Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Mar 1977

Vol. 297 No. 11

Fishery Management and Conservation Measures: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Fisheries today:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of and approves of the progress made in EEC negotiations towards settling management and conservation measures, in the interim and for a permanent fisheries regime.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"condemns the Government for the inconsistent and confused manner in which they have mismanaged the EEC fishery negotiations to the detriment of the Irish fishing industry."

—(Deputy Gallagher).

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

Before Question Time I was coming to deal with the matter of the telephone call which caused confusion two weeks ago, confusion which was unnecessary but which deserves, I suppose, to be cleared up, although the matter in question is relatively unimportant. The fact is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was in telephone communication with Commissioner Gundelach about two days before the Minister for Fisheries and myself went to visit the Commissioner in Brussels. I visited the Minister at his home—he was in bed ill as everybody knows—the day before we went, in other words on the Sunday. The Minister told me then that he had been speaking to the Commissioner. He gave me an outline of what he thought was in the Commissioner's mind and said that he would not exclude the possibility that the Commissioner's proposals in their result would be as good as or better than what we could get from the application of our own unilateral measures.

I know there was no further communication between the Minister and the Commissioner. But when the Minister for Foreign Affairs was in touch with the media from his home in Dublin, while the Minister for Fisheries and myself were flying back from Brussels, he said that he had heard from Mr. Gundelach outlines of proposals which suggested to him that we were going to get something as good as or better than the unilateral measures. He was referring not to something which had just come across the wire as we were in the air; he was referring to an impression which he had gathered —I believe correctly—from a conversation which he had before we left Dublin. That is how the conclusion arose. I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs might have been wiser perhaps to put out a statement in writing rather than to offer an opinion over the telephone. One always risks the possibility of being misunderstood or misrepresented. I am not entirely sure that the blame for this misunderstanding does not rest with those who reported what the Minister said. Of course, it was an innocent mistake.

Mr. O'Kennedy

All five of them? Did the Minister mention to any of them the precise date of his communication? He left each of them under the same impression.

An Ceann Comhairle

In accordance with the agreement in respect of times for this debate, I must ask Deputy O'Kennedy to desist.

Mr. O'Kennedy

There is such a thing as order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Chair to make a statement. I am obliged to call the spokesman for the Opposition—I presume Deputy O'Kennedy—at 3.45 p.m. In the meantime the time allotted to the Parliamentary Secretary is limited. I must insist, and will continue to insist, that where timings apply Members shall be heard without interruption.

Mr. Tunney

Did the Minister ever withdraw or correct that with the press?

Mr. Kelly

I am not suggesting that this was anything other than a completely innocent misunderstanding on the part of those who published what the Minister said. The Minister may well have been to blame in not making it clear that he was speaking about a conversation that antedated our visit to Brussels. There is nothing more to it than that. I never heard a greater bottle of smoke being booted around this House in my four years here than this matter of the Minister's telephone call with the Commissioner. I knew that even before I heard the Minister's explanations, because that expression "as good as or better than our own unilateral measure" was used by the Minister to me 24 hours before the Minister for Fisheries and myself went to Brussels. There was nothing new in it as far as I was concerned. I knew immediately that he was referring to an earlier telephone call. It is regrettable that he did not make that sufficiently clear.

Mr. O'Kennedy

You knew it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Kelly

I am trying to explain a misunderstanding. The Deputy is trying to prevent me from clearing up the confusion about this relatively simple matter which has generated far more smoke than the nature of the confusion deserves. It is what I call a superficial or communication confusion for which—I must say it on the Minister's behalf—it would be wrong to blame others because I suppose he should have been a bit more careful in making sure that those to whom he spoke understood clearly what he meant.

I very often criticise the media but I must compliment the media, at any rate on the editorial level, on a very balanced and sane approach to this whole thing. The media have not let themselves be stampeded into making or subscribing to or countenancing exaggerated demands or claims or ideas. However, I attach blame to the Opposition and to some of their outside contacts who have, I believe, deliberately attempted to make the Irish public believe and to give them the impression that it is a matter for a motion in this House, or for a three-section Bill which could pass in Private Members' Time, to declare and have legally upheld a unilateral 50-mile exclusive zone. That is false.

Mr. O'Kennedy

For the sake of precision, what does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by outside contacts?

Mr. Kelly

I mean the people— some of them—in the fishing industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is obliged to conclude at 3.45 p.m. and Deputy O'Kennedy will have his chance then.

Mr. Kelly

Some of them perhaps do not understand the issue. Let me say, as I have said before, that we are not in the same position as Iceland. I saw a bit of the "Late Late Show" about three weeks ago during which a very valiant Icelandic gunboat skipper was a guest. The part of the programme which I saw did not contain any hint or suggestion of any understanding by the compere, the studio audience or the skipper himself that we are in a different legal situation to that of the Icelanders. That is not the fault of the Opposition. They cannot be held responsible for what goes on in a television programme any more than the Government can. But I do pin on them the responsibility for the misapprehension and misunderstanding which was quite evident in the TV studio in the most widely regarded and looked at programme put out by our national station. The people in the studio, the compere and the wretched Icelander clearly thought that we were in the same situation as the Icelanders, that if our sailors had the degree of valour which he had, that if our boats could carry out the same kind of naval operations——

Mr. O'Kennedy

We do not get on "The Late Late Show".

Mr. Kelly

——we would be legally in the clear. That is not so. We are obliged and always were obliged to share our fishing waters with our partners in the EEC. To suggest, as does a correspondent in the letters section of today's Irish Press, that we can copy the Icelanders is absolutely dishonest and I call on Deputy O'Kennedy or whoever may be speaking at 3.45 p.m. expressly to disclaim any similarity between our situation and that of the Icelanders.

I am not going back to recriminations about what we failed to do in 1972. Let the responsibility for that lie where it may. It may be that the Opposition at the time were not watching carefully enough to make sure that we did not leave ourselves in this situation. I do not say that the blame was all on the side of the Government at the time. Having found ourselves in that situation we had, and have, a clear moral right to seek a renegotiation, a rearrangement, of the regime of 1972. That is what we are in the process of doing. But I want to distinguish between negotiation and wild shouting from the shore.

This Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are trying, if I may use a figure of speech, in stormy water to bring the ship of the Irish fishery regime safely to port. They are being distracted by strident screaming and yelling from the shore from people who do not have this responsibility, who do not believe that these Ministers are doing their best, who expect that in the middle of the storm these Ministers are going to turn aside from their task and show them their charts, that they are going to give them a lecture on navigation over the gunwhale of the boat. That is not reasonable. One cannot negotiate like that. One cannot continue in this way with eight other Governments. Because, although we are dealing with a Community, it is the interests of other member states that are stopping us from getting what we want. We cannot continue negotiations while being forced at every hand's turn to explain to an Opposition spokesman who, although I have the same regard for him as every other Member of the House, is on the radio at the drop of a hat telling us that we are stabbing the fishing industry in the back, that we are selling them out. Hand in glove with that we have fishermen who are in a difficult situation, in which they have the entire sympathy of the Government but whose reactions to everything the Government do seem to me to be based on the assumption that a negotiation should be a matter of a single meeting, some of whom do not seem to understand that what is important is the end result. What we are looking for, when the smoke here has cleared away, is a fisheries regime which will give to our fishermen the substance of what they seek, which will guarantee the industry's future and make sure that the plundering, exploitation and lack of conservation under which neighbouring Irish waters have suffered will cease. That is what we want to end the day with. A negotiation is not like casting out a net and bringing in a draught of fishes. It is not like that; a negotiation requires footwork. Footwork means that one does not merely set one's eye in one direction and march steadily towards it with a placard saying "50 miles or nothing", like the placards I have seen being carried around the city. Negotiation requires footwork, it requires a stepping from one side to another and perhaps even occasionally stepping backwards. Anybody who does not understand that is not fit to have an opinion of any kind about foreign affairs.

One could not negotiate anything, let alone a serious matter like a fisheries regime, if one just made a demand and refused to discuss it, qualify it or hear what others had to say about it. One could not do it that way. While the Government consist of men who are paid to take abusive criticism— and we do not complain about it; nobody in his senses would complain about it—I do not say that the wild, strident shouting we hear every Monday or Tuesday after a meeting in Brussels, added to and amplified by the Opposition, who are hoping to fool the people, with a considerable degree of success in the sense that they have led many of them to believe that we are in the same position as the Icelanders, helps anybody. Most certainly it does not help the fishing industry. It does not help this Minister and it does not help his colleague in Foreign Affairs.

That is not supposed to be a plea for being let off criticism; no politician expects that. But it is a poor substitute for a serious Opposition policy on this matter. I listened very carefully to Deputy Gallagher before Questions and I did not hear a single constructive suggestion, let alone a single argument as to what the Government were neglecting in their search for an exclusive band and for a regime which will satisfy the legitimate wishes of the fishing industry. I ask the House to accept the Minister's motion and reject the amendment.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I want to refer to the terms of our amendment to the motion which reads:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for the inconsistent and confused manner in which they have mismanaged the EEC fishery negotiations to the detriment of the Irish fishing industry.

In so far as that motion refers to inconsistency and confusion I should begin by specifying precisely where that inconsistency has been and outline, to the extent I can in the time allocated to me, the confusion that has arisen.

The Parliamentary Secretary's impassioned plea for responsibility from this side of the House, from the public and from the media was taken to be not merely a criticism but, in a sense, an expression of the irritation the Government must feel—which certainly he feels—at the fact that we have not all responded satisfactorily to the manner in which negotiations have been conducted heretofore by whomsoever they have been conducted. That is quite correct. When he speaks about the absent Minister, who indeed is a very significant agent in all of these discussions, some important things emerge.

The interesting thing is that we should find ourselves discussing this at all this afternoon. Yesterday the Taoiseach quite clearly said that he would have no discussion, not today, not tomorrow, not on any day. There would not be a discussion—that from the Taoiseach, the head of the Government. That was as of yesterday. Things change very quickly; in a matter of hours suddenly there was to be a discussion. We welcome the change because we sought the debate at all times.

Mr. Donegan

The Opposition asked for it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We did. I want to point out the inconsistency in the attitude even of the Leader of the Government who very firmly, three times yesterday, said "no" in the emphatic, monosyllabic style which is particularly a characteristic of his. Today that "no" of yesterday becomes a "yes".

There is then the issue as to which of these two Ministers is responsible for the negotiations and who is answerable to this House—no matter where the question comes from—for an explanation of the negotiations. That issue has not yet been resolved by any means. I ask the Minister present in the House, in the absence of the other Minister—who indeed has a rather central role somehow even during his illness, a rather shadowy background type of role to play in all of this—to clarify this matter. I shall now put to him some very precise questions. I shall illustrate these from some Order Papers of this House over the last five or six weeks. I think the present Minister was appointed Minister for Fisheries around 7th or 8th of last month. On the Order Paper at that time there was a question down to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Question No. 61 on the Order Paper for 10th February read:

To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the unilateral conservation measures he proposes to take to protect Ireland's fishing industry pending agreement on the European Community's internal fishery regions.

At that time obviously the Government had decided that that was the responsibility of Foreign Affairs. Now I want to clarify something that some of the media appear to have misunderstood. It is not Deputy Gallagher or I who decide to which Minister a question is directed. We simply ask the question and leave it, as we have had to do over the past five weeks. In the General Office we are told that they are not quite sure which it is but to leave it with them and whichever Minister is responsible will take it. Therefore, the decision as to which Minister will appear on the Order Paper answering which question is entirely a matter for the Government. Sometimes questions we have submitted to Foreign Affairs have turned up under Fisheries and sometimes vice versa. That is a fact.

It would appear, as of 10th February, 1977—judging from the Order Paper for that day—that it was determined by one or other of these Ministers, not by the General Office, because they have at all times said it was not their function, that Question No. 61 which I had put down on the unilateral conservation measures which Ireland would take pending agreement on the European Community's internal fishery regions was appropriate to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the record is there to show it.

On 15th February, 1977, note Question No. 68. Again I had put this question down to the Minister for Foreign Affairs but where did it turn up? The same question to which I have already referred as being down to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Thursday, 10th February, 1977, which was not reached, appeared on the Order Paper of Tuesday, 15th February, 1977, this time down to the Minister for Fisheries. Obviously a decision had been taken that, as of that time henceforth, the Minister for Fisheries was the Minister who would be responsible for the unilateral measures we would take in our negotiations. Nothing could be clearer than that decision to transfer the question remaining on the Order Paper from one Minister to another. That is not the end of it.

On 16th February, 1977 Deputy Gallagher put down a question—again to whichever Minister was responsible, because we have no way of knowing— and this time it appears on the Order Paper to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as Question No. 11, reading:

To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has been advised by the EEC regarding the number of boats from non-member States being allowed to fish inside this country's 200-mile fishing limit.

Surely a matter of our fisheries negotiations, the internal regime, and it turns up to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Two days later that one turns up again, this time to the Minister for Fisheries.

I shall go briefly through these because they illustrate a very important point in regard to the confusion to which we refer in our amendment. On the 16th February, 1977 that same question remained on the Order Paper to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, this time as Question No. 70.

On the same day I addressed a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and it was put down to the Minister for Fisheries, asking him the unilateral conservation measures he proposed to take to protect Ireland's fishing industry pending agreement on the European Communities internal fishery regions. How are we supposed to know, how are the public supposed to know, how is anybody supposed to know who is responsible? Hence the questions I asked as to who was responsible for the negotiations on our fishing interests in the EEC.

On 2nd March, Deputy Gallagher and I asked the Minister for Fisheries, the reply, if any, the Government had given to the request of the Commission of the European Communities to postpone unilateral conservation measures until 15th March and if he would make a statement on the matter. The House will note that question was addressed to the Minister for Fisheries, not by us although in some instances we may have taken a chance to see what way it would come down——

Mr. Donegan

The Deputy has been taking a chance for the whole of his political life. Chances are being taken by the Opposition.

Mr. O'Kennedy

As the Minister disclosed this morning, Commissioner Gundelach had written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On Wednesday, 2nd March, the position appeared to be that the Minister for Fisheries was responsible. I hope Question No. 18 of 9th March has been answered today by way of written answer and I should like to have a copy of the answer before I sit down, if possible. When I put down that question the Minister for Foreign Affairs was known to be ill but still it appeared on the Order Paper addressed to him. If that is not a clear indication of a change of responsibility on the same precise issue I cannot imagine what is.

We have no way of knowing who is responsible for this precise issue. It occurs to me that, from time to time, because of some dissatisfaction on the part of one Minister with the other, or because there is not a proper definition of responsibility, each time it is decided by way of reaction to the events of that week or that day that this Minister or that Minister will take the questions and deal with them. There is no consistency in the manner in which the Government have dealt with these queries. To the extent that we need consistency to guarantee that there will be an informed discussion in the House, we have been denied it.

Unfortunately we are not about to get great details of the telephone communications between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the newspapers. When I put down my questions over two weeks ago I did not know the Minister for Foreign Affairs had been in touch with any newspaper. I had information which suggested he had been in touch with the news desk of RTE. Casually in the reaction of the newspapers in reporting the questions asked here on 2nd March, it became clear to me that he had telephoned not one but all the daily newspapers from his sick bed at home.

One has to ask why should the Minister for Foreign Affairs think it necessary to telephone all the daily newspapers and the RTE news desk when the other Minister who is responsible sometimes had issued a statement in Brussels and apparently was about to issue another one at home. When he was obviously out of action why should the Minister for Foreign Affairs take it on himself to intervene to explain to the newspapers what apparently the other Minister could not explain? That is a question the Government must answer. It is not something Deputy Gallagher and I dreamed up.

I do not know whether the individual news desks knew the Minister was giving exactly the same "service" to the other papers as he was giving them, in other words, taking them into his confidence. Every news desk would be flattered that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should telephone them to give them the real story. I am not sure whether he told them the real story was also being given to four or five other news desks. He left those news desks and the RTE news desk with the impression that Commissioner Gundelach had been in contact with him by telephone on that date, or he with Commissioner Gundelach. Each one of them, with one possible exception, presented it as if Commissioner Gundelach had been in contact with the Minister for Foreign Affairs as of that date, or vice versa.

It all very fine for the Parliamentary Secretary to say they got that impression because of an unfortunate misunderstanding. That might be understandable if only one newspaper had been telephoned but, when all of them and RTE had the same impression, one has to come to the conclusion that the impression they were intended to get from these telephone calls was that on that date the Minister for Foreign Affairs had been in communication by telephone with Commissioner Gundelach, and not three or four days earlier as the Parliamentary Secretary knows from his own knowledge. If you telephone a newspaper and say: "I have telephoned Commissioner Gundelach or he has telephoned me". it is open to the interpretation that it happened on that day.

It is pointless to blame this side of the House for an intervention by a Minister in what appears to have been on that occasion the responsibility of another Minister. The Minister has been ill. I am glad to note he is back in action again. I have not been able to get a reply to my question about his communication with Commissioner Gundelach because only he can give that reply. I have had to postpone the question several times.

Mr. Donegan

I have given that information to the House. I have quoted from a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to me.

Mr. O'Kennedy

He may have been in touch with him subsequently. These are matters we can clarify later. How could the Minister say to the news editors it was likely that what would emerge subsequently would be better than what the Government were proposing? That seemed to me not just to be an implied criticism of the Minister for Fisheries but an express criticism. That is not just my opinion, That is what the general public believe.

If confusion has been created it has not been created by us. We are entitled to answers to our questions. Our motion is specifically directed at confusion and inconsistency. We cannot be criticised for pointing to this confusion and this inconsistency. That is our function in relation to a vital matter of national interest, our fishing industry.

Glowing terms of praise were used in regard to the Minister for Fisheries after his appointment and it was said by representatives of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation—who now apparently are charged with being in our camp or in cahoots with us or something of that sort—that for a man who has actually been flung in at the deep end he had made a major achievement. Apparently, that was acceptable then, but any criticism they make subsequently, of course, is an indication that they are less than objective or fair. We hear the Parliamentary Secretary imply that these people express these views because somehow we have got at them. That is quite wrong. In the nature of things they will communicate with us as they will communicate with the Minister—and quite rightly. What seems to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that they are in cahoots with us is that yesterday he saw a representative of the fishermen's organisation quite rightly and legitimately in the company of Deputy Gallagher and myself, as we have seen him some time later or earlier in the company of the Minister. We would not have seen him in the same gleeful mood as the Minister appears when both of them appeared in an Irish Times photograph of Thursday, February 10th.

Are they to be denied the right to communicate with us or, if they do are they to be accused of being somehow in cahoots with us? I do not suppose the Minister here would suggest that, but that is why the Parliamentary Secretary made that implied criticism of the fishermen, that these people were somehow—I forget the expression he used—in cahoots with us outside the House. I asked him to define them and he said "some representatives of the fishermen". That is a very unwarranted criticism of them which I think the Minister here would not accept, because he would acknowledge that they have a right to communicate with us as they have to consult with the Minister. Their consultations with him would be more important because he is the Minister, but he would not and could not deny them the right to consult with us. That in fact is all that has happened.

In regard to the conduct of negotiations, it was this Minister in the House who decided with a great flourish and determination that he was going to introduce unilateral conservation measures. The press reaction to that was one of almost unanimous endorsement at the courage, capacity and determination of the Minister. I have no time to go through all the details but this emerged quite clearly from the report in the newspapers in the period around Thursday, 10th February. All have the same high commendation for the Minister who announced what he intended to do. He was the one quoted for instance in The Irish Press of 16th February telling any foreign boats to get out of the area. He was the one quoted as saying that any boats infringing the zone would be forced out by our Naval Service. Those are the terms used by the Minister. He was the one quoted as saying he doubted if the measures he was adopting would be lifted at the end of the year. It comes rather strange then when you have heard a Minister making pronouncements in such strong terms, “forcing them out by the Naval Service” and so on, with the great response there was from the fishermen's organisation and the newspapers, to hear the Parliamentary Secretary tell us that the essential capacity needed in negotiation is delicate footwork. If that is delicate footwork the nation would not like to see some heavy plodding. Certainly, we would be all the more damaged if this is taken to be delicate footwork.

Eventually, there was a letter of 22nd February from Commissioner Gundelach to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which we now see for the first time today. That was long before the meeting at which the Minister was present and from which the Minister for Foreign Affairs was absent, long before the end of the phone-around by the latter. That letter says that they regret they have not been able to meet the Irish Government in all of this, that they need some further time to find a solution on behalf of the Commission and so they ask the Irish Government to postpone their action until 15th March. The Minister for Foreign Affairs had that letter on 22nd February. It gave no details of the proposals, no guarantee and no commitment except to say that difficulties were there. Significantly, this is the first time we have been told about this letter, that the public have been told. It comes as a surprise to us. We did not know it before. Was it around this time that apparently the Minister for Foreign Affairs was in telephone communication with Commissioner Gundelach. Was it then that Commissioner Gundelach made his further proposals that do not emerge here, because all this says is that they would like us to postpone our action until 15th March so that they could see if they could get further agreement? It was all hanging in the air as of that date and there was no evidence of any firm proposals.

This morning we see the kind of proposals. We get a document, mark you, prepared and formulated not by the Commission but by the French Government. We do not know to what extent this represents any proposal from the Commission. The document was formulated by the French Government and the Minister tells us that under it boxes 6A, 6 and 7, which seem to me to be perilously close to the rocks off the Donegal coast never mind the area outside it, have not been included in the conservation boxes— if I read it correctly—which are to be exclusively for Ireland, but that he would hope—and I quote him—that the experts who would be meeting after this may be able to succeed in doing what he has not succeeded in doing and have them included.

What does this document represent? What is the point in producing it? Is it a Commission document or is it not? Is there some suggestion that proposals from the French Government represent something more significant than proposals from our Government?

Mr. Donegan

Not at all; it is for clarification.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Surely the clarification must come from those who have the primary responsibility to present the proposals, and that is the Commission. Why a French Government document? I am sure this is not an issue from them.

Mr. Donegan

Because we used that document to transpose on to it the various boxes being offered to us. We used it and that is all. We could have drawn our own boxes just as easily but we found that a very useful map.

Mr. O'Kennedy

And you can relate them to areas 6A, 4 and 5.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carter)

The Deputy has only about five minutes remaining.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am well aware of that. I had only a half hour and one cannot solve the whole fishery problem in that time. Therefore I concentrated on pinpointing the confusion and the inconsistency which are the subject of our motion. The real issues are bigger and deeper but I had to pinpoint the inconsistency and confusion. Had I more time I would have been able to outline it clearly with all the statements which appeared in the newspapers of those dates from February 10th up to this week. There is nothing clearer than this inconsistency and the impressions created in the public mind. It is not enough to blame the media for all of this because, if so, all the media are wrong. As regards the issue itself which the Government entrusted to whichever Minister is expected to act on their behalf, we recognise on this side of the House that this is a difficult task. Let that be stated as a first principle.

Because it is difficult, we recognise that if there are to be two Ministers concerned in consultations, they should at least have an understanding with and a confidence in each other. We believe there is not such understanding and confidence between the two men concerned and that their conduct in public indicates that that is so. If such understanding and confidence existed, our negotiations would be in better hands. Unfortunately, we are losing because of the jockeying between two Ministers who are trying to vindicate their positions.

It was the Minister for Fisheries who made the statement about the unilateral conservation measures. The other Minister gave the impression that he would not lose the kudos he had painstakingly established over a long period to any other Minister. He got back into the act by commenting on what happened. If I could be convinced that there was confidence between the two Ministers, I would be much happier. The public do not believe that this exists and neither do we.

I still say the Taoiseach should clarify who is responsible for negotiations on this issue and who is answerable to this House. As I said, we do not know, the Taoiseach did not tell us and the Ministers apparently change from day to day. This Minister said he would announce tough measures to get foreign boats out of Irish waters. They are not soft words; they were deliberately chosen. Had he been told by Commissioner Gundelach that they would contemplate action at the European Court? Did he tell his colleagues in the Council that they proposed to do this in the way he announced this in the newspapers later? This seems to be the real issue because his colleagues in the Council were amazed to read in the public Press that the Minister for Fisheries was determined to take these conservation measures. Commissioner Gundelach then said that this might have to be referred to the European Court. It appears that this was not even mentioned at the meeting. That is hardly the way to win goodwill in negotiations.

The Government will have our support to the extent that we realise the difficulties facing them. The position taken already has helped them to achieve something clear and consistent. We never thought these quotas were workable; we never thought conservation measures announced by the Minister were workable because it was clear they were not. The Minister made a big show of announcing them, although everybody must have known that they were not workable. He now knows that himself. The only workable way is to have an exclusive band subject to licensing arrangements of designated areas for traditional fishing fleets. We believe that all the Governments concerned, notably the French Government, would take due regard of such positive proposals and that agreement could be reached on that basis. We believe the Commission would support this as being workable, fair and reasonable and it could be subject to review each year.

The Government have been jumping from one thing to another, from unilateral conservation to something else. Eventually they were cut off from their own determined track by a request "Will you postpone it again?" They blame the House, the public and the fishermen if they are frustrated and confused. If the Minister can dissipate some of this confusion and frustration, this motion will have done a little good.

Minister for Fisheries (Mr. Donegan)

I listened to Deputy Gallagher this morning and there is very little I could comment on because he seemed to be confused. There is no confusion on the part of the Government and it would be a great pity if there was confusion on the part of the nation and the fishermen. The position is this. When fisheries are raised at the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, then it is the responsibility of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to state Ireland's case. The alternative would be for that Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to absent himself and leave Ireland's case unstated.

When fisheries is raised by way of resolution, letter or communication from the Commission at the Council of Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries the responsibility falls on the Minister for Fisheries to argue Ireland's case as best he can. Again, the alternative is to absent himself and leave Ireland's case unstated. That is the position. There is no other way in which we can negotiate in the EEC but the Opposition seem determined to spread confusion about this matter. There is no confusion in our minds about this matter.

If it were a fact that this Government were to be defeated—but they will not be defeated—at the forthcoming general election and if Deputy O'Kennedy were Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Gallagher were Minister for Fisheries, they would have to act in like manner. I, as Minister for Fisheries, cannot go into the meeting of the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and make our case there. That falls to the Minister for Foreign Affairs or his Parliamentary Secretary. Similarly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs does not come into the Council of Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries and make our case, I do. Ireland will be served by us as best we can.

Having got rid of all that confusion, I now want to refer to a couple of specific matters raised by Deputy Gallagher. He suggested that the Government were not availing of grants available for the fishing industry from the EEC. Since 1973 grants totalling £2,750,000 were approved for Irish fishery projects, that is, fishing boats, fish processing and harbour works, from the EEC. That shows that Deputy Gallagher's statement is entirely incorrect. In 1976 a new development occurred which also has reference to our conduct of EEC negotiations. In 1976 nearly £300,000 were received by way of compensation for fish withdrawn from the market. The EEC also agreed to meet part of the cost of patrolling the new 200-mile fishing limit. This was the subject of the inclusion of £1.2 million by the Minister for Finance in his budget this year. The fact is that we are conducting our negotiations with the EEC, both on the Foreign Affairs and Fisheries fronts, with success.

Mr. Gallagher

What about the 300 boats?

Mr. Donegan

Our target is that we will increase our fishing fleet by 300 boats in 1979.

Mr. Gallagher

If you provide the money.

Mr. Donegan

The money will be provided as long as people want to buy the boats. I am not God Almighty and I cannot transport myself into the year 1979 and back again. The position at present is that we wish to increase our fleet by 300 boats and double our catch from 75,000 tons to 150,000 tons.

In relation to Deputy Gallagher's complaint about the research vessel, the Cú Feasa is no longer suitable for use as a research vessel. During Fianna Fáil days it lingered long and was allowed to get into a state of disrepair. It spent all its time at the docks as a result of inactivity in Fianna Fáil days. That is all we can say about the Cú Feasa.

Mr. Gallagher

How often has it gone out in the past four years?

Mr. Donegan

That is Fianna Fáil's fault and they were there for a long time. Provision for a new vessel of 100 feet in beam design at a sum of £300,000 has been included in the Fisheries Vote in this year. Deputy Gallagher is a great man to complain, but he can be assured that the funds available for building new boats this year are adequate and that any suitable fisherman coming to BIM for a grant or loan for a new boat will be accommodated. In relation to harbours, the Deputy can be assured that almost £2 million will be available for fishery harbour works this year as compared with £850,000 last year.

Mr. Gallagher

We did not refer to new boats. I spoke about secondhand boats and the Minister last week said he was not satisfied that enough money was being provided for them.

Mr. Donegan

I said in the House last week that I am not satisfied in this regard but that the question is one of loan finance from the Irish banks to BIM for this purpose. I went on to say that the process of scrutiny in relation to applications of all kinds is slow. I added that I am making representations to have this process speeded up. This slowness existed before I came on the scene and it is a feature of the situation. That is what I said last week and the Deputies opposite can chew on it as long as they like.

Yesterday the Opposition asked for a debate and we carried the fish war, if you like, into their camp by giving it to them today. They postponed two questions yesterday which, if they were not satisfied, they could have raised on the Adjournment. However, through the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition, they sought this debate today without going to the Whips' Office to indicate that they wanted it. Having heard gossip in the corridors to the effect that they would do this, I gave 15 seconds notice to the Taoiseach——

Mr. O'Kennedy

Deputy Gallagher and I gave a copy of our intended motion to the office of the Ceann Comhairle during the lunch period.

Mr. Donegan

The only notice the Taoiseach got was 15 seconds, given to him by me as a result of corridor gossip I had picked up.

Mr. Gallagher

We presented our motion to the office of the Ceann Comhairle under Standing Order 30. If it was not communicated to the Minister, that is not our fault.

Mr. Donegan

The normal procedure is to indicate the intention to the Whips. The Taoiseach got notice of 15 seconds——

Mr. Browne

In view of the statement by the Minister it should be made clear that a motion from this side was handed in at 1.30 p.m. If the Taoiseach and the Minister were not informed, it is not our fault. There was still two hours' notice.

Mr. Donegan

This is only window dressing by the Opposition.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Why did the Minister for Foreign Affairs have to write to the Minister for Fisheries?

Mr. Donegan

Because he was in his sick bed and could not come to me. His action was because of Press comment. I would point out that I did not come here to conduct a debate on the basis of question and answer but to reply to the points made. I have spoken about the step forward we have arranged with the Council of Ministers and the Commission. We have got a guarantee from the Commission that they will produce a permanent regime policy before 15th April and they have indicated to the Council of Ministers an ultimate deadline for 30th June. That is of importance and it should be put on record. We have got to a position whereby the numbers and names of boats will be indicated. This whole matter of protective measures will apply solely to Irish waters. These matters are difficult— communication and so on—and one cannot have them on a plate. We are not satisfied with the position off the Donegal coast and it will be the duty of our senior officers at two meetings or more with the Council of Ministers, meeting again on Thursday, to try to get subzones 6A, 6 and 7 included——

Mr. Gallagher

Could the Minister clarify the position in this respect?

Mr. Donegan

——in the areas to be dealt with. At the moment they are not in and we want them in.

Mr. O'Kennedy

What is the purpose?

Mr. Donegan

So that they will be the subject of conservation measures. We are happy that areas off the Mayo and Cork coasts are in but we are not happy about the two subzones I mentioned.

Mr. Gallagher

Does it mean that only Irish boats will be allowed to fish there?

Mr. Donegan

It means that Community boats would be regulated. We want these zones in and we are trying hard at high level meetings to get them in.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Does not some portion of those boxes which the Minister hopes will be designated as conservation zones come to within 15 miles of the coast?

Mr. Donegan

No.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It looks like that.

Mr. Donegan

The nearest they come would be in the order of 20 to 30 miles. I want to deal with why all this flurry arose among the dovecotes and why we had all this hoohah yesterday about having a debate at all. I refer to press comment on my relations with the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and I quote from The Irish Independent of March 15th, 1977:

Unprintable exchanges flew between Fisheries Minister Patrick Donegan and furious fishermen's leaders in Brussels last night.

I deny categorically that there were any unprintable exchanges or any exchanges at all on my part. It takes two to make an exchange. I did not in any way indulge in exchanges. I now tell the House and the press what occurred in Brussels. I went to Brussels and before going into the Council of Ministers I had a request from the Irish Fishermen's Organisation to consult with them. I went downstairs and I met the Chairman, Mr. Joe Murrin, and the Secretary, Mr. Frank Doyle. I indicated to them what was probably to be gained. I indicated to them also that at that time before the meeting we were dissatisfied with the position with relation to boxes 6a, 6 and 7. Mr. Murrin, who is a Donegal man from Killybegs, agreed that he would be very dissatisfied in relation to those boxes, and I went up to do my negotiations.

It is not possible in Brussels, in the Council of Ministers where there is constant speaking one after another, as we have here on Committee Stage of Bills, by all the member states, to come out and consult with an organisation of fishermen or anybody else involved from the outside, go back in and speak again and come out again. I did my job that day in Brussels over four or five hours as well as I could. Having emerged from that meeting I was informed by a representative of the Government Information Service that a press conference was arranged and that Telefís Éireann required me to give an interview in time for the 1.30 p.m. news. I immediately gave that press conference and spoke to the interviewer for the 1.30 p.m. news. The interview was brought across to Dublin by wire and put on the news at that time. Without one moment's delay I then called in the Irish Fishermen's Organisation members, namely Mr. Murrin and Mr. Doyle, who came into the room and I proceeded to indicate to them what had occurred.

I want the House to understand what the position was then. From that time on, which was possibly five minutes after I had given my interview to Telefís Éireann and the press, Mr. Murrin and Mr. Doyle were in the position of consulting with me and making representations to me, which representations could be considered by me and transferred immediately to the high level officials who would be dealing with them at meetings before the meeting of Thursday week next. They had that opportunity to consult with me and they have it from now until next Thursday week. I am ready, willing and available to consult with the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, the Irish Fish Producers' Organisation, who wrote to me as well yesterday, and with any other group who are genuinely involved in the fishing industry. Having done that and weighed up their representations to me, I am ready to consult with my own officials who will be at the high level meetings and then to bear into the Council of Ministers in Brussels on Thursday week the information given and the representations made to me. Happily, the situation today is that Mr. Murrin has been on the phone to my Department, because I was to have been on next Thursday week in Donegal meeting the fishermen. As far as I know, diplomatic relations are now restored.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am glad to hear it. I hope the Minister is not going to be accused of not having contacted outside organisations.

Mr. Donegan

I have seven minutes in which to make my case. In relation to outside organisations I will not treat with the Carrigavallen Hop Scotch Society because they have nothing to do with fisheries. I will deal with any proper fishery body, such as the Irish Fish Producers' Organisation, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation or any body which has an interest in the present negotiations. If the Opposition want to come to me with their representations and views between now and tomorrow week, I am ready to meet them. If I feel that those views have helped me and brought this thing a stage further, I will talk to my high level officials who will be at two meetings between this and tomorrow week and if the Opposition's views are worth a hoot I will bring them to the Council of Ministers. As far as I can see, they are not worth a hoot.

I want to clear the air and to say that the Irish Fishermen's Organisation have just now been on the phone talking to my secretary about the fact that I cannot be in two places at the same time on tomorrow week. I take it that diplomatic relations are now restored. I want to refer to the press comment on whether or not there was a certain coldness going out in the plane. To my knowledge there was no certain coldness at all going out on the plane. There was a strike in Aer Lingus and we were all heaved into a Monarch aeroplane at Dublin Airport. We got on after long delays and happily set forth for Brussels. We were scattered all over the plane. I had no opportunity to talk to Mr. Murrin or Mr. Doyle. I do not know if any of my officials had. I have nothing but the hand of friendship to extend to them at all times. Having arrived in Brussels, as I described, I interviewed the two gentlemen before I went into the Council of Ministers, indicated my position, did my bargaining for the day, and as soon as was possible for me, because the GIS had organised these press conferences and the interview for the 1.30 p.m. news, gave the up-to-date situation to Mr. Murrin and Mr. Doyle. That they were frustrated there is no doubt, and they were annoyed. But I was not and I did not make any exchanges and it takes two to make a heated exchange and to make it unprintable. Anything I heard——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Donegan

——from Mr. Murrin and Mr. Doyle was printable. I never heard anything unprintable in Brussels.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister has ten minutes in which to comment——

Mr. Donegan

I have six minutes left and I did not interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. Molloy

Could I ask the Minister——

A Deputy

Is this a point of order?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is a good story. What happened on the plane on the way home?

Mr. Molloy

Could I ask the Minister if he has consulted with the officials who were present on the plane going out or whether they had discussions with the fishermen's representatives——

Mr. Donegan

I have consulted this very day with them.

Mr. Molloy

——and hot words were exchanged?

Mr. Donegan

No words of heated exchange did pass.

Mr. Molloy

Is that the word of his officials?

Mr. Donegan

I agree that when we had again postponed our unilateral measure the fishermen did feel frustrated and that is natural.

Mr. Molloy

Why were they not allowed into the Press conference?

Mr. Donegan

The Press conference was a Press conference. I did not exclude them from the Press conference. The Opposition will not make me deviate from telling the whole of the story of the pleasurable day in Brussels because after this occurred—

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

The Minister is in possession.

Mr. Donegan

After this occurred, and the fishermen were frustrated, I did not see Mr. Murrin or Mr. Doyle until we reached the airport. When we reached the airport we had a long delay again because of the strike in Aer Lingus. We had to get a Conair plane to bring us home. It had to be flown from Paris. While we were waiting the duty officer indicated to me, to the Minister for Finance, who was also there, and to the two groups from the Department of Industry and Comalso that we could go into the VIP glass-fronted lounge. We went in and sat down and we were served with coffee. Mr. Murrin and Mr. Doyle came along the passage and I got up and said: "Joey, Mr. Doyle, come on into the VIP lounge" and they did not come in. That meant simply that they were frustrated and they had to queue up and get into the plane in the normal way. But I did succeed in buying myself a few cigars in the duty free shop. I met Mr. Murrin there and I explained to him that the best value in the duty free shop was a large bottle of White Label Scotch, which was about three bottles full and cost £7.50. Mr. Murrin indicated to me that he wanted for his household some brandy and he was not buying White Label Scotch and we came home on the plane and there were no further words, no heated exchanges, and diplomatic relations are restored today.

Mr. O'Kennedy

To whom do we address our questions from now on?

Mr. Donegan

That is the Deputy's problem. I have explained the situation.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is our problem after 15 minutes story telling. Who is responsible?

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 56.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Creed, Donal.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Thornley, David.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.

Níl

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• Power, Patrick.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Keaveney, Paddy.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22nd March, 1977.