. It is, in effect, putting in €10 million, plus the interest on the larger sum over the seven year period. That is why the fishing community needs to be assured, in the context of State aid possibly forming a component of the rescue package to be announced on 15 July, that fishermen will not find themselves placed at a disadvantaged by way of France or Spain subventing French or Spanish fishermen, while the Government states it has provided €42 million in State aid already. The €42 million will only be targeted at a small number of fishermen, albeit on the basis clarified that it will scope for those who stay in the industry to make a better living. This is the political point into which I do not expect departmental officials to stray, that if there is to be a State aid element to the package to be announced on 15 July, the Minister's argument will not hold water on the basis that he has already provided €42 million in State aid.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I can only deal with the facts, not the political point. The facts are that the State has put in €42 million this year. At this point there is no operational programme agreed and the funding indicated will only be profiled. In addition, the overall Cawley programme must be funded.

Deputy Michael Creed

I am not disputing what Mr. Beamish has said. The sum is €42 million, whereas the Cawley report identified a requirement for a substantially greater amount.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

It identified a requirement for an allocation of €58 million over the seven year period.

Deputy Michael Creed

It is "smoke and daggers".

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Given the EFF budget of €3.8 billion and that Ireland has 20% of European territorial waters, we are getting a miserly fraction of that budget. Is the Minister not doing his job right? It just does not stack up. One would not send a young fellow to the fair if he was going to come back with such a result.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

Mr. Beamish seems to have ignored my question about the plight of deckhands.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

It was not my intention to ignore any question. I did ask members to remind me of any I missed.

To deal with Deputy Tom Sheahan's point, the allocation of Structural Funds generally is made on the basis of convergence criteria, of which all members will be aware. It is not done on the size of waters or anything else; it has to do with the convergence criteria applied at the time. Members will be familiar with the overall picture. That is how the allocation was made. Effectively, that is what was handed down to the fisheries sector. The allocations were not debated at the Fisheries Council because they were determined outside it and it was not within its competence per se.

On the point made by Deputy P. J. Sheehan about crewmen, an ongoing issue, of which he will be aware, is the status and identity of those working on fishing vessels in Ireland. Certainly, this has been an issue since 1996 and the report on maritime safety. There have been efforts made to try to put in place a registration system of registration. The Cawley report - the most recent attempt - recommended that such a register of all those working on vessels be put in place. That has not been a recommendation which has found favour with the industry. The matter has been discussed on many occasions at the seafood strategy implementation group. In the absence of such a register, it is difficult to take measures targeted at those working on vessels. The matter was debated with the industry leading up to the agreement on the decommissioning scheme. In the absence of an agreed basis and given that the matter proved problematic in the past, skippers were asked to make arrangements with their crewmen. Ultimately, there is a long-standing problem in seeking an agreed method of registering those who work on fishing vessels. It is proving difficult to find a solution. Without such a register, it is difficult to target measures when one does not know at whom they are being targeted. That has been a problem for crewmen for a long time.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

It is hard to believe the skippers of boats who are accept decommissioning cannot prove who was working on their boats and give the Department the information. There are only 46 boats involved in decommissioning. Surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Department will obtain the details from each of the 46 skippers involved in the scheme.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

The need to establish a register was stated clearly in the Cawley report. The matter has been under discussion in the intervening 18 months and it has not proved possible to reach agreement with the industry.

Chairman

On behalf of the joint committee, I thank Mr. Beamish and Ms Kelly for bringing members up to date on the issues raised and answering the queries posed by them.

The joint committee adjourned at noon until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 23 July 2008.