Vol. 593 No. 5
65 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his plans to increase employment for seafarers here in view of recent job losses (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31282/04]
Providing world class training for Irish seafarers and increasing Irish seafarer employment are important priorities for this Government. I share the Deputy's concern at the possible consequences for Irish seafarer employment of Irish Continental Group's 20 October 2004 announcement of its plans for restructuring its Ireland-France ferry service. I note that ICG have indicated that it has no plans at present to restructure any of its other ferry operations such as in the Irish Sea.
Since fiscal relief is important for the development of any EU member state's maritime sector, I recently successfully engaged with my colleagues, the Ministers for Social and Family Affairs and Finance, to authorise the reintroduction of the employers of seafarers PRSI refund scheme, with effect from 1 January 2004, for a period of seven years. The scheme, which had ended on 31 December 2003, significantly lowers the cost of employing Irish seafarers and I would expect that this valuable concession will underpin Irish seafarers' employment into the future. With a view to further protecting Irish seafarer employment and Irish-based ship operations, I am reviewing with our shipping sector's dedicated development agency, the Irish Maritime Development Office, the State aids in place for our shipping sector. Irish ship operators should not face competitive disadvantages because of State aids enjoyed by competing ship operators based in other member states.
A seafarer training grant scheme, administered for the Department by the Irish Maritime Development Office, has recently been restructured to make it more user-friendly. Seafarers who wish to upgrade their qualifications to enhance their career prospects can avail of grant-aid under the scheme. I am confident professional Irish seafarer employment can be maintained into the future.
Is this not too little, too late? Has the Minister of State considered any action plan to create alternative employment in light of the imminent loss of jobs at Rosslare and the 24-hour strike from Thursday morning, notice of which has been given to the Minister of State?
This is largely a matter for the private sector. The Government is concerned. It appreciates the importance of the ports and the important service Irish Continental Group and other carriers provide for Irish goods, services and the people. It should be remembered that 99% of Irish goods in volume terms and 86% of goods and services in monetary terms are exported through the ports. I am working in co-operation with my colleague, Deputy Coughlan on this matter, because of the concern expressed by those who are shipping live animals. At the request of my colleagues and of some of the Deputy's colleagues, the Wexford Deputies, I met them following this announcement. I subsequently met them again and representatives of the unions concerned, SIPTU and the Seamen's Union of Ireland and made it abundantly clear that it would have been improper for me to intervene. All I can do is facilitate those meetings.
At this stage it is not even a matter for the Labour Relations Commission because a matter of principle is involved. This dispute is not a question of financing, time or efficiency but about a principle. The Deputy will be aware of the thinking behind this. Irish Continental Group has informed the Government that this action must be taken to allow the company become more competitive. It also suggests that State aid is given in other countries. My predecessor and I have pursued this possibility. I have written to the Competition Commissioner about this matter. If the evidence is available I would be anxious to pursue the matter vigorously.
I am quite disappointed that as an island nation, Ireland has not been afforded concessionary terms in order to compete. Brittany Ferries certainly avail of subsidised services. Has the Minister of State any plans to create a task force in Wexford in light of the significant job losses and the little chance of other seafaring jobs there?
If Deputy Perry or anyone else can provide me with concrete information about State aids in other countries, I would be delighted to receive it. I am anxious to ensure a level playing pitch, as is everyone in this House. The Deputy is correct, we are an island nation with no land bridge to Europe. It is therefore vitally important that we maintain a sea link and a level playing pitch. Irish Continental Group has proposed to bring in workers from eastern Europe. If the ships are flying the Irish flag, it would be obliged to ensure that minimum wages are paid but the ships will be flying the flag of another country. The Department has examined this matter but it seems we have no jurisdiction over that.
I am concerned about the escalation of the situation. Thursday's strike has been flagged for some time. The union has approval from its members for industrial action. I understand a 24-hour strike is proposed for Thursday. At the weekend Irish Continental Group decided to cut short the service by five days. Even at this late stage and bearing in mind the importance of the service to the Irish economy I again call on the two unions as there are two unions involved and SIPTU and the Irish Continental Group to enter into meaningful discussions — I am not saying negotiations — with a view to ensuring that the proposed industrial action does not take place.
Will the Minister of State visit Wexford?
The time for this question is concluded.
It is very important. The Minister of State has not been there.
The effects of this on the constituency are abundantly clear to the Government.
It is important that the Minister of State visits.
66 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if Eircom rebuffed a proposal for a €1.8 billion deal to extend the State’s broadband network to allow nation-wide high speed Internet access; if he was prepared to offer Eircom price increases on phone charges, tax breaks and debt guarantees to assist in the funding of the programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31283/04]
The Government did not make a proposal to Eircom for a €1.8 billion deal to extend the State's broadband network. Presumably this question arises from a newspaper article of 31 October last to which the Deputy refers and which contends, inter alia, that the Government offered Eircom a €1.8 billion deal to roll out broadband nationally. It also contends that Eircom was offered a range of incentives as “carrots” such as tax breaks, subsidised loans, amendments to the building regulations and price increases. These claims are untrue.
At no stage were negotiations entered into with Eircom or with any other party. At no stage were terms such as those postulated in the newspaper article on offer nor did the Government offer to fund Eircom directly or indirectly through subsidised loans, tax breaks or any other means. Consultancy advice contained in a report to a Government sub-committee, agency or Department should not be misconstrued as Government policy.
The telecommunications market is a regulated market and thus any action by Government has to be consonant with national and EU regulation. Accordingly, the Government is not in the business of entering exclusive contracts of the kind inferred by the article with any market entities. It favours investment in open access infrastructure to which all operators have access on similar transparent terms. That is the ethos behind the Government's open access metropolitan area network programme which is rolling out high-speed broadband infrastructure to 120 towns and cities regionally.
To the extent that discussions are held between officials of my Department and executives of other telecommunication operators and their representative associations, these were and are born of sound public policy practice and in the context of seeking to align as much as possible the broadband roll-out plans of corporate entities and those of the Government, as published in New Connections and the Government's broadband plans. In that context I commend the telecommunications operators who have contributed significantly to the 80-fold increase in broadband consumers in Ireland in the past 15 months.
Is it not the case that the substance of the Sunday Business Post report is true, that is, the Department’s consultant, Mr. Ira Magaziner, and his company discussed with Eircom a range of incentives, including a 10% price increase, amended building regulations for telecommunications masts, a guarantee of part of the Eircom debt and other attractions to conclude a deal along the same lines as one agreed between the British state and BT for Northern Ireland? Is it not also correct that the negotiations, such as they were, were broken off by Eircom because it wanted to carry out a bond issue of €450 million to repay its venture capitalists?
Is it not true that the Minister's predecessor was desperate to get an overall roll-out of broadband? Our position in terms of broadband roll-out is appalling. We are at the bottom of the European Union league, with 1.59 households per 100 inhabitants receiving broadband. Does the Government have a target of reaching the European average of households with broadband access — 320,000 households in Ireland — by early 2005? Is it not true that this target will not and cannot be met unless between 6,000 and 8,000 households are broadband enabled each week?
Did the Minister, on his first appearance at Question Time as Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, not accept clear evidence that at least 30% of Eircom lines cannot be enabled for broadband? The company's advertisement, which we hear day in and day out on radio programmes, asking householders to get into the broadband revolution is a sick joke because it is always qualified by the statement that the offer is subject to survey and availability. Is it not true that nearly half of households have no prospect of receiving broadband under this Government?
Most of what the Deputy said is not true. He asked me if the substance of the question is true. I thought I had made it clear that it is not true, regardless of how much the Deputy tries to twist the facts. As I clearly outlined, there were no negotiations by Government, no deal was put forward by Government and Eircom was not offered by Government a range of incentives such as tax breaks, subsidised loans, amendments to the building regulations or price increases.
On a point of order, did the Minister's consultants offer incentives?
The Minister is in possession.
It would be nice if that were the case. I told the Deputy that no negotiations were conducted and no offers were made by Government or anybody. I am aware of because the consultants hired for that purpose were hired by the Department of the Taoiseach and Forfás. They had no right to negotiate on behalf of Government. None of the allegations postulated by the Deputy is true. I emphasise that no negotiations took place and Eircom did not rebuff the Government regarding any package worth €1.8 billion.
As regards the Deputy's questions concerning broadband, the Government never made any secret of the fact that it was anxious to roll out broadband as quickly as possible. The matter the Deputy raises was part of the process to determine whether we could roll it out any quicker. Ultimately, the Government decided, on foot of the discussions which took place and the presentation made by the consultants, that the best and most effective course of action was that which it had earlier decided, namely, to roll out the municipal area networks and establish group broadband schemes to allow as many people as possible to connect to broadband as quickly as possible.
To avoid giving an impression of complete doom and gloom, while we never made a secret of the fact that we lag behind many of our neighbours in broadband roll-out——
The Minister's predecessor did.
——we are now providing broadband connections faster than any of our competitors. I hope we will have largely met our targets by the end of next year.
I am glad the Minister mentioned Forfás and accepted our extraordinary deficit in broadband, perhaps our largest infrastructure failure. Forfás issued a report on broadband last week which noted that Ireland has a broadband deficit of 360,000 households. I informed the Minister on the day he took over the Department that he had been walked into a major scandal by the Taoiseach and the former Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Does he accept that Forfás indicates that he has a desperate problem in the area of broadband?
Forfás has not told me anything I did not know or which was not already on the public record. That is the reason the Government has been so active in trying to make up the deficit and I set specific targets.
67 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, further to Parliamentary Question No. 678 of 29 September 2004, if recent studies on radiation emissions recommend as a precautionary measure that telecommunications masts should be located in order that no direct beam falls on school property; the reason this and other recommendations are being ignored in this State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31407/04]
I am not aware of any national or international health advisory authority which has recommended that the siting of telecommunications masts should result in no direct beam falling on school property. It may be that some paper somewhere has made such a recommendation. If the Deputy can identify any such work I shall have my experts study it, after which I will make a further statement.
If any of the relevant international bodies to which Ireland belongs were to make such a recommendation, my Department would have to consider an appropriate response. To date, however, no such recommendation has been made and, therefore, none is being ignored in this State. This is because, in the continuing unanimous opinion of all the relevant international bodies, radio frequency fields around such masts are not considered a health risk.
The Deputy may wish to be apprised of a report in The Times of London dated 13 November 2004, which records a court of appeal decision that mobile phone masts do not pose a risk to public health that would justify a ban on positioning them near schools.
I will apprise the Minister of the report to which my question referred. I understand it is the most recent report published on electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation. The Stewart report is an independent study commissioned recently by the Department of Health in Britain through its National Radiological Protection Board. I am a little taken aback that the Minister's advisers are not aware of it as it is readily available on the Internet and elsewhere. It is also the most referenced report ever produced on this issue.
The Stewart report concludes that "it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects". The reason is that research is not being done on the issue. As the report states, "the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
It is not in order to quote at Question Time. The Deputy is giving information when he should seek it.
Is the Minister aware, as noted in my question, that the Stewart report also recommends "that an independent random, ongoing, audit of all base stations be carried out to ensure that exposure guidelines are not exceeded"?
It is not in order to quote at Question Time.
It also recommends that planning should be extra-cautious around schools as children are more susceptible to the effects of radiation and will be exposed to it over their lifetime. It further states that masts should be placed to ensure no direct beams fall on any part of school property.
Rather than refer to sources, the Deputy should ask the Minister a question.
The Minister was not aware of the report in question, which left me with no alternative but to quote from it to assure him that the most recent reports——
The Deputy should seek rather than give information. He is not in order.
Is the Minister aware that research has been completed only on the short-term effects of radio frequency radiation from telecommunications masts? All interested bodies, including the World Health Organisation, which is currently carrying out a study to be completed in another couple of years, are unclear on whether long-term exposure to radiation below national guidelines will cause harmful effects. In that context, the recommendations to which I have referred have been made by the most recent——
The Deputy continues to make a statement.
I hope that they will be implemented in this country.
The Deputy should put a question to the Minister.
These masts are not surveyed at all in this country. They are-——
The Deputy is again making a statement. The purpose of Question Time is to ask a question.
Is the Minister aware that only a small number of masts in Ireland are actually audited for their emissions? I asked a number of questions about specific masts in Dublin city and the vast majority of the replies concluded that the masts had not been audited for emissions. Yet the most recent report states that there should be an annual audit of emissions.
Ireland participates on a number of international committees and organisations regarding non-ionising radiation from masts, telecommunications masts and so on. We could not possibly be expected to react to every report from every source. We work through these international organisations such as the World Health Organisation. There are a number of EU studies currently being undertaken, such as the Cost 281 evaluation. Having considered the latest research, all of the bodies have affirmed that there is no adverse health effect shown to be caused by non-ionising radiation at the guideline levels of exposure. The World Health Organisation fact sheet states that these telecommunications facilities are not considered to be a risk to health. Notwithstanding the overwhelming clean bill of health given to these technologies compared to other environmental risks which society willingly accepts, the Government has adopted a precautionary approach. This approach states that absence of proof of harm is not proof of absence of harm. By consensus among many countries, guidelines are established for safe levels of exposure to various kinds of electromagnetic emissions. They are set at levels that are many times less than the experimental levels at which no adverse effects have been established. We have adopted those guidelines in Ireland, especially the guidelines established by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. We continue to participate in the work of the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety, which sets standards in this particular area. ComReg has responsibility to ensure that the various licensed telecommunications operators work within the terms of their licenses regarding electromagnetic emissions.
68 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the ongoing uncertainty in An Post with particular reference to the short term issues of continuity of service throughout the Christmas period and the ongoing issue of the need to retain the postal distribution and delivery network including post offices throughout both urban and rural areas; if he has given any direction in this regard or regarding alternative compatible services which might be complimentary to the postal network; if he can indicate the extent to which he is prepared to influence or direct discussions in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31438/04]
I am pleased to say that the Labour Relations Commission has facilitated an agreement between An Post and the Communications Workers' Union on appropriate arrangements to deal with the Christmas post. Members of the CWU have voted to renew a general mandate for strike action. Rather than resorting to any form of industrial action, I urge members of the union to work through the established industrial relations machinery to resolve areas of disagreement between management and unions. An Post customers are entitled to a postal service, especially at Christmas and no disruption of postal deliveries should take place at this time of the year.
An exhaustive process of negotiation between An Post and the CWU has taken place throughout the year on retaining postal distribution and delivery, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. While some progress has been made, there are still many points of disagreement between company management and the union. The union is currently balloting members on proposals that emerged from the negotiations.
The critically important objective of restructuring the company remains an imperative. All parties have agreed that change in the company is necessary if it is to be financially viable and positioned to meet the competitive challenges that can be expected to intensify during the months and years ahead. Management and unions can only achieve the restoration of financial and operational stability by adopting a partnership approach using the services of the State's industrial relations machinery. Unfortunately, I cannot wave a magic wand to provide an easy solution to the difficulties in An Post.
With regard to the future of the postal network, it is important to note that the sector has changed significantly in recent years with liberalisation of the European postal market and with operators moving from national into international markets. In the development of any new services, the key focus for An Post will be to offer a range of quality products and services which meet consumer demands. The future of An Post future will only be guaranteed by adapting to the increasingly competitive environment in which it operates.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The post office network has been the subject of a number of studies and reviews in recent years. Many of the recommendations in these reviews have been implemented to win new business, including extra banking and new utility business. The post office network currently has a high footfall, a recognised brand name, and a countrywide retail network. There is scope to build on the range of services already provided and to obtain new business for the network building on existing strengths. I have asked the postmasters' union and An Post to work in partnership with a view to securing existing business and to pursuing new business opportunities as they arise. The parcels market in Ireland is now fully liberalised with some of the biggest postal operators in the world providing high quality services and international reach to Irish business. The competitive nature of the market provides a range of services which largely meet consumer and business needs. The letters market has been partially liberalised, with further EU liberalisation proposals likely to come on stream in the future. Strong international players, currently operating in the parcels sector, are likely to look for opportunities in the letters market. Furthermore, mail is facing a strong challenge from electronic substitution.
An Post is equipped to deal with these challenges given its modern infrastructure, well trained staff and established nation-wide reach. Restructuring of the company is a must, together with all stakeholders working together in a partnership approach, if the challenges facing the sector are to be overcome.
I am confused about the issue of continuity of services, which was raised by the Minister. I do not know whether we can expect strike action over the Christmas period or whether it is resolved as the Minister seemed to indicate at the outset.
The SDS service is due to cease in the next few days. Can the Minister indicate whether he is aware of the serious risk to hundreds and thousands of jobs around the country as a result of the non-availability of this service? How does he expect it to be replaced by alternatives, particularly if we are attempting to find out how best to enhance the services at An Post by expanding the degree to which it can serve the public? There appears to be a multiplicity of issues currently facing An Post including poor labour relations, the SDS service to which I have referred, outstanding issues on wages, pensions, delivery of services and the future of the postal services, especially post offices and the integral role they play in the community.
The issue on arrangements for Christmas has been resolved in the Labour Relations Commission, so that is out the way. There are a couple of other ballots taking place within the union on the general restructuring of An Post. I do not know what the result of those will be. The union executive had its mandate renewed for a general strike, which is separate from the Christmas issue, so I do not know whether that mandate will be acted upon. The issues will not be resolved by strikes, nor by people not talking to one another. They will not be resolved by megaphone diplomacy nor by people calling on the Minister to intervene in favour of one side or the other. Neither side will get that kind of comfort. The outstanding issues will be resolved when people sit down and start to realise that there will be full liberalisation of this country's postal service — it will be totally open to competition — in approximately four years. When customers are given that freedom, they will decide who is the most effective and efficient provider of a quality service.
They are very happy with SDS.
They are.
People on both sides of this debate need to focus on that. Both sides have agreed that SDS will be dealt with by the national implementation body. It is being dealt with by the body and it should be allowed to stay at that level. I do not want to say anything that might give offence on the one hand or succour on the other hand. The implementation body is the proper place for that. I wish to speak generally about SDS rather than about anything specific to its activities. The level of competition changed over two years when the market was liberalised. A better, more efficient and more effective service was provided after international logistics companies were taken over by postal services from other countries. That will happen in the letter post sector in 2009 if we fail to get our act together. I am not taking sides, but I appeal to both parties involved to acknowledge what we face. If we are to restructure the company, which both sides agree is necessary for its future survival, we cannot afford to engage in a 12-month stand-off.
In the circumstances, is the Minister prepared to indicate to the relevant parties, privately if not publicly, the desirability of recognising the need for change? If multinational logistics corporations can organise delivery services, it should be possible for us to compete effectively. Will the Minister bear in mind the social and economic impact of losing internal control of such vital services? Will he consider the best way to ensure that other services which complement the postal service, such as delivery services, will continue to be provided throughout the country? The need for such services has been referred to on numerous occasions in recent years.
I agree with the Deputy that the message to which he referred needs to be transmitted. I have met the management of An Post and the IPU. I will convey the message in question to the CWU loudly when I meet its representatives at an appropriate time, when all the industrial relations votes are out of the way. I intend to meet the full board of An Post to convey the message. The Deputy is right to state that it is a vital service. I would prefer An Post to continue to provide it well into the future, rather than getting outside agencies to do it for us.
69 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the implications for the Government of the decision of the European Court of Justice on 18 November 2004 regarding our failure as a member state to fulfil obligations under the Community system for fisheries regulations regarding the exceeding of fishing quotas. [31529/04]
The Deputy's question refers to the European Court of Justice's judgment on a number of cases of Irish fish quotas being exceeded in 1995 and 1996. The details of the judgment are being examined in detail by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The European Commission has asked Ireland to indicate, by 22 January 2005, details of the measures that have been taken or will be taken to address the issues raised by the judgment. The Department will complete its examination of the issue as a matter of urgency and a detailed response will be issued to the Commission before the January 2005 deadline. The Department's response will focus on the additional fisheries control measures that have been developed and implemented since the mid-1990s to address the system deficiencies which led to the over-fishing cases in question.
I stress the great importance Ireland attaches to complying with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. Such compliance, which is a priority objective of the Department, has underpinned major changes and improvements in the fisheries control and enforcement regime in recent years. It is not possible to provide precise details of the implications of the judgment. Discussions with the Commission will be held at the earliest possible date to secure the necessary clarification on this and other issues which arise. Ireland will assure the Commission that many improvements have been undertaken or are in train to enhance Ireland's fisheries control and enforcement regime.
The Minister of State cannot provide details of the implications of the judgment, but can he tell me what the cost implications will be when we have to pay for the cases which, as he has correctly stated, relate to the mid-1990s? If the Government is concerned to ensure that there is proper monitoring and control, as the Minister of State has suggested, why did the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources fail to respond when it was asked in March 2001 to provide a response on behalf of the Government? Does the Minister of State agree that this case characterises the Irish fishing industry and the Department as being primarily concerned with allowing small sectional interests to plunder the sea, especially when considered alongside recent scandalous revelations which appear to be coming to light about widespread ignoring of the current quotas and malpractice within the industry?
The European Court of Justice's judgment, which shames the Department and Ireland as a whole, requires measures which are much more radical than those taken by the Department, which ignored the original judgment of March 2001, which is not that long ago. It did not answer any of the important questions about Ireland's failure to oversee the quotas which were being applied, to prosecute the vessels which were seen to exceed quotas or to monitor the overseas activity by Irish vessels. The judgment catalogues Ireland's remarkable failure to show concern about conservation or to apply the fishing quotas, which are in place for a reason.
Costs have been awarded against Ireland in this instance. It is not possible to estimate the final costs at this point. The matter can be discussed with the Commission later, at an appropriate time.
I caution the Deputy for his reference to "recent scandalous revelations". I repeat the comments of the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who said in the House when the matter was initially raised that the case is under investigation. It is a question of innocence first and proving guilt afterwards. I would not like to say anything that might affect the case in any way. I do not think anybody should draw any conclusions until the investigation has been completed.
The House should know that there was over-fishing of cod in the Arctic and in area 2 in 1996. The level of over-fishing in that instance comprised 0.4% of the total allowable catch and 0.2% in another case. It comprised 7.8% of the total allowable catch in a case relating to haddock in area 7. The angler fish quota was exceeded by 0.8%, the red fish quota was exceeded by 0.2% and the common sole quota was exceeded by 5.9% in area 7a. I do not suggest that quotas should be exceeded, but we should put it in perspective — we are talking about issues which arose in 1996.
Our primary focus will be on assuring the Commission that our enhanced system addresses the issues satisfactorily. While a significant proportion of reporting was conducted manually ten years ago, when the over-fishing in question took place, state-of-the-art IT systems are now in place to assist those involved. Our licensing regimes have been strengthened and increased and quotas have been tightened. The satellite surveillance that has been installed in the form of vessel monitoring systems is an important part of the current control regime.
It is no harm to remind the House that many EU member states are being questioned about over-fishing. Denmark faces ten such cases at present, Spain faces nine cases, Belgium and the United Kingdom face seven cases each, Sweden faces six cases and Ireland and Portugal face five cases each. Deputies should not be under the impression that Ireland, which has 4.6% of the total European catch, is the only country involved in such cases. The question of whether Ireland has engaged in over-fishing will be dealt with by the courts. We will respond within the two-month window of opportunity we have been given. I think our response will satisfy the Commission.
I would like to ask a brief supplementary as the Minister of State has not answered my question. The Minister of State reiterated the case made by the Government to the European Court of Justice and said that the amount involved is small and has since been changed. The court rejected those arguments and said that the Government had shown a disregard for the implementation of the regulation. Why has Ireland still not implemented some of the changes clearly required given that the breach was recorded ten years ago? Why has it taken ten years to implement the changes? The Minister of State said — I hope he is right — that some of the current allegations will prove to be unfounded.
I did not say that. The Deputy has rephrased what I said.
I apologise, the Minister said that one has to be careful. Will he agree that the dogs in the street — perhaps mackerel in the bay would be more appropriate in this case — are aware of this? The approach of the industry, the Department and the Government has been characterised as that of willing to bend the rules, stretch quotas and push as much as possible to try to get fish landed and sold. That is not good enough. We need to go back to a conservation agenda which will provide us with a long-term future. That is not what is occurring and stocks are depleting rapidly.
It was suggested by a departmental official at a recent committee meeting that Ireland might have to separate the development function in terms of the fishing industry and the monitoring function within this Ministry. There has been a flagrant breach of the quota, regardless of size, and Ireland has been found guilty by a European court in every case. Does that not provide an unanswerable case for the separation within the Department of the development of fisheries and the monitoring role?
I did not suggest there were different degrees of breaches. I merely gave the facts, not an opinion. The Deputy asked if we will implement the recommendations. Who made those recommendations? The European Court of Justice did not make any recommendations.
It gave its opinion in March 2001.
The court asked us to respond to it. The Deputy should accept that over recent years there have been responses on the legal side in terms of personnel and information technology.
The court judgment stated that there was no response from the Irish Government.
We must move on to the next question.
The Department has a regulatory function in this area but it is also its function to develop the industry. The industry, be it inshore or offshore, makes a major contribution to the development of sea fisheries and creates thousands of jobs in rural areas where there is no alternative source of employment. There are brownie points to be made and we should give credit where it is due.
We should look to long-term conservation to make sure those jobs are there in the future.
