Deputy Boland in possession. The Deputy may speak for 12 minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Fisheries Policy: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the handling by the Minister for Fisheries, of negotiations on a Common Fisheries Policy in Brussels on January 30 and 31 last, which has involved the abandonment of this country's case for a 50-mile exclusive limit.
—(Deputy Deasy.)
When I moved the Adjournment last night I was referring to the fact that the Spanish Government are at present endeavouring to negotiate accession terms to join the Community. I pointed out that the boats of that country have enjoyed, since the London Convention, certain fishing rights off our coasts. I wondered, in view of the Minister's attitude in relation to the resolution to which he has given his assent, about the attitude of this country towards the Spanish request, bearing in mind that the Commission recently agreed to issue licences in respect of 107 Spanish boats, on condition that at any one time only 68 of them would be fishing in our waters.
That is clearly an impractical sort of regulation because there is no way, with the best will in the world, that one can say there are only 68 out of a total of 107 boats in an area at any one time. It is on the same faulty premise that the resolution appears to have been based. If you licence 100 boats and say there must be only 68 in the area at one time, how can you say how many are actually in the area? There is also a suggestion being made which should be dealt with by the Minister that there is a great number of boats from that country being caught in breach of the licensing agreement off our coast at present. The suggestion is made that their fines are being paid by other and interested parties who want to establish a definite and major presence on the part of the Spanish fleet so as to assist them in their negotiations and in getting whatever they may eventually hope to get out of the Commission by way of fishing rights. If that is the case it should be attended to and opposed vigorously by the Government—although I doubt it will be if the recent activities are anything to go by.
It is worth mentioning again that previously when quotas were issued to the Dutch, according to the Department of Fisheries leaflet 84, in 1976 for zone 6A off the Donegal coast the Dutch were given a quota of 7,600 tons of herring. According to leaflet 88 from the Department—this was the inquest—the Dutch actually reported themselves as having caught 21,039 tons. If they admit they caught three times the quota allocated to them, God knows how much they really did catch. If proof were needed that quotas will not work it is there in black and white. We all know that if these countries exhaust their quotas after three or four months their boats will not stop fishing; they will continue fishing as long as they have a market and their market is virtually insatiable for that type of fish. They will continue to fish our waters so long as our Government is weak enough to allow them to do so.
There is no point in the Minister saying, as I suggested last night he had been saying, that the 50-mile demand is still on the table, because it was said by the chairman of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Hamlett, after the discussion and said again today by the chairman of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation that if it were not for the fact that the British bucked and would not agree, and they were the only one of the Nine not to agree, this supposedly interim or experimental agreement—as the Minister refers to it—would have been the final fishing plan.
I knew they were going to do that.
In other words, the Minister was relying on them. I must have been right yesterday when I said: another day, another dollar. The Minister has a different answer every day. This is another new one today: it did not matter that he voted for it because he knew the British would vote against it and save the day. Congratulations—that is another version. God knows what it will be next. Whatever possibility there is of quotas working it could only be if all the catches caught in Irish waters were landed at Irish ports. Deputy Deasy recently suggested in a Parliamentary Question that that concept should be investigated, that any boat fishing in our waters should be obliged to land its catch at Irish ports with the two-fold advantage first, of being able to check exactly what they caught and secondly, of providing a great deal of shore-based employment. The Minister not only rejected that idea but refused to put it forward for discussion in Brussels.
It is also apparent from the Minister's refusal to put forward as a basis for negotiation the idea that there should be a levy per ton caught on all outside countries fishing in our waters, that the Minister is quite opposed to this concept of control. But, apparently, he is prepared to allow an unlimited number of boats from outside countries into our waters in a way that cannot be controlled no matter how much money is spent on fishery patrol vessels or aerial surveillance. I am prepared to go along with the Community concept of sharing and to see our EEC partners share our waters, as apparently the Minister wants to do now, when they agree that we should have a share in the coal in the Ruhr Valley, a share in the North Sea Oil and when other member countries decide to give us the benefit of natural resources available to them which exist without any act of theirs. In the same way, those off-shore waters are there without any act of ours but I do not see why we should be asked to hand them away without advantage to ourselves. I do not see that our Minister has been negotiating in that way on our behalf.
The document that has been produced is dreadfully woolly. There is a duty not only on the Commission but especially on the Irish Government and the Minister to clarify exactly what it means because my copy of it seems to be absolutely contradictory and virtually incomprehensible. It is such a master plan of apparent deception, contradiction and woolliness that I suspect the Minister may have been the author of it on behalf of the entire Community. It bears the stamp of his method of shifting from one foot to the other with all the capability of a centipede. If one looks at clause 4, paragraph 1 it suggests there should be an assurance of the enjoyment of natural geographic advantage in catch possibilities within a few hours steaming time from home ports so as to favour balanced development. In clause 6 it is suggested that the fishing plan should take account of vessels which, due to their limited range, can only operate close to the coast, and should have priority in the coastal area. That appears to discriminate in favour of in-shore fishermen while the earlier clause appears to discriminate in favour of those within a few hours steaming time from home ports. But clause 3 says the fishing plan must not discriminate as between fishermen of the member states of the Community or affect their right of access. Which clause takes precedence? What does a few hours steaming time mean? Does it apply a standard rate of steaming? Different boats have different steaming times. Does it mean that a boat leaving a port ten miles up an estuary should only have the same number of hours steaming time from its own port as a boat whose port is based on a headland?
This document appears to me to mean virtually nothing because of the way it is phrased. It is very difficult to comprehend from it what sort of deal has been knocked out of the Irish Government by the Community partners. The Irish Government have a duty to ensure that there is an adequate supply of fish for Irish fishermen to catch at all times. That has not been happening in the last few years. That is apparent from the Minister's figures given in reply to a question on 31 January when Deputy Deasy asked the number of fishermen who were in arrears on loans to Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Out of a total of 438 loans, 292 are in arrears. One-third of those, or 96 of them, owe in excess of £1,000 and 29 borrowers have arrears in excess of £10,000. The simple reason for this is that fish stocks have not been there in the past few years for our fishermen to catch, and they have not been there because our Community partners, more than anybody else, have raided our fishing waters.
There is an obligation on the Minister to take Ireland out of the conservation net and he should at least insist in Brussels that there should be year-round open fishing of herring for the Irish fleet because it was not the activities of the Irish fleet that denuded us of our herring stock or made them unavailable. We are not big enough or strong enough to interfere with the stock. We are not the maurauders, the plunderers or predators. We should be given the opportunity at least to allow these men to make their repayments in the way they set out to make them and in which they are so well able to make them if given half a chance or given any assistance by their own Government. They are not getting that at present and I believe the fault lies in the way the Minister has conducted these negotiations in Brussels. The agreement was to be a cosmetic job on the original concept of quotas and licences which were strenuously rejected by our Government and opposed by us tooth and nail right down the line. A bad cosmetic job it was and the paint is beginning to wear off it already.
I rise to recommend to Dáil Éireann that the motion before the Dáil be rejected. I do so on the basis that what has eventuated so far in various talks on fisheries among the member countries of the Community is that we now must put into operation fishing arrangements within our 200 miles that will prevent a free-for-all situation. The worst possible situation as far as Irish fishermen and the Irish fishing industry are concerned would arise if, on the failure of the member countries to reach agreement on a common fisheries policy, there was no agreement on even a temporary interim arrangement pending the finalisation of a common fisheries policy. That above all else is what we have been concerned about avoiding. That is what induced me, along with seven other countries, to decide that it was essential to prevent the chaos that would result from free-for-all, open, uncontrolled fishing in all Community waters.
In order to prevent that occurring and developing it was essential for small countries such as Ireland concerned about improving the development of the fishing industry to ensure that in this interim period, pending determination of a common fisheries policy, some control regime should be established. This was the net result of the last meeting of the Council of Minister when eight of the countries agreed that for a trial period during the year 1978 fishing plans should be introduced with a view to reducing the fishing effort in our waters for conservation reasons. I am talking about our own waters now. Our main concern is to ensure that during this interim period conservation measures are adopted and that there is a reduction of fishing effort by the other member countries in our waters.
Is that the Irish waters?
By "our waters" I mean waters up to 200 miles. The main thrust of our effort, when it was evident that agreement could not be reached on a final fisheries policy package, was to ensure that for this year we had a regime where fishing by other member countries would be reduced in intensity and where Irish fishermen would have the maximum opportunity to fish to the fullest extent in this capacity.
With that in mind certain quota figures have been prepared as guidelines for these fishing plans. The old crude mechanism of unmonitored quotas is quite clearly not suited to our requirements. What fishing plans involve is, in effect, a system of licensing allied to quotas. I am concentrating on our waters now, but this would apply in all other member states' waters, except for the British. They will take their own action, but they say they will take their action in consultation with the Community. Under this system each member state fishing our waters will submit its plans for fishing up to 200 miles from our coast. We will seek to limit that effort to the greatest degree possible in accordance with the quotas that have been suggested by the Commission. The boats will have to be licensed and will have to be limited in regard to length and engine power. They will have to specify in what areas they propose to fish, what species of fish they propose to catch and what type of gear and equipment they propose to use. We will then have in our possession a list of licensed boats which will be entitled to fish to a certain level up to 200 miles from our coast. We can monitor and control that licensed situation.
This is a major step forward from the old mechanism of paper quotas. This is an attempt for the first time to have a properly organised fishing system so that we can ascertain properly the fishing effort of member countries within our 200 miles.
Is it possible under the International Law of the Sea Conference?
It is. We are talking about Community measures. We are doing this internally as a Community and dealing with the Community pond. We are not interfering with any non-Community countries.
Surely up to 200 miles is international waters?
No, because the 200 miles was not accepted. Under the Maritime Jurisdiction Act passed in this House, from 1 January 1977 the 200-mile zone obtains as Community waters for the whole Community. Within the Community we are concerned about the 200-mile zone from our coast.
Crucial to this whole proposition of putting fishing plans into operation is the extent of quota allocation. Here I might mention for the benefit of the House as I have already done on the radio that the quotas which we have obtained are quite substantial and the differential advantage in regard to Irish quotas allocation vis-á-vis the other member countries is quite substantial. as I will now detail.
Could the Minister give a comparison with last year's Irish quotas?
Deputy FitzGerald, this a very limited debate. The Minister should be heard without interruption.
I am using the base of average catch for 1975 which, as the Deputy and the House are aware, is the base year. Dealing in percentage increase and decrease since then, I find that in regard to total fish quota allocation Belgium is down 11.6 per cent; Denmark is down 16.6 per cent; France is down 6.6 per cent; Germany is down 11.9 per cent; the Netherlands down 30.4 per cent; Britain is down 5 per cent. We are up by 26.1 per cent. Taking the reduction in the fishing effort envisaged in Irish waters for member countries and comparing it with the increase granted to Ireland the differential in percentage quota terms between Ireland and other member countries for all fish is of the order of 37 per cent. In regard to herring, taking the same base year, the differential in regard to the percentage of Irish quota allocation vis-á-vis other member countries is of the order of 57 per cent. We have been substantially favoured in the allocation of these quotas. These quotas will be used as the guideline for the exercise of fishing plans during the year 1978 in our waters. I mention those two figures because they are very pertinent to the preferential advantage we have secured in regard to all fish, both white fish and pelagic fish, and in particular the preferential advantage we have secured in regard to the most important species of all, which of course is herring.
I am sorry to say Deputy Deasy got somewhat confused yesterday in relating the total tonnage catch and in stating that we have not got the two-thirds improvement we should have got since 1976. He did not take into account, in making that statement, that there are substantial conservation measures in regard to herring which inevitably lead to a reduction in the herring fishing effort. We have a total ban on herring fishing in the Celtic Sea at present. We have a similar restriction in the Irish Sea, and we have a partial ban operating on the western and north-western coast.
The doubling of the catch was to be irrespective of that.
I might mention also that in respect of shellfish, which are a very valuable commodity so far as Irish fishing is concerned, they do not come into this estimation because we have the shell fishery entirely to ourselves. I want to emphasise that in order to clarify the matter. If we exclude shellfish and herring, we have way above a two-thirds increase in regard to our quota allocation situation.
The whole question in regard to the conservation of fishing stocks and the reduction of fishing effort on the part of member countries should be put into perspective. These represent our two objectives, which are quite plain. I am speaking slowly and deliberately in case there is any confusion. Our first objective is to conserve fish stocks around our coasts. In order to do that we must bring in herring bans and we must achieve a limitation or reduction of fishing effort on the part of member countries within 200 miles of our coast. The conservation principle leads on to a reduction of fishing effort.
If that fishing effort can be reduced to a sufficient extent to enable the Irish fisherman to develop to his full potential by way of fishing plans, then fishing plans will have achieved the same results as exclusive bands. If we can achieve the same results through a reduction of fishing effort under the umbrella of fishing plans as we would secure by way of exclusive limits, then that is all right so far as I am concerned. I am willing to give this a trial for this year to see can these fishing plans work, to see will they work. If they do not work within this year, we have still reserved our position in regard to the conservation zone of 50 miles around our coast. That still stands on the table, is our position and without prejudice to this position, we will co-operate with other member countries in seeing can we get fishing plans working this year.
Already talks have started on devising specific fishing plans, species by species and area by area around our coast. I might mention in reply to some of the criticisms advanced on the resolution in Brussels which was agreed upon on 29 January that this resolution is simply a declaration of principle. It is only a single page resolution and is not intended in any way to be the comprehensive detailed documentation of fishing plans. It is simply an enabling statement of intent to put fishing plans into operation, to enable the member countries to get down to the hard, tough business of negotiating fishing plans with each other and with the Commission. I want to emphasise that point. I was rather surprised that Deputy Deasy seriously tried to say this was intended to be a final document. It is not. Quite obviously it cannot be. It is a single page document intended to be a statement of intent by the member countries, except the United Kingdom, to get fishing plans off the ground. Those are the bones of the matter.
My officials were out in Brussels last week and will be out next week and every week for the next few weeks to ensure that by 1 April we have fishing plans ready to come into operation. This will mean a number of bilateral discussions with various other members countries and with the Commission. The guidelines for those plans will be the quota situation I have mentioned. The quota situation is eminently favourable and in Ireland's interests. Within the limit of these quotas in 1978 we will be able to fish to the fullest extent. I should like to speak on a motion on this matter at the end of the year or early next year and we will see that these quotas have provided an umbrella under which the Irish fisherman has been enabled to fish to the maximum extent. The extra fishing effort he is now being enabled to engage in under this quota umbrella will mean that he will be pushing himself and his fleet to the fullest extent possible throughout the year seeking to reach quotas which will stretch Irish fishing to the maximum development and the maximum production.
There is no question but that the quotas are ample quotas. The problem is the basic problem of monitoring, controlling, supervising and ensuring that these quotas are observed. The way forward in that direction is to have a fishing plans system in which there will be proper mutual licensing of boats fishing in each member country's waters so that we will know in the Department of Fisheries, the protection authorities will know, and the Department of Defence will know precisely what specific boats are entitled to fish in specific areas, and no other boats except those.
In my view that is well worth trying in the coming year as an interim measure on a pilot basis. It is infinitely preferable to the only alternative. Because of the British failure to agree to a common fisheries policy, the only alternative was a buccaneering free-for-all situation with every country entitled to fish with every type of boat right up to six miles from our coast, a system of chaos, plunder, buccaneering with no control and no regime obtaining. We have avoided that and we have done very well to avoid it. We have preserved our fundamental position which is that, if this does not work in 1978, we will say to our community partners: "Look here, this does not work. It has not worked. We are sticking by our 50 miles." That is the only way in which conservation can work.
The Minister is sticking by his 50 miles?
I should like to refer to some other matters in the draft resolution which are also important. A rather substantial gain was made to which very little reference has been made in this House, whether by reason of lack of grace or anything else I do not know. We managed to get £30 million agreed to by our Community partners for protection services here —75 per cent of the total cost, an unprecedented Community contribution to any member country in any area of economic or social activity.
The Department of Defence have submitted plans for the building of protection boats and the purchase of protection aircraft to the extent of five boats over the next four years and five twin-engined aircraft at a total cost of £40 million. We are getting £30 million towards that cost. This will keep Irish boatyards going over the next four or five years and will provide an Irish protection service. We have got £30 million agreed to and written into that resolution.
Does that cover the running expenses as well?
(Interruptions.)
Deputies, please, the Minister must be heard without interruption. It is a very limited debate. That goes for all sides of the House. Only one speaker must be heard at a time.
(Interruptions.)
There was not a Fianna Fáil backbencher in the House until five minutes ago.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Mitchell, please. The Minister is in possession. There are only 30 minutes allotted to a speaker in this debate.
This aspect is very important. Short of a small contribution from the Community in respect of Greenland for protection there, we are securing the bulk of the contribution towards protection expenses and securing an unprecedented 75 per cent contribution, which amounts to £30 million. In answer to Deputy White, it does not include operating expenses. We will have to carry them ourselves. That is reasonable. We shall have a substantial number of Irish personnel employed in this service.
We are sold out.
In regard to other aspects raised in the course of the debate, I should like briefly to refer to the question of fines for illegal fishing. In view of the recent High Court decision it is quite clear that legislation will have to be introduced to provide for the prosecution of these fishing offences, not on a summary basis in the District Court but by way of indictment in the High Court or Central Criminal Court. This can be good and means that, through the exercise of a slower legal procedure, we can keep boats and gear out of fishing for a very long period. I hope to have this legislation before the House in a matter of weeks.
In regard to Spanish fishing I agree that it is in our interest to see a further reduction in the fishing effort on the part of the Spanish fishermen. I have taken this matter up with the Commission with a view to effecting a reduction in the number of licences issued to them. There already has been a substantial reduction in licences issued to them and I hope to see a further substantial reduction in that respect.
I hope I have outlined the situation in regard to fishing plans and what they mean sufficiently clearly. I want to put the whole matter into perspective as far as we in this Government are concerned. We came into power in early July last year. On 13 July last the European Court suspended the unilateral measures adopted by the previous Coalition Government. I was faced with a situation, at my first Council meeting a week after we assumed office and a few days after the European Court suspended the Coalition Government's measures, in which the fleets of the Common Market were poised to come in and plunder our waters. I had to go out to the first Council meeting and repair the damage done by a Coalition Government interested only before the election in using this matter of fishing limits as a pre-election stunt.
Deputies
Shame.
The pre-election stunt was totally obliterated and——
The Minister sold out.
——and deemed to be——
(Interruptions.)
If Deputies on all sides of the House do not want to listen to the Minister they can leave the House, please. The Minister has only seven minutes left.
——deemed to be, prima facie, illegal and discriminatory and, as a result of 13 July, the Coalition measure was suspended. The Court will be deciding tomorrow, on a permanent basis on the validity or legality of that Coalition measure. I am only sorry this debate is not on the day after tomorrow.
The Minister threw away the case.
He sold it out.
Deputy Mitchell, please. You are not in possession.
I mention this because that is the situation that has obtained since this Government were elected, that we have had to repair the damage done by the previous Coalition Government, when the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and the then Minister for Fisheries were seemingly incapable of agreeing anything at conferences in Brussels, week in, week out. They were each coming home telling different stories here and, out there, saying different things to different Ministers and officials. The fact of the matter is that a complete joke was made of the Irish case prior to the last election. The obvious and blatant confrontation situation that obtained out there between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Fisheries was and is the talk of the town in Brussels. That situation has now ended. We have to fight to secure the best possible case for the Irish fising industry. I am convinced that at present, in order to avoid a total situation of chaos, the right thing is to give these fishing plans a chance to work while retaining our fundamental position.
I want to emphasise one point. The British and their attitude was mentioned here. As far as I am concerned, out there I am fighting Ireland's case. Some aspects of our case happen to coincide with that of the British, in that the British are also seeking a form of exclusive band, as we are. At the same time, when it came down to putting fishing plans into operation on an experimental basis this did not suit the British because they have their own war in the North Sea with the other EEC countries. I was not going to rise to that one and fight Britain's war in the North Sea against Denmark and Germany: that is Britain's business. But, as far as the Community is concerned, they are quite willing to give us a decided preferential advantage in the preparation of fishing plans around our coast.
We are not interested in how they allocate, where they allocate or what sort of coastal band exists in the North Sea area of Britain affecting Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark in their fishing relations with the United Kingdom. That is a separate ball game. Our objective is to secure, to the highest possible degree, the highest maximum reduction of effort within the compass of fishing plans around our coast in which they have already acknowledged our case for a preferential advantage by giving us the preferential quota percentages to which I have alluded. If at the end of the year we see a situation in which these fishing plans have not worked—they may not work—then our case to the Commission and to the Community is: these plans cannot work, they have not worked, they have failed to achieve the required reduction of effort. Then we say in that case an exclusive zone is the only answer.
The whole matter is now on test as far as the bona fides of the Community and the Commission are concerned. The ball is squarely in their court. We have no need whatever to worry because the Irish fishermen will be tested to the utmost to get near the quotas on offer. What is important to ensure is that we so control the fishing effort that we pin member countries down to their fishing effort in the areas they have been allotted. If we pin down their fishing effort and sufficiently monitor and control that, thereby having the maximum catch available to our fishermen within that period, that is the way in which they can work and can be seen to work. It would be the height of irresponsibility for an Irish Government to have walked away from the conference table leaving Irish coasts naked as far as the fishing efforts of Community countries is concerned.
That will not be the case. We are now engaged in talks and negotiations that will enable a controlled regime to operate through proper licensing and proper planning of the fishing efforts in our waters right up to 200 miles, and in the process of that to phase out the historic rights that have existed over centuries and were incorporated in the 1964 London Agreement in the six- to 12-mile belt around our coast. The phasing out of that historic right for member countries will be part of our target and objective within the compass of fishing plans—gradually to phase out altogether fishing within that six- to 12-mile belt.
That is the practical way forward. It is certainly far more advantageous than the sort of rhetoric in which the Coalition Government engaged and which foundered in the European Court within a few days of our taking office. We have been slowly picking up the pieces. We have got the pieces welded together, the shape is being well executed and within that shape we can move forward to greater prosperity for the Irish fishing industry. Above all else, what the Irish fishing industry needs is a practical plan with practical attention to detail. We want less rhetoric and fewer headlines——
I am sure you do.
We want less agitation, fewer marches and more activity and more development, more fishing effort, more processing and less politics. Deputies FitzGerald and Donegan brought this to a low political level in the interests of electoral gain prior to the election and they forfeited the efforts of the whole fishing industry to elevate itself into a mature and responsible organisation.
Mr. P. Murphy
"Quota situation eminently suitable and to Ireland's advantage". That is the theme of the Minister's statement. I could not understand the Minister's speech here in the past half an hour. Between 1975 and 1977 we were discussing here an exclusive 50-mile band around the Irish coast. We were not discussing quotas or any of the ráiméis the Minister seemingly brought back with him from Brussels in the form of this document. The Minister was not a Member of this House in that period but I am sure he was conversant with the fisheries debates here at the time. We had a number of them and in all of them it was mainly Front Bench Members of Fianna Fáil who participated. They are now members of the Government. We had the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Kennedy who addressed himself to the question on numerous occasions. We had the Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Gibbons. We had the Minister for Health. Deputy Haughey, who went to great pains to lecture the Coalition Government about what should be done. We had Deputy Molloy contributing to a number of debates. We had Deputy Gallagher, who, it was thought, would be Minister for Fisheries with a change of Government. We also had contributions from present Ministers of State.
What were their statements? Was there any question of quotas or licences? No. Their statements, as recorded in the Official Report, were that Irish fishermen were entitled to an exclusive 50-mile band and that no fishing boats from third countries or from other Community countries should have the right to fish within that band. Deputy Gibbons said: "We want no nonsense about it. We want our 50-mile limit." He put it to the fishermen that this was their undeniable right which they should put to the Government. Fianna Fáil have been in office for eight months and the fishermen will be coming along, and I suggest it is their undeniable right, to put that case to Fianna Fáil. They were told by Fianna Fáil it was easily attainable.
In those debates Deputy Colley had this to say: "To suggest that we have some security or some guarantee in a promise which we got from Brussels that our catch could be doubled is ridiculous because we cannot double our catch unless we get the 50-mile limit." Deputy Molloy said: "We in Fianna Fáil, if given the opportunity before too much damage is done, will take that stand, will protect our fishing industry and our fishing community and will ensure the acceptance of a 50-mile coastal band." Deputy O'Leary, now Minister of State, said the same thing.
Does the Minister not know, if he has read those debates, that it all centred around a 50-mile coastal band? During the statement he made here in the past half hour he scarcely mentioned that plan. He has come back to tell us what he has secured from Brussels but there is nothing in the document we have been given about a 50-mile band. Fianna Fáil were very anxious to get back after their 1973 defeat. Fishing became an emotive topic and Fianna Fáil cashed in on it as much as possible. I said it then, and I repeat, that Fianna Fáil spokesmen at the time had as much integrity as you would find in a bunch of three-card-trick men.
The Deputy is an expert on the three-card trick.
Deputy Murphy should not use these terms to describe Members of the House on either side.
There are two Deputy Murphys in the House.
Deputy Michael Pat Murphy on the motion.
Is it not self-evident now that Fianna Fáil conned the fishermen purely for political purposes? They made it quite clear that if they were returned to power they would give the fishermen the 50-mile exclusive limit. After eight months in power all they have produced is this document which the Minister has brought back from Brussels. Their tactics in the past three years brought our political standing to a new low level. They told a group of honest hardworking fishermen that if they voted for Fianna Fáil they would get a 50-mile exclusive band. There was insincerity so far as that was concerned. There was no justification for the way in which Fianna Fáil conned the fishermen.
During my four years dealing with fishermen I was truthful and I gave them the facts as they were. I did not add or take from the facts because I believed the industry was too important and that we should have as open a discussion as possible in this House, if the occasion arose, and with the interested groups such as the fishermen and other people who derived their livelihood from the fishing industry, boatyard workers and those working in processing plants. We made it quite clear that any Deputy who had any feasible suggestion to offer could come along to our office and make that suggestion. Instead of that we had repeated scenes here. Week after week we had motions from Fianna Fáil Deputies trying to build this up into an emotive question. They did so with success. Unfortunately, they got favourable comments on the availability of the 50-mile coastal zone from some of the Press writers. I made it clear during all the negotiations and during all my statements here down through the years, not just since 1973, that I felt that an exclusive coastal band was essential, that Ireland's position is akin to the position obtaining in Iceland and that unless we got this exclusive zone our fish would steadily disappear.
All this arose because in 1971 when we were negotiating our entry to the Common Market we completely overlooked the fisheries question. That is the root of the problem. The six member countries at that time had a common fisheries policy and we voted overwhelmingly in May 1972 to accept that policy. It was against this background that we had to negotiate from 1973 onwards. The rules applying to each member state in respect of fishing in the maritime waters within the jurisdiction of the Common Market say in plain and simple language that there should be no differences in the treatment of member states and that member states shall ensure equal conditions of access to the fishing grounds situated in the waters referred to. The Community can say to Deputy Lenihan or to any other Irish negotiator that we accepted those conditions. We did accept them. What I tried to do during my time in fisheries and what the Coalition tried to do was to change the rules and get the best bargain possible. Whether we like it or not, at that vital time we completely overlooked fisheries in negotiating our entry into the Common Market. Fisheries were swept under the carpet.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There is no doubt about that. That is the root of our difficulties today. I was in Brussels on a number of occasions at the time; we had several Labour Party deputations to meet the different commissioners and executives in Brussels and I have not the slightest doubt that had we bargained at that time for an exclusive 50-mile limit we would have got it. Unfortunately, we did not do so. I understand that someone in a senior position mentioned the question of fisheries during the President's negotiations when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, and he was asked to return to Ireland so as not to be making a nuisance of himself. Fianna Fáil put little value on fisheries in 1972. I campaigned unsuccessfuly along with my colleagues in the Labour Party against our entry to the Common Market until such time as questions such as fisheries were properly dealt with We knew very well that we were rushing into something that we were not prepared for.
The Common Market at that time were anxious that Ireland become a member of the Community. We could have made a good bargain in relation to fisheries then. It is water under the bridge now. I am not reflecting on the democratic overwhelming decision of the people when they voted for membership. I and some of my colleagues were not in favour of membership until proper negotiations had taken place. We considered that there was a big rush. It was thought at that time that unless we got in now we would not get in at all. It was thought that they had an open purse in Brussels and that as soon as we got in they would start handing out money wholesale to help poor old Ireland. The members of the Community had something up their sleeves. They knew that Ireland had a vast fishing ground. They knew the immense potential of the Irish fishing grounds. They knew that their fish were becoming scarce and they believed if they got Ireland into the Common Market without any stipulations in relation to fisheries they would have the right of access to Irish waters after 1982, not only access to six or 12 miles but access up to the shores.
My reading of the documentation told me most emphatically that the only reason why this question of derogation was set down, this period of ten years, when all boats, French, German, Italian or any other boat from the Community could fish off our shores, was that there could be a question of an exclusive three-mile limit such as we had long ago. That was the only hope so far as that negotiation was concerned, that there was a possibility of getting an agreement on a three-mile limit.
I have indicated the background against which any Irish Government must work in this regard. Everybody makes mistakes. We made mistakes but we are prepared to admit to them. In our negotiations we were faced with a major obstacle and our task was to overcome that obstacle bearing in mind that finalisation was to be reached before the end of 1977 and not, as the Minister says now, 1978. It was our view in Government that we should have exclusive rights. We were aware of what were quotas and licences. The Minister has admitted that it is impossible to monitor a system of quotas and licences so far as the other eight member states are concerned. That, too, is the general viewpoint I got from almost everybody connected with fisheries. Our aim is to get agreement on the highest possible exclusive limit. I would have preferred by far to get agreement on an exclusive band, even if it were less than 50 miles, than to get a 50-mile band but with permission for each of the other member states and for some third countries to fish within it.
Regarding the Minister's appointment to this portfolio, it can be said that he is as good for the job of Minister as is any of the other Ministers. However, strangely enough, the Taoiseach did not appoint to this Ministry Deputy Gibbons, Deputy Haughey, Deputy Molloy, Deputy Gallagher or any of these other people who were so loud in 1976 and in particular before the general election in calling for a 50-mile exclusive band. Our objective must be to succeed in regard to a 50-mile exclusive band. One need not be a great scholar to understand the meaning of the word "exclusive" and to know that it does not mean giving to others licences or quotas.
I have never favoured protest marches but I can see the justification for our fishermen leaving their work today and tomorrow to come here to protest against the Government's attitude in regard to fisheries. I am sure the Taoiseach and the Minister will have no hesitation in meeting a representative body from such an important industry and explaining to them what Deputy Haughey, Deputy Gallagher and other Fianna Fáil Deputies meant when they spoke of there being no problem in regard to a 50-mile limit. Perhaps, too, the fishermen will be told what Deputy O'Kennedy meant— a man who is a member of the Inner Bar—when he advised them about how easy it was to reach agreement on a 50-mile limit. Perhaps these people, 12 months after they made these statements, will meet the fishermen and explain to them what they meant.
Fianna Fáil conned the fishermen and in so doing succeeded in getting the votes of most of the skippers. We would be failing in our duty to a large section of people if we watered down in any way our recommendations for this exclusive band.
I do not wish to quote at length but I have some quotations here that might be worth reading. One of these is very important because it contains a request to the IFO to underline for the Government the necessity of the demand for a 50-mile exclusive limit. I am referring now to Deputy Gibbons's time but he is the one who sneered here during several of the fishery debates. Now he is in office. The shoe is on the other foot and I wonder whether he will meet the fishermen tomorrow. I do not know whether at the time Deputy Haughey was aiming at something higher——
And is still.
——but for some peculiar reason he took an avid interest in fisheries and became the chief spokesman here for the fishermen. There are some gems attributed to the Minister in the Official Report. So far as the then Deputy Haughey was concerned there was no doubt about reaching agreement on a 50-mile limit.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy has only three minutes left. Order.
There are several other items that could be dealt with during this debate but time does not permit. However, the main question before the House, and this is the question that was before the electorate in June last, is the question of an exclusive 50-mile limit. There was no ambiguity in this regard before the election so far as Fianna Fáil were concerned. Their message was clear: "Put us back in power and the boats of other countries will not be allowed fish within 50 miles of our shores" and as well as that, that "we will have a big voice in the conservation measures for waters beyond our 50 miles and up to 200 miles". I make out, and I hate to do so, that it is essential to bring such facts again before the House. It is not that most Members of the House are unaware. It was as shabby a piece of business as happened during my time in this House over the years, the gimmickry here and the various debates on fisheries that took place here. The only question at the time that motivated Fianna Fáil was to undermine the efforts being made by the then Government to achieve a reasonable deal on behalf of the Irish fishermen. We were moving towards that objective.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy has just one minute left. Would other Deputies listen to Deputy Murphy, please? Deputy Mitchell is interrupting too often.
I am a firm believer in an exclusive band for Irish fishermen and when I say "exclusive" I mean excluding all others. That should be the objective not only of the Government but of every Deputy. I say to the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, as a final word, that the kind of documentation that he presented is worthless. It is no wonder that the fishermen's representatives stated that they cannot understand it, because it is pure ráiméis.
Deputy Killilea has two minutes and that is all.
That is sad.
Whether it is sad or not, get on with it.
The point I want to make is that, again, after eight months, there is no change whatever, no suggestion whatever, not even an idea of a suggestion, from either of the two Opposition parties. Deputy Murphy spoke concerning an exclusive band against all others for Irish fishermen. Even the chairman of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation did not go that far. Apart from that, what he was talking about as having been declared by the Coalition Government is now illegal and has been so declared by the courts in Europe and the final decision will be made tomorrow, as we all know, that it is totally illegal.
What the Hell are the Opposition talking about? Is there any retraction from the situation that having run against a stone wall once, you retreat and run against it again? That is exactly what they have been doing.
There must be some way to get around this great national problem but the low type of rhetoric we have heard on the two motions by the Opposition in the last two or three months certainly has done nothing to help but has done a great deal to hinder any progress that might be made.
I must now call on the closing speaker. Is Deputy FitzGerald closing the debate?
If Deputy FitzGerald has something to say on that point we will be delighted to hear it. We want to hear no more of the back-chat.
There is no difficulty about producing examples of low type rhetoric in this House over the last couple of years. We have heard a number of speakers. We heard Deputy Molloy—the Minister for Defence now —saying we would not deviate from our insistence on a 50-mile limit; we can double our catch only if a 50-mile band is applied. We had Deputy Haughey saying it is the only answer and it is the only way we can be protected. We had Deputy Gallagher saying we cannot move one inch from that position. We had the Ceann Comhairle —I understand I must refer to him by title rather than by name—telling us our fishermen will settle for nothing less and "if we were now in power we would be standing out for a 50-mile exclusive limit, fast and definite". That is the type of rhetoric we had in the last Dáil. The Minister does not believe, his officials do not believe, the Fianna Fáil benchers do not believe, the House does not believe, the fishermen do not believe, the country does not believe that at this stage, after the Minister's caving in, there is any chance whatever of a 50-mile band.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies, please.
Instead of a 50-mile band we are offered fishing plans which, in accordance with the terms of the draft directive, may not discriminate as between fishermen of member states. That is what we are offered in lieu of a 50-mile band by this Government, after what they had to say when in Opposition.
Let me recapitulate the negotiations and the key points. Where did we stand in October, 1976? In the mid-October meeting in that year of the Council of Ministers, I made our case in terms that were clear, definite and tough. The reaction was harsh from some of the other member states at first. During the first few days they were not prepared to believe that we were as tough as we were being, that we meant what we said, but they began to realise very quickly that we were serious in what we said. The result— Commissioner Gundelach visited here and prepared proposals which he published on the morning of 29 October, proposals which offered this country a special position totally separate from Britain or any other member state, which accepted our development plan entitling us to double our catch by 1979 and to increase it thereafter and which gave us aid for fishery protection since determined at 75 per cent of the total capital cost. In October, 1976, that was secured. This was the offer by Commissioner Gundelach, the Commissioner at that stage, as an interim solution without prejudice to the 50-mile band which was yet to be negotiated.
How was this achieved? It was achieved by differentiating our position from that of the United Kingdom, by careful negotiation with the Commission and by seeking sympathetic reaction from other member states. We based our case, having secured their sympathy on the basis of the fact that our catch is only 2 per cent of the total Community catch, that even to double or treble this could have little effect on the others, that we had a genuine regional problem, and we had their goodwill because we had been as a Community member, a constructive member of the Community since we entered it. In contrast, the United Kingdom did not have similar goodwill and the amount involved in giving a similar concession to Britain, especially on Britain's east coast, would be so big, that the others made it clear, privately as well as publicly, that under no circumstances would they make similar concessions to Britain.
The United Kingdom Government tried to ride on our backs. At the time they were trying to negotiate their deep water position reciprocal rights with third countries, and they left it to us to fight the coastal band, expecting and hoping that whatever we got they would get. On the morning of 29 October, what they got was a land when Commissioner Gundelach published his proposals for a specific regime for Ireland in all these respects. That evening, the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, since deceased, invited me to visit the British Embassy in Brussels to discuss matters with him and there he handed to me a piece of paper and said it was up to me to seek for Britain all the things I had won for Ireland and indicated what the consequences might be for this country if we were not compliant with British wishes in this matter. I had the guts to tell him where he got off and to tell him that we were fighting our own case——
(Interruptions.)
Order.
——and the next morning at the Council of Ministers that British Minister dropped his claim within five minutes of the opening and we never heard one more work of the threats at that stage because we stood up to the British then and since then and for the rest of the period that we were in Government, Britain could not ride on our backs and our position was clearly differentiated; the other countries were willing to consider our position because the concession to us was small and because we had separated our position and had made it clear and had got it agreed that whatever we got would come to us only and would not have to go to Britain. The key to the whole negotiations was the separation of our position from that of the United Kingdom.
There was another important element, however, and that was our visible determination to veto any agreements with third countries for reciprocal rights for Community countries in their waters, which most of our partners need, unless and until the coastal band was conceded. At first, when we made this clear, we were treated with hostility, even incredulity, but the firmness of our stand gradually convinced others that some solution of the Irish problem of the coastal band would have to be found. In all discussions with the Commissioner and the other countries' foreign ministers, the sole and only basis of discussion on my part was the coastal band. Two problems were raised by this: (1) traditional rights—and there is a problem there. We showed our willingness which I must say, Fianna Fáil have shared and said in Opposition that they shared, to take these traditional rights into account. It was clear that this problem was one which could be overcome by careful negotiation, perhaps including some bilateral negotiations with the two countries most involved, France and the Netherlands.
The other problem which remained and which had not been resolved at the time of the change of Government was how to give us a coastal band under what might be described as a Community umbrella. This would give us effective control of our waters but under a Community umbrella which would make it respectable in Community terms. Neither I nor the Commission had found the formula to cover that, but that is what we were negotiating: a coastal band with provision for the negotiation of traditional rights and some mechanism by which effective control of our own zone would be given a Community umbrella cover. That is where the negotiations were when we left office and there was no inherent problem which could not have been overcome. I do not want to claim too much. I do not want to exaggerate our achievement. But, first of all, there was this general acceptance, including at the very end the British, that we were a special case and that a special solution was needed for us.
One Foreign Minister told me how he had told his own Government that Ireland, Greenland and, outside the Community, Norway, were special cases because of the importance of fish to their economies and that his Government, after his explanation, understood this. Because of the importance of not conceding to the UK, his position would remain publicly inflexible until the UK had settled. Secondly, we had secured a realisation that we meant business about vetoing third country agreements and the initial hostility which our determination to do this caused had died down. Thirdly, the problem of the coastal band had been reduced to one of its size and the method of giving it an aura of Community respectability by leaving us with effective control.
We had got matters to that point when the Government, unfortunately for the fishermen and Irish national interests, changed. All these gains have now been lost. All that bargaining position has been abandoned. This is not because the Government were not aware of the position. It is fair to say—and right that I should say—that when the Government changed, in accordance with appropriate practice, I fully briefed my successor, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on many aspects of foreign affairs, including every detail of these negotiations and every private contact I had had in the absence of civil servants who might have all the details, to make sure that the new Government would have the advantage of everything I knew. This was a full briefing lasting several hours. The Government have no excuse in suggesting that they did not know the position or were at any disadvantage. In this I followed the national interest and not the party interest.
Why then have the Government given in and conceded a coastal band? I think it is because the lack of conviction of the Minister has convinced the other countries that we are now, under this Government, a soft target. The realignment with the UK by the Minister has hardened the attitude of other member countries willing to make concessions to us but not to the British. The astonishing result is that it is now the UK which is holding out for special concessions and is seeking special treatment, which we had negotiated for this country and not the UK in October 1976. Moreover, the catch that has been fixed for this year appears to be 96,000 or 97,000 tonnes, yet the agreement of October 1976, which there was no difficulty in having honoured, was that our catch would be doubled from 75,000 tonnes in 1975 and the 1976 figure was expected to be similar or slightly higher. It turned out to be 80,000. It was to be 150,000 tonnes in 1979 and in all the negotiations it was agreed that this was to be achieved in three stages and the catch provisions for last year were of the order of 100,000 tonnes. What the Minister has done is to secure for this year perhaps fractionally less than the catch provision for last year and he has given away an agreement which could have given us 25,000 to 30,000 tonnes more fish this year. It is no excuse to say that there is a problem of herring conservation, because when we negotiated that agreement in October 1976 the problem of herring conservation was known and the doubling of the Irish fish target was agreed on the basis that there would have to be herring conservation but that nevertheless our total fish catch, herring and the rest, would be doubled by 1979.
To lose so much and so quickly must be a unique and dramatic performance. I think I can be forgiven for feeling a little bitter about it. I put more into this than anything else during the four-and-a-half tough years as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Every move in the game, every phrase, every decision as to whom to talk to in turn was agonised over. I can recall one night when I sat up until 4.30 a.m. thinking over the moves to be made. I woke at 7.30 a.m. and started noting down exactly what I would say to which person during the day and at what point in order to ensure that we would miss no trick or mistake. All that is now lost.
The fishermen were consulted throughout. They were brought into the consultations, into the building and into our offices and their views were taken into account in every move that was made. This consultation has been abandoned by the Minister because he is afraid to bring them in, afraid to let them know what he has been up to during the past few months.
I bitterly resent what has happened. I resent it on behalf of the Irish fishermen and I resent it for Ireland. I resent that all has been lost. Every card handed to our successors has been thrown away, although all these cards were well marked by us for our successors at the briefing which took place on the change of Government. I regard what has happened as a disaster for Ireland, more damaging than just in its effect on the fishing industry. From my experience it is not going too far to say that our whole bargaining stance in the EEC is affected. Others now believe that we are no longer serious and that we can be overridden as weak negotiators in fish, and the same can happen elsewhere. The respect built up for our position, our genuineness and our toughness has been lost.
I am not sure that this is all the Minister's fault. The Taoiseach must have known, like the rest of the country, that the Minister has great qualities of friendliness, geniality and bonhomie, but at the same time he does not have the finesse and toughness for this type of job. Why, then, was he chosen for it? Was it because he was the only one available who had not hung the 50-mile limit around his neck in imprudent speeches in the Dáil or Seanad? Was he picked because he was the man to sell us out since he was not on record regarding the 50-mile limit? I do not know. Certainly I do not think he is the man for this kind of negotiation. I do not think the Government have shown the courage of their stated conviction in Opposition. They have shown neither courage nor conviction and the Irish people and the Irish fishing industry are the losers as a result.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Nil, 68.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Luke.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Mannion, John M.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- White, James.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Kerrigan, Pat.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seáan.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael. Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Creed and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Briscoe and P. Lalor.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 16 February 1978.