The proposer of the motion has 12 minutes and the seconder has eight minutes. Other speakers have eight minutes each.
Fishing Industry: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for the Marine to outline his proposals to protect the Irish Sea Fishing and Processing Industry from the massive cutbacks being proposed by the European Union Commissioner which will result in the national fleet being halved; curbs and limits the number of days fishermen will be allowed to fish; involves the decommissioning and destruction of fishing vessels; if he will indicate the financial and job losses which will result from the Commissioner's proposals; and the action he will take to prevent the plan being implemented.
My party tabled this motion to discover the Minister's views and see if a consensus might be achieved on the future of the fishing industry in view of recent statements from the EU about further cutbacks. I am not attaching blame to the Minister or anyone else for the position which currently exists in the fishing industry. I wish to refer to a number of facts which the Minister will probably outline later.
Approximately 15,000 people are employed in the fishing industry. Since 1975, the value of fish landings has risen from £15 million to approximately £300 million. The fishing industry is vital to coastal regions and the west because in the past many small towns and villages suffered greatly because of emigration and fishing was the sole source of employment. In this regard, I refer not only to the west, but to all coastal regions.
Ireland is now the only island state in the EU and should receive special concessions. Ireland's territorial waters represent approximately 16 per cent of the waters of the EU. I cannot say the figures I am quoting are accurate, but they are given out from time to time. The total catch from Irish waters by all countries of the EU is in the region of £2 billion per year. This approximate figure was quoted to me and I have no evidence to support it. The Irish fishing fleet is restricted to about 4 per cent of the catch quota in Irish waters. At the outset I stated that 16,000 people are employed in the fishing industry, onshore and in boats. If the Irish fishing fleet had access to 16 per cent of our catch quota, up to 40,000 people would be employed in that industry. That represents a very relevant amount of extra employment in a time when everyone is trying to reduce unemployment.
Many small towns and villages — Moville, Killybegs, Rossaveal, Dingle, Castletownbere, Union Hall, Dunmore East, Kilmore, Skerries, Howth, etc. — are hugely dependent on fishing. In most cases there is no alternative employment. Fishing is the main source of employment in many of these towns. I may be wrong but I understand that there are approximately 2,000 people employed in the fishing industry in Killybegs. In Dingle, the town in which I live, I estimate that there are 600 people employed in that industry. Most of these people are the main breadwinners in their families and many of them would not have availed of a third or second level education. Like their fathers and grandfathers, the only life they know is that of the sea and fishing.
As I already stated, these towns and villages have no alternative source of employment. It is not acceptable to have yet another restriction forced on us which would reduce our fleet by up to 40 per cent and impose stricter quotas. The Common Fisheries Policy was supposed to provide equal access to a common resource. This has not happened in Ireland's case. We are discussing sharing our waters and fish with other countries in the European Union and it is completely out of order to place further quotas and restrictions on coastal communities with a huge dependency on fishing. If the present proposal succeeds, the fishing towns and villages on Irish coasts will be wiped out.
It is common knowledge that Ireland received a bad deal under the Common Fisheries Policy. I will not state who was at fault, but it is generally accepted that the Common Fisheries Policy was a bad deal for Ireland. I stated on many occasions at meetings of my parliamentary party that agriculture gained from the fishing industry's loss. I may be wrong, but I always believed agriculture gained. I wish farmers, those involved in agriculture and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the very best in trying to obtain compensation for the beef industry.
I ask that the Minister for the Marine make a major effort to obtain compensation for the fishing industry. The Minister is very genuine in all that he is attempting to do for the fishing industry but it is time he called a halt. There must be no further negotiations to reduce the Irish fishing fleet or its quotas. However, the Minister must demand a renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that Ireland receives a larger quota to safeguard its fishing fleet, the people living in coastal communities and the entire economy.
Why should we accept cutbacks when we are aware that 20 per cent of foreign boats boarded while fishing in Irish waters are fishing illegally? This is common knowledge to the Department of the Marine which receives information in this regard from the Department of Defence, the Naval Service and the Air Corps. The fishing boats involved have secret holds and, when boarded, everything seems in order. The species of fish found in these holds are not supposed to be caught because of the overfishing ban on certain stocks. Many of these boats are new and were built with the help of EU funding in boatyards in countries such as Spain. I believe those secret holds were built with the knowledge of inspectors from the fishery departments in those countries, particularly Spain. If that is so, fishermen from Spain and other countries are being aided and abetted by their fisheries inspectors to deliberately break the law.
Our backs are to the wall and we are being asked to endure further cuts. I am a very reasonable and fair person but I have said to my party and that of the Minister that such cutbacks are not on. I did not ask the Minister to come to the House to accuse him of anything. However, if I have to ask him to come to the House in a year's time because he has failed to renegotiate, I will accuse him then. I have said to him openly and fairly it is time to say stop. We can no longer sustain cutbacks in the fishing industry.
We must go to the negotiating table with a good case. We have a great case but we do not have the research and scientific knowledge to substantially back it up. We are dependent on one small boat, the Lough Beltra, to conduct our research for us, which is almost an impossibility. Our inshore fleets of smaller boats are also suffering because of the gross illegal fishing of stocks in outside waters which means the fish cannot spawn. Everybody is suffering.
They are our waters, although they are a common EU resource. We joined the EEC with open arms but we have to be fair with it and it has to be fair with us. The Minister has the full support of Fianna Fáil to call a halt now, to renegotiate and say we are not taking any more cuts.
It is my pleasure to second the motion. In 1984, as Senator Fitzgerald knows, I had the privilege of preparing the first draft of my party's policy document on the marine. When I was researching that area I was fascinated to learn we had never focused on the benefits of our island status and the fact we possessed territorial waters which extended far beyond our land resource. Central to that document was the creation of the Department of the Marine. The contention at that time was that the Department would be a developmental agency aimed at exploiting Ireland's last, great, unexploited natural resource — the marine environment and the fish and minerals in the sea.
Sadly, 12 years later, we still have not made the kind of impact we should have. Our territorial and coastal waters far exceed our land bank. Yet, perversely, we cannot at this stage exclusively, or even predominantly, exploit that resource for the benefit of the people of this island. As Senator Fitzgerald said, because we have embraced the Common Fisheries Policy and membership of the EU we share that resource. The tragedy, however, is that our partners in the EU have exploited a historic weakness in a policy area, which should be of considerable importance to the Irish people, and we have an unequal share in that resource. While one accepts the idea of sharing the resource, it is difficult — and, I believe, impossible — to accept we should surrender outright the right to utilise the advantages of our island nation status.
If Ireland goes along with the latest fishery proposals we will be abdicating our rights to develop an area of tremendous job creation and developmental potential. The EU Commission proposals put forward last month call for cuts of up to 40 per cent in the fishing fleet. There are, as the Minister and other Members know, slight variations on that on the basis of species, with cuts of up to 50 per cent in some species. Countries which do not meet the fleet reduction targets proposed by the Commission will be heavily fined.
The Commission has put forward these proposals in order to avoid what Commissioner Bonino calls the biological collapse of the fish stock in European waters. In common with every Member of the House, I am most anxious to prohibit or prevent an environmental disaster and the collapse of the biological stock which is the patrimony of the people of Europe, particularly that which is the possession or asset of the people of this island nation. If we face biological collapse, as all the scientific evidence suggests is the case, we do so because of industrial fishing practices developed by major continental fishing nations which they have used irresponsibly over the years.
The scientific arguments and the EU policy proposals can be faulted in a number of ways. The most serious is that while they focus on the preservation of fixed fish stocks and the scientific evidence, they give very little consideration to the social, economic and depopulation impact on small coastal communities involved in the fishing industry, particularly those in this country. These proposals are a response to industrial fishing practices rather than to the kind of fishing practices engaged in by this country.
Arklow, for example, is a small port with a tiny fleet but it gives valuable employment to a small number of people and supports employment onshore. As a result of historic short-sightedness and past constraints, and because Governments and State agencies have been, if anything, prejudiced against the growth of the Arklow fleet, it has never really developed. It still has potential but Commissioner Bonino's proposals will do away with any such potential. The small fleet in Arklow faces stagnation at best; it faces contraction in the short term and absolute annihilation in the long term. Jobs which were painfully created by people who showed great industry will be destroyed.
The Commission's proposals include a scheme of support measures which will cost in the order of £2.5 billion. These are based on the early retirement and destruction of vessels from the fleet and do not address the loss of potential. There is no compensation for the young men and women whose tradition lies in the fishing industry, as was touched on by Senator Fitzgerald. There is no way one can compensate the son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter of a fishing family for the closure of the only profession they know. They face either internal migration to the cities or emigration if the job market abroad opens up. That is completely opposite to the ethos of other areas of European policy.
The argument of equity also applies. Why should an Irish fisherman be forced to answer for the sins of other fleets? The stock problems in European waters have been caused by selfish and irresponsible behaviour by nations with huge industrial fleets and Spain stands particularly indicted in this regard. The Irish fleet is small, under-capitalised, weather-bound and already restricted as to the amount of time that can be spent on the fishing grounds. Our fleet is not to blame in any way for the kind of deprivation that has been seen. The type of small, in-shore fleets which give the bulk of coastal employment would be devastated by the 40 per cent cut in EU fleet tonnage. Any chance these fishing fleets have of expanding their activities, or small ports of expanding employment, would be gone.
The upcoming Irish Presidency of the EU should be used to effect. The Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, recently said the Irish Presidency should set the agenda for the Common Fisheries Policy. I urge the Minister and the Government to set a stern face in this particular matter. The destruction of whole coastal communities is at stake and we have to resist it. There has to be some sense of the social destruction that would be wrought if the Commission is allowed go down the path proposed. I believe the Government will have abundant support from the Opposition side of both Houses if it takes a stern view and sets its face against the Commission's proposals.
I am very glad to have this opportunity to advise the Seanad in detail of my views on the Commission's proposals for cuts in the European fishing fleet which were announced last week. It is also a timely opportunity to brief this House on the background to the proposals and the negotiating process which will go forward from here, beginning at the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg next Monday.
Let me begin by setting out my position on these proposals. Everyone acknowledges that there is a major problem of overfishing in the European Union. Appropriate measures, on all fronts, must be put in place to tackle the problem at source, to conserve stocks and to ensure a viable economic future for the fishing sector. The Commission is proposing global cuts of up to 40 per cent over six years in overall EU fleet tonnage. In so far as the Commission's proposals would apply to Ireland's specific situation they are totally unacceptable. As they stand, the proposals would, at minimum, deny the Irish industry the ability to avail of its existing fishing opportunities, prevent further modernisation and development from our acknowledged low base and would have devastating impact on the livelihoods of many coastal communities. And the irony is that, given the size, structure and activity of our fishing fleet, the imposition of such drastic cuts on Ireland would not contribute in any significant way to the objective of addressing overall overfishing and overcapacity in EU waters.
These proposals will have to be negotiated and fought over line by line in the coming months. I can assure this House, as I have assured the Irish fishing industry, that my overriding objective is to protect the national fishing interest throughout these difficult negotiations and to achieve an outcome which is acceptable and equitable and which takes all the dimensions of the problem into account. I will return in a few moments to the specific concerns which I have regarding the Commission's proposals and my objectives for the Irish fleet. First I would like to review the background to the proposals and the considerations which have produced them.
There is, as I said at the outset, an acknowledged fundamental crisis in the European fishing sector. Chronic over-exploitation of fish stocks and considerable excess capacity in the overall EU fishing fleet have long pointed to the need for steps to reduce fishing effort based on the known state of stocks. It is not uniquely an EU problem. Too many boats chasing an ever diminishing resource is the pattern worldwide. In most recent years the high price that will be paid for uncontrolled fishing has been vividly demonstrated in the closure of fisheries in Canada and the huge job losses which followed in coastal communities there.
The first EU framework of fleet cuts or the so-called Multi Annual Guidance Programmes was agreed in 1983 and was followed by further programmes in 1986 and 1992. The first two programmes which were modest enough in their aims were not a great success, on the Commission's own admission. Overcapacity remained and, combined with the effects of considerable technical progress in fishing methods and gears, resulted in continued overfishing.
The third, and current MAGP, running from 1992 to 1996 is a much more stringent framework, with tougher overall targets geared at delivering cuts of 15 per cent and 20 per cent in demersal and flatfish fleet capacity. After a hard battle with the Commission, Ireland succeeded in the negotiations on MAGP III in winning specific recognition of the underdeveloped state of its fleet which essentially meant that we have to hold at slightly above the status quo across the various segments of the fleet. This, of course, is essentially a constraint on capacity. The last time around, the Commission did finally accept that the particular characteristics of the Irish fleet warranted specific treatment, including facilitating the take up of substantially under-utilised whitefish quotas off the west and south-west coasts. The case for renewal and modernisation of the fleet was also acknowledged within the bounds, however, of the national fleet targets set under MAGP III. Like all member states, Ireland is legally obliged to deliver on those targets by the end of this year. Taking account of the evolution of the various components of the Irish fleet over the lifetime of MAGP III, our current licensing policy and decommissioning strategy aim to meet the national targets by the set date. The Commission in its new proposals has clearly flagged that progress made in relation to meeting the current targets will be taken into account in the negotiations on the new targets.
The Commission's own analysis is that while under the current round of MAGP there appears to be the beginning of a real decrease in the overcapacity generally of the European fleet, over 200,000 tonnes have been removed overall according to the Commission's own monitoring of available data. However, the Commission concludes that continued over-exploitation is still resulting in stocks being depleted at an alarming rate.
As part of the process of developing the proposed new programme the Commission has consulted the scientists, the fishing industries and member states. The advice contained in a report of a group of scientists from member states — the Lassen Report — is that the general situation of stocks has continued to deteriorate in European and international waters. The report identifies a number of stocks where urgent measures are needed to prevent their biological collapse. These include most of the stocks in the waters around Ireland.
The scientific advice is bleak. Clearly there is a major imbalance between overall fishing activity and available fish stocks in EU waters. From that perspective the Commission's analysis cannot be disputed in that further reductions in overall EU tonnage are still needed. I would stress that it is in Ireland's interest to see progressive reductions in the overall size of the EU fleet particularly those fishing heavily, and often indiscriminately, in the Irish EEZ, but I have a fundamental problem with the blunt instrument approach proposed by the Commission of across the board percentage cuts as the solution. I find myself returning time and time again to this question. If global cuts in tonnage are the answer to the problem why, in spite of the various fleet reductions achieved since 1993, has over-exploitation continued at such a rate and key stocks continued to plummet? Are the fleet cuts being implemented where they are really needed? Are member states committing themselves sufficiently to implementing and enforcing the control and conservation measures which already exist and which are equally essential for the protection of the resource? In other words, is the EU tying itself into a straitjacket of capacity cuts while, at the same time, the rules are being regularly broken on all other fronts?
This is a fundamental question and one which must be confronted and answered. Getting the balance right between the EU fleet and the available fish resource involves a much wider range of factors than capacity control. Fishing methods, conservation control and enforcement are all equally related to the balance between fleet size and fish stocks. They must be given due weight if they are to get to grips with the overall problem. The differing impact of these factors for specific fleets and fisheries must be taken into account in developing a credible "big picture" response to the scientific advice.
The Commission has also engaged in consultations with the national fishing organisations over recent months in the run up to these proposals. Two meetings were held in Dublin and Cork last February at which Commission officials had the opportunity to listen to the specific concerns of the Irish industry and about future directions of fleet policy. The industry made a strong case for Ireland to be allowed to develop its fleet further in the interests of safety and efficiency and to allow full take up of existing quota entitlements and emerging non quota opportunities. The industry representative emphasised the vital regional importance of fishing to coastal communities and the need to sustain and develop the industry to give much needed employment. The Commission, therefore, has been given a very clear and unambiguous message by the Irish industry about the likely impact of future severe cuts in fleet size for Ireland, given the underdevelopment of the fishing industry and the economic and social consequences.
In addition to the consultation process with the industry, the Commission also consulted national authorities on the overall principles which would inform their proposals. We clearly signalled to the Commission in considerable detail Ireland's position on the broad issue at stake and our specific national concerns and objectives. I have already outlined some of those concerns and objectives in my earlier remarks on the need for the Commission proposals to strike the right balance between all the factors affecting the sustainability of the fisheries resource.
The solution to the problem is not one dimensional. In addition to taking into account issues of conservation, fishing methods, control and enforcement, the Commission must also take into account fundamental EU principles of economic and social cohesion. The Union has given formal recognition to the need to address the problem of regions where local communities are especially dependent on fisheries. This is enshrined in the Hague Agreement of 1976 and in the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation of 1992. The special needs and position of the Irish fishing industry is thus acknowledged and should be reflected in the fisheries policy instruments, including fleet policy. It follows that the specific nature and profile of national fishing fleets necessarily rules out "across the board" fleet capacity cuts.
Uniform proposals applied without taking account of specific needs will be discriminatory in effect. What I have done already, therefore, is to put firmly to the Commission the case for specific treatment of the Irish fleet as follows: In the first instance I want to maintain existing capacity in the pelagic fleet to allow, in particular, for continued diversification into non quota species such as horse mackerel, blue whiting and Atlantic red fish. The modern and efficient Irish pelagic fleet is capable of pursuing these opportunities while working to ensure viability within available quota levels for herring and mackerel.
Second, my objective for the underdeveloped small whitefish fleet is to develop the capacity to allow full take up of existing quota entitlements and to catch increased levels of non quota species. As the Commission acknowledges, this part of the Irish fleet is largely made up of small older boats often confined to base because of weather and in need of further modernisation for economic and safety reasons. It supports a large number of jobs on a modest take up of fish.
Third, I am particularly concerned to enhance the safety operation of the fleet overall. Safety improvements which do not affect capacity should not be penalised under any new proposals. Fourth, high levels of effort are exerted by other fleets on the key stocks under pressure in the Irish EEZ including vessels largely in and out of member states other than their own flag states. I am pressing the Commission to take specific account of the "flagships" issue in devising solutions with regard to specific stocks.
The Commission has now unveiled its proposals in light of, presumably, its assessment of all the inputs so far. The proposals are stark and uncompromising and we now have a huge uphill battle on our hands to have our specific concerns addressed. I would emphasise that this is the Commission's opening position. Months of long, tough negotiation lie ahead before an overall agreement is likely to be reached. The Council of Ministers will be responsible for taking the overall decision on the guidelines and principles, following which the Commission will negotiate a separate bilateral programme with each member state. I have spelt out our opening position and I assure Senators that we will be fighting the Irish case line by line. The national position is clear and stands separately from our obligations as Presidency to work to advance EU business.
I would summarise the Commission's opening bid as follows: Fleet cuts over six years in two phases totalling 40 per cent cuts in capacity in key demersal and pelagic stocks under pressure; 20 to 30 per cent cuts in less critical stocks and status quo on stocks in better shape. The Commission has also signalled that account will be taken of specific characteristics but talks about an equitable share of the pain. It also undertakes to review financial aid to cushion the impact on the sector, but realistically there is not a shred of comfort on increased funding overall.
There is no justification for major cuts in the Irish fleet based on any rational assessment of the part the fleet plays in the European problem of overfishing. However, make no mistake, there is a tough battle to be fought. Other member states are not likely to accept a large cut in their own fleet while the Irish fleet is allowed to increase in size or even remain at its present size. All member states are under extreme pressure to maintain their existing employment in fishing and to maintain their fleets without cuts. Such an approach would be unacceptable to the Commission and to me.
The reality is that the seas around our coast are overfished. I have spoken earlier of the results elsewhere when necessary action to cut overfishing is not taken early enough. Fisheries have been totally closed. This must not happen in our waters. We must push for strong action on all fronts to cut overfishing. We must also make our European partners recognise that we will not pay the price for overfishing by others. This is the message I will be taking to the Fisheries Council next week when there will be a preliminary discussion on MGP IV. I know I have the support of the fishing industry and I am sure I can rely on your support in pursuing the best possible deal for Ireland in the months ahead.
I wish the Minister well next week in his negotiations. There are choppy waters ahead. Apart from the initial proposals made by the EU, reports commissioned by it indicate that the overall stocks and the prospects for certain species of fish are not good. It is understandable, therefore, that in the light of these reports action is being proposed.
The situation regarding fishing rights and the capacity of the fleets of member states is a major issue. The Irish fleet is relatively small, accounting for less than 1.5 per cent of the total number of vessels in the EU. Cuts in Irish capacity would make little difference overall and this could be a strong argument for our case. However, I appreciate the difficulty the Minister will have, given that each member state will make a case for its fleet.
The necessary measures must be put in place at European level to deal with the problem of overfishing so that stocks may be conserved. However, Ireland does not cause the overfishing and its fleet should not be cut. The Commission proposals involve a substantial cut in the Irish fleet, both the pelagic fleet in Killybegs and the white fish fleet. As the Minister has indicated, this is unacceptable.
The sea fisheries sector is of major importance to the economies of coastal regions. Most of the employment is concentrated in these regions, particularly the north-west, west and south-west. In these regions fisheries may account for up to a quarter of the local employment. A reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet would have negative knock-on effects on employment in the fleet, processing and other related industries. The Irish fishing industry is already disadvantaged in European terms by its distance from markets, and a reduction in the fleet's size would impact further on the sector. Our distance from our main market is a factor that I am sure will be pursued.
The white fish section of the Irish fleet comprises a large number of older vessels. It needs renewal and modernisation. The vessels fish close to shore and are at sea for less than 24 hours. The number of vessels capable of fishing at distance offshore is small. Therefore, Ireland has a difficulty catching its quotas for all species. The Irish fleet must be allowed to modernise and expand to a level which would enable it to catch its quotas.
The inshore fleet also needs to be developed to allow it to catch non-quota species. The non-quota species on which the smaller boats are dependent, such as lobster, crab and oysters, have developed and expanded through conservation and enhancement programmes. The harvesting of these species will lead to an increased requirement for inshore boats to service these fisheries.
The boats which operate from Killybegs are capable of fishing long distances from the shore and in international waters. Greater efforts will be directed at non-quota species over the coming years and a cut in the size of this fleet would prevent the development of these new fisheries.
Other measures should also be put in place to improve our fish stocks which would include technical measures to reduce the number of young fish being caught and improved control and surveillance measures to reduce the incidence of illegal fishing. While these measures in themselves will not solve the problem of overfishing, they are part of the solution.
The Minister has given us a full report and we are aware of the difficulties he faces. I am glad to note he has all-party support and support from the industry.
The motion put to the House is deliberately worded to assure the Minister of our backing for him in his work to deal with the crisis facing the Irish fishing industry and to demonstrate solidarity in the search for a reasonable solution for the greatest crisis to face the industry since we joined the EU. We support the Minister's efforts at EU level to fight the Irish case and to endeavour to get the best possible outcome for the fishing industry.
Since we joined the EU the fishing industry has developed from modest beginnings to a small yet efficient fleet. It would be a backward step if a small fleet was penalised for its efforts and efficiency; it would not augur well for the future development of the EU. The fleet has made substantial advances but this has not been without cost. The State has supported the fleet substantially in the acquisition of new vessels, the modernisation of existing vessels and the investment made in harbour and landing facilities. Successive Governments have supported the industry and enabled it to meet the challenges of the new, enlarged European market.
Given the present situation of the fleet, the EU must not be allowed to penalise the fleet because it is efficient, operating well and expanding. The EU must keep in mind that the Irish fleet and its catch are relatively small in the context of the overall EU catch. The crisis that faces the industry at present requires new policy initiatives. Unless the proposals before the Commission can be substantially altered in Ireland's favour we will see an industry which has made significant advances drift into a terminal decline. This would not alone affect those in the industry but a range of activities connected with the industry, such as processing and marketing.
It is difficult to understand the Commission's attitude in proposing these harsh measures for Ireland. Only a few short years ago the Union permitted increased fishing by the Spanish fleet in traditional conservation areas. A limited but significant number of Spanish boats were allowed to fish in the Irish Box, which had been set up as a conservation measure. The EU is now turning its back on people who abided by strict conservation measures over many years and at considerable expense both financially and in terms of the difficulties posed for fishermen in maintaining a strict conservation policy under successive Administrations and Ministers. I was the Minister responsible for fisheries in two periods since we joined the Community. We enforced strict conservation measures and put fishermen in prison because they were not obeying the rules laid down by the EU. Having embarked upon and enforced conservation measures to that extent, we now find that the European Commission is prepared to penalise the very people who upheld its conservation policy, which was so essential for the preservation of stocks.
It is difficult to explain to fishermen, or to anyone who knows the business or has been connected with it over the last 15 years, how the European Commission could allow Spanish boats access to conservation areas and almost into our 12 mile zone. Those who suffered conservation measures were thus further penalised by having high powered boats from the Spanish fleet in their fisheries. Fishermen are right to be deeply concerned about what the future holds for them and their families.
Also, given that Ireland's processing industry is so dependent on the level of catches being maintained, fishermen fear serious job losses in industries which add value to the fish catch. This is a limited debate and in the time at our disposal it is not possible to go into detail; however, I strongly suggest to the Minister that it may be time to enter a bilateral arrangement with the Spanish fleet. They are now landing sizeable catches in Irish ports and ferrying them out of the country. It might be opportune to have a partnership with them, as it looks like we will have to live with them whether we like it or not. It would be worthwhile to examine this further as it would increase the prospect of further jobs in the processing and added value area.
I support the Minister's decision to make it a priority to take up Irish quotas to the full, because some of them were not fully exploited for a period. It is vitally important at this stage that every effort be made to avail fully of all quotas available to us. It is also still necessary to modernise boats, to make our fleet safer and to develop our aquaculture business. In his difficult negotiations with the EU the Minister can be assured of total support from this side of the House for his efforts on behalf of the Irish fishing industry.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and thank the Opposition for raising this important matter. As a representative of the county with the biggest fishing fleet in the country, I am more aware than most of what is at stake here. The Minister also knows the position only too well. In places like Rathmullen, Ballywhoriskey and Fanad, 25 per cent of employment is in fisheries or fish processing, whereas in Killybegs, Burtonport and Greencastle it is more like 60 to 70 per cent. In those areas, anyone who is not working in the fishing industry emigrates. Something must be done to ensure the fishing fleet is not further depleted. It is clear from the Opposition's remarks that it will support the Minister in his efforts during the Irish Presidency to secure the future of the domestic fishing industry. This issue is too important to play party politics with and I hope both sides will resist the temptation to score points.
Unlike many issues which come before this House, this is not a complex matter. All Members accept that there are two factors involved. The first is the problem of overfishing in European Union waters — there can be no disputing the central logic of the EU Commissioner when she said that without fish there will be no fishing. The second factor is that the Irish fleet is not responsible for the overfishing over the last two decades which has created this problem. Current estimates put the Irish share of EU fleet capacity at a paltry 1.5 per cent. This problem has been with us for some time and has been exacerbated by the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EU in 1986.
The current proposal from the Commissioner is to reduce the EU fleet by a further 40 per cent. I am not qualified to question her figures, although some experts do. It seems clear, however, that previous EU measures aimed at fish conservation have proved unsuccessful. About 60 per cent of fishing stocks are biologically at risk, which is the highest figure in over 30 years of monitoring of stocks. Perhaps we do not believe all the figures produced by scientists and analysts, but it is clear the position is nothing like as good as it was ten to 15 years ago. If the Commissioner's proposals are adopted they will impact upon Irish fleets fishing for whitefish, mackerel and herring in both the North and South.
A fundamental issue of equity is at stake. If we are not responsible for the problem and cannot even reach our existing quotas, why should we be penalised? If Ireland is required further to reduce its fleet capacity it will undermine the attempts made by Irish fisherman to modernise their fleet. This modernisation has been essential on two grounds. Our whitefish fleet is manned by small and dated vessels. This has not only undermined our capacity to fish in adverse weather conditions, it has also mitigated against safety in the sector as recent accidents — such as the Carrickatine disaster, in which six lives were lost — have borne out. I commend the Minister for the help and support he gave during that search. While it is probably fair to say that the fleet could compensate for loss in some areas by concentrating on non-quota inshore produce, this will in no way make up for losses elsewhere. Irish fisherman, who are now only beginning to fulfil their potential, should not be asked to go down this road.
Our new pelagic fleet operating out of my county is among the most modern in Europe. It is in place because of substantial investment by the Killybegs skippers. As a result of its development we now have the capacity to fish in international waters for the first time and to concentrate on non-quota fish. If these proposals impact on the size of this fleet we will lose an opportunity that has just opened up.
Newspaper reports last week suggested that the Commissioner intended to make concessions from the regulations to small fisheries whose boat size did not impact on the overall figures. Looking at the figures, I would be of the view that this argument could be applied to all the Irish fishing areas.
There should be no underestimating the importance of the fishing industry to certain regions in this State. When ancillary industries like fish processing are taken into account, this sector can account for 25 per cent of all employment in this region. I would urge the Minister — and I am confident that he is as aware of this as any Member of this House — to resist these proposals when they come up for final decision in December of this year.
I recognise the importance of the fishing industry to the member states of the Iberian peninsula and I hold no grudge against them. However, if they are responsible, as I believe they are, for the level of overfishing prevalent at the moment, then they should bear the burden for the problem they have created. It is ludicrous to suggest that other member states, whose right to a fishing industry is equally as great, should be made to pay the price for their misdemeanours. I would also like to see these countries play a greater role in enforcing the existing regulations. Irish fishermen have already made sacrifices. The disappearance of the Irish Box at the end of last year is the best case in point. Rather than restrict their capacity in recent years, the Iberians appear to have been able to expand their fishing grounds and this is completely unacceptable to us.
We must be realistic about this problem. It does not lie solely in the Minister's hands to solve it. We can only achieve our ends through co-operation with other member states who share our concerns. This decision will be decided by qualified majority voting. We have no recourse to a veto in this situation. Unfortunately, because many member states do not have similar problems, their interest in this issue may not be as great as ours. Senator Daly touched recently on co-operation with the Spanish, but greater co-operation with the British authorities may be an avenue worth pursuing, although their current attitude to the EU does not augur well for constructive engagement on any issue at all.
The task ahead of the Minister is a difficult one. He will require the support of all parties in this House and I am sure that on this issue, when the national interest is at stake, that support will be forthcoming. I wish the Minister well in his endeavours.
I have always held the view, even though I live inland, that our fishing industry was never exploited to the full extent of its capacity. The present proposals would constitute a serious assault on the economies of Europe's coastal states and I call on the Government to ensure that a strong negotiating team is in place to resist them. I am delighted to see in the Minister's speech that, in so far as the Commission proposal would apply to Ireland's specific situation, they are totally unacceptable. This is important and it is a relief to hear that comment coming at this time. The axe has been hanging over the Irish fishing industry for some time and has now been sharpened by the latest proposals put forward by the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Mrs. Bonino.
In putting forward these blanket fleet-cutting proposals, the European Commission is seeking to make Ireland pick up the tab for a problem not of our making. Let us be clear about it: the Irish fleet, which is hampered by age, adverse weather conditions and a lack of technical capability, is not responsible for the depletion of fish stocks in European waters. We must make that perfectly clear. Rather than examining the specific circumstances in each country, the European Commission has based its proposals exclusively on broad scientific estimates of what various stocks can sustain, categorised in terms of region and catch type.
If these proposals were implemented, the net result for Ireland would be devastating. Not only would the European fleet as a whole be slashed by around 40 per cent, but it is proposed to make cuts of 40 per cent in the mackerel and herring fleets fishing off the coast of Scotland and around 50 per cent in the salmon fishing fleet. This has been referred to previously. No one would deny that European fish stocks have been seriously depleted in recent decades, but those depredations have been caused by the large high-tech Baltic and Iberian fishing fleets. They have not been caused by the Irish fishermen, who because of our weather conditions cannot even spend time in the fishing grounds.
I understand that the European Commission is trying to sweeten this pill by allocating £2.5 billion in the first phase to cushion the blow. A once-off sweetener will not compensate fishermen, their families and communities for the ongoing hardship which these cuts would represent.
The Commission's proposals will simply result in the European fishing industry becoming grant-and subsidy-led, rather than market-led. If implemented, they will lead to the gradual decline of our coastal areas which will be deprived of their economic backbone.
A final decision on these proposals is due to be taken at the Fisheries Council meeting in December during the Irish Presidency. It is imperative that Ireland be represented at all negotiations by a strong and effective team which is capable of forming the necessary strategic alliances with other coastal states in order to resist the Commission plans. In this regard I look forward to the full and ongoing involvement of the Minister.
An Leas-Cathaoirleach
I call on Senator Fitzgerald to conclude.
I thank the Minister. I was heartened by his statement and speech tonight. If he goes to the EU to negotiate in the positive manner of his speech, he will be successful. To sum it up, I take one line from his script — this is one of the most important lines I have ever heard spoken —"We must also make our European partners recognise that we will not pay the price for overfishing by others". That is where the answer is, because we are not blackguarding the system.
Most of us live in fishing towns or are not far from the coast, and because of the size of our country nearly every Member of this House is familiar with the fishing industry. If you live in the middle of the country and go on holiday to the seaside, one of the first places you go is down the pier to see the boats etc. That makes us all very familiar with the fishing industry.
We have a lot of problems. There is no doubt about that. One of the things the Minister should point out at the negotiating table is that it is a long journey to the French or Spanish markets with fish from Donegal, Rossaveel, Dingle or Castletownbere. When we reach the market, we find that fish caught outside our own door are there before us.
I was in La Coruña on my own factfinding mission about two or three years ago. I was talking to the captain of a boat that came in and he knew the people with me. He had enough English to tell me more about the Blasket Islands than I knew myself because that is where he had come from that evening. That is one of the problems.
To get our fish to market is a big problem for us. As Senator Maloney knows from Killybegs, it is a long road before one gets out of the country. A case should be made to the Department of the Environment that the roads into these places, especially the last 30 or 40 miles, are in an appalling condition for huge trucks.
I wish to make a couple of points to help the Minister. Within the House there are Oireachtas Committees on Foreign Affairs and various other things. I suggest that for a short period of time the Minister should establish a fisheries committee made up of Deputies and Senators like the other committees. Almost all speakers tonight used the words "I read in the newspaper" which shows that we are all trying to get our information from newspapers. A committee would help us until we get over this hump and renegotiate. We could involve people who know about fishing, as well as some of the civil servants from the Department. They could put their heads together and come to a valuable consensus.
How many people in this House ever visited a fishing port in northern Spain, such as La Coruna, Vigo or Finisterre, to see at first hand what happens? If a committee was established it would get full support from this House, especially over the summer recess while the Minister is negotiating. The committee would be there as a back up and lobby for the Minister and the Department of the Marine.
In spite of all the cutbacks over the last five to ten years and the supposed reduction in quotas by other countries, waters are still being overfished. In effect, the Minister is saying that neither he nor the Department envisage a decrease in the amount of fish being caught, despite what is happening. If there is a decrease, it will inevitably lead to job losses. In any walk of life where there are job losses — for example where a factory lays off people — monetary compensation must be given. If one takes four boats out of Dingle and 30 jobs are lost, one cannot just leave them there and forget about them. The EU must ensure that where there are job losses proper compensation will be paid and a type of redundancy payment made to those fishermen.
I thank the Minister and I am delighted with the way in which he is renegotiating. I hope that if the Minister is back in the House I will have words of praise for him. As I said at the outset, our backs are to the wall. The Minister is in the hot seat and he will have to stay there, even if it gets too hot. He is that type of person. I thank him for his very good speech about what he is going to do. However, I ask him to think about establishing a committee. I am very genuine about it because I take these matters very seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It was the order of the House this morning that we would continue with item 2 immediately following the conclusion of item 18, motion 33. However, the office has received some late amendments, so we will suspend the sitting until 8 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 7.15 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.