I have given permission to Deputy E. Collins to raise the subject matter of Question No. 40 on the Order Paper for Tuesday, 10 March 1981.
Adjournment Debate: - Celtic Sea Fishing
I thank you for allowing me to raise this matter. The ban on herring fishing in the Celtic Sea is because of the need to conserve herring stocks. Certainly, I do not wish to contradict the principle of conserving these stocks, nor do I wish to argue against the scientific facts involved in establishing the herring population in the Celtic Sea. I am appealing to the Minister to allow a restricted opening of the Celtic Sea, especially for drift-net fishermen, of whom there are approximately 500 operating from Wexford. Waterford and Cork. They are not owners of large trawlers and mostly use boats up to 50 feet in length which are known locally as skiffs. There is a very good case for allowing these fishermen the right to fish for herring, especially between October and January. The productivity of the drift-net fishermen is about one-sixth of the productivity of larger mid-water trawlers and the catch per man is estimated to be in the region of 2.2 tons as compared with a catch per man of about 40 tons aboard mid-water trawlers. I appeal to the Minister on behalf of these small drift-netters and I ask him to ensure that the negotiations in Brussels will result in allowing a restricted opening of the Celtic Sea.
In reply to my question of 10 March the Minister stated that he had been pressing persistently for limited opening and that the Council has before it a proposal which would allow drift-net fishermen to catch up to 1,000 tonnes of herring in 1981 subject to a licensing system. I suggest that the tonnage is far too low and there should not be a restriction of 1,000 on these small fishermen. We have gone far beyond the time when Fianna Fáil promised in their manifesto an exclusive 50-mile zone. That was very hastily dropped by the inefficient and ineffective negotiators on behalf of the Government.
It is very sad that during the past two years foreign trawlers have been able to catch herring as a result of bi-catches while Irish fishermen have not been in a position to catch herring because of the total ban imposed by the Government. There are other matters such as the fuel subsidisation enjoyed by French trawlermen which is not enjoyed by our fishermen. Our fishing industry, especially in the south-east, is in an extremely depressed condition because of very poor fishing over successive years. Something must be done. My immediate plea is on behalf of the 500 drift-net fishermen. If there could also be a limited opening on a quota system for the mid-water trawlermen, I would welcome it also.
Regarding non-payment of loan instalments. I asked the Minister to ensure that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are not allowed to repossess these small trawlers. The industry is extremely depressed and that fact must be taken into account. Finally, when the Brussels negotiations are finalised the Minister should ensure that the Celtic Sea is opened to drift-net fishermen.
Conservation within the context of the EEC fisheries policy has become a sham. I know we have not yet achieved a common fisheries policy, but the interim measures have been a disaster for the Irish fishing industry during the past four years. It behoves the Minister to see that proper conservation measures are introduced and adhered to and to ensure that Irish fishermen are not discriminated against.
The only place where I can see conservation measures operating within the EEC is around the Irish coast, specifically within the Celtic Sea. The Dutch and the French do not give a damn about conservation measures and they have proved this, especially in the past year when they have caught thousands of tons of herring in prohibited waters in the North Sea and the Celtic Sea with which they have flooded their own markets. The only people who are being victimised by the conservation policies are our own fishermen, particularly our small inshore drift-net fishermen who are trying to earn a living using 20 feet or 30 feet boats. They are being prosecuted for catching a very limited amount of fish. I grant that the Minister has been sympathetic during the past herring season but I should like a definite commitment from the EEC that there will be a limited or temporary opening of the Celtic Sea. That is the least we should have. How can other people get away with catching thousands of tons of fish with their huge boats while the Irish fishermen who catches ten or 15 boxes is being prosecuted and banned from the Celtic Sea?
On top of all that, as a result of imports from third countries Irish fishermen cannot sell their produce. The very high proportion of fishermen who are in arrears with BIM with regard to loan repayments is due to the fact that the market has collapsed, in particular the herring market. During the past season Irish fishermen have had to dump their catch into the sea because it could not be sold due to the importation of illegally caught fish from third countries and because of illegal catches of herring by fellow members of the EEC. In this connection I mention the French and Dutch fishermen.
I heard on the news today that the British have got permission from the EEC to ban fish imports from third countries and that is a major advantage to their fishermen. Why can the Irish fishermen and the Irish fishing industry not get this concession? It is because the men of Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Aberdeen, Grimsby, Hull and the other British ports have lobbied British political leaders. They have succeeded in twisting their arm sufficiently to get a ban on imports from third countries. That is what is needed here. Unless imports from Iceland, Norway, The Faroe Islands, and Canada are stopped our fishing industry will be ruined.
The Common Market is there to provide a reasonable living for the people within that market but the Irish fishermen are not getting a fair crack of the whip. They should not have to compete against fishermen from Canada, Norway and Iceland. They should be able to earn a living in their own community but that is not happening at the moment. Every fisherman here expects the Minister to invoke his power of veto if the English fishermen get a concession which is not given to Irish fishermen. We have the same marketing system here as applies in Britain. They are catching fish and are marketing it in the same way and imports are coming into Britain and Ireland in the same manner. If those imports are stopped from entering Britain it means we will be flooded to an even greater extent with imports from the third countries to which I have referred.
I am glad to be present tonight to answer the question raised. I regret I was not available for Question Time on Tuesday, 10 March as I was in Brussels that day. It is nice to realise that Members opposite missed me but they uty Enright stated, Circuit Court lists are arranged on the basis that there will be a certainty of a full list to keep the court going for a day. In arranging a list, provision is made for settlements where cases will not proceed and the net result is that there is usually two or three days work listed for one day. That is all right if the litigants and particularly the professional witnesses are convenient to the court but it is disastrous if the witnesses have to come one hundred miles or more. Therefore I am concecned about this substantial increase in the Circuit Court. Some of the legal profession are for this increase but I am in a position of being able to look at the Circuit Court and the courts in general from outside with a knowledge of how they work and with a knowledge of the inconvenience that litigants can be caused and the frustration that they can suffer.
We have not a free legal aid system available to the vast majority of people who will avail of the Circuit Court. That means that people with limited means will be able to get the services of a solicitor and counsel to handle a case, but it is just not reasonable to expect that they will have the services of busy professional consultants residing and based possibly 150 miles away. The litigant is expected to get these witnesses to the Circuit Court, which is possibly 150 miles away, on speculation. If the plaintiff wins they will be paid such sum as the county registrar will certify but if the plaintiff is not successful the witness will not get paid because the plaintiff cannot afford to pay him, the solicitor concerned could not be expected to pay him and because the State have not provided free legal aid services. This matter needs a lot of consideration. The Minister has not made a convincing case that there will not be the kind of hardship I have talked about and that justice will be done. Cases will probably be concluded with inadequate settlements because of the litigants' difficulty in getting expert witnesses to travel long distances.
If the Minister is determined to go ahead with this, something should be done about the Circuit Court lists to ensure that if a case is listed it will be heard. Even in this case it would mean that a professional witness would have to go down the country at 11 o'clock in the morning at the latest which would probably mean that he would have to leave the night before. I heard the Minister saying that the fixing of lists is a judicial or quasi-judicial function. I agree with that because most of the lists are arranged, in accordance with the judges wishes, by the county registrar. My suggestion may mean the appointment of more Circuit Court judges, but as far as I am concerned it would be better to fix a reasonable list for a day and if the list collapses by all the cases being settled, the judge should be able to call it a day and spend the rest of the day in any way he wishes.
It is much better to do that than to put two or three days' work into one list and find that an unfortunate plaintiff has to hang around. He has probably suffered a lot already and has had a lot of inconvenience and worry about the case. The big day has arrived and he is there all dressed up with his witnesses and his professional witnesses who have travelled a long distance at great inconvenience to themselves and, perhaps, great inconvenience to patients in Dublin who are lying in hospital beds awaiting attention from them. They should not have to hang around for another couple of days. It would be much better for the list to collapse, as they say, and let the judge have a day off rather than having this frustration, inconvenience and loss for the litigant.
We should be able to arrange this in consultation with the President of the Circuit Court. Some machinery should be available whereby cases could be specially fixed as of right. I know cases can be specially fixed, but that is if everybody agrees and if the judge agrees. Cases should be specially fixed as a right if witnesses have to travel a distance.
Before the Minister replies to Deputy Fitzpatrick I would ask him to comment further on a statement he made in the House last night which has been there for years but it has never been acted upon. I saw there was a reluctance on the part of the other member states to accept the principle of compensation. I raised it on three occasions without success. I found I was very much a lone voice in raising the matter of the opening of herring fishing in the Celtic Sea. From June onwards the evidence seemed to be that the Commission continued to set their face against it and the prospect of a continued closure was on the cards. The new recommendation from the Scientific Committee endorsed that view and the second report of the Technical Committee endorsed it also. The recommendation was that the stock was in a depleted state and that if fishing was to be carried on they could not contemplate even 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes being taken from it. They said that, while they would take account of economic and sociological considerations, that was outside their sphere of competence and they pointed out we should not lay too much stress on short-term problems because they would probably cause even worse problems in the long run.
Despite all that unfavourable advice, we indicated we were dealing with people and that fishermen had to be provided for. I agree with both Deputies opposite that the east coast had its own problem last year with regard to prawns and white fish. I was most anxious to help the owners of small boats who had not got any compensation. In November I raised the matter with Mr. Gundelach and pressed him to the point where he said that if there was an opening of the Celtic Sea it could not be taken in isolation, that it was a political decision. He said that other areas closed to herring fishing such as the North Sea would have to be taken into account.
I put forward three options. One was for 4,000 tonnes for Irish boats and this would be closely monitored. The next option was that we might have fishing in July and the last fall-back position was for 1,000 tonnes for small boats using driftnets. These options were mentioned to the IFO when they visited the Taoiseach last year. They were mentioned as being a last resort. It was pointed out that the first two options could not be confined to Irish boats, that foreign vessels would have to have a right to fish with them. The third option is exclusively Irish. As Deputy Collins said, it provides for two tonnes or a little more per man for 500 men and I referred to this on my visit to Dunmore East.
With regard to the TAC and quota proposals in January 1981, this has been accepted by the Commission. It is still held up in negotiation, although I have pressed the matter. We cannot get an EEC decision solely on this without getting overall agreement. It is not something we can take as a national measure. We have got legal opinion on this matter but we must take account of the whole picture. I am completely at one with the request of the Deputies and I am doing everything possible to bring it about. I have high hopes we will get that limited opening for October 1981 at least.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 March 1981.