Deputy Madeline Taylor-Quinn has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of negotiations which took place in Brussels over the week-end regarding fish quotas and the serious implication therefrom for fishermen. Deputy Taylor-Quinn has 17 minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Brussels Fish Quota Negotiations.
I have only 17 minutes. I wish to share my time with Deputy McGinley if that is agreed.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I would like to thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this very important issue on the Adjournment this evening. It is most unfortunate that this matter had to be raised on the Adjournment. I am interested to see the Minister of State here to take this matter rather than the Minister. Presumably, the Minister is attending to some other serious departmental business at this time.
I thought the Deputy was complaining about the time. She should use it as best she can.
I will use it as best I can, Minister. I can recall you saying many times on this side of the House, when we were in Government——
The Chair is not jealous but standing orders require that you address me.
I can recall the Minister of State on this side of the House, as Opposition spokesperson, dancing and prancing and doing jigs in relation to what we were doing in Government and in particular what our Minister for Fisheries, former Deputy Paddy O'Toole, did. He objected very vehemently on many occasions when the then Minister came back from Brussels with deals which were far superior and more beneficial to the fishing industry than the deal he and the Minister returned from Brussels with last week-end. I would like to ask the Minister of State what went wrong in Brussels. What were the Minister, the Minister of State and their negotiating team doing and why has there been such a disastrous result?
It is not enough for the Minister and the Minister of State to come back here and tell us that the EC wanted a reduction in quota to 63,000 tonnes. That is not a justifiable argument because everybody knows about the negotiating tactics adopted in Brussels. It is not enough for the Minister or the Minister of State to come back here and tell us that scientific evidence suggested to them that there was a need for conservation of the fishing stocks and that, in order to conserve the stocks, they had to accept this reduction. I understand from many people in the fishing sector that they do not rely very much on the scientific evidence that is available and that many of the so-called scientists who are giving this advice have not the resources to do the type of investigation required to present the Minister with sound advice on this matter. To put forward these arguments to justify an abysmal disaster in the negotiations in Brussels is not acceptable.
I hope the Minister here this evening will have positive news for us and for the fishing people in particular because they are very concerned about this matter. I would like the Minister to outline to this House why this 12.5 per cent reduction came about and why he accepted it. Why did they fail in their negotiations? Obviously, they had not got their case properly prepared and ready. This is most unfortunate because many people are totally dependent on the fishing industry. Many young men have bought small boats and are making substantial repayments to BIM. How are those men to make their repayments next year when the quota has been reduced by 10,000 tonnes? What will be the position of those people or will the Minister compensate them for the loss in quota?
A major announcement was made over six weeks ago by the Minister, the Minister of State and BIM regarding the creation of 400 jobs in the fishing industry over the next three to four years. That includes some jobs in the quota area. The mackerel quotas are being concentrated east of a four degree line. That is a serious matter because it will be to the advantage of the larger ships, many of which will be tempted to land in Denmark, Scotland and Holland. This will result in a substantial loss of jobs because the ships will not land in Ireland. I understand from fish processors that already this year there is evidence of a 50 per cent decrease in the fish landed for processing purposes. When we add to that the 12.5 per cent decrease in the quota, their future looks extremely bleak. I should like to know what consoling words the Minister may have to offer such people. Can he tell them clearly what is Government policy in relation to future landings of fish here? Are the Government prepared to allow boatowners to land fish in other countries? I fail to understand Government policy in relation to job creation when they have nothing specific in this area. If fish are not to be landed here then how can one create jobs in the fish processing area? I foresee that in the future not only will no new jobs be created but existing ones will be lost, which is very serious.
Many issues arise out of these most recent negotiations in Brussels into which I should like to go in greater detail but time does not so allow me. The Minister might elaborate for the House as to what is the policy of his Department vis-à-vis those people faced with financial disaster in the coming year, whose jobs will be placed in jeopardy. The Minister has a responsibility to this House and the industry to account for the abysmal stewardship of himself and his Minister in Brussels over last weekend.
It is vital that the Minister and his Department devise a plan immediately for the renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy in 1992. It is equally important that they would emphasise within the EC the importance of our fisheries industry. They should bring the attention of the EC to the fact that we have an under-developed fishing industry, so that we would warrant disadvantaged status in this area recognising that our counterparts have a fully developed fisheries industry. The Minister did not get that message across successfully in Europe. I find that difficult to swallow when I recall the type of objections advanced from this side of the House by the Minister when in opposition. The Minister in Government has shown himself up as the sham he was in opposition. It would appear that the line pursued in opposition has been changed, with a complete turnaround, which is indeed unfortunate.
Ar dtús ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le mo chara anseo, an Teachta Madeline Taylor-Quinn, as ucht deis a thabhairt dom labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo, tionscal na hiascaireachta san tír agus i mo chontae féin go speisialta.
It is not an exaggeration to say that there is an air of doom and gloom obtaining within our fishing industry at present. I travelled through Killybegs on Saturday last and noted very little activity. Most of the fishing fleet was tied up, the processors closed down, and people moving around without any work, people who should be working right up to the end of this month. That was the position obtaining there even before the latest negotiations in Brussels took place last weekend. At present the Killybegs fishing fleet are not allowed to fish for mackerel. They are debarred from fishing for herring. I understand that the fishing of cod has been banned also for the remainder of the year as has the fishing of black sole, so that there is very little fishing taking place at all.
Almost three years ago to the day I remember another Adjournment Debate in this House in which I and the Minister of State participated. The Irish mackerel quota had expired mid-December and there was a heated debate about the hardship caused to Donegal. The season has been closed for the past fortnight. Yet there has been hardly a word about it. This is very serious indeed. I should like to place on the record just how bad is the position.
There were two major points to be considered in the negotiations that took place in Brussels over the past weekend. There was, first, the drastic reduction of 12.5 per cent in the mackerel quota. Let there be no doubt about it, our fishing industry is as good or as bad as our mackerel quota. Pelagic fish constitute the backbone of our fishing industry, fish such as mackerel, herring and horse mackerel. If their quotas are properly managed we can have an excellent fishing season whereas, if there are not adequate quotas for them, there will be a disastrous season, which is what has happened. That is why it is so serious for the future of our fishing industry, for the excellent fleet in Killybegs and for the future of the people who invested so much money. One must ask what the future holds for them when the quota has been reduced by 12.5 per cent to 69,000 tonnes. I remember endeavouring to defend quotas of 80,000 and 90,000 tonnes which was difficult but it is absolutely impossible to defend a quota of 69,000 tonnes.
The second outcome of the negotiations in Brussels last weekend was that we were given access to the North Sea. We heard so much about the four degrees west line to which we were never allowed access before. I regard that access as a mixed blessing because I foresee it presenting difficulties to our fish processors, particularly those in my constituency. I know that if our fishermen and their boats are allowed into the North Sea the likelihood of their bringing that fish back to Killybegs — involving 60, 70 or 80 hours steaming — is very remote indeed. Indeed, I have it on good authority that of the 25,000 tonnes available up to a fortnight ago — when they did not pass the four degrees line — less than 50 per cent was brought back to Killybegs. That is one of the reasons for there having been so little employment there this year. One cannot blame the fishermen. If they are allowed in there, they will catch fish, sell it to the highest bidder, land it in Scotland, get it on to a Klondiker destined for the Continent. If one can do so one will not steam back to Irish processors providing them with the fish which, in turn, will provide jobs for them. That is the greatest weakness I perceive in the most recent negotiations in Brussels.
We are led to believe that the EC Community want to develop every region, peripheral as well as central. Where could one find a more peripheral region than our west coast, whether it be in Deputy Taylor-Quinn's, my constituency or any other where unemployment is so high? Indeed unemployment is twice the national average in my county. Over the years the fish processing industry created more than 1,000 jobs. I shudder to think what will be the future for these people if the fish is not available. I wonder what will happen the many hundreds of families stretching from Donegal town to Mountcharles, to Killybegs, through the Gaeltacht, to Glencolmcille, Kilcar, Carrick, right up through The Rosses, Glenties, Ardara where there is transport laid on for people to work in these processing factories. There are 1,000 people working in those areas season after season. If the fish is not available in the future, if it is to be landed on the Continent, or transferred at sea, what will happen these families, where will the jobs come from? I foresee it leading to even more emigration and, God knows, there is already sufficient in my county and the country as a whole. I see entire families leaving. But if these jobs are lost it will lead to even more, thus weakening even further the fabric of society in the west.
The immediate problem is that of the protection of jobs. It is my opinion that the Minister of State and his colleague did not play their cards correctly in Brussels. We are a peripheral region of Europe. We have received a very small slice of these quotas only — 4 per cent of the total allowable catch. If we are to take a pro rata decrease, as will larger countries, we will suffer even more. I do not know that that point has been adequately stressed in Brussels. I do not want to make political capital out of this matter; there has been sufficient of that in the past. We are all for the future of our fishing industry, of our fleet and for the protection of jobs in the processing industry. I saw several processors on television over the weekend. Indeed, they telephoned us here outlining the very bleak future indeed for them. Deputy Taylor-Quinn has said that we shall have to renegotiate in Brussels. However, that is way ahead in 1992. Unless we take some remedial action immediately it will be a very dim, bleak future for our fishing industry. It is my opinion that the latest negotiations in Brussels constituted a bad weekend's work.
Deputy Taylor-Quinn said it was unfortunate that we had to come in here tonight to debate the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels but I am delighted to have the opportunity to relate to the House what happened in Brussels. Before Deputy McGinley and Deputy Taylor-Quinn realised what was in the package they decided to make political capital out of it and they rushed to the media ill-informed and showing a lack of political maturity, interested only in personal publicity and giving no service to the industry. It has been proved here tonight that there is nothing there but tunnel vision. In the intervening days I would have thought they would have tried to educate themselves and would have consulted all involved in the industry. They have obviously only been in consultation, if at all, with one side of the industry.
The Common Fisheries Policy was agreed by a Fine Gael Government on 1 January 1983 and Deputy McGinley and Deputy Taylor-Quinn were part of that administration. The Fianna Fáil Government were not responsible for that policy but we had to work within the structures agreed by a former Fine Gael Minister. The quotas were allocated between the various member states as a result of the Common Fisheries Policy accepted by the Deputy's colleague at that time. Neither I, my Minister nor my party would have accepted the conditions laid down in the Common Fisheries Policy.
Brendan Daly negotiated it. We all know that.
When we assumed office in March 1987 there was a quota of some 80,000 tonnes and 73,000 tonnes were caught but less than 50 per cent of that catch was processed. People were allowed to fish indiscriminately. There was no management and no consultation with the industry. The fish were sold over the side to the Klondikers just because there was an election pending and because the Minister for Fisheries at the time had resigned and Deputy O'Toole had assumed responsibility. The Government of the day were not courageous.
Deputy McGinley talked about going through the town of Killybegs last week. I refer him back to the middle of February 1987 when in Killybegs 7,000 tonnes of a quota of 80,000 tonnes were landed and that all processed ashore. Those are the facts.
Our first priority on assuming office was to seek additional mackerel and we secured an additional 10,000 tonnes, bringing us up to a total of 17,000 tonnes for the autumn-winter fishing. As a result of responsible management and in conjunction with the industry we were in a better position to ensure that our fishing vessels could land fish during the autumn-winter fishing season. This management régime, set up by the Minister and myself and our officials, continued into the beginning of this year when our spring fishing was not exhausted in the middle of February but was exhausted naturally at the end of May and when 99 per cent of the fish caught were processed ashore. We did not allow Klondikers in to take the fish from our boats as did the previous administration. We left almost 24,000 tonnes for the winter fishing and we closed it only some few days ago. Deputy McGinley was critical of the closure of it, but he was equally as critical when we opened it on 3 October. He said ours was a cosmetic exercise. It was not a cosmetic exercise within the first fortnight when some 6,000 tonnes were landed in the town of Killybegs. Whoever is briefing the Deputies did not tell them that the 1,000 tonnes which arrived in Killybegs had to go back to Scotland because we were unable to process them in Killybegs. The Deputies should consult all facets of the industry prior to making ill-conceived statements.
Certainly all of the fish did not come down this year. Does Deputy McGinley suggest that we should not allow our boats outside of the four degree line? Does he suggest that we should not take up our mackerel quota? We should, and we should strive to achieve additional quantities during the year. If our fishermen are not allowed to do that, British and Continental boats will be in the fishing grounds three to four weeks before the Irish boats. Is there any economic acumen on the far side of the House? They would allow them in well in advance of our fishermen and the fish are one to three to the kilo.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is totally misrepresenting what we said.
(Interruptions.)
It has been suggested that our fishermen should not get in there.
We did not suggest any such thing.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister has a weak case.
(Interruptions.)
We have ensured that for the first time we are now in the North Sea. We have exerted our right in the North Sea.
(Interruptions.)
Sometimes it does not pay to have manners in the House. We did not interrupt the Opposition. I would like them to hear the facts and hear the package. I know that it is hard to hear the truth.
(Interruptions.)
If I danced a jig on the far side of the House, I danced it because I had my facts and I also danced it after I realised what the package was.
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
If Deputy McGinley and Deputy Taylor-Quinn do not like what they are hearing they have an option but they must listen patiently, as the Minister listened to both of them.
To misrepresentations by the Minister?
(Interruptions.)
There is a perception in this country that the success or failure of negotiations in Europe depend on the mackerel quota and that is tunnel vision. Last year's quota was 79,250 tonnes. The scientific advice was for 63,480 tonnes. We secured an increase to 69,280 tonnes. We would have liked to have come back with much more but we must look to the importance of conservation, and look to the generations of the future. While I would not fully accept the scientific advice it would be irresponsible totally to ignore it. We must always consider the maximum stock which may be fished within safe biological limits. We on this side of the House are committed to the long term future of this important renewable resource.
In relation to other important species, we ensured that we increased the catch of horse mackerel which is a non-quota species with a tremendous future.
What is the future of the processing industry?
We vigorously and successfully opposed a Dutch suggestion for the fishing of horse mackerel to a limit of 30,000 tonnes for industrial fishing because it would discriminate against vessels in this country. Both the Minister and myself returned from Brussels with a 33 per cent increase in our herring quota as compared with this time last year. Due to our management and conservation measures in the Blaskets we secured another 4,000 tonnes there. While we may have dropped 10,000 tonnes in mackerel we have an increase by 11,000 tonnes in herrings. Deputies might not be aware that the value of herrings would be one and a half times the value of the mackerel and would be fished by the same boats.
It should have been a bigger increase.
I will refer now to the other important species of white fish. We have achieved in cod a further increase of 2,000 tonnes, bringing us to 11,700 tonnes, in saithe 60 tonnes, bringing us up to 4,670 tonnes, in whiting 230 tonnes, bringing us up to 17,400 tonnes, in plaice 470 tonnes, bringing us up to a total of 3,380 tonnes, in sole 35 tonnes up to 675 tonnes, and in prawns 490 tonnes bringing us up to 9,805 tonnes. We increased haddock quotas by 1,650 tonnes, bringing us up to 4,090 tonnes. Compare that with the situation in the UK where they had a quota of 128,000 tonnes last year reduced to 54,000 tonnes. The Deputies do not want to know the truth about this matter. They are only aware of what has happened in mackerel.
(Interruptions.)
There has been an increase of £4 million on 1988.
(Interruptions.)
Both myself and the Minister, Deputy Daly, were responsible for bringing back a package giving an increase of £4 million on last year. We achieved this as a result of protracted negotiations in Europe both at Council and bilateral level. Prior to the Council meeting and prior to their irresponsible statements did the Deputies contact the IFO, the KFO, the IFPO, the IFPEA? We had meetings with them beforehand in Brussels.
I take this opportunity in the last minute available to me to thank the industry, both the producers and the processors, for their assistance and advice to us and for their very responsible attitude. I suggest that in future the Deputies should brief themselves better.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 December 1988.