Deputy Deasy has approximately 15 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Common Fisheries Policy: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy D'Arcy on Tuesday, 22 June 1982:
That Dáil Éireann rejects any agreement on a common fisheries policy which allows non-national boats to fish up to six miles from the Irish coast, within waters that should be available exclusively to the Irish fishing fleet.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 1:
Dáil Éireann, conscious of the need to protect the vital interests of Irish fishermen fully supports the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in his efforts to negotiate satisfactory arrangements in the current discussions on the EEC Common Fisheries Policy.
—(Minister for Fisheries and Forestry).
When we adjourned the debate last night I was speaking about the reduced limit being sought by the Government. It is not too late for Fianna Fáil to make a stand on an exclusive fishery limit. Their performance in this area in the past has been deplorable. In the 1977 General Election Manifesto they declared:
Fianna Fáil firmly believe that to protect the livelihood of our fishermen a 50 mile off-shore limitation on foreign trawlers and factory ships is of urgent necessity.
Now Irish fishermen are being told by Fianna Fáil they will have to accept a six-mile limit in the more lucrative fishing grounds off our coasts.
I would like Members to cast their minds back to the pre-1977 situation when the National Coalition Government were in power. We should remember the statements made by a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies in the Dáil in 1976. Deputies O'Kennedy, Haughey, Molloy, Denis Gallagher and a host of others declared they would not accept one inch less than a 50-mile exclusive fishery limit. The catchcry from the Fianna Fáil benches was "not an inch less". Not even one of those Fianna Fáil Deputies has appeared in the House during the course of a fishery debate since 1977. Not even one of them has expressed an opinion on fishery limits. You could call it cowardice, running away from the issue or anything you like but that is a fact and I dare anybody to contradict me.
Deputy Haughey declared on 27 October 1976 during the course of a debate on the EEC fishery policy motion that the Coalition Government would be guilty of a serious dereliction of duty if they did not confirm our right to an exclusive 50-mile limit for Irish fishermen in this evolving situation. That is lovely terminology. I have not a clue what it means but it probably covers a multitude. During the same debate Deputy Molloy declared that Fianna Fáil would not deviate from their insistence on a 50-mile exclusive fishery limit. He also said:
That is the attitude of my party in this House and we represent 50 per cent of the electorate.
Around 1957 they represented about 50 per cent of the electorate but that has shrunk a lot. It is below 40 per cent at the moment and heading towards 30 per cent according to my judgment. We had all those statements and promises despite the fact that the Fianna Fáil Government had negotiated the Treaty of Accession in 1972 without making any attempt to safeguard our fisheries against the elimination of all limits by 31 December 1982. Fianna Fáil negotiated that Treaty of Accession but they did not once open their mouths in defence of limits for our fishing industry.
Norway, together with Ireland, Britain and Denmark, were at that time involved in negotiations for entry into the EEC. Norway withdrew because of the unsatisfactory situation with regard to fishery limits which were not being granted by the existing six members. The then Norwegian Foreign Minister declared on 14 January 1972:
During the enlargement negotiations we were not supported in our proposals by the Community or the other applicant countries.
That included Ireland. We did not even attempt to safeguard the future of our fisheries. Norway pulled out of the negotiations because they did not get any support not alone from the existing six, who had rigged the rules in their favour, but from the other three applicant members, one of whom was Ireland.
In October 1976 at The Hague Deputy Garret FitzGerald, on behalf of the National Coalition Government, and on behalf of the country, made a major advancement in our position, allowing us a special position in fishery matters and the right to take unilateral conservation measures to preserve fish stocks. The Government of the day did this, virtually creating a 50-mile exclusive fishery limit with remarkably successful results for the Irish fishing fleet which never enjoyed such good catches as in the succeeding months. When I talk about good catches I take all species of fish into consideration, not any one specialised species.
All this good work was thrown away by the Fianna Fáil Government who came into office in 1977, despite their pre-election manifesto and promises. Instead of declaring a 50-mile exclusive fishery limit, as was promised in the election manifesto, their Minister for Fisheries, no other than Deputy Brian Lenihan, the present Minister for Agriculture, declared the unilateral measures brought in by the National Coalition Government as crude and blatantly discriminatory thereby eliminating any chance of their being upheld by the European Court. He was supposed to be on the side of the Irish people but he went out and undermined the case we were trying to make for exclusive fishery limits. Deputy John Kelly one day gave the same Minister credit for stopping the Dutch fleet from invading our fishing grounds but he said he only succeeded in stopping them at the bridge of Athlone and that was not through any action of his but that they could not get under the bridge. They probably would have reached the source of the Shannon if they could.
Now Fianna Fáil are telling us that the best we can do is to hold on to the limits agreed to at the 1964 London Convention with slight improvements but with some major disimprovements. That point has not been stressed by the Minister in his speech. The French, if the new proposals are agreed to next week, will be able to fish for any species of fish up to six miles in our most valuable fishing grounds off the south and west coasts. The French have been the greatest marauders and the most persistent poachers of our fisheries over the years and instead of being penalised they are about to be rewarded for their misdeeds. According to the rules of the game as they are being played at present, there is a lot to be said for breaking the law and poaching at will. I have no doubt that they will fish right up to our shores at every possible opportunity and with under-size mesh in their nets because that has been their track record as long as people can remember.
This type of fishing will undoubtedly cause immense damage to our stocks of shell fish and white fish which are the basis of the livelihood of over 90 per cent of our fishermen. These fish are the bread and butter of the majority of our fishermen. What a blow to them when the industry was never in a more depressed state. With the exception of Killybegs in the north west where enormous catches of mackerel have been taken in recent years, the industry is on its knees and 90 per cent of our fishermen are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. They are crippled by rising repayments on boats, the ever increasing cost of fuel and the depressed markets due to the huge imports of fish from third countries such as Canada, Norway and Iceland. Each of these three countries has a 200-mile exclusive fishery limit and as a result, each has an abundance of fish for export. In 1980, these countries exported over 50,000 tonnes of herring into the European Community, while Irish fishermen were forced to dump large quantities of fish all around our coasts. These imports must be restricted and, if necessary, stopped if our fishing industry is to survive.
In reply to a Dáil Question today I was told that over 2,000 tonnes of herring were dumped by our fishermen in 1981 and that in the first weeks of January 1982, 560 tonnes of herring were dumped, because of the over-supply situation caused by the imports into the Community from third countries. There is an object lesson in marketing for us. We continue to allow in vast quantities of fish from third countries, while dumping thousands of tonnes of fish at home.
Under Article 103 of the Treaty of Accession concerning fishing rights it is stated:
"Before 31 December 1982 the Commission shall present a report to the Council on the economic and social development of the coastal areas of the Member States and the state of stocks. On the basis of that report, and of the objectives of the common fisheries policy, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall examine the provisions which could follow the derogations in force until 31 December 1982."
Has that report been prepared? We are entitled to that information before this debate is finished. Has it been presented to the Council of Ministers? If not, this report should be presented and acted upon before any decision is made in Brussels regarding a common fisheries policy, because it has an integral effect on the future of our fisheries. This report is vital and will give us a good case to fight for extensive fishery limits, not a mere six miles.
Under the terms of The Hague Agreement in October 1976, we can refuse to consent to any bilateral agreement exchanging Community fishery rights on a reciprocal basis unless and until agreement is reached within the Community on a fisheries regime which includes a realistic, exclusive Irish coastal band. There is another string to the Minister's bow, if he is prepared to use it. It is well known that some member states, such as Germany and Britain are negotiating reciprocal arrangements with third countries and until such time as we get a realistic exclusive fishery zone, we should refuse our consent to any such bilateral agreements.
It has become obvious to us all that only by tough action of this type will progress be made in European negotiations. We have only to look across at the stance taken by the British, French and others when their own national interests are at stake. They will not agree to any such all-embracing agreement, but dig their heels in until their own needs are met. It is about time that we did a little of that. I urge that the Minister negotiate in Brussels next week for an exclusive fishery limit much more in keeping with his party's election promise of 1977 than the miserable six miles which we are now being offered.
I am quite confident that our Minister for Fisheries and Forestry will conclude a good deal and negotiate a satisfactory arrangement for our fishermen in the common fisheries policy which is being negotiated at present in Brussels. He will try to get the very maximum coastal limit for our fishermen. This is the first time that we have had a Minister in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry who is from a maritime county.
What about Deputy Donegan?
Deputy Donegan was from a maritime county. The Minister's party did not have a Minister from a maritime county during their last term in office. That was their problem.
He knows and understands the problems of the fishermen perfectly well, being from a coastline county, County Clare.
I was amazed last evening at an attack made on our Minister for saying that it was the wrong time for this matter to have been raised in the House, when very delicate negotiations are taking place on our common fisheries policy. These are very tough negotiations and it is inopportune to discuss them at present.
Listening to the debate last evening, I was astonished at the proposals contained in this motion. Having heard the Minister demolish their case, the proposers still tried to justify their position. It has been explained to them that the historic rights of other countries to fish in our six to 12 mile zone, which were recognised and defined by the London Convention of 1964, are legal rights which have now been enshrined in EEC law as a result of the Treaty of Accession. These rights cannot be abolished other than by negotiation. This is very important. They can be abolished only by negotiation and with the agreement of the countries which hold the rights. This is what the Minister and his officials have been negotiating in recent months. When one studies the proposals that the Commission have put before the Council, one sees straight away that our case must have been presented in an excellent manner.
The request in the motion is that we should refuse to agree to any revised policy that would not contain a fully exclusive 12-mile zone for our fishermen but, as I have said, the countries that have rights between our six and 12-mile limits have these rights legally and cannot be compelled to forego them. Our only option, therefore, would be to veto any revised common fisheries policy that did not give the fully exclusive 12-mile zone. However, as the Minister indicated, such a veto would have the effect of allowing the current derogation to run out without having any new arrangement to replace it with the result that the fishing fleets of other member states could then fish up to our shores.
The proposers of the motion know all this quite well, and it is perfectly obvious that their purpose in putting it down was to try to establish, in advance of any agreement in Brussels, a position that anything less than a fully exclusive 12-mile zone would be a bad bargain. But how can the proposers of the motion justify such a stance when it is recalled to them that the Coalition Government authorised Deputy Fitzpatrick, then Minister for Fisheries, to settle for much less than a fully exclusive 12-mile zone. Furthermore, without disclosing any details of our negotiating position, I make the confident prediction that the final agreement will represent a substantial improvement for our fishermen on the arrangements that existed during the past ten years, and more important still, a substantial improvement on what the previous Government were prepared to settle for. When that Government specified a bottom to which they authorised Deputy FitzGerald to give his agreement, they acknowledged that he might have no other option but to settle on such terms. These are the basic, indisputable facts of the matter, and no argument can——
Would the Minister quote from the papers?
These are notes I have myself — the Deputy can have a look at them.
We can quote from them. The Minister should know about them — he was a member of that Government.
Last evening, Deputies for the motion went back into the history of our negotiations and to the claim for a 50-mile zone. They must be very naive if they cannot see that at the outset of any negotiations one must set one's sights high, but at the end of the day, after one has done one's utmost, a settlement must be agreed on the best terms available. However, as I have said, the Fine Gael Deputies know all this but still persist with their hypocritical motion, trying to convey to the fishermen the impression that if in office they would be in a position to negotiate a 12-mile exclusive zone. That is bad enough, but what is worse is that they know the motion is mischievous and entirely against the interests of our fishermen. Delicate negotiations are taking place in Brussels in which this country is still pressing strongly for improvement of the Commission's proposals in regard to the various ingredients of the revised common fisheries policy.
The Minister had little option but to draw attention to the reality of the situation and to the favourable elements for this country in the Commission's proposals. By accepting the motion, however, we would be running the risk of prejudicing the case being made for still further concessions for this country. For that reason I support the Minister's amendment and denounce in the strongest possible terms the cheap tactics of Fine Gael.
Deputy D'Arcy's motion ranged over other matters such as quotas, marketing arrangements and structural measures. Reference was made to The Hague agreement and the commitment made to the expansion of the Irish fishing industry and we were asked if our performance had failed completely to measure up to our entitlement. As the Minister pointed out, the position is that under The Hague agreement we were entitled to double our catches between 1975 and 1979.
Our catches in 1975 totalled 75,000 tonnes and in 1981 we landed 180,000 tonnes, approximately 2½ times more than the 1975 figure. Arrangements have been reached in principle on revised marketing regulations, the effect of which will be to depress imports of low priced fish into the Community and to improve the market prices for home supplies. Under structural measures this country has continued to enjoy substantial benefits, and FEOGA grants of £3 million were approved for new fishing vessels, processing undertakings and mariculture projects. However, these matters are outside the scope of the motion and I mention them because they were raised by Deputy D'Arcy.
I am confident there will be a very substantial improvement for our fishermen of the arrangements in existence during the past ten years and, more important, a substantial improvement on what the previous Government were prepared to accept and which they settled for. The motion is completely divorced from reality and designed to harm rather than assist the fishermen's interests. I recommend to the House that the motion be rejected and the amended motion prepared by the Minister be approved.
I have not heard anything from the previous speaker that would convince me there is anything wrong with the motion, which I regard as long overdue. I am the chairman of the Fisheries Committee of the Council of Europe. We had a symposium in Iceland on this very topical and sensitive issue. It was an eye opener to me, coming from an island nation, to realise the value placed by the Icelandic people on their 200-mile zone. They made it quite clear to all and sundry that they had the right to protect that zone. They went further. They said it was their duty in the interests of all fishermen to protect the zones and they made no apology for it. They gained nothing but respect. They are not within the EEC, but the very valid point was made that the shores and waters of our island are our responsibility as much as the soil of Ireland is our responsibility.
In spite of all the tonnages and figures quoted, the fact is that our waters have been raped by overseas fishermen. That was brought home to me very forcefully. I suggested — and this was to do with EEC waters — that when an EEC vessel was fishing in the EEC zone off our shores an inspector from the Irish Department of Fisheries should be on board while the fishing was taking place. There was almost uproar at that suggestion. How dare we? This proved my point. Up to now those people have had the right to fish for only four species of fish. From now on apparently they will have the right to fish for more or less what they like outside the six-mile zone. The worst feature of it is that, up to now probably, they have been doing it anyway. When you go on board all you find is a wall of ice surrounded by mackerel and herring. How do we know that they have not got plenty of salmon on board? We have no way of finding out except by having somebody on board while the boat is in our waters.
Those of us who live among fishermen know exactly what the situation is. There is no point in trying to bluff that our fishermen are doing well. They are not doing well. The Minister should know that. High costs and the difficulties they face in marketing have put our fishermen in dire straits. I would go so far as to say that some of the tragedies around our shores are due to the fact that they have to go out in bad weather and difficult conditions in near the rocks because our waters are denuded of fish. Only the other day I was told the only place where pollock is readily available now is over wrecks and rocks. In other words, they have to get special equipment to enable them to detect wrecks and rocky areas in order to catch pollock, which at one time was so plentiful that 15 yards offshore with an ordinary line you could catch all you wanted to.
That is what happened to our industry. That is what the EEC has done for us. I do not want to be political about it. We have a joint responsibility in this Parliament to make sure that the right thing is done. A six-mile zone is not the right thing, knowing the equipment these people use and what I call the hoover approach to fishing where everything is taken in from the sea with modern equipment. Like Iceland we have valuable breeding grounds for fish. Our herring beds in the south are internationally known. They are too well-known. Outsiders want to come over and clean them out in an irresponsible fashion, as they have been doing. We have a right and a duty to protect these valuable fishing grounds.
The Minister has a heavy responsibility on his shoulders. If these people are allowed into the six-mile area where we have lobster pots and small boats, what will they do to our little salmon men and their nets? At the moment they come in on a bad night and are gone again in the morning. They have no regard for us, or for our boats or our fishermen.
Why are we building up a fine fisheries defence fleet if all we are talking about is a six-mile area? You could protect six miles of fishing coast with a couple of punts. If we are talking about fishery defence vessels, we should be given something to defend. Give us a decent limit to defend and we will defend it.
Fishing in Ireland is a growing industry and that is why our fishing catches have increased. We are still a tiny dot in the market place. We have a lot to learn. We have many other problems mentioned by Deputy Deasy. Our mariculture is in its infancy. As yet, salmon farming is in its infancy. We have a lot of work to do with pollution control, with estuary pollution and damn little we are doing about it.
As I said so often, our municipal authorities are our worst polluters. If we as a nation are to spend substantial sums of money on the protection of our fisheries and our fishermen, if we are to spend vast sums of money on pollution control—we hear a lot about red tide; red tide is pollution of one form or another; that is a popular name for it but it is plain pollution—and if we are to build up our mariculture, as I believe we will, we should have exclusive rights for ourselves.
Part of our discourse had to do with maximum sustainable yields. By that is meant that you fish less in order to fish more. That is the message. If we are to sustain our present fleets and expand them, we will have to act responsibly. As in so many other fields we have acted responsibly. Some of our competitors say we have not the equipment to act irresponsibly. I do not think that this is right. Our salmon fishermen have been an example to Europe in the way the rules are kept. We have very little supervision over our salmon fishermen and rarely does one hear of a problem with our own people. They know that if they overfish, if they fish at the wrong time, if they use the wrong nets, it is their own livelihood that is at stake.
I hope the Minister will succeed in convincing his EEC counterparts that we are a small, poor nation dependent on agriculture and fisheries. We do not have the massive resources of mainland Europe. France will not starve without its fisheries, nor for that matter, will any of the other countries. But it would be a severe blow to us if this time next year or in two years' time fishermen were walking outside our gates bemoaning the fact that we sold them out. That is exactly what we will do if we allow fishing for all species from six miles off our shore. Unfortunately, the Council of Europe is only an advisory body. We brought discussion down to a fine art and talked about the levels that could be sustained. At present the situation is one of maximum catches that are far too high, with a very real threat to our fisheries. It happened in Iceland where cod were wiped out completely. Again Iceland is an island nation of 250,000 people with a dismal naval force, but they succeeded in establishing their limit and everybody has benefited. This is slowly percolating to the others, but they do not want to hear about it.
The second level is something for the future, that is, the maximum sustainable yield where the species is maintained but the costs of catching are unnecessarily high. That brings me back to my original point: that if we continue to denude our waters then fishermen will spend a lot more time at sea for less fish. If we protect our fishing grounds the fishing can be done on two or three days a week with no need to go out in storms and high swells with losses for our fishermen and no need to end up on the rocks. That is the optimum utilisation, where fish stocks are increased and catches become cheaper or at least we are able to hold the price.
In recent years countries have realised the impossibility of continuing to catch fish at the maximum level. But, as far as we are concerned, they are doing nothing about it. We will have to impress them. We had a strong case because our fleet is small and the amount of fish we catch is very limited when one compares it with that of the factory ships of other countries with their hoover like approach to the seas. At the same time it is an important industry. Every year we have been importing about £650 million worth of food. Are we to add to that by importing fish? Are our fishermen to be without their livelihood?
What about our valuable boatbuilding industry? In my own constituency there is a boatyard specially designed to build the type of boat that modern fishing requires. This boatyard is in extreme difficulty and is practically closed down. There is no reason for that. That type of negligent approach will close the country down. We have the same approach to agriculture by the Government. If a farmer, instead of selling a field, just closed the gate how long would he survive? That type of negligent approach to the fishing industry is not the approach of a nation that hopes to build up the fishing industry. The Minister will not get out of his financial problems by going to bed and forgetting about them. They will be there in the morning.
The Minister should have a much more vigilant approach to this whole area of fishing. We have good fishing waters and we should protect them. We do not want handouts from the EEC. We want the right to live and we are entitled to that both on land and on sea. That is what our fishermen want. The fishermen want this right for themselves and for their children after them. I would compliment them on their sense of responsibility, which is almost unique among European people in that they wish to protect the waters for all time. This should be the approach of the Government supported by the Opposition. They should go out there jointly to the tables of the EEC and, like Mrs. Thatcher and the rest of them, pound the table until they get what they want and not dream of coming home without it.
The Government do not have to go cap in hand. The more powerful nations have behaved unscrupulously at the negotiating table. All we are asking for is our right to live. We have not got too many things going for us. The basic things are eight or nine inches of good soil and our fishing industry. At the moment that fishing industry could go one way or the other and whatever agreement the Minister makes is vital to that industry. It is no use saying that our tonnages have gone up over the last few years. That is because there are a lot more people at the job. We would like to think that as many again will be at the job. We have the capacity and the people who are interested in fishing. We have the boatyards to build the boats; and we have the markets. Tribute must be paid to some of the people who are doing the fish marketing. At long last our inland hotels can get adequate supplies of good fish every day of the week, and that is something that is relatively new to Ireland and that will grow and grow. If the Minister digs in in time he will get the support he needs. All we can do on the Council of Europe is make recommendations. The Council of Europe sponsors various committees. They will be coming to Ireland next week and I would like to introduce the Minister to a few of them. He would hear from some very reasonable people from island States — the Icelanders, Norwegians and Swedes. It will be very interesting to hear why they defended fishing and, more important, the end result. If the Minister succeeds, as I believe he can, in getting what he wants, he is on the road to success and confidence. Confidence is what we do not have at present. People have lost heart because of the complete lack of administration in every area, agriculture, fisheries and so on. Next week the Minister has a chance to put that right. He should be seen to be out there fighting. If he comes home without reaching an agreement, he should go out again. That is what the fishermen and the Irish citizens want— a Government prepared to fight for our rights as an island nation—a right which is as divine as the right to farm our land.
Fishing is a traditional industry. Down the centuries it was confined to small boats; it was a very limited operation. Nowadays it has taken on an EEC context in so far as we are in the game with the other member states, using the same type boats but we have an added advantage: we are near the source of supply. We do not have long hauls back to port. We have everything going for us. If we allow this industry to expand and develop, a wonderful processing industry will result. We hear a lot about creating jobs. A viable fishing industry is an almost untapped source for job creation. Do not listen to the French when they say we have the herring grounds. The only reason the French and Dutch do not have their own herring grounds is that they cleaned them out. They cannot blame us for that, and they will do precisely the same here if they are allowed.
At a recent meeting I made what I considered to be a constructive suggestion. I asked why not have somebody on board when fishing in EEC designated waters off our shore. There was an uproar, proving they do not want to keep the rules; they are not interested in rules. It is well known in fishing circles that these valuable herring grounds extend as far as 20 miles off our shore, and all that area should be protected, and we demand the right to protect it. If we do not, nobody else will.
Having returned from this conference I came here this evening to make a special appeal. At the conference I listened to people who are worried about this problem and to the people who could not care less. Mostly the Minister will be dealing with people who could not care less. He has a tough job and I do not envy him. He has enough going for him to convince them he is right and they are wrong. We still have fish but it is no thanks to them. We did not abuse our stocks. We still have salmon in our rivers because of the responsible approach of our salmon fishermen and this is not very often recognised. If we allow Frenchmen within six miles our salmon will be gone too because there is nothing to stop them. Not only ordinary white fish will be affected, but our very valuable salmon fishing, and the possible development of that industry into salmon farming which is so popular in some countries will also be affected. We are starting to raise young salmon and send them off. Maybe only 30 per cent come back, but it is still a very valuable source of revenue. That industry too will be wiped out if we allow these people near our shores.
I appeal to the Minister to insist on realistic limits, to be firm, and adamant that we cannot agree to limits of less than 15 to 20 miles, in particular around the south coast where we find our breeding stocks. This is vital. If the Minister succeeds, he will get the credit he deserves.
The fishermen are going through a very tough time. They spend a lot of time at sea with very bad results. This has been a disastrous salmon season. One of the reasons is, I believe that the fish which should come into Youghal Harbour are being intercepted by these boats because there is no check on them. We have a right to protect these fish and the only way we can do that is to have limits.
I hope I have made a constructive contribution. I have not been trying to score points. I grew up among fishermen and have come to love them. They have a unique way of life and I am very concerned about them. They are coming back to Youghal, Ballycotton and Cobh with empty boats more often than they used. I am also concerned because they are going out in weather in which they would normally not go out, and they are going to areas which are not normal fishing grounds. I believe they are doing this because of what happened. Let us stop it. It is in the Minister's power to do it. I am sure he will not have very much difficulty convincing his EEC counterparts that if they appoint us as a nation to protect the fishing grounds of Europe we will behave in a responsible manner and everyone will benefit. If there is fish in the first 15 miles, then there is fish in the first 50 miles, but if they clean out the breeding grounds, then they can come to the gates of Athlone and there will not be any fish. That is the problem.
An Teachta Gallagher. Caithfidh tú éirí as ag 8.15 p.m.
(Donegal South-West): I support the Minister's amendment. I listened to the debate last night and tonight and from what the other side have said it appears we are completely anti-fishermen, completely opposed to the industry and to those working in it. Members on the other side of the House have tried to give the impression that only they are interested in the fishermen and they have become very emotional about it. However, they have not been constructive in their comments. A few short months ago when their Minister for Fisheries and Forestry went to Brussels to negotiate he had the all-clear from his party to accept a six-mile limit. If they can refute that I invite them to do so. Now Deputy Hegarty spoke tonight about a 15- or 20-mile limit. At least he should be consistent with his colleagues who spoke about a 12-mile limit last night.
On a point of order, I emphasised that 15 miles should be in the areas where fish breeding took place.
That is not a point of order.
(Donegal South-West): This inconsistency is typical of what is happening on that side of the House. Tonight they will vote against the Estimate for Roinn na Gaeltachta, an Estimate they prepared themselves. People should know that Fine Gael are not being a constructive Opposition.
The Deputy knows why we are voting against the Estimate.
(Donegal South-West: The motion they have put down does not make sense to me or to the people. We want constructive opposition which we will appreciate, as will the people of Ireland.
I should like to congratulate the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry. There are clear signs from the latest proposals of the Commission on access and quotas that they may be close to a common fisheries policy which will be to the benefit of Irish fishermen. I have every confidence that the Minister will get the best deal for us. He has done more in the past six weeks than was done in the previous six years to get a common fisheries policy which it is so necessary to have before the end of the year. It can be argued that we need not accept proposals before the end of 1982 but it appears it is necessary that we accept them. Either we do this or we allow the French, Germans, Danes and British to fish right into our waters. I have every confidence the Minister will get the best deal possible and that we will not get what was being considered by the National Coalition Government, namely a six-mile ban around our coast.
I am a Deputy from a constituency whose people depend largely on fishing. I am not here to play politics. I want to speak sincerely about the industry. I know many people along the western coast who depend on the industry for a livelihood. I know it is necessary to have bans imposed to ensure the proper quotas are kept and that landings are monitored. Unlike mines, in fisheries we have a resource that is renewable but we must ensure that we take only a certain quantity of fish each year. Even with the common fisheries policy we will have fishing within our 200-mile economic zone. Our Minister might consult with other Ministers at the Council of Ministers meeting to have a system where observers would be put on each boat. I mentioned this earlier in the session when we were speaking about fisheries. These observers could ensure that the boats take only the amount allowed and in this way we could help our fishing grounds. It is essential that we do not over-fish. In the Celtic Sea much destruction was caused by the Danes and the Dutch. Those who could not take the fish back to the continent took it to Dunmore East, processed it in a crude primary way and sent it back to Europe where they could add value to the product. This should not happen again. Down off Dunmore East, in Baginbun, there were very good herring grounds that were in danger. However, action was taken and I have reason to believe that we can make a case to have this fishery opened in the not too distant future.
By having observers on the boats we could build up a bank of scientific knowledge. They could tell us where the fish were caught, the depth at which they were caught, the plankton content of the water, the markings that were available and the other types of fish in the area. In this connection I am thinking in particular of sprat fishing. When the Celtic Sea was closed and there was no fishing off the south-east coast, our fishermen were able to have sprat fishing and that was most lucrative. The fish moved off to Cobh, to Castletownbere and to Galway. Some fishermen went to great expense to buy nets for sprat fishing which was the alternative to herring fishing, which stocks had become depleted. Many processors invested money to set up processing plants. The sprats were not there last year but I have every reason to believe that they are still off our coast. The observers on board our boats could tell us precisely where we could find the sprats. The sprat fishing season is short, only three or four months. Sprats can be processed only when the bellies are empty. The fish can be found in abundance during the summer but if the bellies are full the sprats cannot be used for human consumption. Unlike processing plants along fjords in Norway, we have no facilities along our coastline to empty the bellies and process the fish at a later stage. We have only a short time to fish for sprat and it is important that we are able to pinpoint their location along our coast. Ireland is a maritime country and not alone should we monitor all this information from the boats fishing along our coasts but all the European boats should feed this information back to a base along the west coast where it could be monitored and put to the best use. I ask the Minister to consider that suggestion — and I suppose I would not be a Donegal man if I did not suggest that the base should be located in Donegal, in one of our major ports.
In relation to fishing for mackerel, larger boats are having difficulty in obtaining grants. At the Council of Ministers' meeting we should try to ensure that the larger boats, which are the backbone of the industry, should get favourable grants. We can look at statistics and say that things are going well on the west coast because the volume is there. The volume is certainly there, but the number of people involved is not as many as we would like. The 90 ft. boats should be given assistance by way of grant aid. At present only boats up to 90 feet can get assistance and after that they have to have certain conversions carried out to extend them. We must not overlook the owners of 60 to 80 ft. boats who are experiencing difficulties at present because they do not have the means to fish for mackerel. These boats should get assistance from Europe so that they could convert the machinery on their boats. They were equipped to fish for mackerel and herring when they were closer to our shores but now they should be grant-aided to convert their boats to the traditional type of fishing. If this was done, many of these boats would not become obsolete.
I should like to refer to the smaller boats, the half deckers. They are just as important as the bigger boats and should get the same assistance, because their owners also have to feed families. For the last two years the smaller boats did not get a FEOGA grant. If we are to prove in Europe that we are interested in the smaller fisherman they should get these grants. I learned recently that none of them has obtained a FEOGA grant this year either.
We must look at historic fishing rights. Even when a common fisheries policy is agreed to we should consider buying out these historic rights from EEC moneys. We should ask the EEC to pay off the Dutch and others who have these historic rights and leave these waters to us. I am realistic enough to know that we have a situation at present outlined by the Minister last night, that if we enforce a six or a 12-mile ban, we should consider and put it strongly to the people in Europe that we should buy out these historic rights and leave these coastal bands to ourselves. We should have ports up and down the country like Killybegs, Burtonport and Castletownbere which we can be proud of and which could be expanded.
I have pleasure in supporting the motion put down in the name of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, Deputy Daly, that we give him full support in his efforts to negotiate satisfactory arrangements in the current discussions on an EEC fisheries policy.
We put down this motion because we, in common with people on all sides of the House and the general public, are extremely worried about the point we have now reached in negotiations on a common fisheries policy for the EEC. I wish to remind the Minister, in the light of remarks which he made last night, that negotiations did not start this year or last. They have been going on for the last six years and, in a very real sense for our fishermen, have been going on almost uninterruptedly since the opening of our accession negotiations for the EEC. We are still at the point where there is no fixed common fisheries policy in the EEC and we are still discussing issues which were important at the very beginning of that process. They have not been resolved up to now and, for much of that period, have not been handled in a way that allows us to achieve the kind of objectives we need for fishery policies.
What are those objectives? They are very simple and we all subscribe to them. We want to ensure that those of our people who rely on fishing to earn their livelihood will have access, in a real way, not on paper, to stocks of fish that they can be sure of catching, to the extent that any activity so closely tied to nature can be something one is sure of. We want to know that they have a realistic guarantee, given the conditions under which they are obliged to work, that they can catch what they set out to catch, can make a decent living for their families and that we can all share in the benefits of that living and in the kind of employment it will create. It is that concern which caused us to put down that motion and I was very disappointed to hear the Minister say last night that we were mischievious in putting down that motion.
I said the Deputy was irresponsible.
He called us irresponsible and he has the nerve to repeat it now. Why does he think we are irresponsible? He says that it is irresponsible to put down a motion while negotiations are going on, while his civil servants were so busy in Brussels that they could not write his speech for him last night. That is a minor point but it is indicative of the Minister's approach to this question. Why is it irresponsible to have the House discuss a matter of this kind before decisions are reached? Would the Minister prefer if we waited until after decisions were reached to discuss the matter in this House? Would the Minister prefer that we kept our mouths shut and did not discuss him by drawing attention to the difficulties involved in these negotiations? Would he prefer if we did not say anything at all about it in this House? Is that the kind of responsible Opposition he wants? I can assure the Minister that that is not the kind of opposition he is going to get. This House has a right and a duty to discuss these things at a time when we can have some influence on the course of negotiations. In bringing these matters up here, when the Minister is present, before he makes his final decisions in the next few weeks, we are carrying out the job for which we were elected. I will not accept from the Minister or any of his colleagues that we are irresponsible in raising matters of this kind. It shows a fine contempt on the part of the Minister for what this House is about if he persists in that attitude and calls democratic discussion and examination of the issues an irresponsible act. I would ask the Minister to consider that. It is too late for him to say anything now. He may attempt to interrupt but he is digging an even bigger hole for himself.
The Minister may not interrupt, or anybody else either.
My apologies, Sir, for the phrase I used. But I can assure the Minister that if he continues with the thinking he seems to have indicated last evening we can only conclude that he does not want this House to discuss anything of any substance in which he may be involved. I am bound to point out that the kind of line he put across to us last evening, the alleged irresponsibility of bringing forward a motion like this at a sensitive time just before important discussions take place, is not one I can really accept is a matter of principle for the Minister.
I would remind the Minister, lest he might have forgotten, or that he might not have been interested at the time, that on 24 November last, two days before the European Council Meeting in London, his colleague, Deputy MacSharry, brought forward a motion on the common agricultural policy. Of course Deputy MacSharry was not irresponsible in doing that then nor did I think he was irresponsible in so doing. We discussed matters that were of crucial importance, and we discussed them two days before a vital discussion in London. Indeed Deputy MacSharry made the point, at that stage, that in putting down his motion he had no intention whatsoever of being mischievous. He wanted to be helpful, he wanted to give this House an opportunity to show how deeply concerned it was about this matter. He believed, and perhaps he really meant it, that it would be of assistance to me and to the Taoiseach of the day, that we could go to London and make the point that the matter was regarded as being one of such importance in our country that it had been discussed in this House two days before the meeting.
That is an attitude of mind I would commend to the Minister. I would hope that, on reflecting on the discussion we have had last evening and this evening, he might come, within the next few days to look on it in that way and decide to derive some benefit from the discussions we have had, indeed listen to a number of the points made not only on this side of the House but on that side also, and take them to heart because they could indeed be useful to him in the further pursuit of these negotiations.
I am very worried by the Minister's approach. He began by saying that we were irresponsible in putting down a motion like this. Instead of addressing the issues he went on to make a number of what I can only describe as smart-alec remarks about Deputies on this side of the House, about Deputy D'Arcy's recent appointment as front bench spokesman for my party on fisheries, the Minister making the remarks he did from the great vantage point of all of his three-and-a-half month's experience in office. I do not grudge it to the Minister. He should savour it while he can, he may not be there very much longer and he may come to regret the kind of remark he made last evening which is a discredit to himself, to the office he holds and the functions he is there to fulfil.
The Minister went on to make allegations about Deputy Fitzpatrick, allegations taken up by other speakers on that side of the House, this pretence of the Minister, the Minister of State and other Deputies on that side of the House who claim to have found out that Deputy Fitzpatrick during his term of office was instructed, allowed or had decided that he would settle for a six-mile band. I would recommend that the Minister and Minister of State should re-read the files and compare the position as set out by Deputy Fitzpatrick when in Government with that set out by Deputy Lenihan when he held that office. Indeed, if they read it with half an eye they will find that the position adopted by Deputy Fitzpatrick was a great deal firmer than the one set out by Deputy Lenihan, as indeed it must have been——
A six-mile limit.
They should read the paper again. I shall quote it for them here if they like but they have it on their file. They should compare the two when they will find that Deputy Lenihan was far weaker in his approach than was Deputy Fitzpatrick on the issue. The results show, after the debate in 1976 and 1977 — to which Deputy D'Arcy and Deputy Deasy have referred already — why so many Members of the Fianna Fáil Party were so insistent in their demands that we must settle for nothing less than a 50-mile limit. Who was it who jettisoned the principle of a 50-mile limit? Who was it who gave up on the claim for a 50-mile limit? None other than Deputy Brian Lenihan, the then Minister for Fisheries who at that point conclusively gave away the principle. Indeed we have been suffering from that cave-in ever since because, what has been going on ever since that date in fisheries negotiations has been a gradual manoeuvring by the other member states and indeed by the Commission, in response to those pressures, to find a way of giving in to, of satisfying those other member states. That way can be found only by putting more and more pressures on the waters in which our fishermen are obliged to make their living. That is the history of those negotiations. The other member states of the European Economic Community, having over-fished their waters, are now forced to go further and further and further afield to find fish. Where will they come to find them? In the waters off our coasts.
I know for a fact that there have been a number of occasions during these negotiations — and the Minister can confirm it for himself if he takes the trouble to do so; no doubt his officials in between trips to Brussels will be able to tell him — when the deus ex machina of the Commission's plans has been the strength, richness and availability of fishing off our coasts. That is something of which every Minister for Fisheries in this country must be very keenly aware and must guard against. I make the point, and it is a very important one, that what has been happening is that we have been gradually moving further and further back from the kind of position we would want to maintain in defence of our interests. For the Minister to come into this House and refer to the Commission's proposals as perhaps ones which could be improved on is the most scandalous naivety I have ever come across. The history of these negotiations has been one in which we move further and further back from the kind of position we want to see, not where we move forward. Indeed the proposal presented by the Minister last evening as one that improved in a certain number of aspects on the situation that obtained up to now, and on the situation that would obtain were we not to have agreement at EEC level on a common fisheries policy, is one which also contains some retraction by comparison with the present situation. It could also be one — and this is the danger — that, even as it stands, unsatisfactory as it is, it could well turn out to be more favourable than the final agreement that is reached because unless we are very careful we will be moving back from that.
The motion we have put down is that we reject any agreement on a common fisheries policy which allows non-national boats to fish up to six miles from the Irish coast within waters that should be available exclusively to the Irish fishing fleet. Even the fact that that motion makes the Minister uncomfortable today simply illustrates the force of what I have been saying and the reason for our putting down the motion. The Minister proposes an amendment calling on us fully to support him in his efforts. We want to do more than that. We are not concerned merely with supporting him. We are concerned with stiffening his back because we want to get further than he is prepared to go. The Minister may not like it but we want to stiffen his back. We would be very happy if we felt that he was going to adopt the kind of firm stance on these issues that Deputy Fitzpatrick adopted before him. We want to make sure that when he goes over there he will be able to say, as he will be able to say, that he got a roasting in his own Parliament about the Commission's proposals before him. A number of the comments made on this side of the House and on the other side would help the Minister if he has the wit to use them. In putting forward this motion we have done our duty and we have done something which the Government have failed to do. I ask the House to support this motion to strengthen our stand and to make it very clear to our European partners what we want from a fisheries policy and what they, if they are to stick to the terms of the treaty they signed with us and of the treaty they originally set up between themselves, are obliged to carry out, what they are committed to if they mean it, as we are, to helping in the development of the poorer regions of the Community and fisheries in this country are essential to that.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 76.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Bellew, Tom.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Gerard. (Dublin South-East).
- Brady, Gerry. (Kildare).
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matty.
- Brennan, Ned.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Sean.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Loughnane, Bill.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William G.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Paddy.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corr, James.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Governey, Des.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGinley, Denis.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughton, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies B. Ahern and Fitzsimons; Níl, Deputies Barrett(Dun Laoghaire) and Taylor.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.