We are told that under new agreements being reached within the European Community Irish fishermen in 1977 will be allowed increase their catch by 20 per cent and that by 1979 they will be allowed double their catch. A number of fishermen have asked me what is the point in trying to increase one's catch by 20 per cent when one's present catch here is zero. It will be an impossibility, in their view, to increase our national catch next year or to double it by 1979 because the stocks have been depleted to a degree which is not known generally. The major source of our fishery catch in the last ten years has been herring, but our herring stocks are just about exhausted.
I have been noting public representatives for the last couple of months shedding crocodile tears about the manner in which our fisheries have been almost wiped out. Many of these people are considerably to blame for this situation because of their indifference down through the years. We, on the south coast, have seen the greatest series of poaching expeditions, of plundering, of raping, of pillaging of fishing grounds that has probably ever been seen in any part of Europe. This has gone on with only a slight whimper now and again from public representatives and from the public at large. Dunmore East was our major fishery port in the late sixties and early seventies. At this time of the year one could expect the harbour there to be packed with up to 100 trawlers. One could walk from one side of the harbour to the other across the decks of the boats which were jammed in the dock. Today it presents a sorry sight. There is hardly a box of herrings being landed in Dunmore at the moment when the season should be at its peak.
It is said that the Russians, the East Europeans and the Japanese are to blame for this situation. This is largely erroneous. The blame lies principally with a number of our partners in the Common Market, in particular the Dutch and also the French. The blame lies partly with ourselves. I will endeavour to explain the reasons why. The herring stocks are almost exhausted at the moment but the damage was not done last year or the year before. It was done in the late sixties and early seventies when hordes of Dutch trawlers—I suppose the word "trawler" is not the correct expression because they were ships, not trawlers: when we think of a trawler, we think of a boat in the 50-60 foot class, but these were steel-hulled ships of a 1,000 tons and more each—came right into our shores and swept everything before them. In particular they ruined the spawning beds along the south coast. At that time our naval fishery protection service was minimal. We had merely one vessel in commission. It is well known that the Dutch plotted the course of that protection vessel and when they knew it was in dry dock or when it was on the west coast they came in and did what they liked, and what they liked was to take everything before them whether the fish were large or small.
I contend that it is a sin to allow the Dutch and the French to base their case for catches on quotas when those catches were taken illegally because the bulk of them were taken outside our limits and because the size of fish on which they are basing their quotas was below what should have been caught. I am told the bulk of them were undersized. That explains why this year and even last year there are little or no herring around our coasts.
We know that the North Sea herring fisheries have been closed since 20th September last because they have been almost exhausted in the same manner. It is late now for people to begin lamenting this situation. The damage has been done and all we can hope to do is to see that other stocks are not annihilated in the same way.
Mr. Jerry Joyce is managing director of two herring processing plants in Rossaveal in Connemara. He was hoping to export £1,500,000 worth of processed herring this year, but he will be lucky if the two plants stay open because in a recent edition of The Irish Times Mr. Joyce is reported as stating that on the night of December 8th there were 150 Irish fishing boats off our coasts in search of herring and their total catch for the night was 21 tons, whereas the normal catch for this time of year would be about 1,000 tons. That figure illustrates graphically what has happened. The herring have been wiped out.
I would be incorrect if I laid all the blame on the Dutch and French. I lay the bulk of the blame on them. Irish fishermen have contributed to the decimation of the stocks. They are to blame, but it is a little difficult to blame them too strongly because when our coasts and our limits should have been protected they were not protected. Our fishermen could not compete with the foreigners in and around the six-mile limit or the 12-mile limit region. To meet repayments on their boats they had very little option but to go right into inlets and bays where the fish were spawning and rake them off the bottom. That practice has contributed largely to the diminution of the herring stock. The spawning fish were killed in their billions. When it is remembered that one herring lays an average of 30,000 eggs one can imagine the damage done by killing one spawning fish.
It was a sequence of events apart from the Dutch and the French cleanup of stocks. Our fishermen could not compete and had to kill the goose that laid the golden egg in order to pay their way.
We should be a lot tougher in our negotiations with other fishing countries. The EEC common fishery policy is very unfair. As far as this country is concerned, it is robbery. We are inclined to be too soft-hearted a race. We are dealing with hardhearted individuals. We should dig in our heels more. At present, if our fishing industry is to survive, we must stop these other people from catching huge quantities of mackerel and sprat because these are the only two surface-swimming fish which are left in sufficient quantities to make it profitable for Irish fishermen to earn a living in the future. It will take a number of years for our herring stock to recover even if they are not fished at all for a number of years. They are at such a low level that it will take years for them to recover. Other countries in the North Sea areas have imposed a complete ban on herring fishing.
We had a fortune but we have lost it. We have lost it largely because of our own indifference and incompetence. As well as allowing foreigners to catch our fish, we sold them what we caught ourselves for next to nothing. In Dunmore 15 years ago, a cran of herring was normally sold for £2. In 1965 or 1966, that price had risen to £4 or £5. In the same period we were buying back that herring in processed form. A cran of herring contains approximately 1,000 fish and if we take a price of £5 per cran, which was high at the time, the fisherman was getting less than 1p for each fish. A person buying a processed herring in a shop would pay more than 20p. Therefore, we lost out on the double. What the foreigners were not taking from us by their trawlers, they were buying cheaply from us and selling back at a large profit. That situation, pricewise, has improved but it is too late. At present, in Dunmore, if anyone happens to catch a cran of herring—this is becoming a rarity—he will get £60 per cran but unfortunately the fish are not there.
First and foremost, we must implement existing bye-laws to protect spawning grounds and, secondly, we must frame new laws to protect new spawning grounds and areas in which the young fish congregate after spawning. There are many by-laws in existence to protect certain harbours and inlets but I have never known any of these bye-laws to be implemented. There are a number of spawning grounds for herring around our coasts and there are also some spawning grounds for plaice, sole and whiting. These are protected by bye-laws but they are cleaned out regularly by our own in-shore fleet. This is a very short-sighted policy. It is revolting to find public representatives shedding crocodile tears about something over which they had control but in respect of which they failed to exercise control.
My solution to the present problem would be to adopt a much tougher attitude with our EEC partners. First, I do not believe they have a right to barter in regard to our fishing grounds. This is what the EEC are doing at the moment with Russia and Norway. We are told that the Russians will be given certain rights within the 200-mile limit. What will we get in return? I venture to say, nothing. The Russians hope to swop an area in the Barents Sea, where the French and British trawlers fish, for an area off our coasts. Let the French and British swop their own areas and let us keep ours. We should control the manner in which the other EEC members will fish our 200-mile zone. The Russians have no traditional rights whatever off our coasts. They made their first appearance in the last two or three years. The Bulgarians and the Roumanians have been told that they cannot come into our 200-mile zone after 1st January. These two countries had exactly the same right as had the Russians, and that is nil, because they are all there approximately the same length of time. The same can be said of the Poles, the East Germans and the Japanese. None of them has fishing rights off our coasts. The only country which has any right off the Irish coast and who are not in the Common Market at present is Spain. I understand they are to be treated with some courtesy and are to be allowed make some catches.
The Russian catch at present is 650,000 tons in Community waters, that is, within a 200-mile limit. At least half this catch is being obtained off the Irish coast. Their catch of 325,000 tons a year for the past few years compares badly with our catch of 75,000 tons per annum. The sooner they are put out and kept out the better. If the British and French want to do business with the Russians, that is their business.
In 1973, one of the first years when the Russians appeared in the Celtic Sea, they caught 63,000 tons of mackerel which was 17 times greater than the Irish catch of mackerel. Where will they go? I do not know and I care less and that should be our attitude. They have plenty of seas around their own country. They have in operation a 200-mile limit which I am sure we would not be allowed to breach, not that we want to. The Norwegians and the Icelanders also have a 200-mile limit. There is very little room for people like the Russians, the Bulgarians and the Rumanians to fish except off our coasts. I do not see why we should do a deal with the Russians.
There is a possibility that they will also fish around the Faroes, which are the property of the Danes, and that they will fish off Scotland, which is part of Britain. But what will happen if, as is likely, the Faroes become an independent group of islands? Greenland, which has been quoted as a Common Market area because it still belongs to the Danes may also become independent. What will happen if there is devolution for Scotland? It is quite likely that fishermen in Aberdeen, Peterhead and so on will say: "We want a 200-mile limit and we will opt out of the Common Market if necessary". It is unlikely but possible. Then the only common fishery waters in the EEC would be those off Ireland and Britain. The British waters are very limited because they are mainly in the North Atlantic, which is bereft of fish at the moment, absolutely cleaned out. Who was responsible for this but the Dutch, the Germans, the Danes and the French. They denuded their own rivers of fish, too. Unless we control these people and keep the third countries out, except for Spain, we are getting a bad deal.
Under this motion we are declaring a 200-mile limit. We should have complete control over all fishing within this limit. We should regulate the size of the boats to fish within this limit and regulate the type of gear they use. Personnel of an Irish fishery protection vessel should have the right to board and inspect these boats at all times. That is one way of controlling what is being caught. It should also be possible for the Irish authorities to inspect at the ports the catches that these people land. The evidence in the past has been that they catch every size of fish. They have no regard for conservation. The Dutch and French use such meshes that small fish cannot escape. If the fish is too small and inedible they turn it into fishmeal or into cat or dog food.
We should control conservation within the outer 150-mile band to the limit. We should not give these people authority to use their own type of gear or equipment. The seasons during which they may fish should also be controlled. If we let them continue as they have been, we will have nothing left. We know what a 12-mile limit is and what a 50-mile limit is, but unfortunately the poor fish are not so aware. Whether they are under- or over-sized our partners will catch and kill them. I am speaking on a rather depressing note, but I have seen the activities of these people. I have seen the catches disappear on our own piers and harbours and I can see them dwindling even further if we do not act toughly and quickly.
The Common Market fishery discussions have been conducted with great ability and authority by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He must get great credit for what he has done. He has been in a very difficult position fighting his corner against the other eight members of the Community. He has done this magnificently, but it has not been easy. Our position has been improved by the retirement of M. Lardinois from the discussions. His suggestions were infantile. He did not know what he was talking about or what conservation meant or how stocks should be preserved. The man who has taken his position M. Gundelach has shown some humanity and quite an understanding of our position. I am confident that we will make better progress with M. Gundelach.
We should hold out for a 50-mile limit and for complete control over the other 150 miles.
