Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 30 November 2004
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]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe 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.
