asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will make a statement on effects of enlargement of the EC on Irish fisheries.
3.
Ceisteann—Questions. Oral Answers. - EC Fisheries Policy.
2.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the steps he proposes to take to protect the Irish fishing industry from the effect on fish catches of the admission of Spain and Portugal to the EC.
I propose to take——
We cannot hear the Minister. This is an important question.
I cannot control noise in the House which is made mostly by the Deputy's colleagues.
(Interruptions.)
You are complaining that your leader was not happy.
(Interruptions.)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
The negotiations between the Community and the applicant countries in the fisheries sector are only now reaching their final decisive phase. Given this situation and pending the outcome of the negotiations it is not possible to make an assessment of the practical implications of enlargement on the Irish fishing industry. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has already assured the House of the Government's commitment tot the forceful presentation of the particular requirements of the Irish fishing industry in the ongoing negotiations. I would like to repeat that commitment now to the House.
The Minister will be aware of widespread fear and anxiety throughout the Irish fishing industry about the way negotiations are progressing and because of the threat and serious implications for the development of the industry in the future. Can the Minister give any indication this afternoon as to the Government's negotiating position and how he proposes to build protection for the Irish fishing industry into any agreement? With the threat of Spanish and Portuguese accession to the EC, how can he see any prospects whatever for the development of the fishing industry?
As I said in my reply, we are now reaching the final decisive phase. As the Deputy knows, only yesterday arrangements were made to proceed along the lines laid down by the summit in relation to the Community negotiations. The Deputy as a former Minister must know that it would be inappropriate and very foolish of me to give details publicly of the negotiating stance of our Minister or his colleagues in the Community at this time because very serious matters are to be negotiated yet. I accept that concern is being expressed and I have expressed the same concern in relation to the effects of the Spanish accession in particular on the fisheries sector. All I can say is that I am sure the Deputy will understand that the publicising of a negotiating stance at this stage would be both foolish and inappropriate.
Could the Minister clarify for us what the Irish Government's position is after yesterday's summit? Do we take it that the decision reached at the summit is our first opening position in these negotiations? Can we expect that as the negotiations progress there will be a further weakening even in the very weak demand made at the summit? As the negotiations progress a further weakening of that position is likely with a more serious threat developing for the Irish fishing industry. The Minister will be aware that the Spanish Government rejected totally yesterday's summit proposal. They said that they need a shorter transition period. They have said already that they need further access into the Irish stocks on the west coast. The negotiations which will proceed from here on the position which we have adopted, which is weak enough in itself, will be weakened further with the serious threat of a substantial Spanish involvement in the Irish coastal areas in the coming years and even in the transition period.
All this did not start yesterday. The declaration by the Community was made to Portugal in May 1984 and to Spain on 28 May and the proposals contained in that declaration were rejected by Spain. In the meantime negotiations have taken place along even tougher lines with the applicant countries, Spain and Portugal. While at this stage Portugal is causing us no problem, Spain is the problem area, and all I can say is that the stance adopted now will probably change again through further negotiations which must take place.
This matter has been going on for the past seven years and we are now reaching the final phase. The negotiators and both the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is at present President of the Council, and the Minister of State, who is heading our delegation there, are well informed and well aware of the concern expressed and the serious consequences that might ensue if the right approach is not adopted. They are making every effort to ensure that that concern will be taken on board and that the interests of the Irish fishing industry will be preserved in any final agreement reached.
Could the Minister give an assurance that the structures which exist already within the Community, the measures which have been adopted with regard to licences and what we call the box to curtail the activities of Spanish fishermen, will not be dismantled with the accession of Spain? I ask him to accept that any questions which we ask here are not in an attempt to destroy his negotiating capacity but merely to strengthen his resolve and his hand in dealing with what is regarded by fishemen as the biggest threat to their future livelihood.
I accept the sentiments expressed by Deputy Power in relation to not damaging our negotiating position. However, anything I say in relation to assurances given here is adopting a stance and giving away something, which ought not be done at this point. Let me say, however, in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy that that was agreed in January 1983 and that policy provides for certain measures. The up-to-date position is that in any negotiations that have taken place the Community negotiators have insisted that the provisions of the CFP are held intact.
Is the Minister aware that the Irish fisherman is very much afraid of the invasion of the Spanish fleet? Further, is he aware that the Irish fisherman believes that there is a complete sell out by the Irish Government on his own industry? The fishermen believe that they will be sold out in order to gain concessions in other directions. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that. Can he guarantee here today that he will safeguard the livelihood of the Irish fishermen, and will he tell us of his input into the talks and what his bottom line is in relation to Spanish fishing?
I do not accept the implications in the Deputy's question. The words "sell out" have been mentioned——
That is what the fishermen are saying.
The mention of them here by Deputy Byrne gives currency and credence to that kind of terminology, which I do not accept. How many times must I say that it is in the Deputy's interest as well as mine, and vice versa, to ensure that we safeguard the interests of our industry within the framework of the CFP to which we have been party and, let me say, to which my predecessor, the Deputy's colleague Deputy Daly, contributed in his time as Minister as did his predecessors? In that framework we are operating. Let us be clear in our minds as to what we are talking about. A decision was taken to proceed with negotiations on enlargement. Once we went down that road the only people who could stop that would be the applicant countries themselves by way of their non-acceptance of the terms being put to them. Up to now negotiations have continued.
In addition to certain responsibilities and obligations there are rights in respect of accession and membership and these must be catered for in the event of accession by the applicant countries. Having said that, we are now in a position to take the precautions necessary to ensure the preservation of our interests. That is what our negotiators are doing. I am not involved directly. I am in the second row, so to speak.
I am sure the Minister will agree that our fishing industry is a vital national industry. It is as vital to us as wine is to parts of Germany, France and Italy. In these circumstances would the Minister not agree that, to say the least, our Government have been ineffective in not making the negotiations on fishing as vital a component of the enlargement agreement generally as the French, the Italians and the Germans particularly have succeeded in doing in respect of their interests? Would the Minister not agree that under our presidency the only issue that seems to have been unblocked is the issue of the wine lake and not of our fisheries protection?
Hear, hear.
Had it not been for the Greeks who have held out in respect of their vital national interest the enlargement programme would have continued without any reference to the effective protection of what is a most vital industry for us. Are these not the facts that have emerged from the summit and how can the Minister justify them?
I do not accept what the Deputy says. Having regard to the vast experience he has had both in Foreign Affairs and as EC Commissioner and to his having been close to that scene for a number of years, I am surprised at his interpretation of what took place yesterday. The fact is that any issue can block enlargement——
I agree.
——and the Deputy should not endeavour to drag down the wine question into the arena and say that is the only issue that would have blocked enlargement.
That was the only issue.
The Deputy knows that is not the case. We are not over the hump yet in relation to a variety of issues including fisheries which may very well be an issue that will block enlargement.
We shall have to make more progress. We have dealt with only three questions in 35 minutes.
Can the Minister assure us that in the negotiations the Government will not grant concessions to the Spanish fishing fleet to fish in the fishing grounds off the west coast of Ireland?
Again, details of negotiating stances are being sought. All I can say in general terms is that the stance being taken will ensure the preservation of our position in respect of fisheries but I will not be dragged into a debate which would result in giving away our negotiating position.
That is not the attitude adopted by the French, the Germans or the Italians. They put their negotiating position up front. We know what theirs is but we do not know what ours is.
Are the Government considering the imposition of some kind of ban on the expansion of the Spanish fishing fleet for a period of only ten years? Are the Government favouring the ten year proposal or are they taking the stance that we would encourage them to take, that would be to bar the Spanish fishing fleet from operating in those areas to which they do not have established rights?
As I have said, the enlargement question is one that is causing us concern. As Minister for Fisheries I would much prefer that this matter had never arisen but the fact is that negotiations on the question of enlargement have been proceeding. However, the problem is that the negotiations on fisheries are now really beginning. I appeal to Deputies not to continue asking me questions to which they know I cannot give replies without doing damage to ourselves and to the Irish fishing industry.
(Interruptions.)
We should be standing up for our rights.
What about what Deputy Lenihan did in regard to the 50-mile limit?
There never was a 50-mile limit. That was a disguised bluff.
Order, please.
If the Minister has not done so already, will he agree to meet with the various fishing interests, the IFO, the IFPO and so on, in order to brief them on the latest position and, more importantly, to advise them of the effects which enlargement of the Community could have? Even if the Minister has met these associations recently I am sure they would be very anxious to meet him once more. Does the Minister accept that while the accession of Spain may mean the opening up of markets for this country generally it would be of no advantage in terms of selling fish products to Spain since the white fish on which our industry depends largely, that is, mackerel, herring and salmon, is not sold into Spain as finished products? The Minister said a few moments ago that he would prefer that this problem had never arisen. It is important that he clarify that remark. I interpret it to mean that he would have preferred if the question of enlargement had not arisen. Does he mean that this question is causing problems for the industry? Will the Government use their powers of veto in relation to enlargement if accession of the applicant countries will result in disastrous effects for our fishing industry?
In relation to meeting the fishermen's organisations, there is no problem. I have met the IFO twice recently and the last word I had with them was that if they wished to meet me again my door would be open to them and that I would update them on what was happening. At 3.30 today I am meeting the processors and I intend to discuss with them the question of enlargement and also a variety of other problems. Last night in Brussels I met the general secretary of the IFO and I had a long discussion with him on yesterday's meeting.
Are they happy?
They are expressing their concern. People in this House are acting as if there had been a fait accompli and we had sold ourselves down the river. That is the kind of impression that is gaining credence but there is no basis for it. I refute it entirely. The second question concerned an expression I used and which I stand over. I began that statement with the words “as Minister for Fisheries”. Let us not blind ourselves to the fact that enlargement and full membership carries with it certain rights for the new members, rights which we as members must take on board. That is the whole reason for the concern being expressed. It is the whole reason for the negotiations that have been in progress for the last seven years. We are talking about very complicated issues and the existing members are trying to ensure that their interests are preserved in the enlarged situation. That is what we are trying to achieve. The third question from the Deputy concerned——
Markets.
In relation to markets in Spain, at the moment the species mentioned by the Deputy are not marketable in Spain. In Spain there is a total consumption in the region of 1¼ million tonnes of fish. They supply 1 million tonnes, so there is a net import into Spain of ¼ million tonnes of varied species of fish. We could avail of that market. That depends on what happens at the end of the negotiations, the demolition of trade barriers and so on, when it will be easier for us to get access into the Spanish market for species of fish for which we have had a fishing tradition. The market is there and it is up to us to avail of it.
What about the veto?
I would remind Deputies that it is now 3.10 p.m. and we have only dealt with three questions.
Would the Minister accept that the feeling among fishermen is that the recent summit has been a mockery in that no priority seems to have been given to this whole question? We are concerned with early accession for Spain and we are concerned with settling wine problems but no priority has been given to the question of our fishing rights. Will the Minister accept that this is a serious situation for the fishermen?
I do not accept that yesterday's summit was a mockery. General national and international opinion seems to be that it was a great success.
Not for Ireland.
That has been recognised everywhere except in that pocket over there for obvious reasons.
(Interruptions.)
The question of fisheries has not been downgraded. It will take on——
Was it discussed at the summit? Did it get any priority?
Please, Deputy, allow the Minister to reply.
I was not at the summit. I was in Brussels at a Council meeting trying to arrange prices for 1985. I arranged those at 11 o'clock last night after 12 hours of discussions.
(Interruptions.)
I was not at the summit but fisheries were discussed and the position is that they will now go into real negotiations at Foreign Minister level and the Deputies can be assured that our concern for the preservation of our position will be looked to at all times.
There is no great urgency in all that.
I assure the Minister that our wish is to strengthen the Minister's position in any negotiations and that rather than being critical of us for raising this issue the Minister should be coming with us. By raising this issue here we are giving strength to the Minister's case.
A question, Deputy.
I would point out to the Minister that whether he likes it or not, and this is not just the view of the politicians on this side or the House——
A question, Deputy.
——responsible people in the industry and outside of the industry feel that in the negotiations——
Deputy, you are not asking a question.
——which have taken place up to now we are losing out substantially——
The Deputy is not asking a question.
——and quickly and we want to get from the Minister some indication that there will be no weakening of our position in any further negotiations which take place.
The Deputy is making a long speech.
(Interruptions.)
I want to get a final point across——
A final question, Deputy. It is not a statement I am asking for.
We are not satisfied with the replies we are getting from the Minister.
The Deputy's way of responding should be to ask a question and not to make a statement.
There are other ways. I could give notice that I wish the matter to be raised on the Adjournment.
(Interruptions.)
We want some indication from the Minister that he is aware of the seriousness of the issue and of the anxiety in the industry and throughout the community as to the way in which the negotiations have been handled up to now. We can see a very real threat of a brake being put on the industry. If the proceedings continue along the lines on which they are going at the moment it will put back the development of the Irish fishing industry by about 15 years.
The Deputy is making a long-winded statement. I would ask the Minister for a final reply and we will go on to Question No. 4.
There will be no weakening in our resolve and there will be no pulling back from the tough position we have adopted up to now. I accept what Deputy Daly says, that by raising the issue here he is trying to strengthen my hand in the negotiations and I would be surprised if the opposite were the case.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 4.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Deputy resume his seat?
I am looking after the fishermen's interests.
I am looking after the interests of the House. Will the Deputy resume his seat?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Gallagher is being disorderly. Would Deputy Gallagher please resume his seat?
Can I take it that the Minister is not prepared to use his powers of veto?
(Interruptions.)
I am prepared to answer the question if I am allowed.
We are on Question No. 4.
The Minister wants to answer the question.
I am giving notice that I wish to raise this on the Adjournment.
I will contact the Ceann Comhairle about it.