Almost 700 people are directly employed in catching and more than 1,000 in processing. Those figures are probably an underestimate, as many interests directly depend on fishing. The number of people employed probably amounts to 2,500.

Of more significance is that half the working population in Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie is directly employed in fishing. We are dealing here with real people with real needs who will not have any income at all for the next five weeks.

The fishermen have not been idle throughout all this. They have written, they have lobbied, they have done all they can to persuade, but it seems that so far they have not been successful. Therefore, they are here today to look to their own Assembly and to ask for help.

There are small steps that can be taken immediately. Let the Minister tell us, for example, that the payment of light use will be removed. The Minister has pledged to remove that. Can we be told today that she has at last been successful? If not, why has that issue not been resolved? It would at least help in a small way to alleviate hardship.

I draw Members' attention to the letter sent by Dr Paisley on behalf of the Agriculture Committee, which set out the case for the fishermen. Although that letter was specific, the response from the Department gave no indication of any real and practical help. The fishermen do not want to have repeated back to them what their problems are. They already know only too well. What they want to hear are the measures that will be introduced to help them.

We all know that fishermen take great risks to bring in their valuable harvest, which contributes much to the Northern Ireland economy. That deserves recognition and the DUP recognises the importance of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland to the lives and incomes of those who live in the fishing communities.

However, what saddens me is that, all across Europe, Parliaments fight tooth and nail to protect their own industries. Time after time the Spanish, for example, get concession after concession. Meanwhile, all the cutbacks and hardships seem to fall on the Northern Ireland fishing industry without there being any help or compensation. Is that fair? Can the Assembly look those fishermen in the eye and say, "You are on your own"? They did not do so in Scotland. On the contrary, they gave them help. Can we afford to do less? The Minister must be more assertive in dealing with MAFF.

Are we exaggerating all this? Ask the fishermen whether all this is exaggerated, whether they have money coming in, whether they have money to pay wages, whether their boats are tied up, whether the banks have started to look for repayments. Who would dare tell them that they are not a deserving case? Ask those who have walked away from the fishing industry why they did so. They will say that they had no money coming in to pay wages and bills.

We have all the evidence before us and now is the acid test. What will the Assembly do? It will not take much money. Approximately £3,300 per vessel per week - the total will depend on the number of vessels involved - will give much needed help to those whose entire industry is facing catastrophe.

I welcome the Minister's written response that the vessel decommissioning scheme is a priority. However, when will it be finalised? Indeed, when can it start? Must those fishermen wait until they are bankrupt? Those are central questions. Why could not the decommissioning scheme have been introduced at the same time as the cod recovery programme? Besides, what is wrong with our fishing industry that the fishermen have, it seems, only the option of decommissioning, when other countries not only get help but increase their fleet? How can that be? Is that right?

With each year's closure, the problems for fishermen are compounded. I welcome the Minister's move to get more training for fishermen, but that will not produce food on the table today. I also welcome her intention to carry out an assessment of this year's closure. However, what amazes me is that we already had one year of closure. All we need to do is assess that to know what the impact has been and will be. Why can that not be done?

That again will not pay the bills that need to be paid now. What we need is a full meeting with MAFF. It seems to me that MAFF is the weakest link in all of this. It does not appear to be doing all that is necessary. After this debate is over, we need a meeting involving the Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, Members from constituencies that are directly affected by the cod recovery programme and representatives of the fishing industry.

With the support and backing of the Assembly, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development should seek an urgent meeting with MAFF to discuss those issues and secure a positive result.

I support the motion in the hope that it will highlight the fact that the Northern Ireland fishing industry faces as uncertain a financial future as the farming industry. I hope that the Minister and her Department will act immediately to introduce measures that will be meaningful and practical for those who earn their living from the sea. Mr Shannon and many of the Members who have spoken have given the financial facts of the current plight faced by fishermen. I do not intend to repeat those figures. Instead, I aim to concentrate the mind of the House, and especially that of the Minister, on the reality of the present situation for those who rely on fishing for a living.

For the next five weeks, the white fish fleet, which operates out of ports such as Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel, will simply have nowhere to go. It has nowhere to fish, and it has nothing to do. That is the bottom line of the current crisis, which is a result of the latest restrictions announced by Brussels.

However, although the right to fish may stop, other things do not: banks still expect loans to be met; it is necessary to keep paying insurance bills; and the costs and charges for hiring equipment must still be met. As well as the right to fish, all that will stop are the wages of crews employed on the affected vessels, together with a reduction in revenues at processing plants et cetera. Unless some sort of aid is provided over the next crucial five-week period there is a distinct possibility that a substantial part of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet will go out of business. The Assembly, and especially the relevant Department, should be moving heaven and earth to prevent that.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what is happening. Compared to the compensation efforts made in the agriculture sector, the response of the Department to the fishing crisis has - to say the very least - been weak. We are told that the policy has not been to compensate for closure or for quota restrictions. As all Members know, policy can be changed. It can be changed, Minister, if the will exists to change it.

The Department admits that there is provision to pay compensation, but that it must be argued and approved before the recovery plan is implemented. However, the Dutch Government are introducing an aid package to assist their fishermen following the introduction of closures associated with the North Sea cod recovery plan, and they are doing that without prior argument or approval. Again, it can be done if the will exists to do it.

Fishermen want to hear the Minister tell them how she is going to help them. I hope that they will receive the type of reply I wish to hear - that the Minister and her Department value and are concerned about the future of Northern Ireland's fishing industry and that she will act to protect fishermen's futures with the same speed she has shown towards the farmers.

The figure involved is £760,000. That is not a large sum in the context of Northern Ireland's budget. However, for many fishermen and their families it represents the difference between a future and no hope. I urge the Assembly to provide that hope and support.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too welcome the opportunity to speak on this topic. Like David Ford, I am from a rural area, although I probably know more about agricultural matters than about fishing. There are, however, great similarities between them. I visited those areas on one occasion with a Colleague, and we were warmly received. In fact, I even noticed that some people diversified into food production for the day.

However, I am quite sure that if the Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee were to visit some of the areas I represent, he would find that diversification goes on there too. I do not hold anything like that against people or communities.

It was a good learning process, however, and it was very useful to see at first hand the difficulties, the areas concerned, how the population was made up and the coastline, of which I was unaware until that occasion.

As Members, our first responsibility is to work for the plight of communities, wherever they are - be they in Fermanagh, Portavogie or anywhere else. Their problems and day-to-day difficulties are the same. The problem is that people in coastal communities have far fewer options in respect of what they can do should their main industry fail.

I think that the Chairperson said earlier that this was a historic problem - a historic failure in terms of our negotiations when entering the EU. The natural resources, which existed for those populations and communities, were simply negotiated away in favour of other things for other parts of our industry. To a large degree we lost our fishing grounds all around the coast of Ireland to people such as the Spanish, who moved in with factory ships and for the most part cleaned the waters out.

Others have already mentioned the facts. Fishing is important to the area - 50% of the civilian workforce are involved in that industry in Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. In 1993 - I think that another Member mentioned this - a report stated that fishing in that area should be maintained as a priority, because those communities had very few options, if any, to move into any other type of industry.

The fleet in the South of Ireland was able to be increased by 36%, whereas that in the North has had to suffer a 30% reduction. That highlights the commitment of the Governments, North and South. The commitment of the Government in the South - and this was pointed out to us by the representatives of those in the fishing industry on whose behalf they negotiated - was massively different from that of MAFF and the British Government.

I do not blame our Minister, for she had very little to do with it. What the British Government want to do and how they see policy in England as opposed to the north Down coast - or any part of Ireland for that matter - and, indeed, the importance they attach to those communities is probably beyond her scope.

That is the difficulty. The problem that one will have to surmount is to try to convince a Government that are totally biased in respect of small communities and people who are meaningless to them in terms of their overall plan. That will not be easy to do.

I mentioned MAFF in GB and British Government policies. British Government policies on agriculture and fishing - and there are similarities between the two - are unsuitable here. They are unsuitable for fishing and small fishing villages here. When the British Government go to Europe to negotiate on behalf of the fishermen, that is how they operate. In fact, we are now in a position in which BSE and the foot-and-mouth disease problem have probably overshadowed the present attempts by the fishing communities to negotiate. This is an important time for them, but they are likely to be pushed into the background. They are now expected to tie up their industry more than a month, and that means a loss of income.

The representatives of the fishing communities, particularly Dick James and Alan McCulla, were very forceful in getting their message across to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. There is no question of that. They did a particularly good job in comparison with almost everyone else who presented issues to the Committee. They tried to get their message through to the Committee. The problem is that the Committee cannot impact beyond advising the Minister. It is for the Minister to work with Nick Brown and others in the British Government to try and make things happen in terms of action that will be of some use and some benefit in those communities. That is the problem. However, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee will do all it can to represent the views and issues that those people brought to the Committee.

The fishing community has had problems in trying to alleviate a situation in which all they wanted was some financial assistance and short-term compensation for losses last year of approximately £6 million. They will have no income for more than a month. They have costs and bank charges to pay, and they may have to risk their lives at other times of the year to go out and fish when the weather is unsuitable. That has to be taken into account. I do not know whether MAFF or any other British Government Department takes that into account when making its policies.

Owing to the foot-and-mouth disease, the Agriculture Minister and the Department asked people to close their industries and businesses voluntarily. They did not force them to close, because if they had done so compensation would have had to be paid. I wonder whether there is anything in that for the fishermen. They are being forced to close down their businesses for a period.

I support the motion. It is timely in representing the views of the communities in the areas mentioned. Go raibh maith agat.

I congratulate my Friend Mr Shannon for raising this issue, ably supported by Mrs Robinson. It is a timely motion, and it is appropriate - with all the noise and clamour about foot-and-mouth disease - that we remember that another crucial aspect of Northern Ireland's rural economy is in dire straits.

One of the disadvantages of speaking late in a debate is that many of the points have been made. I apologise to Mr Shannon for being late, but on the basis that the debate was to begin at 6.00 pm I arranged a meeting in Kilkeel - of all places - for 2.30 pm. I managed to get that over with fairly quickly and came here to be in time for the latter part of the debate.

Did you drive slowly?

I certainly did not.

We are talking about an industry that represents 50% of civilian employment in Kilkeel and Ardglass, both of which are in South Down. Both communities depend on three pillars for their economy: fishing; agriculture and tourism. Sadly, today's announcement, plus the sheep grazing ban on the Mournes, will mean that tourism and farming in South Down is going to go through a difficult period.

The Minister has been concentrating on the foot-and-mouth crisis - and justifiably so - but I have a sneaking suspicion that that concentration has meant that the needs of the white fish fishermen in Northern Ireland have been ignored. I hope to produce some evidence of that later in my contribution.

The fishing industry is already struggling as a result of the cod recovery plan of 2000. Many Members will remember attending a very heated meeting in the Stormont Hotel about a year ago at which this issue was discussed in some detail by the representatives of the fishing community. At least there were alternatives in 2000. The haddock fishery could be pursued and some fishing grounds were still open to the Kilkeel and Ardglass fleets.

This year, they find themselves with no alternative but to tie up their trawlers. Unfortunately the bank manager and the insurance companies do not take the same attitude. There is no moratorium on interest charges. Insurance companies still want their premiums, and harbour dues still must be paid, so, while fishermen's debts continue to mount, they have no way of realising an income. Normally in such situations we are asked, "What is the alternative?" - that question has been ringing in Members' ears for three years - but the fishing representatives have themselves provided the Minister with a realistic alternative that would only cost around £750,000.

That may sound like a great deal of money, but compared with the vast amount of money that has been poured into agriculture in the form of subsidies, it is a drop in the ocean. It is also a drop in the ocean in comparison with the Minister's present budget for the next two financial years. If a minimum of economies were made, that money could be found within her budget. I wrote to the Minister about that subject, as did many others. I must ask whether the Minister foresaw this situation? If not, why not? I detect from the paperwork that the Department was caught unawares. There is absolutely no excuse for being caught unawares, and for two reasons: first, there was every likelihood of a second recovery plan being introduced for this year; secondly, the Minister had been warned many times by representatives of the fishing industry.

Over the past few weeks, my fax machine has been red hot with warnings from representatives that unless the Department does something, the fishermen will be in dire trouble. When Mr McCulla and Mr McGrady met the Minister last week she did not even seem to have given the proposals adequate consideration. The response was a blanket "No". That was very much in line with a letter that she sent to Mr McCulla on 12 March 2001, in which she said:

If that is true, why did the Dutch Government immediately implement a compensation aid package for their fishermen simply because they blocked the port of Rotterdam? If the Minister is under the same constraints as other EU Ministers, why could an aid package be implemented in Holland and not in Northern Ireland? Why have the Irish Government been flexible in their interpretation of the regulations to enable generous training grants for attendance at courses et cetera? Why could the Minister not have shown the same flexibility? We are told that nothing can be done:

The fishermen of south Down want to know whether the Minister argued that case in Europe? If she did, why was she less successful than her Irish and Dutch counterparts? If we are to be effective as an Assembly in representing the people we cannot simply say that nothing can be done or that consultation is required, while we watch equivalent Ministers in other countries deliver for their fishermen. That vital point must be addressed.

Proposals were made for a tie-up scheme that, at a conservative estimate, would cost just £3,300 per trawler per week. That estimate is an indication of the outgoings of trawlermen who will have no income over the next five weeks. The tie-up scheme seemed to be watertight, but it has not been introduced, and we want to know why. The implications of that decision go much further than the fishing industry in Kilkeel and Ardglass. I have no experience of Portavogie. However, Members such as Mrs Robinson and Mr Shannon have been more than capable of representing their needs. The knock-on effect on the Kilkeel community is much more dramatic than fishermen simply having to tie up their trawlers. At least 13 trawlers in that harbour are permanently tied up, and workers are being lost - the men are getting no wages, so they are seeking work elsewhere. There is also a knock-on effect on shops, post offices, banks and the other small businesses in Kilkeel, which account for much more than the £760,000 that we are talking about today.

Ms Rodgers can strike a blow for this Province, and she could do so much to save a community that is going through so many difficulties by saying, "I am going to tear up the regulations and use the power given to me by the Assembly and the Government. I am going to step out of line with my colleagues in Wales because I believe in this fishing industry in Northern Ireland. I believe in an industry that has not taken a penny of subsidies for decades. I believe in an industry that is providing enormous knock-on value and additional employment. I am going to be brave and for this five-week period help the fishermen of South Down."

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those men who have been out working in the most difficult conditions. Some of them have lost their lives. The very least that we can do is come up with the pittance they need to keep going through this enormously difficult period.

I realise that I only have 15 minutes. It is impossible to deal with all that I need to deal with in that time, but I shall do my best. I thank Members for the opportunity to address the Assembly on this very important sector of the Northern Ireland industry.

Many Members have observed, both orally and in correspondence, that the problems of foot-and-mouth disease have diverted my attention from the problems being experienced by the fishing industry. Let me assure all Members that contrary to what Mr Shannon has said, nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that I am here for two hours today while very serious issues are evolving outside shows my commitment to the fishing industry.

The motion has called on me to provide short-term financial assistance to the fishing industry to compensate the fishermen for the restrictions on fishing imposed by the cod recovery plan. I have listened carefully to what Members have had to say, and it is obvious that they share my concern for the plight of our local fishermen.

There is no doubt that for some members of the fleet the fishing opportunity will be very limited in the latter half of the Irish Sea cod recovery programme. That has been exacerbated by the west of Scotland closures referred to by Mr McGrady. Inevitably, that is causing financial difficulties. However, there is a need to balance the requirement to conserve the stocks with the requirement to preserve the livelihoods of the fishermen. If there are no fish left in the sea, we shall not have a fishing industry. That is the balance that must be struck, and it is extremely difficult.

However, our fishermen appreciate that the closures, although painful, are agreed as one means of conserving fish stocks to help ensure a sustainable industry for the future. As Members will be aware, a number of stocks are in a powerless state. Mr Shannon referred to the right to fish. Of course fishermen have the right to fish. What I want to ensure is that they will be able to continue to have that right and that fish will be there to be fished.

I take this opportunity to thank our local industry for its co-operation in the handling of the current cod recovery plan. The vast majority of fishermen have complied with the rules and enabled the plan to proceed. Indeed, they have also contributed very effectively to the negotiations on the implementation.

I totally reject the view that I have failed the fishing industry. I have worked very hard and consulted with it on measures that I am able to pursue to help the industry in the short and long terms. I shall return to those. I absolutely agree with Mr McGrady when he says that the short-term view is important, but the long-term view is also extremely important.

In relation to short-term financial assistance, through agreement among fisheries Ministers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland it has not been policy to compensate for the effects of recovery programmes. Given some of the comments they have made, I am almost tempted to think that some Members on the other side of the House have come around to the idea that it might be better to be part of the Republic of Ireland than to be part of the UK. It is not a cheap political point; I am simply making an observation.

Keep that smile off your face. Sit down.

Order.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the past, Members have been brought into line for making comments that are of absolutely no relevance to the subject but simply constitute a cheap political gimmick.

That is not a point of order.

My time is about to run out. [Interruption]

On point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask you to consult with the Speaker after this sitting. He has ruled such comments totally out of order in the past.

Thank you for that point. It will be taken into consideration.

Dr Paisley's initial remarks that the provision exists for compensation to be sought were correct. However, in a letter that I wrote to him some time back I said that, because it was not submitted to the European Commission by the member state within the approval for the plan, it is not now possible to have it. I also said that I could and would undertake to carry out an assessment of the effects of this year's closures and to consult with other Fisheries Ministers on future arrangements. I remind the House that those arrangements have to be agreed among the four UK Ministers. It is a decision that has to be taken on an UK-wide basis. It is not for me alone to decide. I have to do it in conjunction with the other Ministers.

However, such compensation schemes have a limited impact. It would be impossible to introduce such a scheme for the current closure period as it would require prior EU approval on state aid, which takes considerable time to obtain.

What about the Dutch?

I shall come to that if the Member will allow me the time.

The money, even if approved, would have to be found against many other competing demands.

I want to outline the steps I have taken, as well as those being planned, to address the needs of the industry, and I assure Mr Ford that those include those wishing to remain in the industry as well as those wishing to leave.

In the cod recovery plan we secured derogation for a controlled haddock fishery for the first half of closure. That has provided a very useful fishing opportunity in addition to the continued provision for nephrops fishing. The haddock derogation produced 26 tonnes, worth approximately £30,000, in its first two weeks. My officials will be assembling the results of this fishery to present to the European Commission. I hope that the experiment will prove useful in demonstrating the industry's strong views on the potential for a clean haddock fishery.

I was very disappointed, as were the fishermen, when the Commission imposed a 10% cut on the nephrops total allowable catch (TAC) at December's Fishery Council. I agree with Mr McGrady's comments on that issue. I have done everything in my power to have this decision reversed. I immediately held a meeting with my scientists to explore what could be done to get this under way. They have done sterling work in a very short time to produce an analysis that supports our case for retrieving TAC, and that work has been included in the UK case for restoration of the TAC. I have written to the Fisheries Minister, Elliot Morley, asking him to keep the pressure on the Commission to pursue the issue as a matter of urgency.

The results we obtained in Northern Ireland look as though they could help reverse the cut. The by-catch - as has been quite rightly stated by Mr McGrady - has been minimal, and that is a point in our favour. I recognise the importance of nephrops to our local fleet, and I am determined to see this through. Of course, it also has implications for the processing sector and the wider industry. Members should be aware that Northern Ireland was the first region to complete this work, and I want to congratulate all concerned in achieving that.

With regard to structural funds, Members will recall last week's approval by the European Commission of the Northern Ireland transitional Objective 1 plan for the next six years. Within that, £21 million is earmarked for the fishing sector, and I assure Mr Ford that this is a Northern Ireland plan for the Northern Ireland fishing industry. Mr Murphy asked why I did not go ahead with the scheme: I could not go ahead until I had received approval.

In response to industry demands, I am prioritising a vessel decommissioning scheme this year. Dr Paisley expressed reservations to me about the decommissioning scheme this morning, but I pointed out to him, and I repeat now, that this decommissioning scheme is being introduced at the behest of the industry. Its representatives told me that they wanted it, and I have no doubt that if I were standing up here now saying that I had refused it I would be getting flak from all sides - including possibly from Dr Paisley himself - for not having delivered it.

It will be of both short-term and long-term benefit to the industry. It is generally accepted that there is a mismatch between fishing capacity and fish stocks, often described as, "Too many boats chasing too few fish". That applies widely to Europe, not only Northern Ireland. Work is well under way on stock recovery programmes. A decommissioning scheme will facilitate many of those who wish to leave the industry and will, I hope, result in a more viable future. My plan is to target both the white fish and the nephrops sectors through the scheme. I hope to be able to reduce the target sectors by some 15% and to achieve what Mr McGrady referred to as the critical mass - [Interruption]

Order.

Mr McGrady made an extremely constructive and well-informed speech.

In relation to training, in the fisheries plan I have allocated £50,000 per annum over the next three years to provide basic and refresher safety training, including risk awareness and accident prevention. That training will be provided locally by our group training association and will be free of charge to the fleet. I have no doubt that Members share my desire to make safety a high priority.

Moreover, and in view of the industry's understandable concerns about limited fishing opportunities in the coming weeks, I have asked my officials to introduce proposals for additional training, related to the needs of the industry, to be delivered in the near future. I shall seek to ensure that that is properly resourced. The plan also has provision to support processing and marketing in fishery sectors as well as much-needed infrastructure improvement in the fishing ports. My Department plans to enter into discussions with the industry to review research and development in fishing gear and to examine innovations that could be incorporated into local trawls to improve the escapement of juvenile fish.

I have been working on the issue of light dues. As Members will know, I have written to the Department in Great Britain. It has not shown any inclination to waive the fees. I share the wish of the industry to secure a healthy and viable fishing industry and I am not giving up. I want to continue working with the industry and to listen to their concerns.

I assure Mrs I Robinson that although Scotland has announced a £27 million scheme, the bulk of that is going on decommissioning. Furthermore, Scotland has a larger fleet than Northern Ireland. According to my Brussels contacts in the fisheries directorate, none of the countries that has been mentioned have been given approval for a compensation tie-up scheme.

Mr Shannon mentioned fishing villages. Those villages have benefited from both the fishing villages initiative and the PESCA programme during the 1994-95 round. A wide range of projects have been funded and are being implemented to help the area's economy. Mr Shannon also referred to the modernisation grant. That will have to be repaid if the applicant is approved for decommissioning. I have no power to waive that regulation.

Cedric Wilson mentioned other countries. I am not aware of any other tie-up schemes in Europe. That is a matter for the other member states. No other region in the UK has introduced a tie-up scheme. The closed box in the Irish Sea that was mentioned by Mr Savage is actually smaller than it was last year, as a result of our negotiations.

We did well to achieve a five-week haddock derogation. Mr Wells was wrong. The fleet had a much better haddock derogation this year - five weeks with very good fishing opportunity, despite the weather. Mr Wells asked whether we saw that coming. He referred to a meeting that I had last week with Mr McGrady and a representative of the industry. It was suggested by Dr Paisley that I have had several meetings this year with the industry. In actual fact, that was the only meeting that I have had with the industry, not because I do not want to meet with it, but because I did not receive any requests. I am very open to requests. I meet regularly with everyone who asks for a meeting, and I did have that meeting last week. Had I had other requests, I would have responded to them. [Interruption]

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>