The following has been arranged with the Whips: 7 p.m. to 7.10 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.10 p.m. to 7.20 p.m., a Government speaker; 7.20 p.m. to 7.40 p.m., a Government speaker; 7.40 p.m. to 8.10 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker; 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. a Government speaker; 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker. Is that agreed to?
Private Members' Business. - Fishing Industry: Motion (Resumed).
Question put and agreed to.
Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That Dáil Éireann takes note of the serious implications for our fishing and fish processing industry from the proposed enlargement of the Community by the admission of Spain and Portugal to the EC, and calls on the Government to ensure that whatever arrangements are necessary to protect our national interests are included in the accession agreement."
—(Deputy Daly)
Prior to the Minister's speech here last night, I was reasonably certain that at the end of the day the Government and the Minister would not sell out on our national interests as affected by the Spanish and Portuguese applications for membership of the Community with regard to our fishing industry. However, having listened carefully to the Minister's contribution last night, I must say that I am totally disillusioned and I fear that the fishing industry is about to be abandoned by the Government.
Let me set for the House the background of the present situation with regard to our fishing industry as it goes into these negotiations within the Community regarding the Spanish and Portuguese applications. Eighty per cent of our present fleet is in financial difficulties at this time. This has been caused by the failure of the Minister and his Government to get adequate quotas out of the negotiations for the Common Fisheries Policy. In particular, I refer to mackerel as being the major catch. This failure has affected not just our fishing fleet directly, but also our processing plant, with up to 1,000 jobs put at risk as a result The fleet owners at present owe approximately £8 million to BIM, with up to 100 boats possibly being repossessed and 40 to be repossessed immediately. Against this, our catching capacity within the fleet has been going up, but our quotas have been going down.
It is against this background that we as a nation and the Government entered into these negotiations to protect our national interest — our fishing fleet, our processing industry and all the jobs essential there. Unfortunately, the Government have reneged on the sworn duty to protect the best interests of this nation. In particular, during our Presidency of the Community there was a glorious opportunity to hammer out a fishing agreement, with regard to the Spanish and Portuguese applications, which would be suitable to Ireland. However, that Presidency, under the Taoiseach and with the negotiations being handled by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, went about being good Europeans while the rest of Europe were looking after their own national interests. When we should have been looking after the fishing aspects of the negotiations of entry of Spain and Portugal, what were we doing with the glorious opportunity at Dublin Castle? We were being good Europeans, settling the wine lake problem for the Italians.
If the situation were reversed during the Italian Presidency, would they give up their opportunity of using their Presidency to protect their national interests, or would they have been worried about our fishing industry? Like any sensible, sane Government, they would have protected their national interests. The Government, under the Taoiseach, had the claim at a press conference in Dublin Castle of a major victory which turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for our fishing industry. Even looking at the positive features of that Summit meeting, it was agreed that we would have a 15 year transition period with regard to Spanish entry. It is Spain in particular about which I speak, because the Portuguese fishing fleet is not of significance in this question. That 15 year transition period was itself a sell-out on the original 20 year period being looked for by our fishing industry. We learned from the Minister last night that the Commission have come up with a seven year period, half of what was agreed in Dublin and two thirds of what the national interest is entitled to. We also learned from him last night that Spain is not even interested in accepting the seven years which apparently our Minister is prepared to accept. They wanted from day one to have access to the Irish "box." This is ludicrous. The Minister said that Spain had expressed strong opposition to the policy of a 15 year transition period, fearing that such a long transition would exclude her from effective participation in the review of the Common Fisheries Policy due to take place in 1993 and moreover, that Spain was seeking access to the Irish "box" from the date of accession. If we are to judge from the performance of this Government and the Minister to date, Spain will probably get away with it.
If the Spanish fleet comes in from day one, or even in seven years, or 15 years, it will wipe out our industry totally. They have 17,500 boats and 111,000 fishermen, as against our 1,600 boats, mainly small and not able to compete. Spain is already breaking the rules even before admission. I refer the House to a recent edition of the IFA News which stated that there has already been £1.4 million in 1983 in revenue from fines for Spanish abuses. How much worse will it be when they are in the system? I thank the IFA, IFPO and the KFO for keeping us, as Members of this House, informed as to what exactly has been going on in the fishing industry.
The debate seems to concentrate on the west and south coasts, but it is also about the east coast. The whole fishing industry is an interdependent, large fishing family of boats, processors and general people involved in the industry. Skerries, Balbriggan, Clogher Head, Howth and the whole east coast are affected as much as the rest of the country. I appeal to the Minister to show some backbone, to remember that he got his seal of office to protect the national interest of this country. The national interest as it affects his ministry is our fishing industry. If he continues to behave as he indicated in his speech last night, there will be no fishing industry by the time he leaves office.
As did the Minister last night, I welcome this debate because it is timely. The discussions which are now taking place in relation to the entry of Spain and Portugal to the EC are essential. When I was Opposition spokesman for Fisheries, I remember a debate in relation to a motion. My opposite number at that time, Deputy Daly, objected to the motion but I believed that it was helpful and it was meant to be helpful at the time. This motion is helpful to us.
The Minister of State put us through the division lobbies on the eve of the negotiations.
He put us through the lobbies.
That news was out in Brussels before we were finished going through the lobbies. It was essential that they should understand the Irish decision in relation to that issue.
The Minister is selling out.
It is very important. People on the other side of the House appear to have a simplistic view of the fishing industry and how it should develop. There is no short route or easy way towards developing our fishing industry. I learned that in my two years and three months as Minister of State. Up until now the industry has been producer-orientated and, as a consequence, insufficient attention was paid to the vital role which marketing has in raising the unit value of fish. For this reason I established a fish marketing committee representative of all sectors of the industry. This committee has been working extremely hard in identifying market opportunities and, better still, in taking action to develop them.
The deliberations of the committee which I chair have shown great unity of purpose and the need for close co-operation between all sectors to the overall benefit of the industry and the economy generally. I am glad to say that last year's problem of a build up in mackerel stocks has been resolved satisfactorily and herring outlets have improved following trade discussions with Poland. In setting up this committee I can never be accused of using any political party. I picked people from the industry up and down the country with the exception of two nominations on the committee. The industry selected all their members. I see that Deputy Daly is smiling, but that is the truth. The fishing industry are very glad that this committee are in operation. I should like to put on the record of the House my appreciation of their efforts.
I asked the committee to identify areas for me where they believed I should go as Minister of State representing the industry and where I can be helpful. As the result of a request from the committee I went to Poland which was a very useful exercise. I visited Poland late last year and the visit proved very beneficial, a factor for which herring fishermen around the country will vouch. While I was in Poland I invited the Polish Minister for Maritime Affairs to come here. Worthwhile discussions were held with him since he arrived here last Sunday. I visited fishing ports and installations with him on Monday last and I am confident that this latest contact will result in further tangible trade advantage in the near future.
I brought the Minister to our premier fishing port in Killybegs. We visited all the processing factories in that port. We also spoke to the fishermen. We have drawn up agreements with Poland for the supply of about 10,000 tonnes of fish, 7,500 tonnes of herring and 2,500 tonnes of mackerel. My big interest is in ensuring that we export processed fish to Poland. They have a huge fishing fleet and a huge market. Once we identify the markets it is our job to see how we can put fish economically into those markets. They would not send the Minister over here unless he was coming here to do business and he has done business. I cannot say exactly how much business has been done but, before this year is out, I am hopeful that some processed fish from Killybegs will go to the Polish market. That is a very beneficial market for our industry.
When I took over the Department of Fisheries I was disappointed to find that these markets had not been researched by the Department or anybody else. During the discussions here there were quite a number of criticisms of BIM. They were given about £135,000 for the exporting of fish. That was completely inadequate. There was one man in Paris with a specific role to play in marketing. That cost about £70,000 which indicates the amount of money left. That has been reversed by a decision taken by the Government. We got £480,000 extra for marketing and for exploratory fishing. That is a very welcome development.
I want to put on the record of the House my appreciation of the warm welcome we got from the Polish authorities while we were there. The negotiations took place in Szczecin with Ry-bex who are the main company responsible for fish imports. The managing director of Ry-bex accompanied the Minister on his visit here and carried out discussions with interested parties here. The Government have shown their appreciation of the role of marketing in improving returns in the fishing industry. This has been shown in a very tangible way by a commitment to an extra £480,000 for marketing and exploratory fishing purposes.
Those who call for an immediate turnover in the full processing of our fish catch do not understand the structures of the industry at home or on the export market. The most lucrative market today is for fresh fish rather than processed fish. This is why we have to be careful to relate our developments at home to the requirements of the market place.
It would please the Government immensely to have the greatest possible amount of our national fish catch processed in Ireland in shore-based industries but, if we go along that road, we will quickly find that the market will not accept that type of development. This is very clear not alone here but in every country in Europe. The Minister went to Japan and it is also quite clear in Japan. They do not require large amounts of processed fish. Fresh fish and frozen fish are those the market place is seeking. That has not changed over the past number of years.
We have ample evidence in places like Killybegs and Kilmore Quay of what processing means in terms of secure jobs. This is the way in which we wish to see the industry developing. Deputy Byrne asked the Government to pay special attention to the development of Kilmore Quay which is in my constituency. I have paid special attention to it during my term of office. The harbour was almost split in half and could have been washed into the sea were it not for the fact that I asked the Government for £120,000 to put in stone protection right around the harbour. That is special attention. It will not stop there. We are awaiting reports on an extension of the harbour. We put an increase of £500,000 into the allocation for 1985. It is impossible for me to say where that £500,000 will go but, in view of the very tight financial position in which we find ourselves, it is encouraging for harbour development.
The Minister has one minute.
My understanding was that I could speak for 20 minutes. We were to divide the half hour into 20 minutes and ten minutes. My time is 7.30 p.m. Am I all right for ten minutes more?
Acting Chairman
Yes.
The Minister dealt with the Brussels side of the negotiations; I shall deal with the industry. The debate last evening spread its wings, so to speak, to all sections of the industry and these things have to be answered.
The Minister of State should adhere to the motion.
The Minister dealt adequately with the motion. Harbour development has been neglected over the years. I question the wisdom of investing such huge sums of money in five main harbours at the expense of approximately 40 small ones. I believe sufficient money has been invested in our main harbours. As Deputy Daly will know, our small harbours are in need of development and investment very badly at present. It is my intention to have an assessment carried out of harbours right around our coasts, ensuring that out of whatever moneys are allocated our small harbours will get their fair share. We must look after the small boatmen the same as the large boatmen.
Is the Minister going to dredge Kilmore?
The harbour at Howth has cost between £8 million and £10 million over the last four or five years and any available moneys in those years have gone into the development of that port.
I should like to deal now with the fish marketing board. It is only right to point out that the Government have invested considerable moneys this year in the marketing of fish. I am glad the industry is prepared to respond, that they are prepared to invest considerable sums of money — I am not prepared to state how much at this stage — for the advancement of the marketing of fish countrywide. This is a most welcome development because I discovered that no contribution whatsoever towards the marketing of fish had come from the industry itself. This is a great mistake, one that should be reversed, and it has been as a result of the establishment of the marketing board that such has taken place. I welcome that innovation and I should like to put it on the record of the House.
I might deal now with something Deputy Hugh Byrne mentioned last evening, that is in relation to the special aid package announced recently to tackle the problem confronting our fishing fleet arising from high operational costs with low returns from catches of some species. Fishermen will now enjoy full duty rebate on fuel oil of 8p per gallon compared with 3p per gallon previously. This concession will cost our Exchequer approximately £500,000 this year. It should be remembered that fuel oil constitutes a major operating cost for fishermen. Depending on the size of boat, usage and the value of the concession, this will range from £2,000 to as high as £14,000 per boat per year. All fishermen have discovered that the increased cost of oil has constituted a major factor in the industry going in the wrong direction, rendering many boats non-viable. While this concession may appear to be small it will be valuable to our fishermen and they are prepared to accept it at present.
The package also provides for an increased interest subsidy to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and bank loans which qualify for inclusion in the scheme. Deputy H. Byrne said last evening that bank loans do not qualify. I want to make it quite clear to the House that bank loans do qualify. We should not like the message to go out — and this did receive some publicity — that bank loans do not qualify. As far as boat purchase is concerned bank loans do qualify. I want to make that absolutely clear. As a result the net interest rate on these loans will be at the very attractive rate of 9 per cent, subject to review in the light of developments taking place in interest rates. The total amount now allocated for interest subsidy is £1.2 million annually over the next three years. All arrears on eligible boats may be capitalised and repayments on the new capital sum outstanding calculated on an annuity rather than on a straight line basis. In addition, loans may be restructured to provide for the extension of the period of repayment — this is a very important point — of up to 15 years depending on the age of the existing loan. These concessions will provide considerable relief to fishermen on repayment of loans.
Some people have welcomed this development, others have not but, as far as I am concerned, this rescue package was based on the needs of the industry. As far as the industry is concerned, and here I speak of the fishermen — I do not speak of those who criticise them——
The fishermen criticise it——
——the fishermen have welcomed this package. I have been in contact with our fishermen right around the coast. For example, I was in Killybegs last Monday and met six fishermen who came to me to say thanks, which is very encouraging——
Six out of how many?
They came to me and said thanks for the concessions in the package.
I could not let the occasion pass without saying a few words on the motion itself. Negotiations on enlargement of the Community have been prolonged and difficult. It is evident from what the Minister said last evening that what was said previously by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House, that a firm position has been taken by the Government, remains the case. Negotiations have now reached a delicate stage. Deputies can be assured that a forceful representation of the particular requirements of our fishing industry will continue in these negotiations as they proceed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is entitled to the full support of the House in his efforts to achieve a satisfactory deal for our fishermen. I am glad to see that that support will be forthcoming.
Deputy Raphael Burke said he was worried at the thought of Spain's entry into the fishing world. We are all worried at the thought of Spain becoming a member of the EC, something about which we as a nation must be very careful. But, as somebody said last evening, we cannot take all and give nothing. Deputy Burke referred to the negotiations which took place at the Dublin Summit. The position taken at the Dublin Summit was for a 15 year period, whereas Deputy Burke talked in terms of seven years. That was merely a proposal by the Commission and should be seen as a starting point only in the negotiations.
It will be less than seven, going down to perhaps four, five or even two.
Like the super-levy.
As far as we are concerned it constitutes the starting point. The Minister said last evening:
The transitional arrangements would last for ten years — with the possibility that this could be reduced to eight years if satisfactory post-transitional arrangements could be adopted before the end of 1993. If such arrangements could not be agreed by 1995, the ten years' transitional period would be extended for a further five years — i.e. until the virtual expiry of the present arrangements under the Common Fisheries Policy in its present form in 2002.
That is quite clear and plain. I do not know from where Deputy Raphael Burke got his information but apparently he did not read the Minister's comments.
He quoted the Minister's speech.
That is what the Minister said, and that constitutes our bargaining position. As far as we are concerned there will be no change. I am prepared to accept that, as far as this country is concerned, the introduction of Spain never mind Portugal constitutes a threat. I might add that in 1983 the number of vessels arrested for illegal fishing in our waters was 53, of which 50 were Spanish vessels, indicating how aggressive these people are. Indeed, one of its worst features was that even the vessels arrested, having paid a fine, returned to fish again and were rearrested on a number of occasions. One might well contend that they are not prepared to accept the legal situation obtaining in a country but are prepared to insist on fishing in our waters. As we are all aware, the Spanish fleet has 17,500 vessels, or two-thirds of the total of the EC, constituting a huge fleet.
My position is absolutely clear. I have been in touch with the Minister for Foreign Affairs whose job it is to conduct these negotiations. We have clearly told him that the minimum must be ten years and that if proper arrangements cannot be made for the Irish "box" in those ten years then the period should be extended to 15 years, and that position will not change. I am glad we are receiving the support of the Opposition — I do not mind some political points being made, sometimes that is useful and does not worry us — and we are prepared to accept the motion as it stands.
I was delighted that the Polish Minister for Fisheries visited the south west Donegal constituency last Monday on his official visit to this country and I was particularly glad that he visited Killybegs, our premier fishing port. I know that an agreement was signed between Poland and Irish fishing interests late last year whereby they agreed to buy 10,000 tonnes of fish but, as far as I know, most of the fish they purchased was unprocessed. The Polish Minister also visited food processing plants in the same area.
I was delighted to hear the note of optimism in the speech of the Minister of State and that there will be further agreements between Poland and Ireland as a result of the Polish Minister's visit. I had discussions with the Minister and the Minister of State in relation to bringing the Polish Minister to Killybegs. I hope that any further agreements between this country and Poland will place more emphasis on processed fish because that will create employment at home rather than in Poland. We have a very good case in that regard because, last year, we imported goods to the value of about £45 million from Poland and, in return, our exports totalled about £2,500.
We know that the Irish fishing and processing industries experienced difficult times over the last few years because of a number of factors but the most serious threat facing them is the entry of Spain into the EC. It took seven years to negotiate a Common Fisheries Policy between the member states and it came into being in January 1983. Within it, arrangements have been made to allow the Irish fishing and processing industries to develop in the years ahead. I am afraid that, with the entry of Spain, the delicate balance attained in the negotiations leading to the Common Fisheries Policy will be upset. A number of speakers referred to the transition period: ten, 15 and 20 years were mentioned. While I realise that there must be a transition period which will allow us to develop our fishing industry, nevertheless, I hope that at the end of the transition period the Spanish fishing fleet will not be allowed to upset the balance arrived at when the Common Fisheries Policy was negotiated.
I should like to compliment the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and their Ministers of State for their handling of the negotiations since they started and the efforts they have made to protect our fishing industry. Five EC countries have fishing interests in the North Atlantic, namely, ourselves, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Denmark. I hope that the countries who have rights in these waters will put up a united front and adopt a common policy when the negotiations regarding the entry of Spain are in progress. I understand that other members within the Community, the Southern Europeans and the landlocked countries, have different priorities. I refer to Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Belgium who are not interested in our waters and may have other priorities at the negotiations such as vegetables, fruit, wine and so on. I hope there will not be any trading off at our expense in relation to these negotiations.
The Spanish fishing fleet have over 2,000 deep water vessels fishing out of Spain which is almost as many as the entire Community. Last year, they landed 1.6 million tonnes of fish and I wonder what percentage of that was caught in Community waters. For instance, during 1984, our fishery protection vessels apprehended over 50 Spanish boats, brought them to our ports and fines exceeding £100,000 were imposed on some owners. I understand that if a skipper is convicted for a third fishing offence, his boat may be confiscated and I hope that those in charge of fishery protection will bear this in mind.
Spain has been allocated £160 million for fishery reconstruction from EC funds and we have received very little compared to that. When the negotiations are completed, I hope that there will be a substantial transition period and afterwards we should still be able to protect the balance achieved when the Common Fisheries Policy was negotiated. If Spaniards are allowed to fish in our waters after the transition period, we should have some sort of arrangement whereby fish caught in EC waters should be processed in this country which would create jobs here rather than in Spain. In some European countries there are six, seven or more people employed in the processing industry for every one person fishing at sea and the ratio here is one to one.
It is significant that all sides of the House support this motion. There are no amendments and our negotiators have our full support because our fishing industry is vital to our economy.
I was not in the House but I listened carefully to the Minister of State and I thought we were debating the Estimates rather than the accession of Spain and Portugal.
The Minister referred to people on this side taking a simplistic view but if anyone here took a simplistic view of the fishing industry it was the Minister of State when he suggested to me, in response to a question about an increase in the quotas for mackerel, that there was no point in looking for increases in this respect when we cannot sell what we have. The Minister should consider withdrawing that remark.
Matters should be clarified. Spain and Portugal are the countries seeking admission to the EC, but listening to speakers opposite one would think that Poland was the country we were talking about. I might remind the House that we sold salted herrings to Portugal many years ago. The Minister has not told us that there is to be an increase in the quantities being sold. Instead, he refers to efforts to consolidate the amount that has been sold. The accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community would have a disastrous effect on our fishing industry unless the Government change the course they are on and take a much stronger stand. Our fishing industry, which to other Europeans may seem small, is of vital importance to our social and economic life especially in coastal areas.
In 1983 the sea fishing industry contributed about £61 million of the gross domestic product. This is a significant contribution to the balance of payments in which respect the contribution from the sea fishing industry in 1983 was £52 million. In rural areas, especially in the west, fishing provides much needed employment. It generates income along the western seaboard. Two-thirds of all fish landed around our coasts is landed in the south, south-west, west and northwest regions. These are areas that are completely non-developed and in which there are no alternative sources of employment. There are about 13,000 people employed in the fishing industry. I am not making a political point when I say that if we continue on the road on which the Government have set themselves and if we concede to the Spanish, many of those jobs in the industry will be in jeopardy. That would have a catastrophic effect on constituencies such as my own and on the country generally.
When we joined the Community the Protocol on Ireland which was annexed to the Treaty set out the fundamental objectives of the European Community. These included a steady improvement of living standards and working conditions of peoples of the member states and the harmonious development of their economies by reducing the differences between the various regions and by reducing the backwardness of the less favoured regions. The discussions between the EC and Spain and Portugal are ensuring that the gap is widened and that areas such as the west of Ireland are becoming more backward.
Last evening the Minister gave the impression that our fishing industry would not be affected seriously by the accession of Spain and Portugal. We all know that the morale of the fishermen and of the industry generally was never lower. Apart from the negotiations taking place, this low morale is synonymous with Coalition Governments. Neither the fishermen nor the processors have the confidence to invest in the industry. We must give to the industry every freedom and every facility to enable it to operate at its maximum capacity. It is not operating at its maximum now.
No decision must be reached in the short term in so far as the discussions are concerned. We must hold out for the best deal possible. The concessions that would apply to Spain and Portugal would have detrimental effects on our industry. As has been proved time and again, we cannot trust the Spaniards. One might ask, having regard to our policing system, how we are to control our fishing waters. The Spaniards maintain a pool from which are paid fines in respect of Spaniards found fishing illegally in the waters of other countries. Indeed, it is advantageous to the Spanish when one of their boats is apprehended, because while the boat is being taken to port an area is left free of policing and other Spanish vessels move in to that area to fish. A sufficient amount is maintained in the pool to pay any fines that may arise. Another factor is that when Spaniards detect a naval vessel they immediately head off westwards followed by the naval vessel but having first cut the warps and indicated to sister ships in the area where the nets are. The other vessels then move in and take the catch. I understand that the Spaniards require only a legal basis to allow them fish within the 200 mile limit and having obtained that I am convinced they would continue to flout the law as they have been doing while there is no legal basis whatever for their actions.
In addition the Spaniards are using their NATO membership as a lever in the negotiations. It is suggested that if their demands are not met, at the time of the referendum in Spain this year in relation to NATO, they will be recommending withdrawal from that organisation. We know that the large European partners could not accept that. The Commission, as indicated by Commissioner Andriessen, are totally opposed to the proposed 15 year provision. We must hold out for a 20 year transition period and not agree to any concession at any time within that period. Also, we would require additional finance during that period to enable us to invest in larger vessels, to fish new species and to adapt and modernise our boats as necessary as well as to aid our fish processing industry so that it may expand its facilities for primary processing and add value to those primary products that are being landed now.
The Spaniards have been offered a sum of £21 million during the term of the transition period, the so-called seven year period, to enable them to phase down and adapt their boats, perhaps to adapt them to come here to fish our mackerel quotas. No offer is to be made to Ireland in this respect so we cannot accept what is being proposed. The Minister must hold firm on the question of a 20 year period and of finance to help the fishing and the processing industry in the meantime. We understand that the Commission have proposed a period much shorter than 15 years. They are not in favour either of a total exclusion from the Irish "box". They will pressure the Council of Ministers in this regard but I trust that our Minister will have sufficient support to enable him to ensure that the Spaniards will not be allowed fish inside the Irish "box" at any time.
I understand that our arguments are difficult to defend but we can overcome that difficulty by the use of the veto. There should be no question of abandoning the principle of the veto. Even a small nation such as ours can compete so long as we have the power of veto. I trust that the Minister will use that power in the months ahead if our demands are not met.
Thousands of jobs in the industry are in jeopardy because of the indecisiveness and the lack of strength on the part of the Government. Fishermen and processors are afraid to invest in the industry because they fear that within seven years these other boats will be fishing within the 200 mile limit. One wonders why all the emphasis should be on the west coast of Ireland. Nothing is heard of the North Sea in this context. There is no question of offering the Spaniards quotas of species in that area. We should remind ourselves that Ireland has no reciprocal rights apart from a small percentage in the Irish Sea. We had a small percentage in the North Sea but we did not have the right boats. Now that we have the boats we have no rights in the North Sea. That is some concession.
When Spain enters the EC they may nominate boats to fish in Community waters and this means fishing off the west coast. As I understand it, this will be called the base list, where they can nominate boats to fish at various times in Community waters. They will have 26 boats in areas 5B and 6 and 169 boats to fish in area 7, which are the areas off our coast. At any one time 195 boats can fish off our coast. We have the ludicrous situation where we will have what is known as the second list — typical European terminology. This means that when the first boats go outside our waters others can come in. We cannot accept this. When the boats come in they must be given authority to fish for three months and they must return to Spain and deposit their fish before returning here. We must ensure that they do not go to a mother ship and deposit their fish there. These figures are based on a standard vessel of 700 hp and the figures will vary depending on the vessel.
We must ensure also that new quotas are not established. We have to deal with fish such as blue whiting and horse mackerel which are non-traditional species. We cannot allow those fishermen to come here and fish for blue whiting, horse mackerel or scad. We have enough difficulty in getting our Government to grant-aid people to fish for these species but, on the other hand, the EC will give £21 million to the Spaniards to fish here. It has been suggested that the opening up of the Spanish market will have advantages for us but I say there will be no advantages for us. That market will be supplied by the Spanish boats who fish off the west coast.
The Spaniards have no traditional rights whatever to fish off our coast. They have only limited rights for a short period — in fact, it should be regarded as a concession. Further development is being put in jeopardy because of the weakness of our negotiating position. We must insist on a time limit of 20 years and no fishing quota system. Already they have been offered quantities of hake, monkfish, mergrim, prawns and white pollack. Although the amount is very small — 0.4 per cent — it is a foot in the door. They should not be allowed access at any time to the Irish "box" and we should ensure that our fleet are given finance to modernise.
What we have been saying on this side of the House has been true. What we have said has been accepted by the sectoral development committee and by the committee dealing with secondary legislation of the EC. This is an all-party committee. We must make sure that we do not do the same thing that was done at the end of last year, just to cobble together an agreement while we held the Presidency. We did not use our powers then. Let us use them now by ensuring that, if necessary, we invoke the veto.
This is a most important motion not only for fishermen but for those engaged in ancillary industries. The development of the Irish fishing industry is of crucial importance to our economy. We have a most valuable natural resource which must be developed and exploited to the full. The fisheries industry must get a capital injection, and this was stressed by the previous speaker, in order to bring our fleet to modern standards. This is necessary to meet the challenge of today. If we are to continue with the kind of fishing we engage in at present and fight against competition from Spain and other countries, it is necessary that we modernise our fleet. Not only must our fishing boats be brought up to the standards of larger nations but we must also train our fishermen to the highest standards possible.
The Government have a vital role to play in protecting the interests of our fishermen both at domestic and at Community level. It must be asked if the Government are doing their duty in that regard? Are they fighting strongly enough to safeguard the livelihood of the 12,000 or 13,000 people engaged in the fishing industry? In the past seven years negotiations for enlargement of the Community have been going on. The major question facing Irish fishermen is, how long will be the transition period during which Spanish fishing will not extend beyond the present arrangements? It was indicated by reliable sources that the period would be ten years to 15 years but after listening to the Minister's speech one would have to question that and to ask if that period has been reduced to eight or seven years.
Spain wants access to the Irish "box" from 1 January 1986 but this must not be allowed to happen. If it did it would wipe out our industry. They also want access to species such as hake, monkfish and megrim which represent areas of growth for our fishermen. With the facilities and resources available to the vast Spanish fleet, if they were allowed to gain access to these species our fishermen would have nothing to fish. It would do away with our industry. I implore the Minister to stand firm against these demands.
The Minister also tells us that Spain would have access to the species she currently fishes. The question I would like the Minister to ask is: in what area is he talking about their having access? Is it in the Irish "box?" Is it in the six to 12 mile area?
No and no.
In what areas?
Out.
Would this apply to Spain having access to quantities of horse mackerel and blue whiting?
Negotiable.
I hope the Minister will negotiate and make sure they stay outside the 50 mile area.
The Deputy can have that guarantee. All his demands are being met. He is doing fine.
The seven years are the question.
This has nothing to do with me. It is a Commission proposal.
Are we witnessing a sell out?
Our starting point is ten years, plus five years if we do not get satisfactory negotiating terms.
We hope it will be 15 years, or even 20 years. The longer the better.
The Deputy had better get his act together.
How will the Spanish hordes be controlled when the present illegal use of monofilament nets in the northern and western parts of the country is not being controlled? I see these Spanish boats coming into Ballycotton Harbour although they are not supposed to be there. If they were given a foothold we would have them coming in in hordes.
The present restricted Spanish fleet poses a serious threat to the Irish fishing industry. In 1983 fines imposed on Spanish vessels came to £1.4 million. In 1983 arrests doubled when compared with those in 1982 and the Spaniards continued to poach in our waters with impunity. They are willing to take the risks because the rewards are high.
There is vast potential for job creation off our shores, and over the past ten to 15 years the fishing industry has expanded considerably. Landings have increased from 86,000 tonnes in 1972 to 206,000 tonnes in 1982. Fish exports have grown by 294 per cent between 1978 and 1982 and the number employed in fishing has grown by over 30 per cent since the mid-seventies to over 13,000 people. This growth shows the potential of the fishing industry and it is up to the Government to ensure that that progress is not stymied by giving in to the demands of the Spanish.
With regard to the opening up of the Spanish market, we must ask if this will mean sales and markets for our fishermen. In my view it is questionable that it will because of the distance from the market and the related heavy transport costs which would seriously affect our competitiveness.
The picture does not look rosy for our fishermen or our fishing industry and it is up to the Minister and the Government to stand firm and ensure that this growing and potentially major industry is not killed in its infancy. The Minister said the Government are conscious of the apprehensions and anxieties of our fishermen and that the enlargement negotiations are of fundamental concern to Ireland. Why then did the Government during their Presidency of the EC not make an issue of fisheries? Italy's wine problems seemed to be more important to our Ministers at that time. The buck stops with the Minister and he should make sure that when he hands it back to us it will not be devalued.
I am a Deputy from a maritime constituency with the sad experience over the past 40 years of seeing the rape of our fishing stocks off the south-west coast. When I was a boy I remember seeing a ring of Spanish trawlers marauding our fishing grounds at 11 or 12 o'clock at night. They overfished our waters to such an extent that they created a serious difficulty for our fishermen and made it very hard for them to catch the fish they wanted. The Spanish fishing fleet were notorious for marauding. I have no doubt that if they are given the chance under the present negotiations for their entry into the EC they will be as much pirates of the sea today as they were 40 years ago.
It is well known that they did immense damage to our fish breeding grounds. The bedrock of the breeding spawn was torn up by those trawlers. They entered our fishing grounds in the dark of night and we did not have enough patrol boats to keep them at bay. Even today it is very difficult for us to control our 200 mile zone because we have so few vessels.
I am amazed to hear Opposition Deputies say there will be a sellout to the Spanish and Portuguese. Who created the sellout? Who started the rot? We all know who negotiated our entry to the Common Market and that the fishing industry was treated as a Cinderella industry by the then Fianna Fáil Government. It is well known that they did not care about the future of the fishing industry when they were agreeing our accession terms to the EC. The fishing industry was sold down the drain on that occasion. Our Minister for Fisheries must do his best to ensure that our fishermen are given the opportunity to make a living fishing off our coasts. He must also ensure that rules and regulations are put into operation when we are agreeing the terms for accession to the EC by Spain and Portugal. Their entry to the market will have very serious effects on the livelihood of our fishermen, our fishing fleet and on all the people engaged in ancillary industries. If we are to have a valuable fishing industry protective measures must be provided to ensure that our fishermen are given a chance to earn a living. The present Spanish fishing fleet represents two-thirds of the combined EC fishing fleet. Imagine that.
Keep them out.
I hope we will do a better job than Fianna Fáil did.
(Interruptions.)
I hope our Minister will do a better job than the Fianna Fáil Minister for Fisheries, Deputy Lenihan, did when he was negotiating our accession to the EC.
(Interruptions.)
It is only right and proper to ensure that correct measures will be taken to further the Irish fishing industry. Spain and Portugal have not a legal right to fish within the 200 mile zone but they are marauding inside that limit when they get the chance. Fines totalling £1.4 million were imposed by Irish courts on Spanish ships in 1983 but this was only a drop in the ocean to the Spanish fleet and it did not deter them from poaching and ravaging our fishing grounds. If they are not curbed and if they are given an opportunity to infiltrate our fishing grounds they will create havoc for the Irish fishing industry. As a maritime country with rich fish stocks around our coasts it is important that our fishing rights are preserved. If we give a concession to the Spanish fishing fleet not alone will they deplete our fish stocks but they will wipe them out completely and they will take the limpets off the rocks.
The Deputy has three minutes.
The Spanish fleet land 1.6 million tonnes of fish each year, 75 per cent of which is caught outside of their waters, in Irish waters. The Spanish fishing armada have been the scourge of the Irish fishermen and they must be curbed as quickly as possible. Our Minister and our Government are doing their best to ensure the preservation of the fishing stock for our fishermen.
For the Spaniards.
They are not preserving them for the Spaniards. The Fianna Fáil Party opened the floodgates to allow EC countries to come in and fish almost up to our shorelines. A feeble opposition was put up by Fianna Fáil when in Government negotiating our terms of entry to the EC.
The Deputy has one minute.
If ever anybody sold the Irish fishing industry down the drain it was the Fianna Fáil Party who completely ignored it down through the years and who never accorded it the importance it deserved so that it could play its rightful part in supporting the economy. I fail to see why Deputy Ahern outlined such a dismal future for the fishing industry.
The Deputy agreed with me.
It is a well known fact that the fishing industry has grown by 294 per cent between 1978-82——
The Deputy's time is up.
——and employment has grown by over 30 per cent from 1970 to exceed 13,000 fishermen. It is important to continue that progress and that we consolidate our efforts to ensure that fishermen are protected.
Deputy Sheehan shares our view as to the importance of the fishing industry but he does not share the aspect that what is needed to protect the Irish fishing industry is a proper negotiating attitude and a proper negotiating stance. When the Framework Fisheries Agreement with which I was associated both as Minister for Fisheries and Minister for Foreign Affairs was signed between the EC and Spain on 15 April 1980 and ratified in May 1981 it provided the bedrock sensible basis on which negotiations should take place and from which we should not move. Any Minister who departs from that fundamental arrangement will damage the fishing industry. As a result of that agreement reached in 1980-81 it is estimated that there has been a reduction of some 50 per cent in the Spanish fishing effort in Irish waters. That is a conclusion reached by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on page 11 of their report. In the agreement we got a 50 mile box arrangement, we got Spanish fishing rights for the first time phased out of the six to 12 mile zone in which they worked, as a result of an agreement under the 1964 London Convention and we also got an arrangement whereby the Spanish fishing effort would be progressively reduced. The net effect of our actions on behalf of the people and the fishing industry at that time has been to reduce the effort of the Spanish fishing fleet in our waters by 50 per cent.
There is no need to argue about the importance of the fishing industry and the importance of our fishing stocks, on conservation grounds. The other member countries of the EC are very conscious of the need for conservation and that has been the motivation behind the Common Fisheries Policy, and the establishment of total allowable catches and quotas in regard to various species. As the Minister is aware the underlying principle behind the conduct of fisheries negotiations since our entry to the EC has been conservation and I go along with that. That is the basis on which negotiations should be conducted because the tragedy of the North Sea in regard to herring and the tragedy generally in North Atlantic waters in regard to herring and salmon is there for everyone to see. Conservation is all-important. If we allow this Spanish fleet in without control, without adhering to conservation principles, they will denude the fishing stocks of Northern Europe, particularly our fishing stocks. Traditionally the Spanish have had a very strong fishing effort within our area. If they, through the medium of improved mechanisation of their fleet, which they can get through various resources from the EC, and if through the joint venture and third country arrangements of the EC they can intensify their fishery efforts in the Community, Irish fishing will not have a great future. If the Spaniards are permitted to invade our fishing grounds it will be the end of the Irish fishing industry.
Through tough efforts we were able to reduce the Spanish fishing activities by 50 per cent in the past five years. As Minister for Fisheries I was responsible for reducing the Spanish fishing effort. Many Spanish trawler owners who disobeyed the arrangements have had to bear heavy penalties in the mean time.
(Interruptions.)
I hope the Minister appreciates that in this debate we are not in the game of politics. We are trying to save a major national industry and, as Deputy Sheehan, who saw fit to interrupt me, will appreciate, Castletownbere is very much involved. I am glad to have been associated with converting that town into a major fishing harbour.
Our principle business is to see that the terms of the 1980 framework agreement will be carried on. We must ensure that a transitional period of 15 years would be the minimum. There must be no compromise on that. Of course, the Spaniards are working hard to get into our ten mile zone. We naturally agree that they have established traditional fishing territories around our coast but in present circumstances there must not be any compromise in regard to the six mile to 12-mile area and the "box" at 50 miles during a transitional period. Spain must co-operate with the Community, and with Ireland in particular, and adopt arrangements for catches and quotas, species by species, to ensure that their total fishing effort would be substantially diminished. We must ensure that there will be a monitoring system to enforce such restrictions.
The Minister must remember that the Spanish fleet numbers 17,500 vessels with a 750,000 gross registered tonne catch. Their fleet on entry to the EC will represent a 70 per cent proportion of the entire EC capacity. I hope the Minister will not again back down as the Minister for Agriculture did in the past 12 months in the debacle in regard to the milk levy.
Thanks to great efforts by Fianna Fáil in the past few years the Irish fishing industry has been expanded. It has made substantial progress and it is now an industry ready for further development. In these circumstances we cannot have dangerous interference from the Spanish. We have developed excellent ports like Killybegs, Castletownbere, Schull, Dunmore East, Dunmore West and others. We can build an ultra modern fish processing industry. It would be tragic if the Spaniards were to render our efforts null and void.
Conservation, I am glad to say, is an important theme of the EC Council. Only by careful conservation of fish stocks will we be able to provide adequate supplies for human consumption. We are well placed to draw benefits from fish conservation. Therefore we must insist on strict adherence to the framework agreement of 1980. We must ensure that the Spaniards will not depart from that arrangement, and that must be monitored strictly. As I said earlier, under that agreement we succeeded in reducing Spanish catches in our waters by 50 per cent.
Even under a new agreement now being negotiated the Spaniards will be entitled to legitimate catches involving a wide range of species but we must ensure conservation to guarantee catches not only for our fishermen but for our fish processing industry. That is what we want to achieve. We were prompted to table this motion because we have severe doubts, having regard to certain aspects of the Government's failure, about their political will to negotiate properly on behalf of Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.