Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 6

Supplementary Estimates, 1992. - International Agreement on Navigation System: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gallagher)

Last week this House approved the terms of the international agreement concerning the establishment and operation of a civil LORAN C navigation system in north-west Europe and the north Athlantic. The approval of Dáil Éireann was required in accordance with Article 29.5.2º of the Constitution.

I am now pleased to have the opportunity to explain to the House in more detail the implications of this important international agreement to our fishing and shipping industries. In particular, the new navigation system, which will be established and operated in Irish waters as a direct consequence of the agreement, will enhance safety of navigation in Irish waters and will contribute towards the protection of the marine environment from casualties at sea. These are imperatives for my Department.

I will now elaborate on the background to this agreement and say a few words about the LORAN C navigation system. LORAN C is a land-based radio-navigation system which uses shore-based radio transmitters to allow users with appropriate receivers to determine their position. Although primarily a marine system it has potential application on land and in the air.

Within the LORAN C coverage area a user with an adequate receiver can determine his or her position to within 463 metres — 0.25 nautical miles — accuracy or better. The repeatable accuracy of the system, which permits a user to return to a specified point, ranges from 50 to 400 metres at the 95 per cent confidence level, making the system particularly useful for fishermen. Because of its long range, the system is attractive for application in remote areas or where the user population is too low to justify the cost of a large number of short range systems.

A LORAN C chain consists of a master radio transmitting station and two to four slaves. The chain transmits simultaneously a pulsed radio signal. The receiver defines its position on the earth by calculating the time interval between reception of signals from master and slaves.

LORAN is an acronym for long range navigation. It is the second generation of LORAN type positioning systems which were established in the 1950s to support United States Naval and Defence Department needs for accuracy positioning information throughout the world. Civilian and commercial use of LORAN C has since become widespread.

LORAN C is an all-weather accurate radio positioning system consisting of more than 13 chains worldwide. It is presently available in North America, the Far East, the Mediterranean and Saudi Arabia. Systems are currently being built in China, India, South America and Russia. At present, there are two LORAN C chains in operation in north-west Europe. They are the Icelandic chain and the Norwegian chain.

The opportunity for Ireland to participate in an extended north-west European LORAN C radio navigation system arose in 1981 when the US Government informed "host nations", Denmark, Iceland and Norway of their intention to switch to the satellite based NAVSTAR global positioning system for military use and to cease their funding and manning support of all LORAN C stations outside the US by 1994.

In order to ensure the availability of an independent alternative system in Europe, Ireland and other North Atlantic countries decided to establish and operate an extended LORAN C system in north-west Europe and the north Atlantic. The five other countries participating with Ireland in the establishment and operation of the system are Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway.

The countries party to the international agreement recognised that the satellite-based global positioning system would be used more and more in the future. It was agreed, however, that it would be unwise to rely on GPS without a land-based back-up system for two reasons. Firstly, GPS is at present a military system controlled by the US Department of Defence and available only when US national security permits. Secondly, GPS is subject to interruption. The shortcomings of GPS were highlighted during the Gulf War when the US re-sited satellites without warning leading to considerably reduced and interrupted service. LORAN C and GPS are complementary systems. In time, manufacturers will be marketing intergrated GPS/LORAN C receivers which will automatically select the most accurate system.

The north-west European LORAN C system will comprise six existing stations of the Norwegian and French chains, with the addition of two new stations in Norway and one in the west of Ireland. The resulting nine stations will be operated as four chains located at Boe in Norway, Ejde in the Faeroe Islands, Sylt in Germany and Lessay in France.

It is intended that the LORAN C radio navigation system will be operational in Irish waters from around March 1995. The Irish station, which will be located in County Clare, will be built and operated by the Commissioners of Irish Lights who provide a system of marine aids to navigation around the Irish coast. The transmitter will be an essential link in the four chains which will make up the north-west European LORAN C navigation system.

The LORAN C system will improve standards of aids to navigation for shipping, will enhance safety of life at sea, and contribute towards the protection of the marine environment from casualties at sea. In particular, it will improve position fixing coverage in Irish waters and will be superior to that currently being supplied by the existing short range Decca navigator system in terms of accuracy and repeatability at long range. Adoption of LORAN C will also effect savings in Exchequer funding of a radio navigation system.

The Government have opted to switch from the Decca navigator system to LORAN C for a number of reasons which I will outline to the House. LORAN C is technically superior providing better position fixing accuracy. Decca is a low power system which requires 24 transmitter stations to cover Ireland and the United Kingdom. LORAN C requires only one transmitter station to be based in Ireland. Decca suffers from adverse seasonal and night effects. Being a low-powered system Decca does not have as great a range as LORAN C. LORAN C coverage in Irish waters will extend beyond that provided by Decca, especially off the south and south-west coasts. The important fishing ports of Dingle, Castletownbere and Dunmore East are poorly served by Decca at present. All Irish inshore waters, the Irish and Celtic Seas, and Atlantic waters up to 220 nautical miles off our western shores will be covered by LORAN C signals giving position fixing accuracy of one quarter of a nautical mile, or better, 95 per cent of the time. This degree of accuracy is the acceptable standard laid down by the International Maritime Organisation which holds global responsibility for safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment. The offshore fisheries identified by BIM as having development potential will be accurately covered by LORAN C. They are inadequately covered by Decca. LORAN C has wide international acceptance. EC policy, as set out in a recent Council decision, is to encourage member states to — and I quote —"support efforts to set up a worldwide radio navigation system including European regional LORAN C chains".

Despite the eventual advent of GPS new LORAN C chains are being built in US, China, Russia and India. Carriage is mandatory in US coastal waters.

LORAN C is a radio navigation system which is easy to use. When the north-west European chain is complete, accuracies to within one-quarter of a nautical mile will be available to users. The major advantages are the low cost of receivers and simplicity of use. At present, the cost of a basic LORAN C receiver is about £500 and as more vessels use the system, receiver set prices will fall. The primary benefit is, therefore, safety related because as receiver prices drop then there is more and more chance of the part-time inshore fisherman using the system. This is particularly the case on the western seaboard of Ireland where the traditionl farmer-fisherman, cautious to spending hard-earned revenue on non-essentials, will be encouraged to install low cost LORAN C receivers because of the major advantages such a set will bring.

I will now briefly explain to the House how the system will work in practice and its advantages to working seafarers. LORAN C will give the position of a vessel, be it a small lobster potting boat or a very large crude oil carrier, in latitude and longitude. The set is simply switched on and the vessel's position is displayed automatically. No special charts will be necessary.

For the small lobster boat carrying minimal charts most receivers may be pre-programmed to give a bearing and distance to the landfall position, for example, the fairway buoy off the vessel's home port, from any location — and all at the touch of a button. A number of positions and tracks may be pre-entered so that, for example, a craft could make its way up an estuary or channel in poor visibility, the receiver guiding it from buoy to buoy showing headings to steer, whether on track or to one side, and distance and times to run.

Some receivers even have emergency locator transmitters — ELTs — incorporated in them which will, at the flick of a switch, broadcast the position of a vessel in difficulties and in which the receiver is linked to a synthesised voice. This will result in much faster on-scene response by the rescue services. There have been incidents of searches being carried out in the wrong areas due to vessels in distress being unaware of their location or giving an incorrect position. This problem could be reduced by the use of this type of LORAN C receiver with consequent higher success rates in rescues and lower search costs. As all LORAN C stations transmit on the same frequency — 100 kHz — no tuning is required.

The safety benefits arising from LORAN C may be well demonstrated by the experience in the United States of America where after LORAN C was installed it rapidly became a major factor in marine safety so that it was ultimately declared the principal aid to navigation in the coastal waters of North America.

Total capital expenditure on the European system will amount to about £19 million of which Ireland's share will be £1.56 million, or about 8 per cent of total cost. Ireland has been fortunate in securing participation in the LORAN C system on very attractive financial terms. The French and Dutch Governments will be contributing 50 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively, of the capital expenditure for the new Irish station. EC funding will also be sought. In addition, and because of the importance of Ireland to the European chain, the main equipment manufacturer has agreed to abate the costs of construction in Ireland by one million US dollars.

The State will be paying for the installation of the LORAN C system and for the running costs. The only cost to the users of the system will be the cost of purchase of receivers. Prices of LORAN C and Decca receivers are comparable. Existing Decca wheelhouse receivers have to be replaced periodically and a dual LORAN C-Decca system will be in operation during a two year overlap period from around 1995 to 1997. This means that users will have a five year lead-in period within which to purchase the equipment. Prior to and following the introduction of LORAN C the Commissioners of Irish Lights will arrange a mobile educational awareness programme on use of the system to assist fishermen during the transition period.

Mr. Deasy

I understand that the LORAN C system is an intermediary system. It will replace the Decca system which has been in use for many years and will ultimately be replaced by the GPS system presently used by the United States armed forces. The GPS system is basically a satellite system but apparently it will be some years before it comes into operation, so there is no reason for anybody to object to the LORAN C system being used in the meantime. I believe this system has a considerable number of defects and that the satellite system will be the ultimate in providing navigational aids. We on this side of the House have no problem about agreeing to the LORAN C system being provided nor, consequently, to providing the money for it.

What does concern us is the state of the fishery industry. Today is probably an appropriate time to refer to events which have taken place over the past 20 years and to the negotiations on the Common Fisheries Policy which are taking place and will take place over the next couple of months in Brussels.

As I understand it, the present policy was agreed in 1983. That policy was to cover a 20-year period and we are having a mid-term review of that policy. The initial policy was agreed in 1973 on our entry into the European Community. The 1983 agreement was also of considerable significance.

The most worrying aspect of these policies is the very heavy bias against Ireland where fishery matters are concerned. We possess 16 per cent of the Community's fishery grants and we are allowed to take only 4 per cent of the Community's total catch.

That situation will have to be redressed and there is no better time to do it than now while re-negotiations are taking place.

The Maastricht Treaty is in danger of bursting apart at the seams. People are putting all sorts of pre-conditions on their agreement to it. The Danes have already rejected it and the French have approved it by a very tiny margin. A number of other countries, including Great Britain, are having very serious reservations about their participation.

Like the French and the British, in recent weeks the Danes have put down markers as regards their future participation in the European Community. I wish to make the point today that Ireland, too, should put down a marker so far as the Common Fisheries Policy is concerned. It should be pointed out that we did not do well in the negotiations which took place prior to our accession to the European Community in 1973. Neither did we do well in the negotiations which led to the Common Fisheries Policy in 1983. If other countries are going to re-open negotiations on other matters we should be the first to re-open negotiations on the extent of our catch under the Common Fisheries Policy, given the potential of the fisheries industry for expansion.

However, instead of expansion what we have seen in recent years is contraction and a reduction in the size of the catch. This has led to many fishermen being made redundant. It is incredible that as a seafaring and maritime nation we should have so little influence on what is happening within the European Community in relation to fisheries matters. Even though we control 16 per cent of the fishing grounds we are only allowed 4 per cent of the catch. We need jobs and we need to sustain coastal communities but we are going in the opposite direction.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would encourage Deputy Deasy to come a little closer to the statement.

Mr. Deasy

I understand that this debate was postponed last week, at the request of the Government, strictly on the basis that it could be broadened to cover the fisheries industry in general.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would not be proper for anybody to pre-empt what is required by Standing Orders in respect of any discussion, that is, that one homes in or focuses or fishes in the waters prescribed. I know nothing about that arrangement.

Mr. Deasy

I have been led to understand by the Whip of my party that provision was made for a general discussion and that this formed part of the bargain in agreeing to take the debate today as distinct from last Thursday or Friday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If that agreement was reached provision should have been made for it. There would have been no objection to the proposal that it be extended but the Chair was not and should have been advised about it.

Mr. Deasy

With all due respect, if the Whips were contacted I am sure that it would be verified.

Mr. Gallagher

My own Whip would need to advise me as I was not advised of this arrangement. I am aware that a debate was due to take place last week on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Deasy

The Supplementary Estimate was due to be taken last week also. I note that the renegotiation process is proceeding at present in Brussels and that the Minister for the Marine has taken a court action against the European Community on the question of what our total allowable catch should be and of the tonnage that this country is allowed in respect of our fishing fleet.

In relation to the tonnage register, this constitutes a serious dereliction of duty on the part of those who are responsible for compiling it, given that the size of our fleet has been restricted considerably. This restriction is inequitable in that large boats which have been built in recent years comprise a significant proportion of the tonnage register to the exclusion of smaller inshore boats and traditional trawlers. As somebody in the fishing industry said to me recently, the scandal in relation to the compilation of that register compares with the scandals which have been exposed at the Beef Tribunal, that there is a bias in favour of very large boats and that a significant proportion of the tonnage allowed is absorbed by the big boats to the exclusion of small and medium-sized boats.

Like every other Deputy in this House who represents a coastal constituency and fishing ports, I am aware that hundreds of genuine fishermen are not being allowed to go to sea in their own boats — there are dozens of them in my own constituency — because they were omitted when the register was being compiled. There is no way that they will be allowed to re-enter the fishing industry which has always provided them with a livelihood. This amounts to a scandalous misappropriation of a valuable resource whereby the bigger boats absorb a significant proportion of the tonnage allowed to the exclusion of the traditional and inshore coastal fishermen.

The editorial in today's edition of The Irish Times sums up much of what needs to be said about the state of the fishing industry and cognisance should be taken of this. It is a Cinderella industry and much of what we should have obtained under the Common Fisheries Policy was sacrificed so that other sectors could benefit; this is not good enough.

In common with all others, we have a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone whereas our territorial zone is only 12 miles, that is, the area within which Irish law is applied. For fishery protection purposes, our Naval Service has control or jurisdiction over the 200-mile zone and they do a very good job with limited resources. The day has come when legal jurisdiction should be extended to the entire 200-mile exclusive zone and not confined solely to within 12 miles of our coast. Indeed, the figure used to be three miles but was increased some years ago to 12 miles. I am advocating that it be extended to cover our 200-mile exclusive zone.

I say this for a definite reason, that is that some fellow members of the European Community have abused their privileges within this 200-mile exclusive zone and in some cases have been getting away scot free with criminal and illegal activities. Two countries, in particular, have violated those fishing grounds to a massive extent, France and Spain. The French continually fish those grounds. In some cases, they use undersized mesh nets within six miles of our coast, because they have preferential status to do so. They are killing off the undersized fish and are, therefore, contributing to the destruction of our fishing stocks. They are unscrupulous and so also are the Spanish.

Day in day out the Spanish fishermen break the law in an organised manner which, apparently, is supported by their Government. I do not make this allegation lightly. We are all aware that since Spain's accession to the European Community they have been fishing illegally inside our 200 mile exclusive zone. They are licensed to fish with a certain number of boats, but they are fishing with a much greater number than their licence permits. If those boats which are fishing illegally are apprehended by the Irish Naval Service and the crew are prosecuted and convicted in the Irish courts, their fines are paid from a special slush fund. To my knowledge, the Spanish Government are working in tandem with the companies operating those boats. The boats are not owned by private individuals, they are owned by companies who are working in conjunction with the Spanish Government and any fines imposed are paid out of this fund. Even in cases of criminal activity, such as ramming of other boats, I believe the Spanish Government assist the perpetrators of such criminal activities.

On 31 April 1991, a Helvic fishing boat was rammed by a huge Spanish trawler approximately 40 miles off the Baltimore coast. Those who were at the scene are is in no doubt but that the intent was to sink the Helvic boat. Fortunately, the superstructure of the boat was sufficiently strong to withstand the ramming, but £40,000 worth of damage was caused to the boat. It was also a frightening experience for the crew members. Because the ramming took place outside our territorial limits no action was taken against the offending Spanish boat. There have been numerous incidents around our coast of huge French and Spanish boats continually intimidating and, in some cases, ramming Irish boats. Fortunately, as far as we are aware, there has been no loss of life to date. There was an incident recently in the Smalls off the Welsh coast, but the facts of that case have yet to be ascertained. Therefore, it would be improper for anyone to allege that some ulterior motive was involved. There have been numerous attempts to intimidate and sink Irish boats. For that reason, I would like the jurisdiction of the Irish Government to be extended from 12 to 200 miles to ensure that we can implement the law and that wrongdoers do not get away scot-free, as was the case in the past.

The most serious aspect of our fishing industry, apart from the necessity to increase our total allowable catch, is the depletion of fishery stocks around our coast. White fish are the bread and butter of our fishermen but stocks of that fish have been enormously depleted, particularly by the illegal activities of the French and Spanish, and also by rather indiscriminate fishing practices of some of our own fishermen. The owners of virtually all large boats have huge repayments to meet and if stocks are overfished in the outer regions there is a tendency to come closer to shore. Boats which were built to fish 100 to 200 miles off the coast are now fishing within a couple of miles of the coast. This has resulted in a massive depletion of white fish stocks. The day will come when fishing for certain species of fish will have to be banned completely. The Canadians did this recently at enormous cost to their own fishermen. They banned fishing for cod, which is their primary species, because of the depletion of stocks and over fishing of their waters.

Our stocks of white fish have reached an alarmingly low level. A proper regime should be introduced to ensure that small boats fish inshore and that the larger boats only fish in deep waters, a considerable distance offshore. There is no regime in place in the fishing industry here whereby zones are fixed. In the last century when boats were much smaller and less powerful there was a regime in place whereby certain fishing such as beam trawling was prohibited. They could only operate in certain areas. That was in the 19th century. We are now approaching the 21st century and anything goes in regard to fishing. We must have a system to regulate the fishing industry here.

It would have been of great assistance if the Minister had outlined to us in layman's language the practical advantages of the LORAN C navigation system, the deficiencies in the Decca system and what the ultimate advantages in the GPS satellite system will be in the future. We are introducing a system which has been in use since the fifties, according to the Minister. Therefore, it appears that the GPS system will be the ultimate one and I would like to know when the Minister envisages that system coming into operation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has run out of time.

Mr. Deasy

I thank the House for its indulgence and would appreciate if the Minister would reply to some of the substantive issues I raised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before proceeding I would like to clarify the position. As I anticipated, the agreement which Deputy Deasy understood was in existence does not exist.

Mr. Deasy

That is because of the position in regard to the Supplementary Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I accept Deputy Deasy's bona fides in so far as he understood there was an arrangement, but I am advising the House now that it does not exist and I would ask Deputy O'Sullivan to accept that.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I welcome the Supplementary Estimate before us this morning and support the measures outlined by the Minister in the provision of increased safety measures for maritime traffic going to and from this country. The motion as outlined indicates very clearly the urgency of passing this Estimate expeditiously. I would like to question why the urgency has arisen. I would expect that an expenditure of this nature would be well planned and would be part of an on-going programme of investigation in marine safety measures. I think it is opportune at this time to look at some aspects of the dangers to many of our citizens who make their living from going down to the sea in ships.

This country on the western periphery of Europe, being an island nation, should have where at all possible the best modern technology available to operate, control and safeguard shipping in and out of our ports. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have given their services in safeguarding the lives of their fellow men and women. The rescue services at Shannon, Haulbowline and other areas around the coast have done remarkable work down through the years with very often inadequate equipment.

I believe that we have been slow over the years to grasp the significance of our position on the western approaches to Europe and we have relied heavily on the rescue services of other countries, particularly Britain whose RAF rescue unit have played such a magnificent role down through the years in going to the aid of stricken vessels off our coast. This is done without cost to this country, a fact easily and very often forgotten.

Our new rescue service "Slanu" have indeed in the short time since becoming operative proven that they, with the cooperation of other services, provide a first-class service and if given the resources to do so will, I am sure, make a magnificent contribution to safety at sea.

I would have to mention at this point the splendid record of our Air Corps who have also played a huge role in saving life at sea and on land. It is also opportune at this time to pay tribute to the RNLI whom I consider to be a rescue service in a class of their own. These gallant men and women provide a remarkable service which unfortunately Governments do not fully appreciate. Very often these seamen face unbelieveable dangers to try to save life and never ask questions regarding compensation or reward or the creed or nationality of those who are in trouble. Their goal is to save life, very often at great risk to their own. I believe that the general public acknowledge this by subscribing generously to their flag days. A feature of these collections is that people willingly go to collectors to give money, recognising the great humanitarian work that is being done by this organisation. The Government's subscription of £100,000 in the annual Estimate, which has been static for some considerable time, should at least be doubled as a recognition of their great voluntary work.

The lighthouse service as we know is being dramatically changed with the mechanisation of lights around our coasts, I would have to agree that with modern technology automation was inevitable. However, while there may be a saving of money in the operation of an automated service, there very well could be a loss of life in doing so. While lights can be kept going without the human touch, very often the eyes and ears of vigilant keepers were instrumental in saving life.

There is now a substantial increase in marine leisure activity and despite the introduction recently by the Minister of legislation governing safety at sea, which incidentally I did not think went far enough, the lives of people not experienced in adverse weather conditions could be put at risk and there will be no conscientious keeper at hand to warn and advise of the dangers around our coastal waters. Modernisation, automation and high technology will never replace the experience in vigilance of our lighthouse keepers who have taken such pride in their work and in their traditions. One of the most important aspects of the installation of such equipment is its effects on our fishing fleets.

Any expenditure on equipment that helps or benefits fishermen, particularly their safety at sea, will be welcomed and supported by the Labour Party. While I see that this expenditure is a step forward, we must not let this occasion pass without highlighting the size and condition of our fishing boats. It is a fact that the vast majority of our fishing fleet are antiquated and showing the worst for wear. Fishermen manning these vessels in rough seas and high winds show an extraordinary skill in going about their daily work.

I would like once again to condemn in the strongest possible terms the criminal activity, referred to by Deputy Deasy, of some foreign steel-hulled trawlers who see Irish boats as a soft target for ramming in order to claim these fishing grounds for themselves. This activity on the high seas and very often in our Irish waters which puts lives at risk should be seen for what it is — attempted murder. The Minister must act and make sure that whatever country is involved and responsible is brought before the EC and made account for their nationals' action. This despicable action has little to do with the traditional code of seamen and fishermen. It is downright thuggery and criminal.

Life at sea, particularly for fishermen, is difficult and dangerous enough without having to contend with the militant, aggressive and savage action of unscrupulous foreign pirates. There is also, of course, the ever-present danger in the Irish Sea of the menace of submarines in the fishing grounds. It seems incomprehensible to me in this day and age, with the threat of war between East and West practically non-existent, that war games are continued to be played in busy shipping lanes.

If exercises are to be carried out I am sure that in the interest of safety, the Atlantic is the proper place for such activity. We recently had a near miss off the Scottish coast and I shudder to think what would happen if a passenger ferry going to and from this country hit a submerged submarine. I would ask the Minister, when meeting and speaking with his counterparts in other EC countries and with their defence authorities, to demand that all submarine activity in future would cease and that vessels, particularly submarines, would be obliged to travel on the surface while passing through the busy fishing grounds of the Irish Sea. I do not think that this is an unreasonable condition in view of the tragedies and near tragedies which have happened. The underwater activity of submarines, which pose a distinct threat to our fishing boats, should cease immediately.

I would also like to add that any resistance by the Minister in curtailing the tonnage of our fishing fleet would be fully supported by the Labour Party. It must be driven home to the EC that what is now needed in this country is bigger, better and safer boats so that our fishing industry can expand and provide the much needed employment for our people.

I note that the Government have approved the ratification of the international agreement for the establishment and operation of a civil LORAN sea navigation system in north-west Europe and the north Atlantic. Without going into the technicalities, of which the Minister has given a good outline, as to how this system operates and its functions, I note that the word "civil" is included and I would presume that military or naval participation would be excluded. I would appreciate if the Minister could enlighten the House if this is the case. I make this point for very good reasons.

In recent years we have seen drug seizures at our airports and ferry ports. A few weeks ago nearly £3 million worth of drugs was seized at Cork ferry port by our customs and excise officers who have done a magnificent job at ports of arrival throughout the country. However, it is a well known fact, a fact strongly indicated by the State Solicitor in Cork that drugs are coming into this country in huge quantities. It is believed that the south and south-west coasts are very vulnerable to this activity. I would ask the Minister if the installation of the proposed equipment could be utilised for detecting and position fixing in Irish waters suspect craft coming from abroad with drugs or contraband. I would also like to query whether, when this equipment is fully operational, Irish vessels will have to change to the system and whether the present Decca system operated in the majority of Irish boats will become obsolete.

It appears that countries such as Germany, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and France have signed this agreement — a notable absentee from this agreement is Britain. I would like the Minister to give an indication why this is so and to say whether this will cause confusion between the two countries in operational procedures.

The motion for approval before the House specifies that the sum of £550,000 be approved to enable this vital work to go ahead — i.e. the purchase of land and the signing of the contract for equipment. Judging by the information supplied to us, it would appear that there is no choice but to go ahead at this time due to the penal clause that the company or manufacturer supplying the equipment would increase the contract price by $1 million and the price of land where it is to be situated would increase by 10 per cent if funds were not available by 22 October. It would be very bad economics if this motion was not approved without delay. I welcome the provision of such equipment to ensure the safety of all those who make their living at sea.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy O'Sullivan. The Chair acknowledges your acceptance of the new order.

Mr. Blaney

From a quick perusal of the Minister's contribution it is clear that he should be congratulated on doing a good deal, financially speaking, and from the point of view of what we can understand of the LORAN C system. It holds great promise for improved safety in the years ahead. The accuracy which it will bring to bear on the location and placing of vessels — big and small — will, undoubtedly, make a further contribution to the surveillance of our waters from a fishery protection point of view and, as a result, the conservation of our fisheries, which are being systematically raped, as outlined by the two previous speakers.

This has been done over many years, not just by the historical fishing countries, but by their illegals, who are almost as numerous as the legalised fishing vessels of countries which I will not name, but there is no doubt about where most of them come from. I am a member of the Fisheries Committee in the Community and I have always raised this matter when there is a debate about conservation, fishing rights and fishery agreements. I have warned of the damage the illegal take is doing to the conservation of the stocks for those who are entitled to fish legally. It is fairly well known that fish taken in this way require a landing point. It is the old story, if there were not receivers there would not be thieves. In particular, I will continue to ask the Fisheries Commissioner to try to ensure that illegal catches are not received. This would be hard to implement at present but, under this new system, we might be able to do a little more. However, it is still, literally speaking, a drop in the ocean. We must find out where the fish are being landed because, if they are controlled at that point, they will also be controlled in relation to being scooped up illegally as they are at present.

I want to elaborate on how badly off we are in so far as our fish take is concerned, which is reflected in the conservancy measures which have had to be taken because of declining stocks. Our vast resource has been undervalued for far too long and it is really only in the last ten years — since the fisheries agreement — that we began to realise what a valuable future our fisheries would have if only we had access to at least double our present entitlement. That is not an unduly optimistic target and I am glad that the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Woods, is trying to ensure that we get a better deal than heretofore. It has not been too bad up to now because we have been trying to develop an infant fishing fleet to a modern one, even though it is still infinitesimal. The problem is that not only do we have a small take from a very large number of fish in our own waters, but because of the relatively small total take we do not have a surplus for continuous processing, where real employment can be created.

A startling figure has been mentioned in relation to fishing: for every fisherman full-time engaged in other countries in the Community, seven people are employed onshore in the processing industry. In Ireland, for every person full-time employed at sea we employ 0.7 of one person onshore. In other words, the average is ten times greater, not because of any lack of activity on the part of our small and would be processors, but because we do not have the necessary raw material in continuous supply. For that reason, any additional catch which we are allowed will be of great benefit, far in excess of the benefits accruing at present. We did a bad deal, there is no doubt about that, but I suppose it is understandable that agriculture was of such importance to us that fisheries were not given due regard. That, unfortunately, is the agreement under which we must now operate. It is now at the halfway stage in relation to review and there is great opposition to a review by those who have done very well out of it. The Ministers who will be charged with renegotiating the agreement will see that there are countries who will fight tooth and nail not to have changes made because they are doing so well out of it, partially at our expense.

There seems to be a third country fishery agreement arranged by the EC every six months. This is paid for by the EC and training is given to enable third countries, who are unable to take up their own fishing quotas in full, to do so in future. Massive sums are being paid from the Community budget to secure these third country agreements. However, the problem is that only a few countries nearest to those third country waters get any benefit and it is not reflected in the total allowable catch, as it should be. By shifting it round, the benefit could be shared equally by all the fishing countries in the Community but they have set their faces steadfastly against that policy.

Recently I had to make a report on a fishery agreement with the Republic of Guinea; it is only one of a dozen perhaps, there will be more. There is not an iota of benefit to any country — except one — in the Community. However, the Community are paying out of a common budget to which we all, as taxpayers, contribute. The Department of the Marine and the Minister should now try to get additional fish take without lessening the catch of anybody else. The present system in regard to our fisheries is nothing short of scandalous because from the south-west of Cork to Malin Head, Donegal, there is the greatest possible potential employment in regard to fishing.

We do not have the opportunities for other kinds of employment and there is within the Community a recognition that regions such as these should be given special treatment. The appropriate treatment for the west of Ireland is to give us a doubling of our total allowable catch. Let us start fighting now, as the Minister is already doing, because we are getting a raw deal.

Debate adjourned.