I thank the Chairman.
For many years the fishing industry in Ireland has consistently called for the equitable implementation of rules governing the industry — a level playing field so to speak. Some Deputies will recall that the industry strenuously opposed the enactment of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2006, largely on the basis that it would lead to Ireland's legislative system further diverging from EU norms. The industry sees itself as benefiting from uniform enforcement of uniform regulations in all EU countries and the federation remains firmly of that view. However, we are extremely concerned about many aspects of the Commission's current proposal in terms of its context, timing and content.
Given that we are expressing difficulties with a control regulation, it is important to state this should not be taken to mean we are in any way, shape or form supportive of illegal activity. The majority involved in the industry comply — in difficult circumstances — with the law. That said, because of their illogicality, complexity and counterproductive nature, many Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, provisions, as they stand, do not lend themselves to fostering support for the essential rule of law. We have grave doubts that the current proposal will improve that position.
This is a far-reaching proposal which is premature and represents a mistaken focus at this time on a comprehensive control system, rather than the need for fundamental reform of the underlying policy and consequent rules of the CFP. We are in a situation where the current rules, if they were applied, would be more than sufficient to achieve a level playing field. However, use is being made of this proposal to make substantial and unwelcome changes. This is a classic case of bureaucratic and institutional overkill to give the appearance of grappling with the issues.
We do not share the confidence of the European Commission that this is likely to be a more effective body in securing an appropriate control rather than member states, as is consistently implied in the proposal. The Commission, allegedly, seeks a stronger framework and a more central role for itself but its record to date does not inspire confidence. We consider that the Council of Ministers should maintain a more central oversight role in the ongoing mechanisms for the Common Fisheries Policy, including control. We also consider that stakeholders should have an appropriate role in the ongoing control regime. Apart from the explanatory note and references to consultation at the outset, no reference is made to ongoing input or even feedback from the regulated. This is totally unacceptable. We are not saying the regulated should regulate themselves. We accept the need for regulation. However, the first rule of regulation is that there should be a degree of legitimacy and "buy in" by the regulated. This leads to a higher degree of acceptance and compliance.
We are also in the early stages of a ten year review of the Common Fisheries Policy. It seems to the Federation of Irish Fishermen that the horse should be put before the cart and all energies put into reform of the CFP in full consultation with stakeholders to produce a sensible, simplified, appropriate and effective policy capable of delivering a system which works for fish stocks, the environment and a sustainable fishing industry in Ireland and throughout Europe. Only on this basis can a reformed control system which is appropriate and has broad legitimacy be put in place.
Having made these general remarks, I will outline our major concerns with the new proposals. We take issue with a number of misleading comments, even in the explanatory memorandum. While we agree that the current control system is inefficient, expensive and complex and does not produce the required results, the same could be said of the very policy it seeks to control and which is, in itself, inefficient, expensive and complex. It is deeply regrettable that the proposal, while comprehensive in its pursuit of control, makes no allusion to the fact that the policy it seeks to implement is deeply flawed. This has a bearing on enforcement.
The explanatory memorandum states the objective of the proposal is to strengthen the Commission's management powers by a capacity to intervene proportionate to the level of non-compliance by member states. A jaundiced view of member states underlies the entire document. We suggest the extension of the powers of the Commission is neither proportional nor appropriate. It is also claimed in the explanatory memorandum that the incremental benefits from implementation of this document, as a result of recovered and better protected stocks, would be in the order of €10 billion over ten years. That figure may well have appeared in a consultant's report somewhere but we see no basis for it in fact. A change in the quality of the policy is required, rather than the wholesale reform of its control aspect. Control needs reform but not this one.
In our written submission to the joint committee we reference various sections and clauses of the proposal, all of which are important but we can prioritise some of them. Section 9.2 of the proposal deals with the introduction of satellite monitoring systems for vessels of 10 m and upwards. We are disturbed by this proposal. Even with the potential derogations that we acknowledge apply within national limits, it is impractical, costly and unfair to operators of very small craft because it is disproportionate. Many of the boats in question are open and do not have offices on board; sometimes they do not even have enclosed wheelhouses. We are not clear on where sophisticated electronic satellite equipment can be placed on such vessels — it seems ridiculous. We are all in favour of vessel monitoring systems, VMS, where appropriate, but a practical approach must be taken. We were disturbed by the inclusion of automatic identification systems, AIS, in a control regulation. The VMS identifies vessels by name, nationality and number and gives a clear picture of where they operate. On the other hand, AIS is a safety mechanism, whereby a vessel electronically transmits its name, course and other details. It is intended to aid safety and avoid collisions at sea. We see the crossover on this matter as something that will detract from the emphasis AIS places on safety. It is also impractical for smaller vessels. We, therefore, firmly believe AIS has no place in this regulation.
Section 14.3 of the proposal relates to the margin of tolerance in recorded log books. Every vessel over 10 m in length must complete a log of fish caught; this is done at sea each night before midnight. A further landing declaration must be completed to indicate amounts after the fish have been landed. A margin of 20% is in place for most species, although it is 10% for some pelagic species and 8% for cod. This document proposes to introduce a 5% margin across the board. Our members are not trying to be evasive but it is simply impossible for them to make an estimate within that level of accuracy while at sea, without weighing scales, while being tossed around on the waves. This measure would serve no useful purpose, except to attract invidious prosecution. This is particularly the case, as there is corroboration through the landing declarations on-shore and the comprehensive sales note system in operation. We see this as a critical deficiency that betrays a lack of understanding of the realities faced by our members.
There are difficulties with the extension of electronic log books to run in parallel with, and then replace, paper log books. In a similar way to my earlier point, it is wrong to expect all vessels over 10m in length to have electronic log books and transmission facilities on board. This would add cost and complexity and is completely impractical for some operators. This is a case of overkill and will be impossible to comply with; we have enough regulations with which it is almost impossible to comply and we should not add to the list.
Regarding landing declarations, one has 48 hours to finalise the exact landed amounts on the basis of on-shore weighing or information from buyers, processors and co-ops. To expect it to be done within two hours of landing, as section 21.2 of this proposal does, betrays a complete lack of understanding of how the industry works. This is an onerous provision for the sake of having an onerous provision. It will play well with those who say there is a need for fisheries control but it will not be possible to implement it with safety, practicality or accuracy.
The proposal provides for an exchange of data among countries. We welcome this, as there are major problems in controlling foreign vessels in Irish waters. The Naval Service and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority are not aware of the quota regimes or the uptake of national quotas in other countries. The fact that other countries have different systems for managing quotas means infringements by other countries are largely impossible to detect. The mandatory exchange of information in this regard is a plus point and should have been put in place a long time ago. However, section 27.1 allows the Commission to take upon itself the power to close fisheries in certain circumstances when they reach a threshold of 80%. A quota of 80% leaves 20% remaining, of which innocent, law-abiding fishermen will be deprived while the matter is being sorted out, leaving a significant threat of economic loss. This is a difficult situation to manage and it is not wise for the Commission to take these powers upon itself.
There are many other provisions which members may want to discuss but I wish to discuss section 53.1. This proposes that the maximum distance from a landing to a weighing point be 20 km. Fish can be landed in a port and transported to another location, be it that of a processor or sales organisation, to be weighed and can be controlled in this way. In the case of whitefish, especially pelagic species, the current allowable distance is 100 km but this is far too short a distance for transporting fish. The new limit would cause tremendous inconvenience to the commercial operation of the industry and, again, betrays a lack of understanding of the commerciality of fishing. This is an industry that operates according to tides, wind and wave, and markets. There is a proposal that everybody has to give four hours' notice for a landing but what if one is fishing two hours from port? Safety considerations are not taken into account anywhere in the document. The master of a ship at sea should be able to make landfall wherever he sees fit, in the interests of the safety of the vessel. This is not a control issue but one of safety and these regulations could lead to a conflict between the interests of safety and those of control. Ease of administration is taking precedence over what fishermen are able to do.
Section 84 contains a proposal for administrative sanctions and a penalty points system. We have long since argued for a system of administrative sanctions. It has been the subject of considerable discussion and scrutiny by some of the members present, and of investigation by other committees of these Houses. We were warned that we should be careful regarding what we wished for. What has materialised is probably the outcome of such a wish. Provision has been made for a penalty points system. The principle of this is fine but what is proposed is that there be minimum levels of fines and the suspension of licences. There is no gradation of severity in respect of administrative penalties proposed in the document. They are very far removed from reality and we almost regard them as an attempt to embarrass us in our quest for administrative sanctions rather than criminal sanctions. We believe it is a cheap shot that does nothing to put in place appropriate penalties for infringements. Let there be a series of administrative penalties followed by criminal sanctions at certain points. We are not arguing this should not be the case but believe that what is proposed in the document is a travesty of what we have proposed and believe to be reasonable. I appreciate the time and effort the committee has devoted to this matter. My colleagues and I will welcome questions from the members.
