Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Ó Clochartaigh for raising this matter and for giving me the opportunity to update the House on certain matters pertaining to the review of replacement of capacity requirements under sea fishing boat licensing policy.

As the Senator may be aware, under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003 the function of sea fishing boat licensing was transferred from the Minister to the licensing authority for sea-fishing boats, which operates on an independent basis, subject to criteria set out in that Act and ministerial policy directives. As Minister, I have responsibility for policy in relation to sea-fishing boat licensing under section 3(3) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003, as amended by section 99 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. In this context, and as referred to, section 3 of the 2003 Act makes provision for ministerial policy directives to issues to the independent licensing authority for sea-fishing boats. I am, however, precluded from exercising any power or control in regard to individual cases or a group of cases with which the licensing authority is or may be concerned under section 3(5) of the 2003 Act.

I received proposals from a producer organisation, which, in summary, relate to the possibility of reducing the requirement to provide 100% replacement capacity with the relevant track record to 80%, the balance being sourced from capacity without track record. The producer organisation subsequently clarified that this request covered all aspects of fleet policy and replacement capacity policy, including flexibility between segments of the fishing fleet, flexibility between sub-segments and flexibility in regard to fishing effort relating to cod recovery for area VIa and area VIIa, and scallop effort.

Separately, another producer organisation has regularly raised the issue of a review of the effort regime in place for vessels in the RSW pelagic section of the fleet. I undertook a public consultation process on these proposals and made available a consultation paper which set out the background to fleet policy and carried out an analysis of the current situation. The consultation paper examined the implications of the proposals made by the producer organisations and also put forward alternative options. This consultation concluded on 28 February 2017 and 26 submissions were received, seven from industry representatives and 19 from individuals or companies. A number of respondents supported the status quoand are opposed to any change in the current replacement capacity requirements. Some expressed concern that a change could result in an increase in the value of capacity and others are concerned about the impact on vessels of certain sizes. Others support the proposal of the producer organisation regarding the 100% capacity requirement, indicating, inter alia, that it would allow for upgrading of vessels for enhanced safety and efficiency while some respondents support some degree of flexibility with regard to replacement capacity but are not in favour of that specific proposal. A smaller number of respondents commented on the RSW pelagic effort regime proposal. Differing views were also expressed regarding a potential alternative option put forward in the consultation paper, that is, that polyvalent vessels to be licensed in the tiered - mackerel - and-or ringfenced - herring - portions would be able to source up to 10% of the required replacement capacity from non-tiered and non-ringfenced vessels in the same sub-segment at a ratio of 4:1.

The Senator will appreciate that diverse views have been expressed in the context of the consultation process, particularly on the proposal of the producer organisation regarding the 100% capacity requirement. All submissions are currently being examined in detail and they are now available to view on my Department's website. I will carefully consider, following any further analysis needed, the case for amendments to current licensing policy taking into account the submissions received. I will have my conclusions published on my Department's website at the earliest possible date.