Members have had an opportunity to look at the executive summary on this issue and the introduction. The report has been circulated.
Reform of Common Fisheries Policy.
I want to add one or two things. The executive summary is pretty good but we need to refer to a fourth point: the need to consider alternative and technical measures to achieve our targets in conservation rather than agreeing to the relatively blunt and crude measures being proposed by the Commission to reduce fishing effort and quotas. The Irish fishing industry in its press conference yesterday released some documentation in which it has crystallised what we discussed. It might be helpful for us to take a look at that. The first three points are very important but the fishing industry has put much work and time into the alternative technical conservation measures and we spent some time discussing net types and the possibility of setting aside areas of the sea to encourage breeding. There is much evidence to back up what we discussed. It is a very effective way of conserving stocks, but I do not see a reference to it in the executive summary. It needs to be there as a fourth point.
Recommendation 5.4 relates to the future existence of the review group on the CFP. We should add to the end of that paragraph a reference to the context of regional strategy committees as proposed by the European Commission. That gives a framework in which work could be done in the future.
I had intended to make the same point about conservation. I also felt that in the recommendations we should be clearly seen to give our own fishermen some credit. As a representative of the fishing community, I first heard of all of this because of the initiatives they were taking on the east and south coasts. Perhaps we could add something positive to encourage them and acknowledge that they were ahead of the game in trying to emphasise conservation.
I wonder whether we are not coming down too hard on them in urging them to be more united, although they should be. According to the report, the committee is of the opinion that the number of organisations needs to be examined with a view to either reducing the number or creating an umbrella organisation, although the next point is made in a more positive way. The organisations have grown as fishermen's needs have grown. We should be positive about the achievements of the people involved.
In relation to recommendations on supports for the communities, including the 25,000 workers and their families, which is a large proportion of our population from Donegal to Louth, I hope the Minister gets the best possible deal and that the machinations which have been going on, to our detriment, behind the scenes will be defeated by the Taoiseach and him next week. We must also clearly indicate that there is support available for diversification of fisheries products and so on. We have supported the main ports under different schemes under the aegis of the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Marine in the past, but we must make it clear that the supports are still in place.
I have been chasing down the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs because I used to be the spokesperson on social affairs for my party. Although the community section has gone to this new Department, the Minister does not seem to accept that he has responsibility for community affairs. I was trying to remind him last week and I asked the Taoiseach to tap him on the shoulder and remind him of his position. I am not being facetious: he is responsible for the community programme and one of his responsibilities is to consider disadvantaged areas - in this case, those which are dependant on a single industry which is under immense pressure. I would have expected Deputy Ó Cuív and those involved in community affairs, as well as the Minister for Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources, to take a special interest in marine communities.
I wonder whether we could have something put into this about mesh sizes and the thickness of the rope in the nets. These are important factors in conservation. It has been established that although the mesh can be made considerably bigger, if the thickness of the fibre of the net is not increased it has no effect. Another issue, not strictly under the terms of the CFP, concerns flag-of-convenience ships. These have been a pest for many years and although people may think they are all French boats due to their French flags, they are not - most of them come from Spain and Portugal. I can foresee a tortuous process in trying to resolve this, but I do not think attempts have been made even to start dealing with flags of convenience. I wonder if we could do anything to investigate the process and try to introduce proposals to end the crazy nightmare.
We need a great deal of time to examine this. I suggest that in our agreed work programme, we should concentrate on a number of issues affecting the fishing industry. We must agree on the wording of the proposal made by Deputy Coveney.
It would cover mesh size.
It would cover a great deal. We must agree to publish this report today so that there can be no misunderstanding. We will not be coming back to this. Under which section would we add it?
We would add a fourth——
Is it to be in section 2 or section 4 of the executive summary?
In the executive summary we would add a fourth bullet point saying that——
"The need to consider alternative technical conservation measures rather than the blunt instruments used heretofore." Is that all right?
Not necessarily "used heretofore". In the context of the common fisheries policy negotiations we need to emphasise the value and importance of technical conservation measures as an alternative to the blunt measures being proposed by the European Commission, i.e. reduction in quota and reduction in fishing effort. This can be elaborated on to include mesh size, set-aside, better enforcement, net shape and so on. That is not suitable for the executive summary, but in that section "technical and alternative conservation measures" will cover it.
We have done that.
Could you repeat it, please? I apologise for being absent earlier.
In the executive summary, bullet point No. 4, we have put an additional paragraph which must be agreed by the Members: "The need to consider alternative technical conservation measures rather than the blunt instruments used--"
The emphasis is slightly wrong. We want to mention the importance of stressing the value of technical conservation measures as opposed to the blunt conservation measures proposed by the Commission to date. Why can that not be done? All we want to do is to stress the value of alternative measures of conservation. In reality, we probably need both kinds of measures. I am afraid I am causing headaches and making myself unpopular.
Would Deputy Coveney like to write out two lines so that we can be quite clear on what he wants inserted in the report? Otherwise, we will have difficulty inserting it.
Can I offer a suggestion? "The importance of putting in place alternative technical conservation measures which are more effective than the blunt instruments that have been used heretofore."
I prefer, "that have been proposed by the European Commission," because we are trying to target the alternative measures, as opposed to the proposal from the Commission for the CFP negotiations. The rest is fine.
Could Deputy Morgan read that out again?
"The importance of putting in place alternative technical conservation measures," - this is Deputy Coveney's wording - "which are more effective than . . . ". I need some help over the line.
"The blunt measures proposed by the EU."
Or: "As an alternative to the blunt measures proposed by the Commission to date."
"Alternatively, to put in place technical conservation measures . . . ."
Technical conservation measures - we do not need "alternative" in the first part of the sentence. Is the chairman happy with that wording?
We are agreed on: "The importance of putting in place technical conservation measures which are more effective . . . ."
Sorry, I will read it very slowly.
I am sorry, but we do not want a word going into the report with which we have a problem. "The importance of putting in place technical conservation measures which are more effective than the alternative measures proposed by the EU." Does that encapsulate what the Deputy wanted?
I am sorry for being picky, but the fishing industry will pick up this. What I want to say is: "The importance of putting in place technical conservation measures (TCM's) as an alternative to the blunt conservation measures proposed by the EU." Are we happy with that? That was a big feature of the discussion.
We will insert that. Is the introduction by the Chairman agreed? Is the executive summary, as amended, agreed? Agreed. Are the acknowledgements agreed? Agreed. Is the body of the report, as set out in section 4, agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that the report include the terms of reference of the committee? Agreed. Is it agreed that the report include a list of the committee members? Agreed. Is it agreed that the report include the proceedings of the committee adopting the report? Agreed. Is it agreed that the report include the written submissions of those who made presentations to the committee? Agreed. Is it agreed that the report include the minutes of evidence heard by the committee? Agreed. Is it agreed that the report be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas? Agreed. Is it agreed that the report be printed and published? Agreed. Is it agreed that the committee issue a press release on the publication of the report? Agreed. Is there any other business?
I wish to propose Senator Kathleen O'Meara as rapporteur.
Does the Deputy wish her to be appointed rapporteur for broadcasting, in relation to radio and what we were speaking about earlier?
Yes.
Is that agreed? Agreed. I wish you all a happy and holy Christmas and a peaceful new year. We will be meeting in the middle of January to consider EU legislation and we are back in the Dáil on 29 January.
Does the Chairman intend to bring a small delegation on Friday at middayto any of the embattled ports to show our solidarity?
I can give him a lift to Castletownbere.
I am sure members will make their own arrangements.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.50 p.m. sine die.