JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 2007

The EU at 50: Discussion with Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs.

Chairman

We meet today for an exchange of views on the EU at 50 with the Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Mr. Joe Borg. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Commissioner Borg and his delegation. I also welcome Mr. Martin Territt, director of the European Commission's representation in Ireland. The Committee of Public Accounts usually meets in this room. I hope our meeting will not be as contentious as those usually held here.

This committee and Commissioner Borg's office have been doing some background work, which is bearing fruit. I am sure members of the committee are aware of this work. A number of committee hearings were held before Christmas regarding the compensation issue affecting driftnet fishermen. We met in Strasbourg in December. Since then Commissioner Borg replied to the committee informing us of what could be used for additional compensation measures for fishermen. That information has been acted upon by the Minister, who last Friday announced the use of additional money for compensation. The ideas and suggestions contained in Commissioner Borg's letter to the joint committee may also be used in a different form. The Minister is awaiting responses from other Departments in that regard. I thank Commissioner Borg for his involvement in this matter.

The work of the committee on this issue over the past two or three months has been constructive and has borne fruit. I know the Commissioner is not here to talk solely about fisheries policy. He spoke about maritime policy this morning. He represents the Commission in a broader context.

I invite you, Commissioner Borg, to make a presentation to the committee and I will then open the discussion to members. I thank you again for your attendance here.

Commissioner Joe Borg

I thank the Chairman, Senators and Deputies. I would welcome any comments and questions members would like to pose, either regarding my responsibilities for fisheries or regarding my other responsibility, which is co-ordinating the ongoing discussion within the Commission leading to the formulation of ideas and proposals concerning a future maritime policy for the European Union.

Being part of a national parliament is something I truly miss. I have fond memories of the often tough and challenging debates, of the constraints in trying to find a balance between work to be done inside the House and the work that needs to be done outside in staying connected to constituents and citizens. This is the unique and unparalleled value of national parliaments — that the citizen is the primary focus of your endeavours.

As Senators and Deputies, Members have a crucial role to play in developing discussion on European issues. The European Union is often seen as a remote and distant entity. Indeed, in some instances it is viewed with hostility or, even worse, indifference. However, both Members and we have the responsibility to show how the Union is relevant to its citizens and that we share the common goal of working for the good of our citizens. Besides, Ireland represents a particular success story within the Union. As a member of the European Union, Ireland was able to overhaul its economy and consequently better its citizens' standard of living in a relatively short time.

We face many challenges which can be better tackled if common action is taken on a European-wide level. This is, after all, the added value of the European Union. In order to succeed in facing up to these challenges, we must ensure that Europe really counts for its citizens, both perception-wise and, most importantly, in that it delivers tangible results. This can more effectively be achieved if we in the European institutions work hand in hand with the national parliaments. President Barroso has therefore made it a priority of this Commission to enhance co-operation with national parliaments.

The current debate on the way forward for the European constitution is by no means easy. Without institutions, Europe stalls. Without a renewed institutional set-up, Europe's institutions cannot credibly face up to the multiple challenges ahead. Institutions and treaties do not exist just for the sake of being there — they are key components of a mechanism. It is simple logic: Institutions have to be equipped to cater for and deliver added value to actions of a social, economic and environmental nature, both within a European Union that today already consists of 27 member states and more, and in order to enhance Europe's effectiveness on the world stage.

The Commission's position as regards the Berlin Declaration to be adopted on 25 March at the informal European Council is therefore clear. The declaration must be meaningful in stating that we have to equip Europe to face the challenges of globalisation through open and competitive economies to generate growth and jobs. We have to ensure political solidarity through strengthened economic and social cohesion. We need increased accountability, with transparency and access to information as rights for citizens and obligations for Europe's institutions. Especially with the fight against climate change, sustainability is a defining issue for Europe's future. We also need to guarantee the security of European citizens. In order to achieve the European Union's goals on the global stage, we have to promote Europe's values and interests in the world.

What is also clear is that we cannot achieve these objectives alone. We need the dynamic engagement of the institutions and the national parliaments that are closest to Europe's citizens. In recognition of the important role that national parliaments play in the European project, the Commission has taken the logical step to further engage at an early stage of the decision-making process. As from 1 September of last year, the Commission started transmitting new proposals and consultation documents to national parliaments inviting them to send their comments on our proposals. Although still in its initial stages, this is a positive process that serves to deepen the ties between citizens and the European project.

The Commission is conscious of the need to bring Europe closer to its citizens. I myself am further committed to achieving better stakeholder involvement in my own area of responsibility because I believe that stakeholders themselves are best suited to assist us in moving issues forward. By opening a two-way channel of communication, by building trust, we can achieve a better understanding of one another's objectives, although from time to time we may differ on the means of getting there. Broad consultation was one of my major priorities when I was appointed Commissioner. It is a culture of doing things to which I attach great importance.

Within the fisheries sector, this involvement has started to pay off. Fishermen are more aware of the need to look at the long-term picture, a picture that portrays a gradual approach which allows for sustainability in social, economic and environmental terms. This engagement with the sector, together with an enhanced understanding we are fostering between fishermen and scientists through the regional advisory councils and by other means, will yield more ownership of decisions and, consequently, better results. At the same time, however, we must be clear that while we can discuss with and engage those who respect the rules, we have the obligation to ensure that those who flout such rules do not exploit an uneven playing field to the detriment of the majority of honest fishermen. Hence one of this year's priorities will be the adoption of a proposal on illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries, both within and outside of the European Union. Another issue we hope to address is the discarding of dead fish back into the sea. I have said time and again that I find this practice wasteful, unsustainable and morally untenable. We will attempt to address this complex issue in the coming months.

Broad consultation is also the password for the other area of my portfolio, maritime affairs. In adopting the Green Paper on a future maritime policy of the Union in June of last year, the Commission launched an unprecedented one-year consultation period on a host of questions. How do we retain Europe's leadership in sustainable maritime development? How can we maximise the quality of life in coastal regions? Which tools should we provide in order to manage our relations with the oceans? What should we do to reclaim Europe's maritime heritage and reaffirm its maritime identity? Finally, of particular interest to parliamentarians, how should we best organise our governance of maritime affairs, whether at regional, national, European or international level?

I am pleased to note that European stakeholders have embraced this consultation. Throughout member states, public and private organisations have organised events to discuss the issues raised in the Green Paper. Awareness of Europe's maritime dimension is growing.

With regard to Ireland, I am pleased to acknowledge its involvement in the further development of a European maritime policy. In this context, it was very appropriate that Ireland hosted the conference leading to the Galway Declaration, with its emphasis on collective work in the marine scientific community. The declaration rightly places particular focus on the role of the oceans in the broader climate and the carbon cycle. Above all, it spells out the contribution that maritime industries can make to the Lisbon Agenda and puts equal emphasis on economic achievement and environmental sustainability.

As I look back over the past 50 years in Europe and its relations with the oceans and human activity on and in the oceans, I am pleased to look at the Green Paper as a sea change. Europe needs to look differently at the oceans. The oceans and all the activities based on and in them are a complete system, where the effects of activities and-or regulations in one sector invariably impact on most, if not all, other sectors of the maritime cluster. We are in the process of building this new joined-up approach to our relations with the oceans. I strongly believe that this is an area where Europe can make a difference, and a very positive one at that.

I would like to conclude by referring to an event that, in many ways, ties in to all that I have referred to during my address. Later this year, the Dáil will hold a special debate on Europe to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Today, I take this opportunity to launch, together with the Joint Committee on European Affairs, a consultation process on Europe at 50 by means of which the members of the public can contribute their views and ideas on the European project.

I am pretty certain that these views and ideas will reflect the fact that it has not been an easy 50-year run. However, it has been positive overall. It has provided Europeans with peace, stability and prosperity. These are not platitudes, but reality. The beauty of it all is that we, all together, can make it even better.

Chairman

I will start by asking a question about the proposed European constitution, which was mentioned in the opening remarks. We have discussed it with outside guests and among ourselves. There are differing views, with some saying we should push on with it and others asking if we are ignoring the inevitable. Does the constitution have a future in the short term? There is a train of thought among European citizens that we are moving too fast and we should define Europe's borders. We continue to run the risk of scaring or ignoring the electorate by pushing the European constitution, a document many see as dead in the water. From the stand point of the Commission, what are the ingredients for success for the constitution?

Commissioner Borg

There are two different dimensions to the proposed European constitution. There is a view that we should move to bring about the ratification of the constitution and a view that we may be moving too fast and that we must take into account the short-term political realities.

From the Commission's point of view, although it approved the constitutional document, which was adopted by the member states at European Council level, it does not take a stand because it is not a direct party to the constitution. It is an intergovernmental document that must be approved and ratified by the member states themselves first and foremost. We do, however, feel that we can play a role as facilitator in the discussion if that is necessary. The member states, at Council level, have asked the Commission to play such a role where it is required or considered appropriate.

Having said that, the objectives of the constitution are generally positive and move in the direction of a future Union which can be more effective on the international front and in terms of internal administration. We must work to make this understood and acceptable to European citizens because it is essential that we move forward hand in hand with the understanding and support of European citizens. That is partly why the conscious decision was taken to launch a period of reflection, to give time and scope for the debate on the future European constitution to unfold in the different member states and see what the prevailing views are on the wider political and social platform.

Chairman

Was that period of reflection successful? What came out of it?

Commissioner Borg

I have been involved in the debate to an extent in my country. There, the debate on the constitution was not as divisive as had been anticipated. There was agreement on all political fronts about the content of the constitution and therefore the debate was held mainly in Parliament and in the media. A referendum was not considered necessary. I was marginally involved in fora such as this in certain other member states where the debate is somewhat more divisive. Other Commissioners were more heavily involved in debate in the national fora of their own countries, and the President and Vice President made quite an extensive tour.

The debate was opened up to an extent but could have been more active. The Commission alone cannot influence how a debate is conducted at national level. The member states and representatives of civil society must take the lead themselves in debating whether the constitution is ratified in its present form, in a different form or at all. The discussion will unfold further following the Berlin Declaration and under the German Presidency until a decision is taken on the modus operandi for proceeding with this issue.

Deputy Costello

I welcome the Commissioner, Ms Thom and Mr. Territt. I hope that the Berlin Declaration comes up with some practical proposals for the way out of the period of reflection because we have been reflecting for a while without much progress.

I am particularly pleased to hear about the Commissioner's approach to the ocean as a marvellous resource and its strengths, and that he said it is not just an endless source of food which we have over-exploited in many ways. Ireland's ocean area is ten times its dry land mass. What can the Commission do to help us develop marine leisure and recreation activities, and does Commissioner Borg have any proposals in that regard?

The ocean is also a source of wind and wave energy but there has been slow development of that resource, which would be clean and environmentally sensitive. I was struck by the Commissioner's reference to dead fish being discarded into the ocean. I am a landlubber and do not know much about these matters and so had not realised that dead fish were being discarded into the ocean or how this happens. The ocean is a massive foodchain and any food of that nature would no doubt be recycled. This may be a politically incorrect point but I would like the Commissioner to expand on it.

Commissioner Borg

I would like to make one small comment on the period of reflection which I should perhaps have made earlier. The period of reflection was to give time to reflect, but it was also a cooling-off period. Perhaps we, the Commission and member states, could have done more. In a sense, one needs to sit back a little during a cooling-off period. The Commission believes the time is now right to pick up the momentum, which will lead to a final decision being taken on the way forward. Let us hope this is done hand in hand with European citizens' active participation and involvement.

Deputy Costello raised three issues. Marine recreational activities could be further promoted by way of initiatives linked to the tourism industry. One could also envisage the possibility of finance being made available under certain funds for the development of such activities at least in terms of start-up costs. The Deputy will agree that economic activities should be able to run on their own.

Deputy Costello

We are talking about huge land areas under the ocean, which will require a great deal of resources, planning and scientific expertise to enable development. What can the Commission do in that regard?

Commissioner Borg

One aspect which needs to be addressed is competing uses of the same space. Large projects would have potentially different and divergent needs and requirements in terms of space. This points to the need for proper sea and seabed mapping in terms of spatial planning. Although spatial planning is somewhat sensitive in regard to the rights of member states, the Commission can facilitate the debate with regard to need and the extent to which one could speak of spatial planning — as happened in regard to land-based spatial planning — in terms of scope and to what extent it should be extended to the seas and seabeds. We have highlighted this in the Green Paper as an issue that needs to be addressed.

We have received quite a number of submissions on the matter from different stakeholders and will refer to them when finalising our conclusions. We will identify this as an area in which action can be taken. However, the final result will depend on the willingness of member states to move forward in the medium to long term. Pilot initiatives can be undertaken in the short term to ensure a process is set in motion which will facilitate matters concerning competing uses of the ocean space.

In the context of climate change, there is great potential to develop alternative energy resources. While significant progress has been made to develop wind energy, we are still in the initial phases of the development of wave and tidal energy. While one must promote further research and pilot initiatives to test the commercial and long-term viability of these energy forms, one must also consider competing uses.

The extent of coverage by wind, wave and tidal energy projects means that divergent interests fall to be considered. Wave energy projects must be considered, for example, with regard to maritime transport routes, fisheries and, possibly, areas of ecological sensitivity. The holistic, integrated view in maritime affairs does just that, which is why we believe that if we come up with deliverables in this context, these aspects will be addressed first and foremost. Rather than continuing to consider projects in a compartmentalised way, one can consider the impact on other sectors before taking a decision.

In assessing the viability or otherwise of particular projects, one must determine what the impact will be on the environment and other interest groups, including the social impact on coastal communities. If it is finally decided to go ahead with a project, the analysis already carried out will make implementation easier. There will have been involvement in advance by those parties who will be affected.

Questions were raised about the discarding of dead fish. The systems in place for the proper management of fisheries set out quotas and total allowable catches as well as certain technical measures. For example, one may have a quota for a particular species of fish but conduct fishing operations in an area where the stocks are mixed. While fishing for sole, one may catch plaice, which is typically larger in size. If one is targeting sole, the plaice may be discarded if it is of lesser commercial value. If one exhausts the quota of one type within a mixed fishery, further catches of fish of that species will have to be discarded. Discard levels can represent, therefore, from 50% to 70% of the total catch, which is enormous. Some of the discarded fish have a commercial value and could, under other circumstances, find their way onto the market.

We need to think proactively of ways and means whereby these discards are progressively eliminated. Other countries have moved in this direction. Norway has introduced a discard ban. Iceland has introduced measures equivalent to a discard ban. Canada has moved very much in the direction of having significant discard controls. Our fishery is much more complicated because of the various interests and the variety of fisheries within the same fishing areas. Where it is a question of a relatively clean fishery, in other words where mackerel is the catch, one targets mackerel and the problem is very manageable. If one reaches levels close to the quota, one can close the fishery to avoid further catches. However in a mixed fishery, it becomes much more complicated to impose the rule. We intend to address this issue and are in the final stages of preparing a communication on discards. This will be the basis for launching a debate in members states in the coming months on what action can be taken to gradually introduce some form of discard ban.

Although in theory, Deputy Costello may be correct, in practice when the volume of discards is so large, the habitat immediately surrounding the area of discards can be affected ecologically in a significantly negative way. In certain areas of significant discards for example there may be a significant growth of bird population, for example, cormorants which could cause a problem for fishermen. In other cases, certain predator fish thrive at the expense of other fish because of the ready feed they find. It has been scientifically proven that extensive discards give rise to ecological imbalance, and we are facing that problem.

Senator Ormonde

I welcome Commissioner Borg who presented a paper that stimulated my thinking. Commissioner Borg referred to the discussion on the Berlin Declaration which will be adopted on 25 March 2007. We have had the Green Paper on maritime policy and how best we can collectively solve the problems in coastal areas. The delay in finalising the constitutional treaty has an effect on the prominence of other issues in every member state. France and the Netherlands have already rejected the treaty and Poland, the Czech Republic and England are still uneasy about it. I do not want to see the dilution of the treaty but it appears we cannot make progress with it in its present form and this will impact on what the European institutions pursue in the future.

Commissioner Borg

As we all know, the provisions of the constitutional treaty were approved unanimously by the member states in the European Council. At the political level, therefore, all member states have given their consent to the adoption of the European constitution. However, the constitutional requirements of certain member states mean national referenda must be held, while other member states decided voluntarily to submit the constitutional treaty for ratification by virtue of a referendum, separate from the parliamentary process.

From the Commission's perspective, we have no particular view or concern in regard to the internal method of ratification employed by individual member states. Where ratification is required and was sought, there have been two instances where the result was negative. The reality, therefore, is that the entire process is stalled and a solution must be found. A period of reflection is required to work out the way forward, and there are several possibilities in this regard.

It is a question of the willingness of European citizens to adopt the constitutional treaty essentially as it stands or whether some radical rethink must be undertaken. If the treaty is to be adopted as it stands, we must be sure that European citizens, particularly in those member states where they must be directly consulted, understand the scope of the constitutional provisions and what their impact will be. A decision must be made either to move forward with the ratification of the treaty as it stands after the period of consultation and discussion with European citizens or to go back to the drawing board.

If the former course is taken, the timeframe is significantly shorter than that required for the more radical approach. We are aware that the message is clearly in the direction of the latter course of action, in which case the likely timeframe will be significantly longer than envisaged in trying to ratify the constitution as it stands.

Deputy McGinley

I join colleagues in welcoming Commissioner Borg. He observed that he missed being a member of his national parliament. Those of us who are members of our national parliament only seldom get the opportunity to encounter a member of the Commission.

My first question relates to the Commissioner's responsibility for maritime affairs and my second is about fisheries. A considerable cause of anxiety to many of us is the apparent lack of regulation and control in regard to some of the traffic traversing the seas around Europe and worldwide. I refer to some of the ecological disasters and near-disasters that have occurred in Europe and other parts of the world. These often arise because the vessels involved are not seaworthy. Has the EU any plan to impose stricter regulations in regard to the standard of vessels that can be put to sea? Such regulations might prevent incidents such as those to which I referred.

My second question relates to fisheries. I am from an area where fisheries have always played an important role in the local economy. It was often said that activity in the fishing industry was a good barometer of the region's economic well-being or lack thereof. I refer to the north west and Donegal in particular. I understand Commissioner Borg has visited the area in the past.

Activity within the fishing industry and the pelagic sector is at low ebb in the north west. The pelagic fleet in one of our premier fishing ports, Killybegs, is virtually tied up and will probably remain so until next October. This has repercussions throughout the community, where it was usual for anything from 1,500 to 2,000 people to work in the various onshore facilities. There has been a drastic fall-off in those numbers. Fishermen and others who have been engaged in the industry for many generations and who are dependent on it for their livelihoods are asking themselves what the future may hold.

I carefully read Commissioner Borg's chapter on the fisheries sector. I and most fishermen would agree with all the worthy sentiments expressed, including the need for broad consultation, conservation, sustainability, strict adherence to the rules, understanding, co-operation and so on.

The difficulties lie with the notion that for a maritime country, we have too low a base. It is galling to see our fleet tied up while our neighbours and friends in the EU busily engage in fishing. I do not know what can be done to address this. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the quotas and to assign Ireland a fair quota. We started from a low base in the 1970s when we joined the EU. Is there any likelihood this problem will be addressed?

Commissioner Borg

On the Deputy's comment that EU neighbours are engaged in fishing while the fishing fleet in his area is tied up, I wish to clarify something and will use the example of Spain, which is often mentioned. Figures show that the Spanish fleet has been reduced considerably in recent years. A programme of decommissioning of vehicles is in place there and action is being taken to reduce capacity. The Commission has taken decisions that impact on the Spanish fleet and this may be the reason Spain has had to take such measures. The closure of anchovy fishing, for example, has affected both France and Spain. Both this year and last, there has been a reduction in effort in certain fisheries where the Spanish fleet has traditionally been strong.

I am trying neither to exculpate nor exonerate any particular fishing fleet. I underline, however, that in taking its decisions, the Commission tries to work as much as possible on the basis of scientific advice or, where scientific advice is lacking, on the basis of the precautionary principle. It tries to do so in an objective way without discriminating either in favour of or against particular member states. At the same time they must take into account the realities on the ground and in doing so try to soften the pain as much as possible, without prejudicing the long-term objective of regaining sustainable fisheries, which is an extremely difficult balancing act. Every year between October and December fisheries move to the top of the political agenda in several member states.

There is a misconception that the Commission is hard on the small and weak but is soft on the strong. That is completely unfounded. We have come down hard on the largest member states, for example France incurred a fine of €58 million every six months, which we collected over a year until it set its house in order. We have instituted infringement proceedings against the gamut of states with the large states at the top of the list. We are not worried about flexing our muscle with the large member states if they do not comply with the rules to which they have largely agreed.

If we need to reform such rules because they are not yielding the desired results, we are open to discussing with the member states ways and means to think anew on different measures. That is why we have launched this discussion on a future maritime policy, to try to take a more holistic approach even with regard to fisheries because it does not exist in splendid isolation. The economic activity of fishermen sometimes impacts on other activities which can have a potential for growth. Equally, other activities can have a negative impact on fishermen and it is in their interests to see to it that we examine these matters holistically because there could be diverging interests and competing uses of the same space. If we introduce a mechanism whereby fishermen are more involved in the planning of what needs to be done there is a greater possibility of taking decisions acceptable to them.

The control of traffic at sea is not directly my area of responsibility. There is a Commissioner with direct responsibility for maritime transport. Since the Erika and Prestige incidents, two significant oil spills from tankers, the Commission took the lead with the Erika I and the Erika II packages. It has adopted a third proposed package of measures, which will go before the Council to introduce more stringent security requirements, classification of vessels, classification societies, standards for vessels and so on.

The problem is that in taking the lead in the direction that the Deputy indicated we have been criticised for moving too fast, similar to the constitutional debate. An example was criticism by the International Maritime Organisation, which normally takes decisions if the Community introduces measures that are too tough for Community vessels. If the rest of the international community does not introduce or adopt equivalent measures, flags of convenience will flourish among operators who prefer more lenient rules.

We have introduced those measures for ourselves in the first place, and measures that will make it difficult for operators under third country flags to berth in Community ports if they do not satisfy certain standards. We have taken the lead within the IMO to have those measures, or significant aspects of them, introduced for the international shipping community. The move from the single hull to the double hull is a foregone conclusion. The Erika and the Prestige were single hull vessels. By 2012 all the rest of the international community will comply, except two notorious flags of convenience states, and Japan, which has a significant tanker population.

Chairman

Three other members want to speak and there is only approximately ten minutes left for the discussion.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the Commissioner. The French and Dutch voted against the treaty for reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty. Nobody really examined the qualified majority voting or other aspects of the treaty that would have put them off. If any analysis were done it would have looked at issues outside the treaty, such as globalisation, enlargement and loss of jobs. The treaty is the product of a great deal of bargaining and to water it down now would be counterproductive. Some of the problems that emerged in the Maastricht treaty were dealt with by protocol. Is that being considered as a way to address matters in this treaty that are of concern to members of the public?

The Commissioner is right about this being a cooling-off period rather than a period of reflection. Circumstances and personnel will change in the various places and there would then be an opportunity to consider the extraneous factors causing people to vote against the European Union. Sometimes this is a question of lethargy not just with regard to the European Union but in national politics. National parliaments have a responsibility to try to connect with the citizen before the European Union has a chance to do that. In France, for example, the list system creates distance between members of the public and their elected representatives. Unless this can be sorted out nationally the chances of sorting it out between 27 member countries are slim.

I do not know much about fisheries. There is one active boat in Dún Laoghaire but it is tied up because it has been going through an appeals system against an EU directive for the past year. I will not however, ask the Commissioner to address that problem.

The Commissioner has explained how he deals with countries that are not EU members, such as Norway, Iceland and Canada.

Commissioner Borg

That point links with the question about Donegal and the pelagic fleet. Under community rules if there is irrefutable proof that there has been over-fishing in a particular area, instead of instituting infringement proceedings and taking tough punitive measures, which can be slow, the regulation provides for a deduction the following year of the excess caught above the quota. Given that the irrebuttably proven excesses were significant, we decided to allow the payments in respect thereof to be made over five years, thereby allowing fisheries to continue in operation. If this were not the case, an affected fishery would have to close down completely.

The system is such that an affected fishery must be tied up over a specified period each year. This is not because we decided we wanted to be unkind or cruel to the fishermen but because there was clear evidence, which fishermen accepted, that they were over-fishing significantly. If we believe in sustainable fisheries and want to guarantee a future livelihood for fishermen, we should not allow this. The five-year period allows fisheries to manage payments by having relatively short-term closures during the fishing period

Neither the French nor Dutch voted for or against the constitution on the basis of its provisions. They did so for other reasons that were more related to domestic matters than European politics or policies. Having said that, the official position is that neither France nor the Netherlands would be prepared to resubmit the constitutional proposal, as it is, to the electorate, and therefore there is an impasse. The member states must work out some solution. One possibility is that some changes could be effected not in substance but by making the constitution more consumer-friendly, as was indicated in respect of the Maastricht and Nice treaties. A good chunk of the constitution basically reproduces the present acquis.

The present format complicates matters unnecessarily in terms of its being understood. The gist of the real constitutional provisions could be contained in the document and approved. The rest could be in the form of an annexe, in which nothing new would be offered save for a reproduction of the present acquis. With the benefit of hindsight, we realise the approach adopted did confuse minds. The mass of documentation was confusing, although a good 90% thereof was a reproduction of the present acquis. The European citizen, who was not au courant with the state of play, felt rightly he was entering uncharted territory and had not time to absorb all the information. Perhaps we should have invested more in proper marketing of what we were trying to sell.

The member states are in a position to carry out a campaign in favour of or against the adoption of the constitution and the Commission can offer its support, where required. Certain member states wanted the Commission to play an active part in the debate, in which case it did, and other member states told it to keep off in the belief that its involvement would be counterproductive. We very much relate to the requirements on the ground and act accordingly.

Deputy Sexton

I welcome the Commissioner. In his contribution, he mentioned the Commission's difficulties regarding fisheries and other maritime issues. He outlined what he proposes to do about these, which was positive and very welcome. The Progressive Democrats wish to see a liberal and democratic Europe promoted at all times.

On public cynicism and scepticism at European level, it seems on the basis of what the Commissioner said that he does not envisage any magic wand that will solve this problem. I have not heard any new or innovative proposal from the Commission on how it will proceed in this regard. I accept what the Commissioner said about the Commission wanting to stay out of the debate in certain member states because its involvement could be counterproductive. We all want to see the constitution in place but, at the same time, there is no doubt but that we have left the citizen behind.

Even following the period of reflection, the public may have serious concerns over the emergence of a superstate the apparatus of power of which would be unaccountable to the constituent member states. This is the greatest fear of the European citizen and in this respect I do not believe we have sold the positive aspects of the Union. One should consider how an event in Chernobyl could affect somebody in my constituency in the midlands of Ireland. We need to work not as sovereign entities but together, and it is in this regard that the Union has been so successful.

Unfortunately the Commission marketed the constitution incorrectly and that is why we are in our present position. Even our discussion today does not point to any great solution in terms of how we will tackle the problem. If this is the case, we will have to postpone the constitution for much longer than was originally intended, which in turn presents difficulties for the Union.

Senator Lydon

I am from the same part of the country as Deputy McGinley, in which the Killybegs port is situated. The boats are tied up for months at this port, as the Deputy stated. The fishermen there believe the European Commission, under the commissionership of Mr. Borg, is doing its damnedest to destroy the Irish fleet. I know this is not the case but it is the impression people have. We find it very hard to understand why the Norwegians have such a large whiting quota pertaining to our waters and why the Faroese, who occupy such small islands, have such a huge quota. We also find it very hard to understand why the Japanese can fish for tuna in our waters or why the Spanish can enter our ports, load their catch onto a Spanish lorry without any inspection and drive off to Vigo. Why do the authorities almost count every fish on an Irish boat coming into port?

I compliment the Commissioner on the move to prevent the discarding of dead fish in the sea. There are two reasons for this practice. One is the Japanese liking for large fish. Second, when fishermen shoot a net they cannot tell the fish they only want a tonne of fish. If they get a tonne and a quarter, the surplus quarter tonne of fish must be thrown back into the water. Sometimes small fish must also be thrown back. A rule should be introduced whereby any small surplus over the quota could be landed and any benefit could go to the State or the fisheries rather than the fishermen. It is an awful waste to discard hundreds of thousands of fish overboard each year. Essentially, this waste is due to the quota system as it is very difficult to get the right weight of fish into a net.

Commissioner Borg

I will respond to the questions asked. I regret members are disappointed I did not come here with a magic wand formula. There may be some misunderstanding of the role of the Commission. First, we were not promoters of the constitutional debate. That was something that was predominantly intergovernmental. A team — a think tank — was formed from the member states with representatives from the institutions, the Commission and the European Parliament. However, these representatives were very much in the minority.

The idea that the constitutional treaty is a document which the Commission, the unelected and unrepresentative part of the institutions, came up with, presented and rammed down the throats of the member states is far from reality. The member states themselves led the debate and finally agreed on the constitutional privileges. However, problems were then encountered in individual member states. What we are trying to do as a result is to facilitate the process of reflection, allow a cooling-off period and facilitate thinking on the way forward.

We must decide whether we should try to give a second chance based on the constitution as it stands, whether there should be changes in the constitution, even if only changes in presentation, or whether we need a more radical rethink. It is essential these issues are addressed and a course of action is decided on before another attempt is made to ratify the constitutional document. My view is that the time has come to look into the issue again and work out what we need to do if we are to salvage the constitutional treaty or decide whether we need to think on a more long-term basis in this regard.

On the question of Norway and the Faroes and their large quota, this comes down to two issues. The Commission has the mandate of managing fisheries. Managing fisheries in its own waters comprises also the managing of fishing interests in third country waters. Our fleet, whether Spanish, British or Irish, from whatever part of the Community, has historically had fishing interests in third country waters, for example in Norwegian or Faroese waters, which are large and rich in certain species of fish. There is a quid pro quo involved in maintaining these interests. If the Norwegians or others are to concede to our fishermen the continuation of certain fishing rights and if they traditionally had fishing rights in Community waters, we must negotiate agreements with them and other third countries based on reciprocity. We do this virtually on an annual basis.

We have managed to conclude agreements with Norway and the coastal states on a number of fish stocks. We intend to negotiate on other fish stocks also, but will not do so unless we get the go ahead of the member states. I agree, we could have situations where the fishermen of a particular member state stand to benefit from fishing rights in third country waters at the expense of Community waters where the fishermen of another member state are more predominant. That is part of the rules of the game with regard to the management of a common policy. The same would apply with regard to other common policies. The only solution is that when we come to distribute the relative rights among the different member states, we must try to factor in as much as possible individual states' historical fishery rights in the different Community waters. We must at least try to protect existing fishermen's interests as much as possible.

On the question of discards and the suggestion that these fish be landed rather than discarded, this issue is part of the exercise we are carrying out. We are looking at ways of introducing a discard ban, what collateral measures need to be introduced if we are to have effective implementation of such a ban and what would happen with the surplus fish caught. If they are to be landed, should they be sold off or would the fishermen receive some form of compensation? For example, the Netherlands has introduced a small compensation payment for fishermen from the proceeds derived from the sale of surplus fish which would otherwise have been discarded. This compensates for the expense in landing them.

If we do not provide some compensation, the likelihood is that unless we have a perfect system of monitoring, fishermen will continue to throw the surplus fish overboard rather than waste precious space on board the vessel in order to land them. If they are not compensated in some way for that, the risk is fishermen will continue to discard and take the risk of being caught. We need to find a system which prohibits discards, but which introduces accompanying measures that make it less tough on fishermen and can be effectively implemented without fishermen losing out unduly in the process.

Chairman

I thank the Commissioner, his delegation and Mr. Territt for attending this committee. I have a small presentation to make before we adjourn.

Sitting suspended at 3.55 p.m. and resumed in private session at 4 p.m. The joint committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. sine die.