Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Feb 1972

Vol. 258 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38: Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1972, for salaries and expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry grants-in-aid.

—(Minister for Defence).

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Fahey)

In order to bridge at least partially the growing gap between the expenses of conservation and the statutory incomes of the boards of conservators the Exchequer grant to the Salmon Conservancy Fund is being increased to £110,000. Apart from the moneys made available for river improvement works—of which the conservators have in general been slow to avail themselves—by far the greater part of the fund is required to supplement the direct income of boards of conservators from the sale of licences and from fishery rates, the total of which fails to keep pace with the steadily rising level of salaries, wages and incidental expenses.

A new feature of these administrations grants arises this year as on this occasion it is for the first time found necessary to make good the deficiency on the financing of the conservation service in the Foyle area. Adverse cost factors similar to those operating in regard to conservation work generally have finally brought the Foyle Fisheries Commission from creditor to debtor status. The accounts of the commission for the fishery year ended 30th September, 1971, show a deficiency of some £6,000 subject to audit and it has been agreed that this will be made good in equal shares by the Dublin and Belfast administrations.

The investigations conducted by the biological staff are directed towards the collection and assessment of fishery data with a view to the proper regulation of fisheries. The investigations can be concerned with specific stocks such as those in the Rivers Erne and Lee where hydro-electric schemes have interfered with the fisheries, or the effects of drainage or other works on particular rivers. The investigations can, on the other hand, be in the nature of basic research, the results of which can be applied to the global stocks.

Investigations are being continued at the experimental station at Glenties into the application of electricity to fishery management and exploitation. These investigations include the development of electronic fish counters, electrical fishing apparatus and the exploration of the effects of various kinds of electrical stimuli on different types of fish.

UDN continues to affect stocks of salmon in many rivers throughout the country although generally to a less degree than previously. In most waters other species of freshwater fish are virtually unaffected with the exception of relatively small numbers of brown trout. The outbreak of the disease in trout stocks which occurred during the spawning seasons of 1968 and 1969 in a tributary stream of Lough Corrib recurred on a minor scale in January, 1971, when 82 diseased trout were reported. No diseased trout were reported during February, 1971.

During most of 1971 the incidence of UDN was low throughout most of the country with the exception of the Rivers Blackwater, Lee and Bandon and the rivers in the Limerick and Kerry areas. As happened in previous years, with the advent of warmer weather conditions the disease tended to die out generally.

The research into UDN continues to be done mainly at the Veterinary Research Laboratory of my Department at Abbotstown, Castleknock, County Dublin where work continues on the effort to isolate the causative organism. Although the work has not yet resulted in identifying the causative organisms it has been possible to confirm that the organism is filterable, that is to say, of very small size, probably a virus. The investigations cover a wide range of topics embracing tissue culture, the study of the blood characteristics of salmon, transmission experiments and those relating to immunology. Other aspects of the disease including serum changes associated with UDN in brown trout and the biology of a fungus and its relationship to fish disease, continued to be studied in the Zoology Department of University College, Cork, and in the Botany Department of University College, Dublin.

Veterinarians of the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture continue to work in close collaboration with the Abbotstown Laboratory and liaison is maintained between the research workers of both staffs as well as with those in Great Britain and other countries. Meetings of the scientific committees set up to co-ordinate research and information on the disease were held during the year. Regular Press releases are issued which give the latest information on the incidence of the disease in affected river systems. All salmon and seatrout exported from this country are inspected to ensure that they are free from disease.

The survey, including runs of fish, count of redds, et cetera, on the River Bandon in County Cork, to assess the full impact of UDN on fish stocks in a particular river system, began during the year and some data on the pattern of fish movement and fish stocks were collected. This is a long-term project, however, and it will take some years to arrive at any conclusions.

In order to combat the effects of UDN in Irish rivers my Department have continued with a programme of restocking diseased rivers with supplies of salmon fry. Approximately 600,000 ova were imported early in 1971, mainly from Scotland and Norway, in order to augment supplies available from home sources for the purpose. A small quantity of sea trout ova was also imported from Scotland.

It is hoped to arrange for further imports of ova next season. Because of the increased demand for salmon fry for restocking river systems affected by UDN disease and the inadequacy of the existing facilities to cope with anticipated imports of salmon ova in next and subsequent seasons, the Department initiated proposals to extend Cong Hatchery operated by the Galway Board of Conservators to provide increased rearing facilities there.

In order to offset the effect of the drainage scheme for the Boyne catchment it was decided to establish a salmon hatchery and rearing unit in the locality. The Office of Public Works agreed to be responsible for the costs of the project and to subsidise it until such time as it becomes a viable unit. A suitable site was procured at Virginia, County Cavan and it is hoped to have the hatchery in operation in the near future.

The grant-in-aid sought for the Inland Fisheries Trust is for the same amount as last year, £220,000. The House is aware of the excellent work done by the Inland Fisheries Trust in improvement and rehabilitation of angling. On all sides I hear praise of their work and they have been in the public eye on many recent occasions when help was sought urgently to rescue stocks of fish in waters where pollution had struck and to assist where local angling interests needed help urgently with some unexpected problem. From the trust's annual reports the trust members will know the varied projects undertaken so successfully by the trust. At this stage their development work for trout has spread itself over a big area of lakes—150,000 acres—and more than 1,000 miles of river.

In addition, they are doing a tremendous amount of work in the coarse fishing and sea angling interest. As a result a large area of fishable water has been provided for home and tourist anglers and one direct advantage is seen in the income from tourist angling which, despite the difficulties encountered last year and this year, is just over the £4 million mark. Anglers everywhere have welcomed the interesting booklets, maps and information on Irish angling which have been produced by the trust. They are pursuing much biological research work which is such an important factor in planning the development and restocking of fisheries. The fish farms operated by the trust have produced the stocks of trout needed for restocking where artificial stocking is considered necessary —that is, in waters where natural reproduction is inadequate or where there has been a temporary upset caused by unusual circumstances such as pollution or drainage.

It is obvious that with the increasing number of persons taking up angling as a recreation there will be an everincreasing demand for good fishing waters. Development of fishing is a costly business and is becoming more expensive each year with higher costs arising for wages and materials. In the case of the Trust, the State grant-in-aid has increased steadily over the years while their membership has remained at a very low level indeed. When one considers the number of anglers in the country it is really most discouraging to see that only some 6,000 or 7,000 join the Trust. It is obvious that some day soon the State must examine the relationship between the amount which is paid out of State Funds to provide what is virtually free fishing for our angling community and the amount which the anglers are themselves contributing. Over the years repeated appeals have been made to the anglers of this country to join the Trust as, apart from any monetary consideration, membership is in itself a recognition of the Trust's good work. Once again I appeal to our angling friends to join the Trust. In doing so I thank all those angling bodies and all sections of the community, who have helped the Trust in the past. I also wish to express my appreciation for the excellent work done by the Trust and their officers.

I think that Deputies will be satisfied from what I have said that steady progress has been made during the year in the fishing industry. As in any other industry problems exist in this case also but I am confident that given goodwill, determination and co-operation they can be overcome. I accordingly recommend this Estimate to the House.

Mr. E. Collins

At the outset I wish to state the Fine Gael Party position in relation to the fishing industry. It is our firm belief that this country is capable of maintaining a prosperous and expanding national fishing industry which should give a livelihood free from fear of the future to an expanding number of full-time and part-time fishermen. This involves laying down a definite national policy in relation to the future of the fishing industry which has not been forthcoming from the present Government as evidenced here today by the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. I see no reason why Ireland should not have a fishing fleet capable of going into the deep seas. If the Government had been serious about the proper development of a fishing fleet over the last few years substantial developments could have taken place in this sector. We should have, especially in the context of the EEC, modernised and expanded our inshore fishing fleet and equipped that fleet far more quickly than has been the case. It is a pity that the Government have not over the past few years given a lead in this respect.

In relation to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and concerning that aspect of it which concerned membership of the EEC I was rather disappointed by the lack of detail. To me it was a blasé statement. Having regard to this country's application we should have got from the Parliamentary Secretary a far more comprehensive analysis of the situation existing within the EEC at this time. There are many aspects of EEC policy which will affect this country on our entry. In view of the absence of a proper analysis I have decided to examine here in depth today the two council regulations which are of prime importance to this country and which deal directly with fishing. The two regulations were not even referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. The first regulation of 20th October, 1970, is the Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2141 70 on the establishment of a common structures policy in the fisheries sector. This was the regulation which was passed by the Council and which laid down the EEC policy in relation to the structure of the fishing industry. I must admit from my reading of both regulations—the other one dealt with organisation of markets—that a common policy in relation to the development of the fishing industry in general within the EEC has only really begun. Indeed, part of the regulations were not effective until mid-1971 and I feel to a certain extent that they are groping towards a common policy in this sector. Nevertheless, it must be stated that certainly after the transitional period in relation to the fisheries sector there will be a definite policy which will have a serious import for our own industry. The document is essentially composed of a preamble giving the objectives and a number of regulations adopted under the headings of various Articles. I am reading from an official translation of the original document. The common structures policy was laid down after consultation with the Commission, the Assembly and the Economic and Social Committee within the EEC. It states specifically that there must be equal access for all the members to national waters although in the preamble it allows an exception to this rule to be permitted for certain types of fishing, for the benefit of local populations whose employment is closely dependent on inshore fishing and, indeed, it emphasises the importance of safeguarding the resources at present in the waters. It also states that member States can be authorised to grant financial aids to achieve rational development and a fair standard of living for the persons who draw their resources from the fishing industry. In addition, with a view to achieving these objectives more moneys can be forthcoming from the Community resources. These moneys, I take it, would come from the agricultural price and guidance fund.

A permanent committee on fishery structure is to be established which will be, so to speak, the governing body in relation to policy of structure and marketing.

The first Article states that to favour:

The rational exploitation of the biological resources of the sea and of internal waters, a common system shall be introduced for the carrying out of fishing in maritime waters, together with specific measures with a view to appropriate schemes and the co-ordination of the member States, structure policies in this sector.

Article 2 deals with conditions of access and exploitation of fishing grounds.

Article 3 states that member states must notify other member states of the Commission in particular of any changes they plan to make in relation to the structure of fishing and in relation to Article 2—that is, in relation to access.

Article 4 makes an exception in regard to certain fishing zones within a limit of three nautical miles, and I quote, "if that population depends primarily on inshore fishing".

This latter Article is, to my mind, a rather important one because it is under this that this country negotiated a special protocol in relation to free access to Irish waters. Perhaps it is appropriate at this juncture to deal with the position in relation to access to Irish fishing waters. I know from the circular issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the information of Deputies that the six-mile limit has been maintained for the protection of fishing rights around the coast and that limit is extended to 12 miles in respect of the north and west coasts from Lough Foyle to Cork in the south west and, on the east coast, from Carlingford Lough to Carnsore Point where shellfish are concerned. What has been a cause for grave concern and complaint amongst fishermen is the position with regard to the coastline off Wexford and Waterford down as far as Cork. Only the six-mile limit has been set and fishermen regard this as a sell-out of the very rich herring resources in that area.

No reason has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary as to why the 12-mile limit was not negotiated for the whole coastline. Indeed, not alone was there no reason given, but the Parliamentary Secretary did not even refer to the matter. I find it difficult to justify this lack of information because this is the kind of information for which the fishermen are asking; it is the kind of information upon which they will base their votes in the coming referendum. The information was not given and the Parliamentary Secretary can justly be criticised for not giving the reasons why the 12-mile protection limit was not extended to these areas. I have my own reasons. I believe the failure to negotiate the 12-mile limit throughout the herring grounds was because these are the grounds in which the fishermen of the EEC are particularly interested. They have stated that quite plainly. Over the weekend I was told that some French trawlermen have stated that they will fish permanently off Dunmore East after we enter the EEC. The Dutch, the French and the Germans have far better equipment than our fishermen have. They have bigger trawlers and more facilities on board even than we have on shore.

Mr. Fahey

The position with regard to the French has not changed.

Mr. E. Collins

I am not saying it has changed. I am saying the Parliamentary Secretary did not give the reasons why the 12-mile protection was not given for the whole coastline.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy said that the French have stated that they will fish permanently during the herring season. I am saying that the position has not changed. They are doing that at present.

Mr. E. Collins

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has not read the document. The fact is that upon our accession the present members will have not only the access they have at the moment but they will have free and equal access to the facilities on land.

Mr. Keating

Which the Minister did not mention at all.

Mr. E. Collins

This is the important thing.

Mr. Keating

Absolutely.

Mr. E. Collins

That is why they will come in here permanently. They will demand all the facilities, such as freezing and marketing facilities, which must come about under the Treaty.

Mr. Fahey

There is nothing to say we will have to give them facilities on land.

Dr. O'Donovan

There is nothing to prevent them providing them themselves.

Mr. E. Collins

Surely one of the benefits of going into the EEC would be the possibility of financial resources being available from Community funds to modernise facilities here.

Mr. Fahey

That is right—our facilities.

Mr. E. Collins

They will be our facilities but there must be free and equal access to those facilities and that is why the French and Dutch will come over here and take over permanently. There has been a sell-out of our herring grounds. There can be no doubt about that. When the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply I would like him to give us the reason why he did not mention this sell-out of our herring grounds here this morning.

Now, the review clause in the agreement will be based not necessarily on Ireland's position at the time of the review but on the report compiled by the Commission in the interim. That report will set out the position as it then obtains. It is then that the Council acting on the proposal of the Commission will examine the arrangements which will follow the derogations in force until 31st December, 1972. We will, of course, have a say on the Council and on the Commission, but I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the ten year clause could have serious repercussions. Our fishermen may not invest as much as they should in bigger trawlers and better equipment. The Irish fishing fleet has a future and a better future within the EEC than it would have outside it. An argument which might be advanced for Irish fishermen staying outside the EEC is the fact that from July to February there are no Common Market countries operating here. I would hope that within the EEC the supply position would be such that the enlarged Community of Ten would, in fact, have a common external tariff against other countries supplying fish, such as herring, to the Community. This is something that must be negotiated. There was no reference to this by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is solid, factual information like that, that everyone can understand, which is so important not only to this House but to those involved in the industry. That information has certainly not been forthcoming here.

Under Article 5 of the regulation the Council voting on a proposal by the Commission according to the procedure provided for in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty may adopt the measures necessary for conservation, that is conservation of various species of fish. These measures may involve restrictions concerning the catching of certain species, fishing zones, periods, methods and gear. The power of stock conservation is the most important thing in this regulation because if we are serious about keeping a proper stock of such fish as herring and the main pelagic and demersal fish species the position must be examined immediately in relation to present stocks, future likely stocks, what constitutes over-fishing, what types of nets and what types of trawling should be used in the different areas.

Again, we had no attempt to discuss this aspect of the matter here today except in relation to salmon fishing and fresh water fishing. There was no reference to the position in regard to pelagic fish.

Article 6 refers to the co-ordination of policies in relation to the fisheries structure of the member states and each state must send to the Commission each year information on the state of structures, the links between structures and market policy, the nature and scope of measures for the improvement of structures planned for the current year, annual and pluri-annual programmes and projects of research and scientific and technical assistance introduced by the public authorities or financially assisted by them and the various information which is necessary to have a regulation work properly. Under this heading it occurred to me to discuss the whole future of Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The Parliamentary Secretary should have stated quite clearly what is to be the future of this State body. I am forced to give my personal opinion which is that the Government would be entitled to appoint BIM as the Government agency under the regulations of EEC. This important point should have been made clear here by the Parliamentary Secretary. This type of omission leaves one stunned.

I take it An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will be the Government agency which will act at the withdrawal level in relation to the support price scheme and act as the Government agency in general in regard to the future structure of the industry. We were entitled to a statement in regard to BIM, which certainly has done excellent work in the past few years in regard to the development of the fishing industry and I would be first to say so. I am not criticising the board but I want to know how it stands under EEC conditions and the House is entitled to that information.

Under Article 7 the Commission will submit a report each year concerning fishery structures to the Assembly and the Council. This will be a comprehensive report in relation to various aspects of fishery structures, including finance, and will be important. Article 8 mentioned that it was necessary to co-ordinate member states' policy on research and scientific and technical assistance in the fisheries sector. This is very true and research at present being done by such countries as England, Holland, France and Germany will be of great benefit in the light of our own inadequate resources in this field.

Article 9 lays down the position concerning member states' financial aids which I have already mentioned. Article 10 points out that it is necessary to give a fair standard of living to the population which draws its resources from fishing. It states that it is necessary to increase productivity by restructuring such things as fleets and trawler types, the adaptation of production and marketing conditions according to market requirements. That is dealt with by another regulation to which I shall refer later. It also deals with the improvement, hand in hand with the development of technical progress, of the standard and conditions of living of the population which draws its resources from fishing.

Article 11 discusses the legal necessity for a number of reports and documents to be sent to the Commission from time to time. Article 12 lays down that a Permanent Committee on Fishery Structures will be set up under the aegis of the Commission. This is a body which will guide the various reforms in the industry. We shall have a representative on it and the Committee will be under the chairmanship of a representative of the Commission. Article 13 provides that it shall be this committee's responsibility to ensure the exchange of information and to study the members' structural policy, to assist in reports, et cetera. This is to be the guiding or management committee in relation to policies adopted by EEC. It also says that the conditions governing grant aid will come from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund which is the fund from which we will draw any funds we get from the Community.

Finally, Article 15 states that the regulation comes into force on the third day after its publication in the official journal of the European Community, that is towards the end of 1970. The system provided for by this regulation shall be applicable as and from 1st February, 1971, with certain exceptions. That was signed on 20th October, 1970, by H.D. Griesau. That document is of great importance and should at least have been noted in the introduction of the Estimate but was not.

The other regulation, which is Council regulation EEC 2142/70 of 20th October, 1970, is concerned with the common organisation of markets in the sector of fisheries products. This regulation was made on the Commission's proposal and after getting the Assembly's opinion and the opinion of the economic resources committee. This again lays down the various regulations in respect of marketing, such as marketing standards and rational disposal of production. It tells us that the EEC member States are prepared to help finance the activities with a view to achieving rational development of the industry. It is laid down here also that there will be a guide price for each product to be affected by this policy. Products are listed in a number of annexes at the end and I shall refer to them later. Laid down also is the position in respect of withdrawal of products in the case of prices falling below a certain level. It states that it is expedient to support the activities of producer organisations by granting them financial compensation for quantities withdrawn from the market. I shall discuss that later also as it is of importance to us.

In relation to certain frozen products it is stated that it would be expedient to provide for private storage of these products. The position in relation to producer organisations is important. These organisations can be financed to a certain extent by Member States both by way of grants-in-aid and by loan for a number of years and also from the EEC fund.

The present position within the Six in respect of herrings is that there is a lack of supplies. There is no tariff on the importation of herrings but when we enter the Community the position will be changed substantially. I had expected the Parliamentary Secretary to state that within the enlarged Community there would be a Common Market tariff on third countries who might be endeavouring to supply the Market with herrings. This is an important aspect in so far as our fishing industry is concerned. There is provision for an export subsidy in relation to certain species of fish for which there is a demand in third countries. This would be of help to the Community because there is an over-supply of certain species. It would enable them to maintain a proper market level within the Six.

Section 1 of the Regulations deals with the marketing standards of fish. The only fish for which there would be compensation in respect of withdrawal would be those that measure up to a proper standard. It will be the responsibility of member states to ensure these standards are maintained and this is being done at present in Ireland in respect of certain species of export fish but there must be further expansion. Section 3 of Article 4 reads:

Member States shall notify other Member States and the Commission at the latest one month after the coming into force of each marketing standard, of the name and address of the agencies entrusted with checks in respect of the product or group of products for which the standard has been adopted.

I assume that in our case An Bord Iascaigh Mhara would be the agency. This should be stated specifically by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Section 2 deals with producer organisations. As I see it, these organisations have an important role to play within an enlarged Community, especially in so far as we are concerned. The reason for the promotion of producer organisations is to have some co-operative and national element in the marketing and disposal of various fish species. Of course it would be incumbent on members to dispose of the entire output of products through the agency of the organisation. Regarding production and marketing it is stated that the rules adopted by the producer organisations with a view in particular to improving the quality of products and to adapting the volume of supplies to the requirements of the Market. It is important that that would be part of a national supply scheme in relation to marketing of all species of fish, especially on the export market. Indeed, there is no reason why there should not be a rational disposal of the demersal species of fish on the home market.

Under Article 6 member states may make grant aids to producer organisations to promote their establishment and facilitate their operation. However, it must be stated clearly that such aids would be given only for three years and that they are limited. Nevertheless, the emergence of producer organisations should be of benefit to the industry. During the first five years of establishment of these producer organisations, member states may grant to them, directly or through the agencies of accredited institutions, aids in the form of special loans to cover part of the foreseeable expenses connected with the interventions on the market. These would be recoupable from the EEC funds. Again, I expect this would be done through An Bord Iascaigh Mhara rather than that it would be under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Section 3 deals with the price system. There are two aspects of this which are important. The regulations list the particular species of fish in respect of which compensation would be paid to member producers if quantities are withdrawn from the market and in relation to other types of fish it is stated that producer organisations may grant compensation to the member producers. The fish in respect of which there would be mandatory compensation are listed in Annex 1 of the regulations and included among these are herrings, sardines, different types of haddock, whiting, mackerel, plaice and shrimps. It is important that compensation is mandatory in respect of these species. In so far as other species of fish are concerned the position is easier and it is a matter for the producer organisations to decide whether to grant compensation on withdrawal of catches or parts of catches. It is stated that:

For the financing of these withdrawal measures, the producer organisations shall set up intervention funds which shall be fed by contributions based on the quantities offered for sale or shall resort to an equalisation system.

Of course the moneys would be recouped partially from the Agriculture Prices and Guidance Fund. Article 8 specifies that before the start of the fishing season a guide price shall be fixed for each of the products listed in Annex 1, sections A and C. This is the fish to which I have already referred and on which it is mandatory to give compensation.

I note from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech that, on accession, we shall be coming up to the present EEC price level over the five-year period. This is important, because under Article 8, section 2, the guide price shall be fixed on the basis of the average of the prices recorded on the representative wholesale market or port during the last three fishing seasons. If we were to base them continually on the Irish price we would be at a disadvantage. It is much better to go to the existing price level within the Community, as we shall be doing for other agricultural products.

Under section 3 the intervention price shall be fixed at a level situated between 35 per cent and 45 per cent of the guide price, according to the production and marketing characteristics peculiar to each product. This is a rather low level of intervention, and perhaps the consequences for the Irish fishing industry under this section should be analysed and spelled out to this House.

Article 10 provides that the member states shall grant financial compensation to producer organisations to carry out intervention. The financial compensation shall only be granted if the products withdrawn from markets are sold for purposes other than human consumption or under such conditions as do not constitute a hindrance to normal disposal of the products in question. I wonder would the producer organisations be allowed to freeze fish —for instance, quantities of herrings— if the price was below normal, or would the State agency be allowed to purchase low-priced yet good quality fish which, as far as I am concerned, should not be used for purposes other than human consumption. Even if the fish had to be bought by the State and shipped out as part of our national contribution to poor nations, so be it; I am against destroying food, because it is wrong and unnecessary. There is also a provision to the effect that the value of the financial compensation shall be equal to the amount resulting from the application of the quantities withdrawn. Then it refers to a price equal to 60 per cent of the guide price when the level of withdrawal price is above 65 per cent of the guide price. This is somewhat technical and I would welcome a plain statement from the Parliamentary Secretary covering the various amounts of compensation which would be forthcoming in the event of withdrawal. There are a number of provisions in relation to sardines, tunny fish and so on which are not really relevant to the situation in Ireland except in regard to the point that other countries have been able to get exceptional protection in relation to the supply of particular species of fish which this country has failed to get in respect of herrings.

Section 4 is concerned with the system of trade with third countries. It provides that there shall be a common customs tariff in respect of imports. Quantity restrictions will not be allowed nor will the levying of other extra charges except in relation to tunny fish, which is used largely for processing. Section 5 of Article 18 deserves comment:

However, the suspension or limitation of imports shall not be applicable in respect of third countries which undertake to guarantee compliance with the reference price subject to specified conditions and which actually comply thereto in their deliveries to the Community.

In this connection it is just as well that the four applicant countries are going into the Community together; otherwise they would be competing for the same market.

Article 21 allows rebates for exports to third countries and states that rebates shall be the same for the whole Community. This is important in situations in which the Community price is low and it will be of benefit to the Community to export fish to third countries. Section 5 deals with general provisions. Section 2 of Article 22 states specifically—and this is worthy of note—that aids granted by member states in accordance with Article 6 (1) shall be reimbursed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund at the rate of 50 per cent of the amount. It will not be a total reimbursement. Some expense will fall on the State in relation to aids granted by this country to producer organisations.

Article 23 demands that there be equality of condition of access to ports. Then there is the point on which the Parliamentary Secretary took me up when I said that the French could fish in the six- to 12-mile limit at present under the London Convention of 1964. I was well aware of that when I said that some French trawlermen have stated that they would come to live permanently in Ireland upon our accession. Under section 2 of Article 23, which I am summarising for the benefit of this House in the absence of a proper statement by the Government in this respect, it is provided:

Without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure, for all fishing vessels flying the flag of one of the Member States, equality of conditions of access to ports and primary marketing installations, as well as to all equipment and all technical fittings pertaining thereto.

This is why the Six want the leeway to fish within the six- to 12-mile zone. They will have an extra advantage and extra facilities. They have better fishing equipment and better trawlers and, when we become a member, they will be allowed to have equal access to all our ports.

Mr. Fahey

Could I clarify the position? Whether it was a six- or a 12-mile zone, it would not change the position of the French. If the zone were 12 miles the French would still have the right, under the London Convention of 1964, to fish within the six-to 12-mile zone.

Mr. E. Collins

The Convention gives this right to fishermen from Britain, Belgium, France, Germany. The Netherlands, and Spain, I understand. That does not take from my argument that our Government sold out the rich herring grounds off the southeast coast to the stronger European countries in the fishery sector. It was a disadvantage to us not to negotiate a 12-mile limit because our competitors will now be on an equal footing with our fishermen. Our fishing fleet is essentially an inshore fishing fleet. Bigger trawlers which can catch fish within the six- to 12-mile zone can come in with their catches and take over the ports and facilities. Our fishermen may not even be seen. Whether this is true or whether it is false——

Mr. Fahey

It is false.

Mr. Keating

We can have an opinion about it.

Mr. Fahey

Whether it is a six- or a 12-mile limit, so far as the French are concerned the position is not changed at all. With regard to the right to make landings in ports that facility would be there anyway under EEC conditions.

Mr. E. Collins

The fact is that there should be a 12-mile limit to protect our inshore fishing fleet. The real point is that our fishing fleet is undersized. It has not got proper facilities. It has not got the proper ability to compete. This lack of confidence, this lack of guidance from the Government, in the past few years, the lack of any really big development in our fisheries industry, the lack of confidence in our capacity to fish not only in our territorial waters but also in the deep sea, show the failure of the Government to protect our fishermen. That is the real point I am making. The immediate point I am making on Article 23 is that foreigners will have an advantage because they have a better capacity to ship the fish and they will now be able to use all the facilities available to us in Ireland.

The annexes which specify the fish species under which price guidance is given, under which intervention is allowed and compensation paid, and exceptions can be made, can be amended by the Council, Article 26 provides:

The council, taking a decision on a proposal by the Commission according to the voting procedure provided for in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty, may amend the Annexes as well as the percentages...

—that is, the price percentages referred to earlier.

It is also intended to establish a management committee for fisheries products "which shall consist of representatives of the member States and shall be under the chairmanship of a representative of the Commission."

This will be a guiding committee in in relation to marketing and prices.

Those are the bones of the regulations in relation to the marketing of fish. I am sorry that I had to spend such a long time going into the regulations. I had hoped that a full and proper explanation would have been forthcoming from the Parliamentary Secretary. We should have got a full explanation of the position obtaining under the Treaty of Accession. This should have been forthcoming from the Parliamentary Secretary but it was not. I am very disappointed that the references made to it in his speech were of a general nature. They were blasé in fact. I am not satisfied with them. We were entitled to expect that he would treat it properly in view of the seriousness of the subject.

The information leaflet circulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs is very loosely worded. It is better than the one circulated to Members only. It is slightly more detailed. I have not got much of a "barney" with the rest of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech but it is deserving of some comment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the net estimate for 1971-72 amounts to £1,775,000. This is a very small amount when compared with the amount of State aid given to other sectors of industry. This is an exporting industry. It is only in its infancy and I am confident that it has a great future.

Reading the reports of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara I feel that development in the fishing industry is slow and grinding. No major step has been taken. There has been no effort to put a fleet of big trawlers into any port around the country which could engage in deep sea fishing. No attempt has been made even to discuss the future of deep sea fishing. There is another aspect in relation to BIM which I consider very important and on which I have my suspicions. The latest BIM report available is that for the financial year 1969-70. Why is the report for 1970-71 not available? Why has there been an undue delay in circulating the 1970-71 report? Was it because this Estimate was coming up in the House? Is some type of information being withheld from Members of the House? I do not know. I want to know why there has been a delay in producing that report?

Mr. Fahey

Has there been a delay?

Mr. E. Collins

Yes, there has been.

Mr. Fahey

Is it later coming out than the 1969-70 one was?

Mr. E. Collins

I rang BIM and I asked for a copy and I was told that there was some delay in getting the report. I do not know where the delay was but I have a feeling that he did not want to publish it for some reason that I cannot put my finger on.

Mr. Fahey

When did that one come out? What time last year?

Mr. E. Collins

I do not know.

Mr. Fahey

Is there a date on it?

Mr. E. Collins

The auditors' report is signed on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General on 30th November, 1970, and this is February, 1972. I do not know where the delay occurred but it has not been published for some reason or other. It seems to me there has been an attempt to stifle information. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would state the reason for the delay when he is replying.

Mr. Fahey

I was not aware that there was a delay.

Mr. E. Collins

The important herring fishing, according to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, got off to a slow start. The herring season has not been up to last year's catches in the south off Dunmore East. I understand that a new system has been developed for pinpointing shoals of herring at the deep sea level and also that they have noted the shift, whether temporary or permanent, down towards Cobh. The deep sea catching of herring is an important development and I expected a statement on it by the Parliamentary Secretary. If there has been a fall off in the quantity of herring caught, due to large shoals over the years, there must be good grounds for examining the situation in respect of the conservation of stock.

The export of our fish is mainly to Europe. This is very important in view of our entry into the EEC. I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the fishermen particularly to enter Europe, not so much because of fantastic price increases but because within the EEC our fishermen would be on equal terms and be able to compete equally with other countries in the EEC. If we remain outside steps will definitely be taken to make life awkward for our trawlermen. I could see laws being enacted in regard to conservation, the type of fishing, quality of imports and other things like that. The fishing industry is basically an export one, although we supply a fair quantity to the home market. Our fishermen have more to gain by our entry into the EEC than if we remain outside.

Experience is very important in relation to the training of fishermen. I have noted political patronage in the granting of skipper's certificates. We should all deplore this because it leads to bad spirit in the industry. Any man's son is entitled to an equal crack of the ship in relation to his livelihood.

The scientific work done by various bodies is of prime importance. This covers the work in relation to conservation of existing stock and this work must be expanded. We are faced with very modern competitors, people with very modern trawlers and equipment and we must be very careful to conserve existing stocks. I should like to see an expansion in this scientific work done. We will, of course, under the Treaty, have to lay down regulations in respect of the quality of fish. I note the interest of the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards but I do not think that institute is necessary for laying down the general regulations under the Community's organisation. We need to examine the qualities that are necessary in particular fish species.

We have major ports designated by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and we must ensure, if we are to benefit from the EEC policies in relation to fishing, that we have sufficient facilities at the major ports. We must have enough processing facilities, freezing plants and the infrastructure necessary to avail of the openings in relation to the processing and the storage of fish. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have a great part to play in this respect and also in relation to the general marketing of fish, which will be of crucial importance to Irish fishing. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara must concentrate on what European markets are available for the various fish caught here. The grants to this board should be expanded to allow a detailed study of the conditions in the EEC.

I do not know what the position is in relation to boat building, which is satisfying a demand for our inshore fishermen. I would like the Department to examine the position in relation to deep sea fishing. Various harbour works are important and the Department are to be congratulated for the progress they are making. The Office of Public Works do most of the work but I feel they should work with greater haste in relation to development works.

Coastal surveys are important and they relate not only to existing facilities but to potential facilities, and this work should be speeded up. The Decca navigational system is something which should have been introduced years ago. This is a very good aid to fishermen. I was in a coastguard station last summer when a trawler went down somewhere between Waterford and Cork. There was no life lost but it was impossible to get telephonic contact between the two coastguard stations. That is an archaic attitude. There must be facilities for immediate and instant contact between all points along the Irish coast.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to salmon fishing and to inland fishing in general. The disease to which he referred is, I hope, diminishing. He referred to the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust. It is important that we have proper regulations to ensure that our rivers are not overfished. There has been a public inquiry into the position on the Suir which I think has been overfished. It is important to examine early all situations and to control them properly.

There are only five paragraphs in the recent White Paper on our fisheries. This was a great disappointment to people who get their livelihood from fishing. There were 5,600 in 1970, according to a publication by one of the European food and agricultural organisations. At page 9 this publication states:

The Irish fishing fleet, for example, numbers about 850 vessels in all but only 19 are over 75 tons and as many as 645 are under 23 tons.

This is an important statement on the capacity of the Irish fishing fleet in relation to the fishing grounds available to them and it is an indictment of Government policy in this respect. The publication I have read from states that there are 5,600 fishermen and of these 3,800 are also farmers. This means that about 1,800 are full-time or nearly full-time fishermen. Those people are entitled to all the information available in regard to what faces them within Europe. They have not got it from the Parliamentary Secretary and I cannot find it in any Government publication. I had to go outside the Government service to get any worthwhile information.

Mr. Fahey

I hope the fishermen realise there are more than five paragraphs in the White Paper referring to fisheries. There are 12.

Mr. E. Collins

I am open to correction in that respect. Anyway, the contents of the five paragraphs are dry, technical and uninformative. The phraseology is terse and does not in any sense attempt to deal with the problems of the industry when we become members of the European Communities. That is why I was forced to analyse the regulations under which our fishing industry will have to operate.

In relation to herring fishing, particularly off Dunmore East, I am not satisfied that there has been sufficient protection in regard to fishing inside the six-mile limit or the 12-mile limit, as the case may be. Only last Saturday I was told that French trawlermen who had left the harbour immediately they were outside it put down their nets and commenced fishing. I have complained already in the House about this lack of even elementary protection for our fishermen. Particularly during the herring season, there should be a protection vessel permanently at Dunmore East for the specific purpose of protecting our fishermen. I would go even further and suggest that there should be a helicopter there during the season to see that foreign trawlermen are not allowed to bully their way into Irish territorial waters. Our fishermen are entitled to the protection provided by the law of the land and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to provide a fishery protection vessel at Dunmore East during the herring season.

There is much work to be done in relation to the general development of our fishing industry. We must develop central harbours; we must lay down a conservation policy in regard to all fish species; we must increase facilities for the processing of fish in all our harbours; we must update our attitude to financing those who want to go in for fishing and I am satisfied that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should have a substantially increased grant.

The question of water pollution arises. It is becoming an increasing source of public criticism. We must lay down a proper antipollution policy and local authorities must ensure that the rivers within their jurisdiction are kept clean and pollution free. People are entitled to protection from this awful nuisance which we have seen time and again on television and which those of us who live or work near rivers have had experience of. It is awful to see the waste products of industry and indeed of the agricultural sector finding their way into the rivers. We must lay down tight laws and we must insist that they be enforced.

On behalf of Fine Gael I must recommend to Irish fishermen that they consider favourably our application to join the European Communities. It will give them an opportunity to avail of a price structure which will guarantee them better prices in relation to most of their catches. In addition, it will guarantee them markets for their catches. It will give them guaranteed prices in respect of species of fish important to the Irish fishing industry and they will be allowed compensation if they withdraw certain fish and they may get compensation if they withdraw others. They will have a chance to get finance from funds available to the Community through the agricultural price and guarantee fund. Outside the Community they will face a bleak future. We have not got a future outside the EEC.

The EEC is not a charitable organisation. It is an exercise in regionalisa-tion on a large scale and the enlarged Community, will, I have no doubt, take measures to protect its members against competition from outside countries. If we remained outside I am satisfied that they would take steps to damage our competitive position vis-à-vis their markets. I am satisfied that within the context of the Rome Treaty and of the developing policies in relation to fisheries the Irish fishermen should support our entry into Europe. Outside it they have nothing. Inside it they have an opportunity and I think they should avail of that opportunity.

Mr. Keating

Though I disagree with the final conclusions of Deputy Collins, I think that everyone in the House and in the country is in debt to him for the trouble he has taken to provide us with some of the factual information that was so noticeably lacking in what we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary.

I wish now to make a charge which I consider to be extremely serious. I want to say that to alert you, Sir, because I trust you will guide me if I put myself outside the bounds of Standing Orders. The words I am about to use I am choosing carefully. The charge is that in the circulated text of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and also in the Government's White Paper on accession to the European Communities there is perpetrated, in almost identical terms, a lie. I know it is not permitted under Standing Orders to accuse a Deputy of lying. I am not making that accusation against the Parliamentary Secretary. I have no way of knowing whether he is aware of the accuracy or otherwise of the statements he read out, and where there is a doubt he is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. The particular form of words, which I consider to be more than just wrong, to be actually lying, occurs in the first paragraph of page 11 of the circulated text of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and it occurs in almost identical terms at page 47 of the Government's White Paper on accession to the EEC, in the section on fisheries, paragraph 5.33. I shall read it in the White Paper first. It says:

As a member of the Council we will be in a position to ensure that our national interests in the fishery sector will be provided for by appropriate arrangements including the maintenance of special limits.

I charge, Sir, with all the seriousness I am capable of, that that is a lie perpetrated by a Government, not just an act of ignorance but an act of deliberate deception. If we turn to the almost identical words—I am sure they did not emanate from him—read out by the Parliamentary Secretary this morning we see:

As a member of the Council, we will be taking an active part in all its deliberations and will be in a position to ensure that our national interests in the fisheries sector will continue to be safeguarded by appropriate arrangements including the maintenance of special limits.

That is deliberate and systematic misleading of the Irish people and of the Irish fishing industry by people who know the truth to be otherwise and that is as serious a charge as I am able to make.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to disagree with the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Keating

Thank you, Sir, but it is more serious than that. I am doing more than disagreeing.

In trying to explain why this is not just mistaken but also deliberately misleading, let me indicate the precise nature of the arrangement which was entered into with regard to fisheries by our negotiators and which has been widely misrepresented in Ireland. I have often said things in this House which I consider to be serious criticisms and I have waited for the reply which on any Estimate the introducer has the right to make. Very often the points I considered most serious were not dealt with. It is a convenient mechanism to get around a difficulty to pretend that it did not happen. I am requesting that these charges should be replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary when he is summing up. I want to give first, in brief terms, the nature of the agreement that we entered into with the Community in regard to fisheries. I challenge him when he replies to indicate that my version of the facts is in any way incorrect.

The common fisheries policy grants access to the territorial waters of all member states to all other member states and when that is said there are, of course, arrangements whereby this policy is not immediately put into effect. These are referred to in the language of the Commission, as derogations and there are mechanisms by which derogations may be arranged. We have been given in our negotiations derogations for ten years the details of which we need not enter into now. They have been set out and I have no quarrel with the factual details of the derogations granted. Before the ten years are completed a report will be prepared by the Commission and that report will go from the Commission to the Council of Ministers on which we, if we join, will have representation. That report will contain suggestions for various future actions in regard to our fisheries and the fisheries of other member countries. If there is not unanimous agreement between all the member countries, whether it is ten or nine or eight, in regard to the Commission's report at the Council then the actions recommended in that report cannot be put into effect and then the derogation lapses and the full fisheries policy of the EEC applies to Ireland and the other member states. That is what is negotiated. In the absence of unanimous agreement between the participants in regard to the protective steps taken in ten years time the derogation lapses and the fisheries policy comes into effect for Ireland which gives access to our territorial waters to every other member state. That is what was negotiated.

Mr. Fahey

That is not so. I shall deal with it when I am replying, but it is not so.

Mr. Keating

Fine. That fact in the end will come out and it will be seen whether the version I have given or whether the Parliamentary Secretary's version is the true one. It may be that he firmly believes what he is saying.

There is a common policy which we have agreed to. There are derogations for ten years. Unless there is unanimity in the Council at the end of ten years the derogation lapses and the common policy applies to Ireland. We, therefore, do not possess a veto, as has been represented, to protect our interests but any other member country has a veto over us in regard to future protection. If the French want to get in anywhere they simply veto the suggestions of the Commission at the Council and the suggestions of the Commission fall. The derogations lapse after their ten-year term and then the full fisheries policy applies to us. That has been negotiated. That is what has been agreed and to present anything else to the people is to mislead them.

To say at page 47—I gave the quotation at the beginning—in the last sentence of paragraph 5.33 "...we will be in a position to ensure that our national interests in the fisheries sector will be provided for...including the maintenance of special limits" is to mislead. To say we can ensure the maintenance of special limits after the derogation period is a lie. We cannot do so and our negotiators understood we could not do so but they came home and proceeded to deceive the people and that deception is put into the Preamble, a solemn, reputable and responsible document, and repeated word for word by the Parliamentary Secretary today.

Contrast that with the Norwegian situation. They negotiated the same agreement as we did. Then they rejected it. Then their Prime Minister visited a number of European capitals. Then they went back to Brussels and asked for new terms. These were refused. They then accepted the same terms as those we were given. But the Norwegian Minister for Fisheries knew he could not guarantee the future of the special limits and, in contradistinction to our negotiators, he went home and said so. He then had the honour to resign. If there were a scrap of honour—we do not really expect it—we should have had some resignations. To say it will be possible to "ensure" the maintenance of special limits is to lie. To ensure something is to make it sure. To ensure the maintenance of special limits is not within the power of our negotiators and those who negotiated knew that. But they came home and told the people the opposite. This was quite scandalous in my view and, if there were any honour, we would have some resignations.

Mr. Fahey

There is no question of misleading the people. The position has been put clearly before them.

Mr. Keating

The Parliamentary Secretary will have an opportunity of replying. He can say there is no question of misleading the people, but it is the people who will judge. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that it will take a bit of wriggling, a bit of sophistry and a bit of twisting of words to get our negotiators off that particular hook. Either the Norwegian Prime Minister made an untrue statement and needlessly sacrificed his job or else the content of the White Paper and the Parliamentary Secretary's speech this morning are not an honest representation of the facts.

In the miserable years I have been in this House I have become accustomed to blanket denials without any explanations. The Parliamentary Secretary says there is no difference. It would be abnormal for him not to assert this, but I want from him a clear indication, without sophistry and without any twisting of words, that the statement that the maintenance of special limits can be ensured is true. I do not want just a shaking of the head or a statement that there is no deception. There is deception. It is inescapable. I do not make that sort of accusation lightly. I am not accusing the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think there is an inch of coastline in his constituency. I do not think he has shown any particular interest in fisheries. I think there was a political reason for making him Parliamentary Secretary with responsibility for fisheries and putting a big black car into that constituency. It had nothing to do with fisheries. The accusation I make is against the person who wrote this, and that is a public servant. I know that this White Paper was written by a great many people. I have no way of knowing who wrote what and I am, therefore, accusing a public servant, nameless, and unable to defend himself——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not make such a statement. The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are both responsible for the statement. An official does not enter into it.

Mr. Keating

I accept that.

Mr. Fahey

And I accept responsibility for it and I stand over it.

Mr. Keating

I see.

Mr. Fahey

And I will defend it.

Mr. Keating

Good. I am satisfied, for the reasons I have given, that this is a deception and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be made the truth. We have got a derogation from the fisheries policy of the Community for ten years and I maintain that we have no possibility of ensuring the maintenance of special limits after that ten years. If it had been said that it seemed probable that the concessions could be continued after that period, well and good, but we certainly cannot ensure anything. That was the belief of the Norwegian Minister and, after the Norwegians had accepted, he resigned. He said he could not guarantee the future of the limits, but that is exactly what both of these documents pretend we can do. I shall await the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary on this aspect with interest. Assuming our negotiators are telling the truth, then they did not understand that to which they agreed. It is perfectly clear from the fishery journals of a number of countries, including some of our competitors, that they understood perfectly what was agreed. Those involved in the industry here at a high level of investment and knowledge also understood. There is no ensuring of the maintenance of special limits after the ten year derogation. This understanding and this knowledge on their part has already had a very significant effect on the plans for future investment. We have an enormous coastline and a great continental shelf. We have many reasons to reproach ourselves for the ineptitude of our economy particularly in relation to our fishing industry. The capital starvation has been such that our fishermen until very recently have been unable to keep up with the technological advances of other countries, and instead of having a great industry like Norway we have a tiny, struggling one which is now making very welcome progress but from a very low base.

The tragedy about this agreement which is being so dishonestly peddled around the country is that it will have an inhibiting effect on the investments we so urgently need. In an interjection about what was or was not in the three treaties of the three Communities we are proposing to join, the Parliamentary Secretary said that such-and-such a thing was not mentioned in these treaties. We had this argument last week when debating the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Over and over we are told in a number of debates that all we are doing is signing these treaties and that there is nothing in any of them about A, B, C or D and so we are taking on no commitments. The regulations, directives, acts and decisions of the Communities are published and run to 41 volumes at present and are being consistently added to. It is interesting that those 41 volumes are not in the Dáil Library, any of them; interesting that the briefing promised to spokesmen on EEC has never been forthcoming. It is interesting that the details of, for example, regulation 4121/70 and its relevant sections were read out here by an Opposition Deputy who had himself arranged to get the translation because those regulations are not available to the Members in the Library of the House when we are expected to have serious discussions on what EEC involves. I do not want to dull accusations of dishonesty and there are so many that it can become repetitious but we are not discussing simply the terms of three treaties but the directives, decisions, regulations and acts pursuant to those treaties to the tune of 41 volumes which we are also accepting and are being asked to accept without any consideration of their contents.

If we wanted an example of them we got it on section 4, Article 23 of Document 2141/70, the October, 1971, directive of the two fisheries directives, because Article 23 of section 4 gives access to Irish ports, to the marketing and technical facilities of Irish ports to any of the fishermen of the Nine. That is given as of 1st January, 1973, if we sign. There is no phasingin in that case. When Deputy Collins put that to the Parliamentary Secretary I wrote down his reply. He said: "There is nothing to say that we have to provide them with facilities." Those words are on record. What does that mean? One must analyse and parse sentences to find where the hypocrisy, evasion or deception lies. There is nothing to say we have to provide them with facilities but directive 2141, section 4, Article 23 says that we must provide them with the marketing and technical facilities of all of our harbours after 1st January, 1973, if we sign. It is a directive which has the power of law if we sign. Is that nothing? Though it is there as a directive, does it not exist? Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary purports to say? We have quoted the directive, the section and the article which says we have to provide them with facilities. So, the Parliamentary Secretary's interjection was wrong. Perhaps he means we do not have to do anything special to facilitate them. Of course not: we just have to give them treatment identical with that given to our own fishermen. That is all. This is word chopping or, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary did not know, and has never seen the two relevant fisheries directives one of which contains the undertaking I have quoted. This is the level on which we are expected to function; this is the strategy of either lying or concealing the information and if there is anything further, either by lies or by concealment to say: "But you have no choice; you must go in even though you may hate it."

Revealing rather than concealing would indicate that we have a choice. There are strong hints here about how terrible it would be, how destructive for our fishery industry to be outside the Community. To argue that in real terms, to which anybody would listen, not in bogus, propagandist terms, would involve talking about prices inside and outside, about restrictions by quota, about restrictions by tariff. None of this is done. There are just hints of how terrible it would be.

The Norwegian fishing industry is great, dynamic, sophisticated and employs economists doing detailed research on markets and possibilities and they do not believe, speaking as a fishing industry, that they must go in in order to survive; in fact they are convinced of the opposite. The whole consensus of Norwegian fishing opinion is that they would be better off out than in. The Icelandic fishing industry is much the most important industry iceland possesses; in fact it is their whole economy and they agree with the Norwegians and not with us. I shall not enter into a detailed discussion regarding prices, tariffs and quotas and the future evolution of policy which at present does not exist but which we would have to enter into if we were to argue seriously one way or the other: I am quoting against the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary the opinions of the Norwegian and Icelandic fishing industries. Their opinions are especially well informed on a subject which to them is of vast importance.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.