Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 1977

Vol. 300 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Fishery Affairs: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann deplores the manner in which the Government and the Minister for Fisheries have conducted national fishery affairs, with particular reference to the defence of the Irish unilateral conservation measures applied by Orders of the Minister for Fisheries, and calls on the Government to give an assurance that it will maintain the firm stance of the National Coalition Government by refusing its consent to any bilateral agreements exchanging Community fishery rights on a reciprocal basis with third countries until and unless agreement is reached within the Community on a fisheries regime that includes an exclusive Irish coastal band of up to 50 miles.

(Deputy Deasy.)

Mr. Treacy

Last evening I stressed the need for an exclusive 50-mile zone. I adverted to the need for other important facilities in order to improve and preserve this industry, such as better landing facilities for fishermen, improved, modernised ice plants, fish plants, adequate and well-equipped trawlers capable of competing with the large ships of the EEC. I referred also to the need for a proper and enlightened conservation programme. I also stressed the need for a proper scheme of insurance for workers on our trawlers. The Minister indicated some semblance of support for that suggestion on which I trust he will act quickly, that is, an insurance and pension scheme for fishermen.

I also expressed the hope that the Minister and the Government would see the feasibility and wisdom of insisting, in so far as was possible, that all fish caught within the 50- to 200-mile zone would be processed here. Such would provide very valuable, much needed employment, moreover ensuring proper monitoring of fish catches with particular reference to the size and type of fish caught. These are some of the suggestions I make in order to further the interests of the industry and to bring back some semblance of security to those engaged in it.

Yesterday by way of parliamentary question I asked the Minister what steps he proposed to take to secure a 50-mile exclusive fishing limit around our coast and I asked for a statement on the matter. The typed statement the Minister deemed fit to make comprised three-and-a-half lines. It stated:

At EEC Council meetings and in bilateral discussions which I have had with the Fisheries Ministers from a number of member states I have pressed for an exclusive coastal zone of up to 50 miles for Irish fishermen and will continue to do so in future negotiations.

From any standpoint this reply was manifestly weak and unsatisfactory. It was weak in that there was a marked absence of commitment and determination to pursue this aim. If one is to judge from the stand taken by the EEC Commissioner, Mr. Gundelach, who spoke here last week one can but conclude that up to now the Minister's pressure has been an abject failure. Certainly it made no impression on Mr. Gundelach who made it patently clear that so far as he is concerned the 50-mile exclusive zone for Ireland is simply not on.

The most worrying aspect is that there was not even a whimper of protest from the Minister or the Government in respect of Mr. Gundelach's statement. If the Minister genuinely wanted to push our claim, why did he not avail of that unique opportunity of repudiating Mr. Gundelach's statement, asserting in a forthright way our claim to the 50-mile limit? One cannot be blamed for concluding that silence in the situation is acquiescence to the dictates of Mr. Gundelach and the EEC.

Last night I quoted from speeches made by Fianna Fáil members when they were in Opposition—many of them are now Ministers. I wish to put on the record of this House for the information of the country generally the stance of Fianna Fáil in Opposition, as set out in the statement in their general election manifesto. The manifesto in respect of fisheries states:

The Irish fishing industry has traditionally been a coastal activity and, accordingly, Fianna Fáil firmly believe that to protect the livelihood of our fishermen a 50-mile offshore limitation on foreign trawlers and factory ships is of urgent necessity.

All Ireland is waiting for the fulfilment of that promise. Let us see the Government retrieve the situation, let us see them retrieve their credibility, their honour and integrity. Doubtless so far as the Minister for Fisheries is concerned with regard to all these things they will prove to be no problem. We shall see.

Mr. Donegan

I should have preferred to intervene after the Minister had spoken but I realised during the debate the ploy he is using. A new Fianna Fáil Deputy was put in to take up time, thereby ensuring that the Minister would get into the debate as late as possible. Therefore, I am forced into the situation of discussing matters which the Minister discussed outside the House, thus leaving it open to him to withdraw or to change his stance on the matters discussed.

We had left him in the position where the previous Government's stance was to adopt a unilateral decision to exclude all boats of 33 metres or 110 h.p. from the Irish box as it was known. When the court in Luxembourg had given an indication that the measure which we had introduced was against the rules of the EEC the Minister described the measure as crude and discriminatory and he removed it. He went to Brussels with one hand as long as the other, without a bargaining ploy.

The position is that the previous Government had this unilateral measure as a bargaining counter. There are many things it could have been exchanged for. It could have been exchanged for the number of boats in the Irish box at any given time; for names of boats that would be permitted at a particular time to be within the Irish box; for the types of fishing gear that would be allowed and those that would be prohibited. All of these conditions could have been backed up by a quota system. The attitude of the former Government was that they did not believe in quotas alone. On five occasions in a period of seven hours I had to remind the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg that we were not accepting a system based on quotas alone.

I understand that of the nine countries concerned Ireland has the best central statistics procedure. The director of our Central Statistic Office can sign a statistic and if the Taoiseach of the day does not like it he can lump it. A previous director of the Central Statistics Office was very proud and vehement in stating that this was the case. There was no such situation in France or in Holland; there is something similar in existence in Britatin but it is not quite as black and white as in Ireland.

Everyone knows that the fishing industry and the processing industry in France are family undertakings. All along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany cargoes of fish are brought in, are processed in small family units and are sold to the French public. Nobody seriously thinks that a French skipper who is nearing the end of his quota will not say to the factory owner in Brittany or Normandy— probably his brother-in-law or a relative—not to record the catch because he wishes to fish the following week. That is why the previous Government would not act on quotas alone. That is why we invited the other eight countries to submit their plans in respect of the fishing industry. We received some plans and were in the process of examining them when the election took place. The Minister should have kept our unilateral measure; he should have gone to Brussels and used it as a bargaining counter if he wanted to change it. Instead of that he went to Brussels with one hand as long as the other and with no weapon at all.

It is not usual for an incoming Minister to describe actions of his predecessor as crude. Usually there is a honeymoon period, when incoming Ministers are easy on their predecessors. The reference by the Minister on this occasion was not correct. There is a direct relationship between the size of boat and the h.p. The damage was being caused by the larger boats that could carry engines with a greater h.p. Factors such as beam trawling and so on came into the picture also.

We were ready with our unilateral measure to invite the other countries to submit fishing plans, to see what they could put forward as alternatives. However, the incoming Minister did not give Ireland that opportunity and that has left us in the sorry state we are in today. I do not know what the Minister will have on his return from Brussels but I am sure that whatever he obtains he could have got more if he had kept the unilateral measure.

It has been said that this measure was discriminatory because there were only two boats affected in Ireland. That is so but you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. The boats that were doing the damage were affected by the measure. I am glad to see that what I have described as the "Kilmuckridge Herring Family" have been allowed to drift net for herring. It was an odd thing that I should stop herring fishing with one hand and on the other appeal to the Community to do their herring fishing with skiffs. That happened at the time of the change of Government. I am glad we were involved in that happy result.

The Minister, if he has thrown aside our unilateral measure completely, must look for a 100-mile band in the case of third countries and a 50-mile band in the case of EEC countries. Any boat fishing there should be licensed by us. They should be identified by name and number. We should have complete command of anything the Minister gives as a bargaining ploy in Brussels when he has to go there and make his case for Ireland. What has been offered is not sufficient. This side of the House stand by a 50-mile band. Our seas have been denuded, probably more by third countries than by the eight EEC countries, except Holland. Their harvest of fish is likely to increase year by year in the future. It was mentioned in the debate yesterday that there is evidence of such occuring in the case of cod. I wish the Minister well. I will back him in his efforts to get anything from the Common Market. We should adhere to the policy of the previous Government, that is a 50-mile band exclusive to Irish fishermen.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We have debated fisheries on numerous occasions during the past 15 months. The House has changed now because the people who are on the other side were over here and the people on this side of the House were over there. It is no harm to recall some of the things that were said during the past few years. We had debates on fisheries on no less than four occasions when we had spirited statements from Opposition Deputies who are now members of the Government. Some of those statements were quoted by Deputies Deasy and Treacy during this debate. I have never made a habit of bringing in Dáil volumes of past debates and quoting from them. It is unnecessary for me to do this now because I can recall very forcibly what was said on several occasions.

The present Minister for Foreign Affairs, when he was on this side of the House, had no illusions about what could be got for the fishing industry, a 50-mile exclusive band. He was not worried about the court in Luxembourg. He made it quite clear that we could not renegotiate our fisheries policy and that we could get this band if the Government were capable of negotiating properly and capable of putting our case as it should be put in Europe.

I will mention you next. You, Sir, were then deputy leader of Fianna Fáil. Your statements were most decisive on the occasions you spoke about this matter in the House. Your remarks are recorded in the Official Report. You told the House there was no question of getting anything except a 50-mile exclusive limit. You derided any mention of quotas or of any boats coming in within that limit. You said that an exclusive 50-mile band should be the property of the Irish nation alone and of the Irish fishermen. I am sure during your long period in the House you are fully conversant with procedures and also with procedures in the European Economic Community. I must accept that you did not make those statements lightly and that at the time you believed that this could be achieved.

We now come along to the present Minister for Health. He contributed to all the debates. His stand was similar to yours. He made it quite clear to the Government that we should not accept anything less than a 50-mile exclusive band. He said that all other members of the Community should be kept outside that band and that we should not mind the third countries. He, like the then Deputy O'Kennedy, quoted from international lawbooks and indicated that this could be achieved. He said we were entitled to do so legally and that there were no difficulties in achieving this objective if we had the capacity to do it.

Members of the present Government made it quite clear then that if they were in our position they would have no trouble in achieving this 50-mile exclusive band. Another Deputy who was particularly vocal, and whose remarks have been quoted, is the present Minister for Defence. He had no doubt about our entitlement to the 50-mile band nor about accepting anything less. My stand today is that we should look for a 50-mile exclusive band. I disagree with the statements made, even by Deputy Deasy, that we should allow any boats inside that band. That is the view of the Labour Party. It was my view as far back as 1970. I know what happened. In our negotiations to get into the Common Market some Members of the House were passing each other out in their hurry to get us to be members of the European Economic Community and, unfortunately, fisheries were completely forgotten. We were to get so many benefits from other activities that we would not allow the fisheries problem, which the then Government regarded as a very minor industry, to come between us and membership of the European Economic Community. We all know that at that time there was a common fisheries policy among the six existing members which laid down right of access to all shores of the Community waters. That was overlooked by our negotiating team at the time and that is why we are suffering now, particularly those who engage in fishing for their livelihood. It is because of the deliberate neglect in negotiating our entry to the Community we are in this position.

As a result of what was said about the advantages of the Community, 83 per cent of the people in 1972 approved of our entry. We in the Labour Party were anxious that a number of matters should be discussed and we felt that the negotiations had been carried out in a hurried fashion. Of course, we had fisheries in mind and everybody knew that this aspect had been completely forgotten. We must look at the background to the difficulties which confront us now.

We are a small, island country, the total population of the whole island being something less than four-and-a-half million. We are independently entitled to fishing rights all around our coast. Other countries have limits of up to 200 miles without any difficulty. Coming up to the election in June Fianna Fáil made it abundantly clear that if they were returned to office they would give to the Irish fishermen a 50-mile exclusive band. There was no mention of letting inside that band any boats, big or small, from other EEC countries. I have no doubt that the majority of fishermen accepted that assurance and contributed to the Fianna Fáil victory.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy said nothing when he was a Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am a believer in a 50-mile band and it is on record.

Mr. Killilea

The Deputy skipped a few years there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Murphy without interruption.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is stated in the preface to the Fianna Fáil manifesto that Fianna Fáil firmly believe that to protect the livelihood of our fishermen a 50-mile offshore limitation on foreign trawlers and factory ships is of urgent necessity. That is very simple. It indicates what Fianna Fáil promised to the fishing industry. It supports the statements made here by Deputies who are now Ministers. These statements received a great deal of publicity and naturally fishermen felt that it would be an advantage to have a 50-mile exclusive limit.

Personally, I was never in favour of quotas. Deputy Donegan mentioned what happens when quotas are involved and the difficulty in checking on them. It is impossible. It would be better to have a completely exclusive band, no other country having the right to fish within it. I stress this point to the Minister. I wish him well in his job and I believe he is as capable as any other member of his party of negotiating in Europe for our fishing industry. However, if he is to preserve his own credibility and that of his party he must bear in mind the assurances given to the electorate. He must remember the comments of our learned friend, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a member of the inner Bar who, presumably, knew what he was talking about. He should also remember the comments of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Deputy Haughey, and those of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Molloy, and the present Ceann Comhairle of the House.

If there was no trouble in getting a 50-mile exclusive band at the end of 1976 and up to the commencement of the election campaign, why do we not get it now? Why did the Minister not contradict the Commissioner's statement about our entitlement to a 50-mile band? The former Government were accused of being too pro-European and too mild. We were told that if Fianna Fáil were returned to office they would change all that and tell those European people where to get off. They would demand an exclusive 50-mile band.

The Minister for the Gaeltacht, Deputy Gallagher, was quite vocal on that question too, his views being completely similar to those expressed by the other Deputies, all of whom are now Ministers. We are all anxious to develop our fishing industry. As an island country we must get what we can from the sea and try if possible to increase employment in the fishing industry. At present there is a danger to our fish stocks because our conservation policies are not as good as they should be. There is a difficulty in taking unilateral action but I believe that such action should be taken now. It should be made clear to the people in Brussels that we will be masters in our own house and that we will devise conservation measures for waters within 50 miles of our coast.

The question of employment in boatyards has been raised on several occasions. We have three BIM boatyards providing first-class boats and a number of private yards. We are all concerned with the creation of employment in our boatyards. When I was Parliamentary Secretary I said there would be no redundancies this year. I could not go beyond that because the election was due. I wonder is there a possibility of building boats for export? Is it possible for us to build steel hull boats? These matters should be examined by the Department. If redundancies occur in the three BIM yards it will be difficult to gather the workforce together again. Before one man is made redundant in Killybegs, Baltimore or Dingle an effort should be made to diversify. It is equally important that those employed in privately-owned boatyards are kept in employment. Whether a man works in a private or a public boatyard his job should be guaranteed. The Coalition Government paid particular attention to that question when they were in office. Again, I stress the desirability of ensuring that employment will continue to expand in both public and private boatyards.

Every effort was made to extend the processing industry. We appreciate that it is to our advantage to ensure that fish are processed where they are landed or close to major landing areas. I stress the desirability of continuing to pursue our policy of developing the processing industry wherever it is possible to do so.

I drew attention to the plight of some of the deckhands employed on our fishing boats. I said they were entitled to examine the accounts of the boats on which they worked, that they were entitled to examine the sales returns and items of expenditure in order to ensure that the net earnings were divided according to the agreed scheme. I am glad that this matter has been raised by other people. I have always been of the opinion that those employed as deck hands were overlooked. We hear a lot about the plight of skippers. I am glad that I initiated a move to broaden our horizon so that when we talk of the fishing industry we do not confine ourselves to discussing the difficulties of skippers.

It is not necessary for me to delay the House as I have made many statements on this subject, but I should like to stress that I am not a believer in quotas or in giving licences to foreign trawlers whatever their size. Once we start that we will be incapable of assessing whether these trawlers are overfishing. I am sure the Minister will tell us that there is no necessity to provide licences for foreign boats because he has been given information by his colleagues on how to declare a legal 50-mile limit and to tell the other member States and Third World countries to go about their business.

The Minister can expect the fullest co-operation from this side of the House if he is determined to ensure that our fishermen get an exclusive 50-mile limit. The Minister's duty is to stand by the statements made by his party prior to the general election, particularly the first paragraph of their election manifesto which refers to an exclusive 50-mile limit. The Minister's party can do this as they have a majority in the House and the co-operation of the opposition parties. I conclude by wishing the Minister every success in his office and in his negotiations with the other members of the EEC and any Third World countries.

Mr. Killilea

You forgot to tell us how to issue salmon licences.

Minister for Fisheries (Mr. Lenihan)

I am glad of the opportunity to have this debate because it enables certain facts to be put on record, facts that will help us to understand the precise position. The gist of the motion moved by Deputy Deasy deals with the defence of the Irish unilateral conservation measure. This is the measure that has already been suspended and terminated for practical purposes until the final determination of the actual hearing. This measure was introduced by the Coalition Government on 10th April, 1977, within the octave of a general election and its validity was tested in the European Court, who on 13th July last ordered that the Government of Ireland should forthwith terminate and suspend until final determination the unilateral measures that were adopted. In other words, so far as the European Court was concerned the measures adopted by the Coalition within a few weeks of a general election—in my view, in an attempt to con the Irish electorate, including the Irish fishermen—were suspended by the European Court because of their invalidity and pending the final determination of whether they were to be eliminated totally as unilateral measures. We are now awaiting that final determination but since the 13th July the position has been that the Coalition's unilateral measures have been suspended. In effect, within a few days of becoming the Government we were left with a pup born out of Coalition policy decided on within a few weeks of the election and decided on for narrow and base electoral purposes. This was a policy devised by the then Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Fisheries and the then Government. After the Court's order on 13th July eight days after we had been returned to office, the Irish fishing industry was left with no conservation measure of any kind.

Mr. Killilea

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lenihan

Within a week of the measures being suspended I attended a Council of Ministers meeting where I had to seek to salvage something from the wreckage of the policy operated by the Coalition in the heat and turmoil of a pre-election situation.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister influenced the decision of the Court by his statements.

Mr. Lenihan

That is utter nonsense.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is something that the Minister has no wish to talk about.

Mr. Lenihan

The facts of the situation shall be hammered home by me time and again. On April 10th unilateral measures, allegedly prohibiting boats of more than 110 feet from fishing in distances from 50 to 100 miles in Irish waters, were introduced by the Coalition and advanced by them as their major contribution to conservation within the 200-mile zone off the coast of Ireland. Within three months the Court had met and decided that the measures should be suspended forthwith. This situation left me, within a week of assuming office, facing fellow Ministers who could only shake their heads in despair at the sort of procedures that were adopted at previous Council meetings by the then Ministers for Fisheries and Foreign Affairs who were well known to be playing games with Council meetings month after month coming up to the general election in order to secure electoral advantage at the expense not only of the Irish fishermen and the fishing industry but of the Irish people as a whole. It was a massive con job.

Mr. Deasy

What about the Fianna Fáil manifesto?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Lenihan

I am talking about the Government of the Irish people, government not of the kind that I know operated in Brussels and Luxembourg during the last months of the Coalition on this aspect of our economy.

Lest people think that I am talking from heresay, I shall quote from a very interesting leading article in The Irish Press of April 6th last. This was coming up to the time of the declaration of unilateral measures. The editorial refers to the dual purpose Council of Ministers bargaining between Deputies FitzGerald and Donegan. It was headed with the following memorandum from the paper's EEC correspondent:

No indication yet. Chaos all over the place. Just had dual briefing from Donegan and FitzGerald, but confusion worse than ever.

The editorial proceeded as follows and made the very pithy comment that:

... the history of these fishing negotiations, if it were not so tragic, would be farcical.

There are a number of other observations of that kind but it is not my intention to quote them here because to do so would not serve best the purpose of a constructive debate. However, such phraseology as "tragic" and "farcical" just about sums up the type of situation I inherited and had to deal with within a week of becoming Minister for Fisheries. It is our problem to try to get out of the total mess with which we were left. We must deal with certain realities. In this context I quote from Deputy Michael Pat Murphy who in his more responsible days said, as reported at column 396 of the Official Report for 27th October, 1976:

I should like to see the Minister——

That was the then Minister for Foreign Affairs.

—returning with a 50-mile coastal band which would be exclusive, but as Deputy O'Kennedy knows we must negotiate with eight other countries.

At column 451, of the Official Report for October 27th, Deputy FitzGerald said—and here I agree with him—in replying to a legitimate query from Deputy O'Kennedy who wished to know what criteria would guarantee the expansion of the Irish fishing industry:

In the middle of negotiations. Is the Deputy mad?

It is not my intention here to tell the House what is to be my position on behalf of Ireland although it was suggested here yesterday that I should divulge this information. I am charged with responsibility of negotiating the issue and I shall undertake this task to the utmost limit of my ability in consultation with my colleagues in Government. That is my duty.

Dr. FitzGerald

And it is our worry.

Mr. Lenihan

I wish to remind Deputy FitzGerald again of the The Irish Press comment on his situation. Their EEC correspondent, as reported in the issue of that paper to which I have referred, in relation to what he called the dual briefing from Donegan and FitzGerald remarked that there was confusion worse than ever, a tragic and farcical situation throughout the negotiations. That is the real worry. However, we are getting it off the ground and away from that nonsense that went on between the Minister for Fisheries and the Minister for Foreign Affairs jumping in and out of each other's seats during negotiations, one rushing in telling one story, the other fellow coming in then, different briefings to Press correspondents, different statements to foreign Ministers and Fisheries Ministers, complete and utter chaos, a final decision to adopt a unilateral measure in the octave of a general election, and that finally suspended by the court as I have just mentioned.

Mr. White

What about the Fianna Fáil manifesto?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption, please.

Mr. White

What about broken promises?

Mr. Lenihan

Next Monday I have to go to Brussels to a Council of Ministers meeting at which I will have to negotiate on behalf of this country and it is due to the House that I state briefly our negotiating position. It is a negotiation with eight other member countries to whom we are bound as a member of the Community. We feel strongly that there should be an exclusive zone of up to 50 miles around the coast. The British Government feel the same, with certain modifications in their stance in that they have declared their option for a 12-mile limit, with a further band up to 50 miles in which they would have a dominant preference. The British and Irish will be taking similar stances on next Monday. The other seven European countries dispute the British and Irish right to any form of exclusive band. They are totally objective about this matter. The Commissioner last week when here was merely putting a point of view in that respect. That is also the point of view of the Commission. However, it is matter for negotiation.

There are many aspects in what Commissioner Gundelach said last week which are welcome to us and I would like to reiterate a few. Leaving aside the question of an exclusive coastal band which we insist on, there are a number of measures which are very attractive to us in regard to restriction of mesh sizes of fishing nets. To increase the size of mesh in nets fishing for white fish and prawns around our coasts would be a basic conservation measure which would also restrict a lot of heavy fishing in the areas of white fish and prawns which at the moment is damaging Irish stocks. We agree with the Commission on that aspect and our scientific input into that Commission's decision has been substantial and very rewarding.

We would agree with the Commission on a system of fishing plans in so far as they lead to licensing arrangements. Let us have some degree of harmony here. I detected from what Deputy Deasy said last night that he also would go along with a licensing system which would be thorough, detailed and properly monitored. This again emerges from what Commissioner Gundelach suggested last week, that instead of the old crude mechanism of national quotas there should be a more sophisticated version which would in effect amount to a licensing system spelling out the type and name of boat, the skipper, power, species of fish for which a boat is fishing, and so on. If an X quota were granted to a country under that umbrella X number of ships would be licensed under a very thorough monitoring system with personnel available in the coastal areas and in ports to ensure that catches were not exceeded.

Dr. FitzGerald

Under whose control?

Mr. Lenihan

This a very valid question. We are having sensible discussion now. It would be very strongly under the control of the coastal state. That is the British and the Irish view, and we will be pushing that point at the negotiations. Control by the coastal state of both licensing and the exclusive zone is wrapped up, in our submission, with the essential aspect of conservation. Here there is a divergence in the British and Irish view from that of our other partners in the Commission who do not appreciate sufficiently the importance of the coastal country having an exclusive zone for conservation purposes and also having control of the licensing situation. By reason of proximity to the fishing grounds, of having personnel available and of knowledge of the adjacent fishing grounds, it is only the coastal state which is in a practical position to monitor, control, license and organise the management, and this all adds up to conservation. That is our case on that aspect; it is on that bedrock of argument that our main case exists, apart from the special regional and social considerations that operate with regard to Ireland.

On the latter aspect one heartening matter that was agreed in the time of the previous Government is that we do have a special case and our special position was acknowledged in The Hague agreement which was achieved in the time of the Coalition Government. To be totally fair, we are entitled now to catching facilities that will enable us to achieve that level as set out in The Hague agreement, which means doubling our catch by 1979.

Dr. FitzGerald

And to continue to expand thereafter.

Mr. Lenihan

I was going to say that—to continue to expand thereafter. We have that guarantee. This means that in the last analysis, whatever system is adopted where quotas are based on a licensing system allied to an exclusive zone, we are in a preferential position within the 200-mile zone of waters adjacent to our coast. At minimum we must get a preferential quota situation based on licensing and a strong preferential position to enable us to reach the targets that have been agreed upon in The Hague agreement. To that extent I am relatively optimistic about what is going to emerge at the end of the day. I have been to Brussels, The Hague. Bonn and Paris over the past few weeks putting our case and generally setting out the position, as I am setting it out now, to European Ministers of Fisheries. The British Minister for Fisheries has been here as well. There is general recognition of the fact that we do have a special case by reason of our regional and social considerations. One of our problems is that the British, although they have a certain interest with us in a large part of our case, do have other interests which disturb our other Community partners. One of our problems is to ensure that Ireland's special case which is generally recognised survives through the whole situation. The best acknowledgment that can be given to that is a system of a combination of an exclusive zone up to 50 miles with the licensing system organised by the coastal state.

There are other important financial matters which were mentioned by Commissioner Gundelach and from which we can take heart. There is the contribution yet to be worked out by the Community—they say 50 per cent, but we are looking for 75 per cent— towards the cost, which could be quite substantial, of providing a protection service for a 200-mile zone. We are talking in terms of a capital cost of £10 million to £12 million and operating costs of approximately £1 million.

Dr. FitzGerald

This arises entirely from the October agreement.

Mr. Lenihan

No, this arises from my own discussions.

Dr. FitzGerald

It arises entirely from the October commitment.

Mr. Lenihan

I have given the Deputy enough praise already. Let us share it a little. I have to negotiate that. I had very detailed discussions on this aspect but, hopefully, we will get the sort of contribution we are talking about on the patrolling and also 50 per cent towards new boats and processing activities on shore. These matters to which I have been laterally referring are all matters on which there is agreement, but there does remain the basic difference of opinion—and let us not hide from it—that we say an exclusive zone off our coasts is essential from the point of view of protecting our spawning grounds which are near the coast and that by getting that exclusive zone we can best protect these spawning grounds not alone for our benefit but for the benefit of the Community as a whole. Seven of the Nine disagree with Britain and us on that.

When I was left with this derelict situation by reason of the collapse of the Coalition Government's measure, I got agreement at the first meeting of the Council of Ministers to a number of conservation measures which have been very successful. I refer in particular to the measure secured in the middle of July until the end of August whereby the west of Ireland spawning herring grounds were protected, when, following the suspension of the Coalition measure, the Dutch herring fishing fleet was ready to move in and sweep out the herring grounds from Donegal Bay to the Shannon Estuary. I made a strong fight at that first Council of Ministers meeting and secured the agreement, in particular, of the Dutch to stay off the Irish herring spawning grounds until the end of August and confine the herring season off the western coast from 1st September to the end of this year. The result has been the most remarkable herring fishing in recent years for Irish fishermen. Any Deputy who goes to any fishing port around our coasts will hear of the revival of the herring fishing since September due to the highly successful conservation measure brought in by us, resulting in the biggest money spinning bonanza for Irish fishing.

Mr. Deasy

Due to the unilateral measures brought in by the Coalition.

Mr. Lenihan

No. It has nothing to do with that at all. I am being very fair and logical about this. I happen to know what it is due to. In the event of not reaching agreement next week at the Council of Ministers meeting, which is what I expect, we should be active about introducing conservation measures ourselves in consultation with the Commission. Conservation is the common ground on which we all agree.

I announced yesterday substantial increases in grants for fishing boats, a 25 per cent grant for the purchase of first issues of gear, an increase of 25 per cent to 50 per cent in the grant towards the cost of converting boats to new fishing methods, and the extension of the loan repayment period for boats over 65 feet from eight years up to 12 years. These are important practical measures to induce fishermen to purchase boats and get moving in the industry. It is time we got rid of the chaos and uncertainty that has existed in the industry heretofore. Above all else we must stop playing politics with the industry. The Coalition have wasted up to two years playing politics with this great industry.

If we are to revive this industry we must revive grants and incentives towards the purchase of new boats. We must introduce new legislation, as I propose to do, to bring inland fisheries under the control of regional boards. Our salmon stocks must also be preserved by having proper enforcement of our salmon laws and regulations so as to prohibit illegal fishing. It is also necessary to introduce legislation, which I shall be doing in a few months' time, to provide proper incentives and grants for fish farming both inland and at sea. We must have confidence in our marine fishing industry, in our inland fishing industry and in the preservation of our salmon stocks, all of which areas were disgracefully neglected by the last Government and by nobody more than Deputy Michael Pat Murphy who handed out salmon licences right, left and centre around our coasts. There must be an end to all that. Confidence in this industry must be recreated by taking political hands out of it and remembering that, above all else, our function here as a Government is to govern this industry as an industry that can make progress and to eliminate the sort of conmanship in which the last Government consistently engaged over their years in office.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

It is quite extraordinary to hear——

Mr. Fox

Is Deputy Boland replying to the motion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He has four minutes. As far as I am aware he is not replying to the motion.

Mr. Boland

It is quite extraordinary to hear the Fianna Fáil Minister for Fisheries——

Mr. Fox

On a point of order, is it not customary for a Member on this side of the House to be allowed to come in before the proposer of the motion replies?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. It goes from one side of the House to the other. There are just three minutes left now for Deputy Boland.

Mr. Boland

And a time allowance for trying to educate Deputy Fox. It is extraordinary to hear a Fianna Fáil Minister complaining here about Deputies FitzGerald and Donegan, as Ministers negotiating, as he said, as two people on behalf of the Irish fishing industry when in the few short months he has been in power he as one man has managed consistently to speak with two voices or, as was stated in the morning newspapers, to move like a lobster backwards and forwards. I would prefer to describe it as moving like a crab from side to side without getting anywhere.

The Minister has the gall to say that his difficulty on taking up office was that he had found himself in a mess of the Coalition's making and his problem was to get us out of that mess. The country knows and the fishermen know that that situation was created in 1972 when the Minister and his colleagues did not negotiate any deal for the Irish fishermen. If a sell-out took place, it took place when, negotiated by the Minister and his colleagues, a situation was created when boats from the Community would have been allowed to fish up to Irish headlands by 1982.

That is the position we found when we came to office in 1973. That is the difficult negotiating position that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, and his colleagues found themselves in. That is the position the Minister for Fisheries at that time found himself in. Last October, the special case of this country was eventually recognised following negotiation by Deputy FitzGerald under The Hague Agreement and on foot of which most of the measures which the Minister is now misrepresenting, as if he had anything to do with them were agreed. The Irish public and the fishermen know that is not true.

We come to the most difficult part of the Minister's policy since assuming office. Within days of assuming office he had come out and publicly described a measure taken by us as being blatently crude and discriminatory, and that at a time before the case finally had been heard and the outcome handed down by the court. That inflammable sort of statement severely damaged the Irish case. He did it again tonight in his remarks about that case and its likely outcome. The Minister's intemperate contribution is exemplified by his comments tonight that the court had terminated the Irish measures. The court did not terminate the Irish measures. It merely suspended them pending the handing down of a verdict. It is too bad to see a Minister come in here and deliberately cut away the ground on which——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy allow one of his colleagues to reply, or is he replying? It is almost 8.15.

Mr. Boland

Our worry now is that the Minister seems to be setting out to break down all the negotiating positions which had been established by us, as if he fears that if the fisheries problem is finally resolved on any basis established by the Coalition Government the credit will be given to us. He has gone out of his way to criticise our action on the conservation measures. We have the evidence of the Commissioner who said at the meeting last week that there was no talk of a 50-mile limit. He congratulated the present Government on the softening of their attitude to the 50-mile limit.

Worst of all, we had the Minister's absolute refusal in this House yesterday to guarantee to use his veto against any agreement with third countries in relation to fishing within Community waters. That is the single most important bargaining power we have and this Minister refused not once but six or seven times in the House yesterday to guarantee to use his right of veto. He said he would not disclose his negotiating position because he wanted to play his cards close to his chest. As far as I am concerned, by now he has dealt himself such a hand that he does not even have a pair of twos, not to mind openers.

Mr. R. Ryan

For the record, I want to quote from the report of the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the EEC to the Council of Ministers as to what was the position of the Government of Ireland, the National Coalition Government, on the day the Government of Ireland changed. That report states:

The solution advocated by the Irish delegation would involve a coastal zone restricted to vessels from the coastal State of up to 50 miles.

That was our stand not merely in this Chamber or at the chapel gates of Ireland in the course of the domestic political contest that was occurring but it was our position internationally and it is internationally accepted as such. The same report records:

The Irish delegation is of the view that a large coastal zone is the only means of obtaining the development objective for its fishing industry which has been recognised by The Hague Agreement, and of ensuring stock conservation in the waters off the Irish coast.

When he forgot his political partisanship, the Minister recognised that The Hague Agreement had been negotiated by Deputy FitzGerald. That had been recognised by the Community as Ireland's position until the lobster or the crab took over and found himself caught in the tentacles of the Brussels octopus. Those tentacles are clutching him today, and if he finds himself uncomfortable it is because the Fianna Fáil Government in 1972 did not advert to the possibility that by 1981 or 1982, under the legal code that then appeared to exist—not the Rome Treaty but a regulation that was adopted in 1970—foreign fishermen could be coming up and scraping out the bottom of the Irish Sea and the Atlantic Ocean right up to our shores.

Norway was fearful about it. The bound volume of the Rome Treaty and the Protocols of the Treaty of Accession shows that the Norwegians' reservations and hesitations and fears were recognised by the Community, and undertakings were given to them that nothing would be done to worsen their position. What do we find in relation to Ireland? We find absolutely nothing about fish.

I will not go back, because what was said by us in 1972 about this situation is already on the records of the House. The truth is that the Fianna Fáil Government of the day sold the pass. The seabed was sold. It was ignored and no reservation, no protection, was built into our Treaty of Accession in regard to our fishing industry.

On 30th September last, I had the privilege of being a member of a deputation from this House in Brussels. There were nine Fianna Fáil members on that delegation. We had the opportunity of meeting the Director-General in charge of fisheries. He told us that what he would say that day would be on the record. He was speaking in reply to a sincere and impassioned address by Deputy Deasy who emphasised that the seas off Ireland's coast were the property of Ireland and that we as an underdeveloped community were entitled to fish those waters without fear of their being plundered by other members of the Community or Third countries. The Director-General said:

All that should have been said in 1972.

In other words, the person now charged by the European Communities with deciding what their attitude would be to Ireland's protest told us that what we are saying now is fine but we are saying it too late. That is why Ireland's fishing industry is now threatened in the manner in which it is.

I do not want to go back over the question of the appointment of the present Administration because we debated this previously but it is relevant to say that we have on record the commitment of certain members of the Fianna Fáil Party to the protection of the Irish fishing industry and their determination that nothing less than an exclusive 50-mile zone would be accepted by Ireland. They are Deputy Haughey, Deputy Molloy, Deputy Brennan, Deputy Crowley, Deputy Fahey, Deputy Gallagher and Deputy O'Leary. I have been unable to find, and my colleagues likewise, Deputy Lenihan on record and the question arises now why he was given this job.

Mr. Quinn

That is why.

Mr. R. Ryan

Mark you, he is not prone to keeping silent about anything but he remains silent on this. Another person spoke about the matter and that was Deputy O'Kennedy, now Minister for Foreign Affairs, who accepted—this was not mentioned in the election campaign—that possibly there might be something less than a 50-mile exclusive zone and he said that on getting back to power Fianna Fáil would renegotiate the Treaty of Accession about fish. What have we heard about that? Was there one word from the Minister tonight that Fianna Fáil would renegotiate the Treaty of Accession? No, nothing. But apart from what the official policy might be we come up against the question of personal inclination on the part of the man charged with responsibility. Now everybody knows that Deputy Lenihan never likes to be unpopular with anybody and particularly he does not want to be unpopular with any person to whom he may be talking at the time and he is never prepared to say "No". He is never prepared to be aggressive or unpleasant. He is never prepared to fight. He always assures the other person there is no problem. Can you not imagine what happens at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels? "Oh, there is no problem. Let our officials meet and all will be easy, all will be settled." He then comes back and meets the Irish fishermen and says: "Yes, that is all right, gentlemen. Just leave it to me."

Now what you need in this situation is a person with determination and conviction and we have never heard one word of determined protest by the Minister for Fisheries either in this House or elsewhere that the Irish fishing industry should be protected and we should not allow people from either the other member countries or third countries to plunder our seas. One of the weaknesses that Deputy Lenihan has is that he has very narrow horizons.

Mr. Lenihan

Very what?

Mr. R. Ryan

Very narrow horizons.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should refer to the Minister as the Minister. The Deputy knows the procedure.

Mr. R. Ryan

Your are quite right, sir. I am sorry. I will refer to him as the Minister. The Minister's personal difficulty is that his horizons are limited by whatever he sees as the opportunity to gain political advantage at home. But when one becomes Minister one has a far greater responsibility and one's obligations are to the country as a whole and one does not therefore try to take on the international scene a short-term advantage in the hope of getting the plaudits of one's own followers. The Minister has suggested that the unilateral action taken by the National Coalition Government was taken in the heat and excitement of an election campaign.

Mr. Lenihan

Of course, it was.

Mr. R. Ryan

I would like to remind him and others that the unilateral action in question was taken on 16th February last and not in April, as the Minister suggests. It was taken on 16th February and such unilateral action at least kept all foreign fishermen out of Irish waters for three months.

Mr. Killilea

Only after the election.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy cannot even count.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Ryan, without interruption from either side of the House.

Mr. R. Ryan

What happened subsequently was that the Minister under various orders has completely excluded Irish fishermen from some fishing activity in Irish waters. It does not seem to me that he serves the interests of Ireland sensibly in doing that. The Minister in private life was a working barrister and he knows there is little prospect of any lawyer winning a case unless he is prepared to fight the case to the end, even to the disappointing end, and the one thing a lawyer does not do is admit thing his opponent or the court that he has no faith in his own case, unless he wants to lose the case. Yet within days of assuming his Ministerial responsibilities the Minister—I will not say abandoned the Irish case; he did not do that, but he did even worse— said: "We will carry on with it, but we have no faith in it." He deliberately sabotaged it and lead the courts into making a ruling because the reality of the matter is the European Court, unlike our own courts here, take account of political nuances. Therefore Ireland's position, which might well have been maintained pending a final decision by the court, was completely weakened by the Minister's attitude.

The result is, not only in relation to that particular case but in all fishery matters, we have a soft mulch of a policy. We have no determination, no courage and we have no willingness on the part of the Administration to fight Ireland's case. We now find ourselves therefore in the situation that Commissioner Gundelach, who is charged with certain responsibilities in this matter, is on record as saying that the firm stance of the National Coalition Government has been abandoned by the new Administration. Obviously then instead of Ireland being in a position to fight— mark you, the Government of the day ought to be in a position to quote the Opposition as being as determined as they to fight Ireland's interests—the Government are in the reverse position. The situation is read in Brussels now that the Government are going soft, are prepared to yield, and the Opposition at home are not even being quoted by the Government——

Mr. Killilea

Because you are in disgrace out there.

Mr. R. Ryan

——as people who are determined to stand by what we were fighting for when the Government changed and our stance is very, very, clearly on record. When the Government were in Opposition they sought to gain local advantage by calling for an exclusion. This then drifted down to a limit. It then became a limitation. It is now gone to a special zone. The nature of the concessions to be given under that arrangement we just do not know and the Minister was not prepared to give any assurance to the Dáil as to what that might be.

Fortunately time limits us and I can therefore spare the Minister's tender feelings, but let us hope that as a result of this debate something useful to the Minister and to Ireland will come out of the debate. We are prepared now to set aside our words of censure in this motion and I suggest an amendment which, with all due respect to Ireland's interest, ought to be accepted, I believe, by the House. I suggest the deletion of the words:

... deplores the manner in which the Government and the Minister for Fisheries have conducted national fishery affairs, with particular reference to the defence of Irish unilateral conservation measures applied by Orders of the Minister for Fisheries, and...

The motion will then read:

The Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to give an assurance that it will maintain the firm stance of the National Coalition Government by refusing its consent to any bilateral agreement exchanging Community fishery rights on a reciprocal basis...

and so on. The effect of that would be that Ireland's position would be preserved, the Government would not be censured and we will be saying to the Community and to the world: "You have no right to surrender to the third countries or anybody else Ireland's fishermen's rights in Irish waters." Irish waters are one of our greatest assets. Would the Minister accept that amendment?

Dr. FitzGerald

As the decision of the Dáil on behalf of the nation.

Mr. Lenihan

Very briefly, written into the motion, as amended, is the wording that the Government will give an assurance it will maintain the firm stance of the National Coalition Government. There was no firm stance. It was an infirm stance at all stages.

Mr. R. Ryan

Of course, there was a firm stance. I quoted the EEC document.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot continue in this way. The time is up.

Dr. FitzGerald

I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Lenihan

It was not a firm stance. It was an infirm stance by Deputy FitzGerald.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am putting the motion, as amended:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to give an assurance that it will maintain the firm stance of the National Coalition Government by refusing to consent to any bilateral agreement exchanging Community fishery rights on a reciprocal basis with third countries until and unless agreement is reached within the Community on a fisheries regime that include an exclusive Irish coastal band of up to 50 miles.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 53, Níl, 72.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Clinton, Mark.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cosgrave, Michael J.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Desmond, Barry.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John F.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Horgan, John.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kerrigan, Pat.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• Mannion, John M.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Kit.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Cogan, Barry.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Daly, Brendan.
• de Valera, Síle.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, James.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Nolan, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy C.
• O'Donoghue, Martin.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Smith, Michael.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Creed and B Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and C. Murphy.

Question declared lost.