Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1999

Vol. 500 No. 3

Other Questions. - Fisheries Protection.

Jan O'Sullivan

Ceist:

6 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the progress, if any, made with regard to the commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium that the Government would seek a ban from Irish waters on flags of convenience fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3807/99]

Michael Finucane

Ceist:

49 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if he discussed the banning of flags of convenience fishing vessels from Irish waters, in accordance with the stated objective in An Action Programme for the Millennium, during the recent visit of the Spanish Fisheries Minister. [3722/99]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 49 together.

As I made clear to the House on numerous occasions, I am giving every priority to mounting, through strict enforcement, an effective ban on the illegal activities of flagships and all fishing vessels irrespective of nationality in the Irish zone. Our fisheries protection services at sea and on land are co-operating closely to ensure flagship activities in these waters are rigorously monitored and controlled. There are particular enforcement difficulties associated with the activities of flagships. I have been pressing my UK and Spanish colleagues, who have legal responsibilities in this regard, to fully co-operate with us in intensifying their inspection operations and in ongoing liaison and information exchange. This approach is now paying dividends. The success of this joint approach sends a clear signal that illegal fishing will not be tolerated and that the member states concerned are increasingly prepared to work together to ensure compliance with the rules. I also took the opportunity at my recent meeting with the Spanish Minister for Fisheries to put in place new arrangements for bilateral co-operation on control and enforcement. These measures include regular contacts between both inspection services and visits by Irish inspectors to Spain.

I will continue to take a strong line on the need for a strong Europe wide, strictly enforced, fisheries control regime, as the viability of the resource and the interests of the Irish fishing fleet depend on compliance by all fishermen with the rules. Ireland has been to the forefront in supporting important new developments in the field of fisheries control such as satellite monitoring and real time catch reporting. The Fisheries Council in December 1998 agreed on measures to improve control and enforcement. These measures, which come into force on 1 July, will help to tighten up on the monitoring and inspection of flagships. These new measures, which I pushed for strongly at Council, will help create the much needed level playing field in fisheries control.

Can the objective of banning flags of convenience be achieved? I understand it would have substantial financial and legal implications. It is estimated that the total catch in the Irish zone is 1 million tonnes with an estimated value of £700 million, of which the Irish fishing fleet accounts for £150 million or 20 per cent. In his recent discussions with the Spanish Fisheries Minister, Mrs. de Palacio, did the Minister discuss the possible banning of flagships? I understand there are 115 UK Spanish registered flagships operating in the Irish zone. On the inspectorate, there is a lack of uniformity. There are more than 20,000 fishing vessels in Vigo. This raises serious questions about monitoring and enforcement. There is a strict regime in place here. The Minister is doing his job in conservation but is the pain being shared?

There were important developments at the meeting with Mrs. de Palacio. For the first time Irish inspectors will visit Spanish ports with the full support of the Spanish authorities to discuss landing checks. This should help to ensure a level playing field and allow us achieve the principal objective. It was a breakthrough when my Spanish counterpart agreed to these arrangements. We will continue to be responsible for monitoring at sea. There will also be satellite monitoring in the blue box. From 1 July there will be a requirement to report the quantities of fish caught in each box. This should ensure greater control. A vessel could be inspected but the fish could have been caught anywhere. There would still be potential for that, but it strengthens our position in watching and controlling the operations of those vessels. A few other detailed measures have been taken to try to establish a level playing pitch. That is just part of the package; we will see useful developments. We have offered the Spanish inspectors the opportunity to work with ours. The Spanish Minister and the authorities want to create a fairer regime.

The EU does a reasonably good job on overall conservation and consequently we are able to stay in business, even though it is very difficult and we have many arguments about quotas etc. We want to regulate the system further to ensure it is fairer.

Does the Minister agree the time is ripe for an end to the flag of convenience policy which was introduced a few years ago to the detriment of the Irish fishing fleet? Has he made any representations to his European counterparts to change this rule and abolish the flag of convenience? It is a licence for marauding our fishing stocks.

We can directly prevent the use of flags of convenience as licences to maraud and attack stocks, which is what we are trying to do. We are being reasonably successful in getting the Community to provide new measures and tighter, more stringent controls. The package which will be implemented from 1 July will go as far as it is possible to go in monitoring vessels at sea. In Norway, vessels can check in at sea. That can be done by a single country outside the Community but cannot be done within it. We have come as near to that as we can, by making ships report as they enter different blocs of the sea. This approach has been welcomed although we have to see it operating in practice.

As regards flagships, there are also Irish ones.

There is a number of them around the south-west coast.

There is also concern about that.

I know. The best we can do is create a level playing pitch so everyone can get their fair share.

The Minister referred to surveillance monitoring. Will he give us an assurance that the flagships fishing in what we call the Irish zone as such, will be subject to surveillance monitoring at sea and that this will be an effective mechanism adopted in the future to track what is happening along the Irish coastline?

After 1 July, I will be happy to bring the Opposition spokespersons with me to see how surveillance is carried out. A great deal of monitoring is done already and this will be increased considerably after 1 July. It might be worthwhile to see how aerial and naval surveillance is carried out. We read reports and pieces in the newspapers and we tend to complain. However, if Deputies are willing to risk their lives to take a trip with me, I would be happy to bring the senior and junior spokespersons along to see how the surveillance operates.

Provided the Minister brings his counterpart.

Unless he is involved with afforestation matters.

In view of the political uncertainty, will the Minister do it soon?

Is the Deputy talking about the weather?

Does the Minister agree that for every pound of EU funding received in Ireland, much more leaves in terms of the value of our fish, taken by non-Irish boats from our waters? I agree with him that the enforcement of regulations for flag of convenience boats is important. What will the inspectors do when they visit Spain that will help enforcement? Does he agree that the essence of this problem is the level of resources which can be provided for fishery protection? If spending is diverted from fishery protection to the NATO – led Partnership for Peace, what effect will this have on fishery protection, given its dependence on the Navy?

There is no diversion from fishery protection. The area of fishing is an old problem. Some countries have wiped out their fish completely, as well as their coastal communities. The EU has been successful and is proud of that success, despite the arguments. I appreciate how important it is to maintain this success. I do not see the problem to which the Deputy referred, certainly not with the Council of Ministers and the EU as they operate currently. The other issue is a separate one. All countries are interested in maintaining the free stocks.

They are interested in our stocks.

We are entitled to take theirs to various extents.

We would not get far in Luxembourg.

The Portuguese, French and Spanish were fishing here before we joined the Community. I know we are talking about our waters, but they traditionally fished there up to that time.

As regards the Deputy's other question, our inspectors will compare the methodologies of inspection and their frequency with those of the Spanish. One point I forgot to mention is that in future any of these vessels coming into port will have to give four hours, instead of two hours, notice. A problem which was highlighted in an RTE programme was that after the offices had closed, the inspectors checked another port because no other ships were due to come in; however a fax was sent in after the office had closed stating that a ship would be coming in two hours later. This has been extended, at our request, to four hours which makes it more difficult to operate that type of system. The inspectors' visit is to ensure that what is being done here will be done on a similar basis in Spain and if it is not we will want to know why from the Commission. There is no point in us carrying out surveillance if others are not doing it honestly. This arrangement is a breakthrough and it will be helpful.

Is the Minister satisfied with fishery protection?

We must proceed with Question No. 7, we have spent 15 minutes on this question. Deputies are waiting for their questions to be taken.

Barr
Roinn