Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1970

Vol. 250 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38 : Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £1,834,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1971, for salaries and expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Lands.)

Last night when speaking on this Estimate I spoke about the attitude of the EEC with regard to the adoption of a fisheries policy. I expressed some criticism of their procedure on this matter because whatever may be the theoretical position of principle that they adopt in regard to the acceptance by applicant countries of anything that may have been agreed between the Six up to the time when the applicant countries actually become members—in this particular instance the fact is that the vast majority of the total output of fish in the enlarged Community will come from the applicant countries-it seems to me that the Community ought to take into account the views of the applicant countries in arriving at a fisheries policy. Failure to do so gives the applicant countries a legitimate grievance in the matter. I would hope that our Government will press as strongly as the Norwegian and British Governments have pressed for reconsideration of the Community's position. I expressed regret that our Government, in their approaches so far, have failed to adopt the same strong line as that adopted by the Norwegian and British Governments.

I questioned whether the Government had appreciated the potential gravity of the problem posed by the proposals that are before the Council of Ministers for a fisheries policy and which were, in fact, adopted at the very moment that the Irish delegation were in Brussels presenting our application for membership. That was on the 30th June last. I had gone on then to deal with the question of the role of producer associations. I pointed out that in the common fisheries policy, in contrast to the other common policies, such as the common agricultural policy, the producer associations are given a very important role but one which may be more onerous than otherwise in so far as it involves the managing of the Market. If I understand the position correctly—I may not, because the regulation is extremely complex— it would seem to me it involves producer organisations in some part of the cost of maintaining price structure and of ensuring that if there is a surplus that surplus is dealt with while not allowing the price of fish to decrease.

I pointed out also that this involves not only a departure from the normal procedure of the Community but that it involves a change in policy so serious that the European Parliament commented most unfavourably on it in their supplementary report on the subject in April last. One feature of the role of producer organisations as proposed in the provisions of the policy would offer some assistance to the establishment of producer organisations. However, I had pointed out that this is something of a trap because these organisations will be given assistance to help them become established so that they shall undertake responsibility for the price intervention mechanism. Therefore, it will be seen that the apparent generous offer on this matter is not as generous as it may appear.

The provisions do involve some measure of subsidisation. It is surprising that the Parliamentary Secretary in opening the debate told us nothing in detail about this apart from announcing, as if it were something of a bonanza, that assistance should be given. He did not tell us the extent, but, as I understand it, the assistance has been decided. As I commented last night this section of his speech is extremely weak and offers no significant information about the actual position that exists in relation to the Irish fishing industry.

If there were not a common fisheries policy, I could understand the Parliamentary Secretary being vague as to what might happen but since the policy has in substance been adopted by the general decision of June and by the detailed decision of last month, the House is entitled to be told something about it. As usual in these cases, and as has been the case throughout the entire EEC affair, the responsibility for doing this devolves on the Opposition. This is not as it should be, and I express legitimate frustration at the constant process of having to govern from the Opposition in matters of this kind.

The provisions in regard to the producer groups that are made in this proposal are, as I understand them, designed to facilitate the constitution and functioning of these bodies. Member States will be able to grant to the producer groups aid of a transitional and decreasing nature. Over a three-year period they will be able to give these bodies 3 per cent, 2 per cent and I per cent of the value of the market production to get them off the ground. This aid, however, must not exceed 60 per cent of the management costs of the producer organisation in the first year, 40 per cent in the second year and 20 per cent in the third year. These are quite specific provisions. It is almost incredible to me that the Parliamentary Secretary would come into this House knowing these facts and not mention them. It is important to know what this assistance is, particularly as this question of assistance raises very serious problems.

The Parliamentary Secretary is, I trust, aware that our fishery statistics are totally inadequate. They are inadequate because they do not indicate in any sense the magnitude of our fishing industry. The reason for this is the not unnatural reluctance on the part of some fishermen to make full returns of their catches. The evidence of this-is that in one port a wholesaler handled in a particular period two-and-half-times as much fish as was officially landed in the port according to the returns made.

We do not know how big the understatement of fish returns is but the peculiar position is that the producer organisation here will now be entitled to seek financial assistance under these provisions limited to 3 per cent in the first year, then 2 per cent and then I per cent in succeeding years, of the total value of the catch, but we do not know what the total value of the catch is. We shall have some difficulty here in deciding what assistance we are entitled to give. It would be rather curious if we have to go to the European Community and say: "We do not know how much fish we catch but we think it is a lot more than is in fact being returned. Therefore we propose to give this producer organisation 3 per cent of a figure considerably higher than the official returns which are made of the fish caught." That is an unsatisfactory position and this is a problem which will arise ill the immediate future.

The Parliamentary Secretary should have dealt with that in opening the debate. I should like him, when he is replying, to say something about this and to indicate the Government plans for helping the producers to develop their organisation on a satisfactory basis. The Parliamentary Secretary will now realise—and it is something the Government would have realised much sooner if they had been following this matter even in a cursory way—it will be necessary for us to have a producer organisation capable of intervening in the market—and this is a very tricky business—according to these very complex provisions of the EEC policy, which will involve, I think, a considerable restructuring of the whole market organisation of fish in this country. I may be wrong in that; I am no expert on the fishing industry; but I have the impression that as at present organised, it is not geared for the kind of activity that will be required under the provisions of the Rome Treaty. Clearly they visualise that in a three-year period in which this special assistance will be given to set up such an organisation we shall have an organisation operating in such a way as to be capable of intervening in the market.

I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what plans there are in this respect. Does he visualise difficulties and, if so, what difficulties? How long will they take to overcome? What type of intervention organisation has he in mind? Is this something which will be organised by An Bord lascaigh Mhara or would An Bord lascaigh Mhara be considered by the Community as a producer organisation? Will it be necessary to set up a producer board of the kind which we have to some degree in respect of other products?

These are vitally important questions. For the Parliamentary Secretary to devote a column of the debate to quoting the names of the various piers around the coast which have been repaired and not to refer to this vitally important matter shows on the part of the Department who furnished him his brief either extraordinary ignorance and neglect of the whole subject or a desire to keep under cover these vital issues which should be debated in this House. The onus is on the Parliamentary Secretary to redress this error in replying to the debate. I hope to hear from him a full account of the Government's thinking in this matter and, if we do not, we shall be entitled to feel we have confirmation of our suspicion that the Government have no policy in the matter and that in this field, as in so many others, while the Government are capable of making speeches about the EEC after dinners, they do not understand the problems, are not prepared to meet them and are not capable of handling the situation.

We have had these disturbing rumours from Brussels as to the inadequacy of the Irish presentation of their case to the Commission. That the presentation of the case should be so defective in certain respects does not surprise those of us in this country who know how remiss the Government have been in this matter. A number of Government Departments have done their best. In fact the teamwork between some Government Departments has been excellent. We have a number of public officials who are extraordinarily well-informed on EEC matters. We cannot in this international arena enter negotiations and formulate policies and meet the kind of situation arising out of the EEC simply by having well-informed public officials. We are moving into a political area, an area of political decision-making, an area in which things may be well-discussed' at the official level, but if the Ministers who go along to the Ministerial meetings are not fully briefed, if they do not fully understand the problem, if they have been too preoccupied with other issues really to absorb the complexities of the matters, to be in a position to present fully and fairly the Irish case, to be in a position to answer with the agility and adeptness which ministers of other countries are showing on the questions and points that may be put by the Community officials, then all the work of the officials in their Departments goes for nothing. I have an impression that that is what is happening at the moment. It is perhaps unfortunate that we should be so ill-equipped to face these very complex and difficult negotiations.

In speaking on the EEC here some months ago I made a point that we are dealing with people who are not our enemies, who are not out to do us harm but who expect to be met by negotiators of the same calibre as themselves. We all know that in industrial relations you get a bad bargain if the two sides are not well-matched. One wage round some years led to a most unfortunate series of strikes because the employer organisation did not negotiate well. It failed to understand some of the issues at stake. It failed to present a proper front and to insist on clarification of certain points. As a result of this weak negotiation there emerged an ambiguous agreement, clear to the trade unions who had drafted the final statement but not clear to the employers who had not bothered to understand it. There were various strikes for which the unions were blamed because they had prepared the document that was the basis of the final settlement. They knew what it meant; the employers did not, and tried wriggling afterwards because they had to recover from the consequences of what was in fact their own incompetence.

The Deputy seems to be getting away from fisheries.

I am trying, by the analogy of a situation which is more familiar to the House, to illustrate the danger of the situation in which a negotiating team is not competent to handle the problems involved. In the case of the EEC it is not the desire of the other side to try to do us down in some way but, naturally, they present their case fully and they expect us to do the same and that there will be fair negotiation out of which will come a fair bargain. This will not happen if our representatives are so preoccupied with other events or are in some instances—and I would not allege this obviously of every Member of the Government—of such a calibre as to be incapable of coping with the problems. It is arguable that we had in terms of ability, if not perhaps of integrity, a stronger Government team up to last May, but now we have very few Ministers who, even by the standards of a small country, measure up to the level of ability required for this kind of negotiation. We are a country of three million people and even if we were cleverer than other people by some small margin, the fact would remain that the amount of available talent here can only be a fraction of what is available in other countries. We start with that disadvantage. It is vital, therefore, that we make up for it by ensuring the Ministers who negotiate have done their home work, have a real grasp of the problem and are alert and capable of negotiating effectively. There are dangers in the present situation because we have a Government which does not contain sufficient people capable of doing that.

The burden being carried by the few people with ability in the present Government, a burden which has obviously been increased by recent events, is one which, I think, is too much for them. We would need a Government with a very wide range of ability, not too distracted by affairs at home to concentrate all its attentions on these discussions, if we are to get fair and adequate results. We have a Government with too few Ministers who have the necessary ability, trying to do too much, facing the consequences of their own mismanagement of the economy in the past, and not capable of giving to these EEC negotiations anything like the wholehearted energy which should be put into them and, as a result, we are facing serious difficulties.

The fishery policy is an obvious case in point. The evidence is there in the complacent tone of the White Paper, the glancing reference of an equally complacent character in the speech of 30th June in Brussels and then the sudden awakening reflected in the terms of the Parliamentary Secretary's all too brief remarks with reference to the severe dangers to this country. One can also detect in the submission made by the Government to the EEC on this subject a sense of alarm at the dangers which have not yet, not even by the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, been indicated to the House. It is disturbing, first, that we should not have before us the full text of what has been said on our behalf in Brussels and, second, that there should be a divergence of tone between the submission in Brussels and what has been said in this House. From what was said in Brussels the Government clearly regard the position with alarm. Even the somewhat more serious tone of the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary in opening this debate do not by any means reflect what was said in Brussels. The Government are speaking with two voices. A Government speaking with two voices are not likely to negotiate well.

Our EEC negotiators are well-informed people; they know what is happening in this country. It is their job to be well-informed but, if I were an EEC negotiator, I would be a little sceptical of the tone of alarm sounded by the Irish delegation in Brussels when the whole tone of the White Paper, of the speech in Brussels on 30th June and to a lesser extent of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech here, suggests a different picture.

The Government are going to have to learn that it is not enough to go to Brussels and talk about the dangers to our fishing employment, and the fact that the dangers are particularly acute because these fishermen mainly work in areas of high emigration, when they are not prepared to talk in these terms here. These differences in tone are noted in Brussels. What happens in this House is well known to the people in Brussels. I went to Brussels four years ago with the Leader of the Opposition to discuss Irish affairs with the then External Relations Commissioner of the Community. He was able to quote from memory verbatim from the Seanad debate on the EEC. Some of his inquiries were alarmingly perspicacious and well-informed.

In these circumstances we are not able to get away with one story to Dáil Éireann that all is well, there is no need to worry, everything is okay— the usual complacent story we get here —and a different story in Brussels. The negotiators there will quite legitimately use against the Government the remarks made at home. The day has passed when that kind of thing can be got away with. We are not dealing any longer with the kind of situation which can be sealed away in separate compartments. What is said in this House and in White Papers issued here is known in Brussels.

Whatever attempts at secrecy may be made, everything that is said in Brussels becomes known here because, unlike our own public service and unlike the public service in Britain, the European Commission operates on a much more open basis. While lip service is paid to the idea of secrecy, it is virtually unknown there. Every document submitted becomes available very quickly through various channels and the Government themselves benefit from this. If the British Government produce a secret memorandum to the European Commission they will find that the Irish Government will get easy access to it if they are alert to it in Brussels, as I hope they are. The trouble about it from the Government's point of view is that it is no longer possible to speak with two voices in negotiations. It may have been possible in the past when they had national negotiations with other national governments which were shrouded in secrecy. While those national governments could not know what was being said publicly here and use it against our Government, there was no possibility of Irish public opinion knowing what was being said on their behalf in the negotiations. This is no longer true. We know what is being said by the Government in Brussels. We can see, detect and draw attention to discrepancies between the tone of remarks made there and here. For these reasons we have to adopt a different negotiating tactic from the one adopted to date.

I was drawn into that diversion because in dealing with the issue of producer organisations I had occasion to remark on the failure of the Parliamentary Secretary or, indeed, the Government in any shape or form, to draw the attention of the people to the special provisions which are now proposed in a most concrete form. I repeat my request to the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us at some length exactly what the Government propose. I warn him that failure to do so will be treated by the Opposition as confirmation that the Government have not any plans at this stage and are just drifting along without being prepared for the difficult problems which will arise.

Even in Brussels a tone of complacency has been sounded on the particular issue I am speaking about. Although all kinds of alarm and despondency have been expressed there and not here with regard to the access to our fisheries on the question of market organisation the Irish position at the October meeting was that there were no insuperable problems except the increased competition which our fishermen will have to face. They may not be insuperable but we should like to hear from the Government how they expect and intend to overcome them.

This brings me to the whole question of market organisation. It is a logical corollary to what I have been talking about because of the important role producer organisations are intended to play in market organisation. This market organisation system has not been adequately explained to the people. Certainly, I do not recall hearing any adequate explanation of it. I remain puzzled by some features of it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten the House on these features in his reply.

As regards the kind of fish with which we are mostly concerned it appears that guide prices will be laid down and that the external tariff of the Community will be related to these guide prices. The first thing we have to ask is: What will these guide prices be? These prices are very important because they will determine the interventions in the market. They will be based on the rates recorded during the previous three years in the Community's representative markets. We have had references to the fact that there will be more favourable market opportunities and so on but we want to know precisely what these prices are because we have contrary references to lower prices for the kinds of fish we eat here. The system is now set up. The Commission have proposed most extensive regulations on the subject and there are decisions that have been taken by the Commission, several of which I have here.

I am not in a position, however, from the data at my disposal, nor should I be expected to be, to assess what, in fact, will be the levels of the guide prices. The regulations I have before me, Nos. 2141 and 2142, make no specific reference to the guideline prices. It is not the task of the Opposition, and should not be, to ferret around the fish markets of the Six to find out what is the average price of fish and assess the guide price. That is what we have a Government for; it is their task to produce that kind of information, That is what the public service is for.

It is extraordinary that at a time when we have most helpful information from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on the likely level of prices for farm products in the EEC we have no similar guidance in regard to fish, as far as I am aware, of what the level of prices is in the Six and what will be the likely level of guide prices. Surely the Irish fishing industry is entitled to this information. It certainly has not got it from the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening speech. This information should be given to us so that we can make our assessment as to what the impact of the EEC will be on the level of fish prices, a very important matter for the consumers and a very important matter for the industry itself which needs to know for future planning what kind of level of price it can expect to face in the export market which will be open to it by EEC membership.

First of all, the guide prices are to be fixed and based on the rates recorded in the previous three years in the Community's representative markets. The procedure to be adopted then—I regret having to explain this to the House but, again, the Opposition has to do the job of Government because the Government have not done it—is that producer groups will be able to withdraw their members' products if rates fall below a withdrawal price of somewhere between 60 and 90 per cent of the guide price, the purpose being to maintain the price level in the event of a surplus. The producer groups' action will be supported by the granting of Community financial compensation. There is some confusion, I think, in the reports as to the level of this but, as between the two reports which refer to this compensation being 50 per cent and 80 per cent of the guide price, I take it 80 per cent is an error and the position is, in fact, that there will be Community financial compensation equal to 50 per cent of the guide price principle.

I come then to a qualification which I frankly fail to understand because I am not familiar with the whole problem of fisheries and there are certain aspects that defeat me. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the next bit to me because I simply cannot understand it: financial aid from the Community to the producer group is to be equal to 50 per cent of the guide price unless the withdrawal price is not between 50 and 65 per cent of the guide price. If the "not" were not there I could understand it and I assumed at first that the "not" was a printing error, but I find the same "not" entering into a separate report on a different date and I take it the word "not" is meant to be there and, if so, I cannot understand it. It would seem to me the Community would give financial compensation equal to 50 per cent of the guide price unless the withdrawal price was at the bottom end of the scale, in which case the Community would not have to pay the full amount because they would pay 55 per cent instead of 60 per cent. But that is not what is stated. What is stated is the opposite and I cannot understand how it is meant to work or what the significance of the system is with the "not" included. It would appear to me, if "not" is correctly included, that if the withdrawal price is between 65 and 90 per cent of the guide price, the Community then pay 50 per cent, and, if it is lower, the Community pay more, 60 per cent. I am lost. There may be good reason for that but, because of my ignorance of the industry, I am just not able to understand. We are entitled to some explanation of the purpose of this and whether, in fact, the word "not" ought or ought not to be in this particular report.

We have then the fact—this is very important to us and I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us more about it—that in regard to the levels of the withdrawal price the financial compensation given by the Community, and the intervention price, will be affected by quality, so one does not just turn up any old plaice or cod, as the case may be, and claim one's price. The quality of the fish will influence the price secured, influence the guide price and the withdrawal price and the Community's intervention price. This involves a standard system then of quality assessment.

What is this system? Does it exist in the Community at the present time? On what will it be based? Have we any system of assessing quality at the moment and, if we have, does it bear any relationship to the present or proposed Community system? These are vitally important questions to which, like the other matters I am raising, there is no reference in the Parliamentary Secretary's opening speech. Will we have introduced a standard system of grading acceptable to the Community? If so, will it develop from any system we may now have, or have we such a system in operation at the present time? It is my impression that the quality of fish is assessed on the market and the only way one knows whether fish is of higher or lower quality is in a sense backwards, by finding out the price paid for it, given that the people in the market have some ability to assess the quality of fish, quality being a function of size or a function of freshness, but I do not think this is a crucial factor. When one looks at a tray of plaice and sees one lot at a higher price than another lot, one takes it that the higher priced plaice is better quality, but it is only by finding out the price to be paid that one knows what the quality is. There does not seem to be any standard system of quality control. Are we going to introduce such a system? It seems to me from the proposals here that we are. What problems will this pose? Have these matters been discussed with the producers? Are there plans under way for introducing quality control and producer organisation? It is astonishing that at this late stage, when fisheries policy is now being implemented under Community regulations, we should know nothing about this.

If the Government have been active and "on the ball", as it were, in setting up adequate producer organisations and quality control systems, it is surprising that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is willing to come in and treat the House to a litany of piers in the west of Ireland, is not prepared to tell us anything about these activities on the part of the Government on which, if they had taken place, one would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to wax eloquent and in which one would expect him to take some pride. Yet, we have heard absolutely nothing. This adds to the unworthy, perhaps, suspicion on our side of the House that nothing has happened because we do not find this Government slow to proclaim their merits; if the Government are active, as they have been in many fields, they do not take long to tell the Dáil all about it. The deafening silence from which we have suffered in this debate, and before it, does not suggest to me any great activity. This gap should be filled and we should be told, when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, what the Government are doing in this and other matters.

There are many other details of policy into which I need not go here. Some relate to products in which we are not very interested, but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us something about the way in which he anticipates Community policy will operate in relation to shellfish. Shellfish, including lobsters, play quite an important part in our fishing industry and there are parts of the west coast to which they have brought a significant degree of prosperity. Total sales seem to be relatively high. It is of particular interest to us, therefore, to know what in fact will be done in this particular direction.

The information at my disposal is limited. The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate the difficulty of the Opposition. I shall come back to the availability of information to Parliament in a few minutes. A total and deafening silence does not make things easier. I have been puzzled by the fact that in the limited information at my disposal—I freely admit it is inadequate and there are gaps I am not able to fill—I have found nothing about shellfish. What does this signify? Are shellfish not covered by the policy? If they are, are they to be covered in some special way which nobody so far has bothered to mention? We should know this. The development of the lobster and shellfish market is of special importance to the west of Ireland and I do not think we should be left in total ignorance of the effects of the Community's policy in this sphere. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a full account of the impact of this new proposed market organisation on fisheries in Ireland and, in particular, in regard to lobsters and shellfish.

At this point I should like to make a few comments on a matter at which I hinted previously—the problem of getting information. A Cheann Comhairle, I address my remarks to you at this time for a particular reason. This House is dependent for information on two sources, apart from the newspapers. The House can get information from the Government if they are kind enough to furnish it. However, I do not think any Opposition could function properly if they had to operate on whatever information the Government doled out. They must have access to sources of information other than the Government. The channel through which this information should come is the library service of Parliament.

In connection with this debate I had occasion to inquire for some information from the Library of the Oireachtas. In the ordinary way I do not use the Library in regard to the EEC because I have my own sources of information. I try to obtain any relevant information that might be of concern to us in this matter. I might add that it is quite a task. Even the physical effort of handling the material is considerable because I have to transport it around in cardboard boxes.

However, I had occasion to approach the Library for a certain document I could not locate myself. I was told in the Library that the only information they had in regard to the EEC is the Community Bulletin—they have not even the supplements in stock. The supplements have been sought but have not been secured. The Community Bulletin is a rather dull but important document; it summarises developments that occur in the Community every month. However, the extent to which it does not provide adequate information is well illustrated by a quotation I shall give. It relates to a matter with which I shall deal later. In the August Bulletin, volume 3, No. 8, it is stated, in regard to the question of access to fisheries:

Concerning structural policy, the Council adopted the principle of the equality of access to and fishing of territorial and reserved waters for all Community fishermen. However, access to certain areas can be limited for certain types of fishing practised by the local population if the latter depends mainly on inshore fishing and if the exploitation of these areas is liable seriously to affect its traditional activity.

This all appears very reassuring but what is not said in the summary—and what this House could not know as it has not access to other sources of information—is that this policy is only for five years. This fact could only be known if there was available in the Library the relevant material from the EEC, namely, information regarding the Commission's proposals, the regulations adopted by the Council of Ministers, and other data. In particular, the Agence Europe Bulletin should be available because neither Government, Opposition nor indeed any business of any consequence in Europe can operate without it. It provides a vital flow of information each day and is of tremendous value.

None of this information is available in the Library and any Deputy or Senator who may wish to find out something about the EEC fishing policy will find only the Bulletin of the Community available there. As I have stated, this bulletin offers reassurance regarding our fishing interests but it does not state that it applies for only five years. The vital fact that it will not operate after this period is omitted. It is not good enough that this House should be placed in that position. We are approaching the point where this country will soon become a member of the Community.

The EEC is a long way on the path towards being a federal organisation, a community with a Parliament that debates matters frequently in an illuminating way. The Community has a Council of Ministers who can make regulations directly binding on all member States and it can legislate for those States. The European Commission is proposing decisions and, in many instances, is taking decisions at a lower level that are vitally important to member countries. Our country is entering into this organisation totally unequipped and with no information other than the Community Bulletin.

I am not saying this in criticism of the library service of this House, as it has been set up. The service is excellent for the purposes of a nation carrying out its own work and not linked to a community such as the EEC. However, we must remember that we will enter into a community that has been legislating for its members for nearly 12 years; in the case of the Coal and Steel Authority it has been legislating for much longer. The EEC have an enormous amount of legislation directly binding on this country, all of which we shall have to implement en bloc during 1972 if we become a member.

The fact that there has not been adequate information available to date may be understandable and forgivable but now that we are rapidly approaching the point when we may become a member this lack of information is no longer forgivable. It is clear to anybody who is in any way familiar with the complexity of the EEC, with the system of regulations and directives and the decision-making processes, that unless we have adequate information we cannot survive in the Community. It is clear to all that the present library service is inadequate for this purpose; the staffing is inadequate and the space is inadequate——

We cannot discuss the Library on this Vote.

I think I have the best of reasons for doing so.

I do not think so. I do not think the Library of Leinster House is responsible for the lack of documents issued by the EEC.

There is no lack of documents issued by the EEC. They issue the documents but they do not issue them to us because the only possible channel of communication to us-the Library—does not take them. It has no space in which to put all the documents and has not got the staff to file them. However, in deference to your comment I shall not say any more but I think it was fair to draw attention to this matter. I hope this is a matter that will be taken up with the Library Committee in the near future and I shall so propose through the proper channel.

Meanwhile, we must make do with the information we can get. I have tried to assemble as much information as I can, but the House can see that it is incomplete and that I am ill-informed on many aspects. We should really get down to the job of ensuring that we are adequately informed.

All this arose out of the question of market organisation. I have had to ask the Parliamentary Secretary questions which might not have been necessary if we had the full texts of the documents available. Nevertheless I consider he should take this opportunity to inform the Irish fishing industry of our prospects.

The matter of structural reform could be extremely important. I suppose in logical sequence I should first discuss the matter of access to our fisheries because it is potentially as a result of such access by other fishermen that we might be faced with the need for structural reform. Structural reform may sound innocuous but it may mean that our inshore fishermen might lose their livelihood and the matter must be discussed in this House now.

The position with regard to this is unsatisfactory in so far as the EEC policy is concerned. First of all, it is clear that only the structural measures which are included in article 39 of the Treaty, which deals with the basic objectives of the common agriculture policy and the agricultural financing regulations, will be financed by the Community. This means that the cost of the social measures will have to be borne by the member states. This is not so in the industrial sector, where half the cost of any redundancy compensation and resettlement is borne by the social fund. But in this area, where the problems could be more acute than people imagine, there is no provision for a community system. We will have to "carry the can". We will have to make provision for redundancy and retraining. Based on the record of this Government to date with regard to the provision of redundancy arrangements for the agricultural and fishery communities, I have no great confidence that, if left to the Irish Government, much will be done.

However inadequate they may be, we have redundancy provisions in respect of industry. Such provisions are inadequate as regards coverage, as we see from the Hibernian Transport case, but nevertheless we have such provisions. Something is being done. We have a scheme which can be improved upon and I hope it will be improved to ensure that nobody who suffers redundancy as a result of free trade will be worse off in terms of living standards. This country can well afford to carry losses in the form of redundancy caused by free trade. But it must be fully carried by the Community. No individual must be put in the position of having his standard of living sharply reduced because of free trade, when we are moving into this Community for the good of the people as a whole. Our people as a whole will benefit from it. The agricultural community, taken as a whole, have an obligation to ensure that anyone who suffers will be fully compensated. I do not believe our present provisions do that adequately. We must press for radical improvements. There is a scheme for industry, but nothing whatever for agriculture.

The question was raised in the Seanad a few years ago of the failure to cover the agricultural sector, including fisheries, for retraining in case of redundancy. That House was informed by representatives purporting to speak for the trade union movement on that occasion that the trade union movement did not want these particular sectors covered. I tried to get the correct information.

A quotation should be produced here.

I will try to get a quotation later. The position is that I checked with a certain union with which Deputy Tully is associated and I was authorised to say in the Seanad that what had been said by the union people was incorrect and that the relevant trade union was to be included and that the position had been misrepresented. On that occasion I acted promptly on behalf of the Federation of Rural Workers. There seems to have been a conspiracy of some kind not to extend redundancy compensation to the area where redundancy is at present greatest. If one is lucky enough to have a good job in industry, then if you lose it you will get compensation. If one is engaged as an agricultural labourer, earns his living on a miserable wage and becomes redundant, the retraining provisions do not apply. A farmer gets absolutely nothing. That situation cannot be allowed to continue. The fishery industry is threatened. I hope we can avoid the threat to the livelihood of the fishermen. It may be possible to do so. If we had a slightly more ingenious Government than we have at present something might be done; but the danger is there and we must ensure that adequate provision is made.

On the face of it the Community regulations are such that in the Community, as here, preference is given to industrial workers. Just as we extend some of these provisions to industrial workers only and not to farmers or fishermen, so they extend the provisions of the social fund only to the industrial sector and do not extend them to fishermen. That means that the cost of the redundancy will be borne entirely by us. I regard this as unsatisfactory. I would have hoped that the Irish Government would have taken up this matter. On the information available to me, the Irish Government have not mentioned this matter. If I am wrong about this, the Parliamentary Secretary will have an opportunity of saying so when he comes to reply. My impression is that the use of the social fund and the question of redundancy have not been raised by our Government with the Community.

Another reference to this confirms this fact. It is said that the structural measures to be implemented with the aid of the agricultural fund will only concern operations such as the improvement of fleets and the search for new fishing grounds. These are constructive measures to adapt the industry to survive. Measures such as aid for occupational retraining and pensions would remain exclusively the responsibility of national funds. In the coal and steel industries excellent provision is made for redundancy. There is excellent provision on the EEC side for redundancy in industry. On the agricultural side there is provision for redundancy in the much-maligned Mansholt Plan, which attempts to deal with the problem of redundancy fairly. There is no such provision for those employed in the fishing industry. I do not understand why the Community should take this line. It is time the Government expressed our views on this subject. We will suffer more than most from this question of the access of other fishing fleets to our waters and we ought to be pressing the case. No exception should be made here. The financial provisions which are made in the Community for redundancy and retraining of workers in industry should be extended also to the fishing sector. We should raise this point in the discussions on the EEC fishing policy.

We come now to the question of access. I dealt with the producer associations and their role in order to understand the method of market organisation proposed. I move now to the question of structural reform and social compensation for redundancy. Dealing with access, what precisely is involved here? As I understand it, free access to territorial waters is involved. The principle of non-discrimination is to be maintained, but for a five-year period access to certain fishing grounds situated within three nautical miles could be limited, especially where the coastal population mainly depended on fishing. During this period structural measures would have to be implemented to ensure a just income for these populations once total free access is achieved.

At least the thought is there to ensure a just income for these populations. By whom will these structural measures have to be implemented? Is it by the Community? Nothing this Government have done in regard to the problems of redundancy in the agricultural sector would encourage anyone to think that they will ensure a just income for redundant fishermen within five years of entry to the Community. Indeed this refers to the five years within the implementation of this policy. The five-year period mentioned is not the five-year period of transition to membership but the five-year period during which the policy is to be implemented. I should like to ask : are we seeking the full transitional period up to 1978 in respect of the fishery policy? If we join, is the existing Community fishery transitional period to be applied to us? I take it that we are seeking it up to the 1st January, 1978. I should like to be clear on that point, which has not been clarified. I find some confusion in regard to this.

I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to article 2 of the Commission's modified proposals with regard to the fishing industry. As I understand it, the announcement of the results of the Council's meeting on 30th June, 1970, included the following declaration :

The provision of Article 2 in that it lays down access to the fishing grounds included between the outside limit of territorial waters and the outside limit of the reserve fishing grounds does not prejudice the interpretation which must be given to Article 227 of the Treaty of Rome concerning the application of the various provisions of the latter to the territory of the member States who are outside this territory.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to us what are reserved fishing grounds. I have not come across this before. My ignorance of the industry is the problem. I ask the question with all the more concern because I find no reference to reserved fishing grounds in article 2 of the proposal. Because of deficiencies of documentation, I may not have the right document. I am about to read from the Community's Common Policy for Fish dated 29th May, 1968, Commission document 68/288—final. There may well be some mistake here because the policy which the Council of Ministers considered on 29th and 30th June was called the modified proposal of the Commission. It may be that there is a modified proposal which I have not access to and that it contains a modified article 2. What I have here does not seem to me to make any reference to reserved fishing grounds at all. I refer to paragraph I which says that the régime applied by each member state to the carrying on of fishing in the maritime waters under its sovereignty or its jurisdiction cannot involve differences of treatment with regard to other member states. It just refers to “maritime waters under its sovereignty or its jurisdiction”. There is no reference here specifically to reserved fishing grounds.

There is a policy here that could be of some importance to us. It is suggested here in the document I have in front of me, which quotes from the statement by the Council of Ministers after the meeting of 30th June, that the provision of article 2 covers fishing between the outside limit of territorial waters—which is defined as three miles out—and the outside limit of the reserved fishing grounds. This implies there is some reserved fishing ground close to the coast that remains protected and not affected by the provisions for access and that the access provisions relate to the water between these close-in reserved fishing grounds and the three-mile limit. Is this the case? Obviously, this could be of importance to us. What are these, then, reserved fishing grounds? Are we talking here of special provisions dealing with shellfish farming, which could be the case? Fish farming is carried out close to the coast. Is this reserved fishing ground? We need to know this. To what waters is access proposed? It is slightly absurd at this stage that we do not know. I cannot get any enlightenment from reading the article 2 to which reference is made—perhaps because I have the wrong document: maybe there is a later document that makes reference to it.

I would ask about the three-mile limit. I have already read out to the Parliamentary Secretary a reference to the three-mile limit. This is rather disturbing because we have something more than a three-mile limit. Is it the case that the Community countries have only a three-mile limit? Is there any suggestion that our limit, which is more extensive, will have to be modified down to a three-mile limit because we join the Community? We need enlightenment on this. The actual provision the Commission put forward in article 2 makes no reference to the three-mile limit. Yet, in a quotation which I read a few moments ago there was a reference to the three-mile limit. This is rather disturbing. We need to know something more about it.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten us on the question of whether any change in our fishing limits would be required as regards third countries—countries outside the Community—or whether this reference to three nautical miles is simply a reference to what happens to be the existing limit in the Community. It is interesting to note in the European Bulletin from which I am quoting phrases that this whole question in the resolution assumes a somewhat enigmatic character. I find it extremely enigmatic and confusing.

The Parliamentary Secretary should also advert to the Continental Shelf when he is replying. There is a Community document on this— SEC/70/3095—final: 18th September: Memorandum concerning the applicability of the Treaty of the EEC to the Continental Shelf. It seems to me, from a quick glance, it does not pose any special problems for us. I should like some reassurance on the point and that nothing in the treaty will prejudice our position, any rights we may have in respect of the Continental Shelf from a fishing or any other point of view, in regard to mineral wealth, for example. I have given the reference.

There is a feature of the access policy which I think deserves special mention. I am not sure it is generally understood. One of the features of the structural system concerns the equal freedom of access to fishing grounds and their exploitation in waters which are within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the member State. Not only will fishing vessels be able to enter each country's territorial waters but they will also be able to disembark their cargo at any Community port. An exception to this rule which has been agreed upon in favour of local populations whose activity depends largely upon this type of fishing and relates to coastal fishing within the three-mile limit for a five-year period. The limitation of these zones will be determined by the Council. I want, there, to advert to this point about the right to disembark their cargo. Am I clear that, during the five-year period, the limitation on freedom of access will apply not only to the right to fish but also to the right to disembark cargoes? Next, I want to draw attention again to the repeated references to the three-mile limit. It appears here that the provision entitling us to limited access for five years is specifically related to the three-mile limit. Even though at present we have protection up to six miles, 12 miles, et cetera, in the case of countries other than those traditionally fishing in our waters, it would appear from this—if literally and strictly and immediately applied without any modification to suit our circumstances—that, even within the five-year period, we would lose a large part of our existing protection.

However, it may be that this is simply because the three-mile limit happens to be the limit used by the Community countries. If that is the case I take it the Government immediately made representations that even if the common fishery policy is to be applied, despite our protest, that in a case like this where the use of the words "three-mile limit" in the Community's own policy arises from the accident that they happen to have the three-mile limit, they would take account of the different situation of other member countries and remember that if other countries have wider limits it is the wider limits that should be protected for five years in accordance with this transitional provision. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether the Government have, in fact, raised this point specifically in the discussions because all the evidence I have about what the Government have done suggests that they have not done anything of the kind. It is an obvious point of considerable importance.

Speaking at the outset generally on this subject I have already drawn attention to the marked contrast between the Irish approach to this subject and that of Norway and Britain. I did not, I think, on that occasion make any reference to the British position but it is my understanding that the British Government submitted a document, some time before 23rd October, on this subject and that the tone of that document was—compared to the soft approach to the Irish Government— quite tough, not perhaps quite as tough as the Norwegian approach. I understand that in that document the United Kingdom repeated that the Community engagement to give careful consideration to statements or documents provided by the candidates does not meet her demands for consultation with the EEC on this subject. She therefore suggests again that the EEC discuss this policy with the UK before any new decision is taken by the Community Council. That is not the sort of language that we seem to have used.

The British delegation went on to say that it would be in the interests of the present Community, as well as of the enlarged Community, not to lay down common access to territorial waters either between three and twelve miles or within three miles before establishing that the fishing industry is beginning to benefit from the modifications of the market organisation. That is quite a wise provision because the whole business of access will disturb the position in a number of member countries and this should not be done until the benefits of the EEC fishery policy as regards market organisation and maintenance of prices and so on have been secured. If you do this before the market organisation has been dealt with you could, in effect, do more serious harm than if you phased this access provision in as and when the benefits of the market organisation proposal have, in fact, been secured.

There is also in the British document a statement which is a little obscure and I should be interested to have any enlightenment the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to provide on it. I presume he has access either to reports on the British document or to the document itself. It said that the United Kingdom would be preoccupied with ensuring that measures regarding territorial waters exposed to extensive exploitation should be non-discriminatory in fact as well as in form. I find that obscure. I should like to know a little more about what was intended there or how the Irish Government interpret the British Government's intention. It seems to me that the British Government at that time, if I interpret that statement correctly, could have been orientated in a direction different from ours. It seems there is a note of fear sounded in that comment that conservation measures might be undertaken and agreed by the Community which, although in form they would be non-discriminatory because they would be designed genuinely to conserve fish, might have the effect— because of the fact that the fish conserved would be nearer the coast of one country—of being discriminatory even though that would not be the intention or the form in which the provision would be made.

I am sure we would be very concerned to ensure that there are adequate conservation measures and that these would in fact though not in form accrue to our benefit. This is the case on which the British Government at this point are taking a somewhat different stand and are, in fact, operating in a different direction from ours. If so, the Government should be alert to it. I should like to feel that if there is a divergence of view on this between the British and ourselves—and our interests diverge from British interests on so many matters that it would not surprise me—the Government were alert to this and would ensure that if this point were taken any further by the British that we ourselves would be fully consulted and that the matter would be taken up in the multilateral talks which would deal with any matters of common concern.

Our position in this matter and the Government's position can be summarised as follows: we have had the White Paper from which I quoted last night and I showed how in the White Paper the matter is dismissed very lightly with a reference to the effect that some difficulties could arise. We had the Irish application of 30th June which simply says that it may also be necessary to raise particular points in regard to other agricultural matters including future arrangements for fisheries. There is no suggestion there of a serious problem.

The next reference we have to the attitude of the Government comes in reports about the discussions in Brussels on 21st September. There, the Community delegation laid certain things on the line. They recalled the principle that the candidate States should accept the Treaty and the decisions of any kind reached since the Treaty came into force and until the end of the negotiations and that the rule which must govern the negotiations is that the solution of the adaptation problems which could be presented must be sought by establishing transition measures and not by modification of existing rules.

The Community delegation also noted that the Council of the Community had agreed to implement the common agricultural policy in the fishery sector before 1st November, 1970. Finally, came the sop—the Community delegation were always ready to take note of any statement which the applicant countries might make or any documentation they might like to submit on the subject of the common fishery policy. That Community statement at the meeting of 21st September was not particularly encouraging. It does not appear to me that at that meeting the Irish Government took any particular stand. They appeared to have asked some questions and the chairman of the Community delegation confirmed that the EEC would decide on their standpoint before the 1st November and repeated the Community's desire to examine closely the statements or documents of applicant countries at any moment. The discussion went on then about the date of the next meeting.

That did not get us very far. However, the Government did submit a memorandum on this subject which is of some interest. Having reviewed the current state of the Irish fishing industry and referred to the fact that there are 1,800 full-time and 1,300 part-time fishermen and having estimated—I use the word estimated advisedly—the total value of the 1969 catch at 8.6 million dollars and exports of fish and fish products including river fish at 8.4 million dollars, they went on to make the point that the Irish fishing industry is fairly small. That, indeed, emerged from the figures and reflected the failure of the Government adequately to develop the fishing industry until recent years. It was only in the last few years that any real effort was made to do anything about it.

They pointed out that the fishing industry is mainly concentrated on the west, north-west and south-west coasts. Reference was then made— somewhat belatedly—to the question of Irish territorial waters as covering 12 miles except that four EEC members and the candidate member, the UK, have rights to fish in the outer six miles. The Irish Government went on to say that the application of that section of the Community Council's resolution of 30th June which aims at common access to member States' territorial waters would create grave problems for the coastal population. At last, but only in Brussels, the grave note is being sounded: community policy would have serious consequences for fishermen who rely on this activity to provide them with a modest income. It should also be taken into account, the Government told the Community, that in these same districts the emigration rate was the highest. The emigration rate which the Government have already tried to reduce would increase as a result of the enforcement of the new policy.

In his opening remarks to the House, the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us that EEC policy would mean increased emigration. He tells the people in Brussels that, but it is not good enough to tell them that in Brussels and sound another note in this House. The note of warning which he sounded here, although certainly a bit more grave than that sounded in previous utterances on behalf of the Government, in no way corresponded to the phraseology used here.

I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, with all its references to valuable price support and so on and its single reference to severe hardship, in any way measures up to what has been said here. Severe hardship is one thing; increased emigration is another. Severe hardship would be reflected perhaps in a drop in income, but it is a different matter altogether if emigration is to increase. Yet, the Irish Government told the Community in Brussels that the implementation of this policy would increase emigration from districts in which emigration is at its highest level. I think that is the position.

I wonder whether this document is, in fact, available to the House. Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in fact, it is available to the House? Has it been published in this country? Is it in the Library? Perhaps I should have checked that but I did not do so. I should like to ask him whether, in fact, this statement of the Irish position on fisheries has been published and is available to this House. Perhaps he will tell us that when he is replying, thus filling a gap in my knowledge which is perhaps due to my own negligence. It is something we should like to know.

The matter has been raised again at a more recent meeting. Here we have to rely on reports from correspondents to the Irish papers. The Irish Press on 28th November, Saturday last, reports that in discussions last Friday on the question of the fishery regulations, Mr. Morrissey the Civil Service head of the Irish delegation “explained Ireland's difficulty if her coastal waters were open to big, deep sea vessels from the other member countries”. The report reads:

He proposed a fact-finding assignment to the Commission and the Irish delegation to cover both the basic regulations and the proposed implementing regulations.

On the basis of this report, he hoped to discuss, with the negotiators, the problems which would arise if the regulations are applied unchanged to Ireland and Irish waters.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

That seems to have been a rather narrow shave. I cannot imagine where all the Fianna Fáil Deputies are.

Where all the Fine Gael Deputies are.

It is not our responsibility to keep a House. We are not in Government yet.

Where are all the Fine Gael Deputies?

We will have that responsibility in a couple of months. We have not got it yet.

(Interruptions.)

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsear.

I was, at the time that the count was so opportunely called, reading from a report in the Irish Press of November 28th from Gavin Gordon in Brussels. I had just reached the point of what the Conference Chairman, Herr Sachs, said. I quote:

The Conference chairman, Herr Sachs, said there would be no trouble about the fact finding. He hoped, he said, this would remove most of Ireland's fears. If problems still remain, the negotiation conference would gladly discuss them. This reply is similar to the answer given to the strong Norwegian objection.

This seems to be some slight advance. At least it has been established that we are entitled to have these problems discussed even though this is something they insist on going ahead with. The Irish Times report of the same date is fairly similar. I quote:

An A.F.P. report from Brussels that EEC sources hoped that the Commission would give Irish experts complementary explanations on EEC fishing policies——

Our Government seem to need them judging by the little information they have been able to impart to us.

. . . which would reassure them that these policies were unlikely to create insurmountable difficulties for Ireland. Whatever difficulties actually resulted from the implementation of joint fishing policy could be examined and discussed after February, 1971, the sources added.

That is slightly more disturbing because it is after the date when the policy comes into effect. If that latter report were correct as distinct from the earlier one it would suggest a determination by the Commission to implement the policy first and talk about it afterwards which, from our point of view, would be very unsatisfactory.

I should like to call on the Parliamentary Secretary and through him on the Government to take this whole matter much more seriously. First of all, we will expect to be told the results of this fact finding study. We are entitled to be told what comes out of it and to be kept in touch with the development of negotiations which could have such profound effects upon our fishing industry.

I would also ask the Government to take up with the Community, and to clarify and to communicate to this House the results of this, the question of the conservation policies envisaged by the Community. The Community's decision taken in October, as stated in one report I have, is to fix as its objective Community measures which will safeguard the existing resources in the waters in question. These measures might include, in particular, restrictions regarding certain types of hauls, fishing zones and fishing techniques and tackle. It would seem to me that as our special problem here is the danger that through an intensity of fishing by well-equipped large foreign trawlers, an intensity of fishing inappropriate to the amount of fish available in these waters, the fish might simply be depleted in our inshore waters to such an extent that our own fishermen could not make a livelihood and indeed that the effects of this could be permanent. There is a genuine conservation problem and it is closely connected with the social problem because in our case, unlike the other member countries, if our inshore fishery areas are so depleted through the lack of an adequate conservation policy we have no other resource. We do not have a deep sea fleet to go and look for the fish in other areas in those circumstances. We have to rely solely on the fish in these inshore waters. It is the only kind of fish that can be caught with the kind of boats our fishermen have and the gear they have. Therefore, there is a close connection between a conservation policy and the interests of our fishermen.

On this question of conservation policy I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary. It is most disturbing that he should come into this House and give us his two paragraphs about EEC policy and then patter on about other subjects and make no reference to this matter. It would seem to me that there are real possibilities of some remedial action being taken and perhaps even something approaching a solution to our problem here through the approach to do with conservation policy. It seems to me from the reference to the British document that the British are operating in a different direction. They are a little afraid lest genuine conservation measures in relation to the inshore waters of countries like ourselves might in fact though not in form, prove discriminatory because in fact the people they would help would be our own inshore fishermen by preventing their livelihood being destroyed. As they are the only ones who can fish there now, any measures to conserve fish in these waters would in fact help them and them alone because nobody else fishes in this area. Therefore, conservation measures in respect of inshore fisheries would of their nature tend in practice to be discriminatory but this should not rule them out. The whole paraphernalia of international trade works on the basis of arrangements which are in form non-discriminatory and in fact discriminatory. Under the various GATT regulations there are many provisions of this kind and indeed the whole technique of trade negotiations is to find some product which is imported into one's country so predominantly from one other trading partner that if one reduces on a non-discriminatory basis in form the trade barriers in respect of that product the effect will be that that particular trading partner will be particularly benefited. One cannot discriminate in favour of another trading partner by remitting duties or giving preferential rates in respect of that country's products at the expense of other countries unless one is prepared to go into a full free trade area or common market but one can pick and choose products in respect of which trade is in practice so concentrated that if one does reduce on a non-discriminatory basis a particular tariff the benefits will accrue to a particular country. By giving that country that particular benefit in practice, though through a mechanism which in form is non-discriminatory, one can give a bargaining counter in return for which one can secure a similar or perhaps even different kind of benefit. It is on that basis that all international trade agreements between GATT members are carried on. This is perfectly legitimate.

It would be perfectly legitimate, therefore, by analogy, and I think it is a fair analogy, for us in this country to propose measures of conservation the effect of which in practice would tend to be beneficial to our fishermen more than others but which would be non-discrimatory in form. Our Government should, at this stage, have these plans well advanced and they should be discussing in Brussels how these plans would be implemented within the framework of the non-discriminatory provisions of the Rome Treaty. I wonder have the Government reached that point? Nothing was said by the Parliamentary Secretary or by any Government spokesman on fisheries and no hint of any kind reaches one from Government or departmental sources to suggest that in this matter, as in any other, planning is advanced to the point that would be necessary for us to deal with this matter.

Here we touch one of the points which are so disturbing about this whole negotiation. We are dealing with people who are very able people. In each of the EEC countries there are able teams of public servants and able politicians, extremely able Ministers, devising ways and means, within the framework of the provisions of the Rome Treaty, without acting illegally, to ensure various peripheral benefits or to prevent various kinds of marginal damage that might be done to the interests of the country concerned. Much of the time of the officials and Ministers in these countries is taken up with this kind of exercise. It is rather like the amount of time that accountants in this country devote to devising measures of tax avoidance though not of tax evasion. I am not suggesting, and nobody in this House would suggest, that if we join this Community we should seek to evade in any way the laws and regulations. We will be in this, as in all our other international obligations, a loyal member abiding by the letter of the law. That does not mean that we are not entitled to and that we should not, as other countries do, seek, within the law, to secure the maximum benefits open to us.

On the same principle as accountants and company lawyers devise methods of tax avoidance that are strictly legal until the Revenue Commissioners close the loophole, so also we should, in relation to EEC policies, devise means of preserving the interests of our people by legal means while at all times remaining loyal to the actual wording of the Treaty and not infringing in any way the regulations and directives of the Community. Frankly I see no sign that this is being done. I see no sign at all of any effort by the Government or the public servants to pick out these kinds of ingenious ways of preserving Irish interests.

I am afraid that any contacts I have had in any sector—I have none in fisheries—with either Ministers or public servants have given me no evidence of this kind of approach. On the contrary, there is evidence of a high degree of naiveté in this matter. If we refer back to our past experience in the matter of trade negotiations, our Government, on the whole, have gone overboard in fulfilling loyally in the spirit as in the letter every obligation they have ever undertaken. It is time we concerned ourselves a little more with protecting our interests within the letter of any obligation we sign. As are other countries, we are entitled to take advantage of any loophole that may remain and to avoid damage to our interests provided we can do so within the framework of the Community legislation.

I say that without any fear of being misinterpreted because all the other countries concerned do this. It is recognised as being perfectly legitimate practice until such time as steps are taken to modify the law and to cover that loophole. Nothing in our past experience of trade negotiations in our relations with other countries during the past tenor 15 years suggests that either our public servants or our politicians are alert to these possibilities or that they are in any way adept at devising a solution to problems of this kind.

Nothing that I have heard about the way in which we have approached the problem of EEC membership at either political or official level would suggest that we are becoming more adept at this or that we yet recognise how important it would be to be able to secure every possible legitimate benefit within the Community regulations. In the particular instance I am talking about-conservation policy—the Government should by this stage have devised a plan for conservation measures which would, in practice, benefit the Irish fishing industry but which would be within the framework of the Community provisions with regard to conservation.

I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter as on the other matters which I have raised as to what has actually been done, what stage we have reached, what thought, if any, has been given to this subject and what plans the Government may have. Apart from that particular question I call on the Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary, to join with the Norwegian and United Kingdom Governments in pressing this matter very strongly. It is not good enough that our fishermen should not have the kind of protection that will be afforded to British and Norwegian fishermen because of the firm stand taken by their respective Governments. It is not good enough for us to read that, on this issue, the Norwegians have stated in terms that are unambiguous that the Community's attitudes are not acceptable and that the British have spelled it out and then to read that the Irish have submitted a document which tells the Community that there are employed in the fishing industry 1,800 full-time and 3,800 part-time fishermen and that most of these are in the west and north west of the country. This document says simply that there will be serious consequences and increased emigration if something is not done. If what is not done?

If one compares the Irish approach with the approach of the Norwegians and the British, it will be seen that the approach is entirely different. The Irish document makes no reference whatever to what we want. It is nothing more than a poor mouth which in effect says: "We hope you do not do this to us because it will be very bad for us." The Norwegians and the British take that as read. They do not consider it necessary to spell out how many fishermen are engaged in the industry in the respective countries and how serious the situation will be in relation to this industry. It is obvious that there will be problems but both of these Governments have stated firmly that the present proposal is unacceptable and that it will be necessary to modify it in certain ways. We do not do that. Why not? After all, whatever about Britain, the population of Norway is not much larger than our own, only half a million people more. They are not one of the big powers but they can talk out straight on matters which concern their vital interests. Why can we not do the same? It does us no good to take this approach. The Ministers and officials of the Community will not respect us because we put on a poor mouth but have not the guts to say what we want for the industry.

We have an obligation to our fishermen to take a much more firm stand on this issue and to tell the Community precisely what we propose. What have the Government in mind? There is no use in saying everything will be very bad for us. Do the Government envisage a longer transitional period? Is that what we are after? If so, why not say so? Is it envisaged by the Government that through a conservation policy the problem can be resolved? We are entitled to know what the Government propose.

I am in the curious position of being able to tell the House what the British and Norwegian Governments want to do but, due to the fact that the Irish Government have not mentioned to the Community what they want, I cannot tell the House what is proposed. That is a very unsatisfactory situation and the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government have a duty to the House in that regard.

I am speaking as a convinced proponent of our adherence to the EEC. I am convinced that membership is in Ireland's overall interest. Everything I have said and written, and that has been a fair amount, during the past ten or 12 years has been to that effect but that does not mean, as the Government seem to interpret, that because one is in favour of joining one does not try to get the best terms possible in contentious areas and that one does not negotiate firmly in matters of vital interest. The way the system works is that each one fights his own comer and, as a result, wins the respect of the other partners and, in turn, gets a fair chance.

I cannot look forward with much confidence to the effects of membership if our relationship with the Community is to be carried on in this half-hearted way after we join. All my assumptions about the effects of EEC membership depend on our having an able Government, on having men with first-class minds who will be able to hold their own at meetings of the Council of Ministers, men who will be well and expertly advised and who will propose, where necessary, ingenious solutions to protect Irish interests. Out of such a situation will emerge a Community which will be a genuine Community and in which the interests of all will be considered.

If we are not in a position to put forward our point of view with confidence and skill, if in the Council of the Community our voice is not heard with the same ring of confidence and with the same skill as will be heard the voices of other countries, the Community that will then emerge will be an unbalanced one and one that will work to our disadvantage. A genuine Community is one in which the interests of all are considered and in which the vital interests of no member can be hurt.

Unfortunately, if a country fails to fight its own case, if it is not prepared to put forward an adequate case, its interests will be hurt and it will have nobody but itself to blame. There will be no use in people coming along afterwards and saying that EEC membership turned out to be particularly damaging to the fishing industry and that we should not have joined when the answer will be that it need not have turned out damaging if our Government had put forward the case adequately.

Has not the Deputy said already in the House that there is very little room for negotiation and that we must accept the Treaty of Rome and whatever is the position at the time we join and that we will have no influence up to that?

Yes, but perhaps the Deputy was not here during my opening speech on this issue.

I was here when the Deputy spoke previously and this was a point I noted from what he said.

The Deputy is correct. I dealt with this very point at the outset. The position is that we must accept the legislation up to the point of entry. I explained——

Lest somebody else should come in later on and ask Deputy FitzGerald to repeat the point again, perhaps we could have a House now?

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Deputy Dr. Gibbons raised the point of what appeared to him, because he had not the advantage of being here when I started yesterday, to be a contradiction between the viewpoint I expressed in the EEC debate last June and the viewpoint I am expressing here today in regard to fisheries. I think it would be just as well and perhaps it would not be inappropriate if in my concluding remarks I clarified this issue.

The Treaty of Rome is there; we take it or leave it. The regulations and directives that have been introduced since then, we take them or leave them, subject of course to making transitional arrangements which could be extended transitional arrangements where there are special problems. Either we accept in principle these documents or we do not. If we accept them in principle, the Community will always consider special problems that will arise and if these problems are serious they will make provision for a transitional period which, in certain cases, may extend well beyond the five-year transitional period for industry and agriculture.

There is, however, a special problem in this instance, because what we have here is a step taken by the Community which is rather different in character from any previous step. They have proposed—in fact they have gone ahead and done it—to introduce during the negotiations a fisheries policy. In fact the main decision was taken in Brussels, as I mentioned in the House earlier, on the very day when the negotiations opened on 30th June. They decided at this stage, very belatedly, to introduce a fisheries policy and also in a sector in which the vast bulk of the production is not in the EEC at all but in the applicant countries.

It is one thing for the Community to say that where policies have been adopted in the past and are settled, we must accept them in principle subject to transitional arrangements. It is a different thing for them to say we must accept policies they introduce while the negotiations are in progress. One can concede—and I dealt with this yesterday—that if the EEC are going to consult with the applicant countries on every little thing they may be doing in a routine way in implementing existing arrangements during the period of negotiations, which after all might come to nothing, this could be rather hard, and one can see they have a point in that. However, it is quite a different thing for them to introduce a new policy in a matter which is of more importance to the applicant countries than to the member countries. It is very unusual and a special case.

Because of the magnitude of the EEC itself, its size, population and economic strength, because of these factors and the relatively smaller size and economic importance of the applicant countries whose total population is not more than about 65 million to 70 million as against well over 200 million for the existing Community; because of this ratio of 3½ to one between populations and a somewhat similar ratio between total economic strengths, in almost every area of policy the enlarged Community will be somewhat bigger than, but not in respect of any particular policy totally different from, the existing Community.

It is one thing for the EEC to say : "We constitute two-thirds or three-quarters of the enlarged Community and if other people want to join and enlarge the Community by one-third or one-quarter, then they should accept our arrangements as they stand subject (a) to our making transitional provisions that may be necessary to avoid hardship and (b) to the possibility of renegotiation of any policy by the Ten when they are together in the enlarged Community." That is a fair statement. But this is a unique case. It has no parallel—if there is I shall be willing to hear of it—in that the vast bulk of the production is outside the Community. The facts are for the benefit of Deputy Dr. Gibbons who raised this point, that the total fish catch of the Six was about 1.7 million tons last year, and that of the four candidates was 4.8 million tons, almost three-quarters of the total fish output of the enlarged Community. It is a bit thick for the EEC to start rushing through a policy at this stage in those circumstances when, as in fact the Norwegian delegation pointed out in their submission—and I do not think any similar coherent and compelling arguments were put forward by the Irish delegation in this matter—the effect in the enlarged Community would be to convert an annual deficit of 500,000 tons of fish into a surplus of 200,000 tons. Deputy Dr. Gibbons will realise there is one kind of policy for a situation of deficit and another kind of policy for a situation of surplus.

The Community policies are being devised by a group of countries which are not fish producers, whose total output is barely a quarter of that of the enlarged Community. They are devising policies including market organisation, market support, a system of guide prices, withdrawal prices and intervention prices. It would be strange indeed if these policies designed for such a Community turned out to be the appropriate ones for a Community whose output of fish was four times as large and was in surplus instead of in deficit. In these particular circumstances it seems to me appropriate, as it has to the British and Norwegian Governments but not to anything like the same degree to the Irish Government, for us to suggest to the Community that the application of their principle that we must take the Community, its regulations and directives as they are when we join, requires modification in this instance. I am sure Deputy Gibbons will be the first to agree this is a reasonable case to make and one which should be made on behalf of our fishing industry. I do not think it takes away at all from what I said in the other debate that in principle we have to accept the situation as it is. What I object to is the situation changing under our feet as we go in, in respect of an area where we, the applicant countries, have a much greater interest than have the existing member countries. I appreciate that Deputy Gibbons, not having heard me on this point, could reasonably conclude that there was a divergence of approach, there was an inconsistency and I was now taking a line quite different from what I took during the debate. I do not wish the Deputy to think that. I think we have a special case and I have explained why it is necessary to adopt a different approach. The point I am making is that we should join with the British and Norwegian Governments and the strength and force of our protest should be comparable to theirs.

I do not want it to go out from anything I have said that I despair for the fishing industry in EEC conditions. This is not the case. There could be a serious problem if we fail to tackle it. Indeed, if the Government were as negligent in the matter as they have been up to quite recently, and if they continued to lack adequate force to put forward a case as they still do compared to the Norwegians and the British, this need not necessarily and will not wreck the Irish fishing industry. It could seriously disturb it, it could lead to severe hardship and it could, in the words of the Government's own statement in Brussels although not in this House, lead to an increase in emigration in the very areas where emigration is at its highest level.

These are things we wish to avoid. They can be avoided if we are prepared to go into negotiations with the same determination as the Norwegians and the British. If this is done I believe the prospect for the Irish fishing industry could be bright. Although the Parliamentary Secretary has totally failed to explain to the House what the relative price position is between ourselves and the EEC and although the statements in the White Paper are vague and on the face of it mutually contradictory, it is my understanding-and I look to the Parliamentary Secretary for clarification on this point—that the price position in the EEC is on the whole likely to be relatively favourable and that the enlarged export markets would favour us. Moreover, from the Community fund resources would be available to help re-equip and improve the fishing industry but not for the purpose of compensation for redundancies. These are important benefits.

If the problem of access to our inshore fisheries could be overcome, and if we could take the necessary steps to ensure that the fish resources near our coasts, upon which our fishermen depend for their livelihood, would not be eroded or depleted because of over-fishing by foreign fishermen then the future for our fishing industry could be bright. This is an area in which negotiations are needed. It is a marginal area and the Government may feel it is unimportant in relation to the whole economy but the interests of this small, but nonetheless important, group of people, important as individuals and because of where they live, can be protected and should be protected by adequate negotiations.

I do not want to suggest for one moment—I have dwelt on the problems and the difficulties at some length as it is necessary to do in this debate—that there is no hope for the fishing industry. On the contrary I am quite prepared to believe if the negotiations are carried on effectively and if the particular problems I have dealt with are tackled with energy and ability, that the Irish fishing industry far from suffering could in fact benefit very considerably. The problem in the years ahead could be, as it is today, not so much how does one dispose of the fish but how can we catch enough fish, how can we train enough people to be fishermen quickly enough to expand the number of boats fishing and the output at a rate sufficient to yield the kind of results that could come from a really first-class fishing policy. I do not doubt that this can be done but I have doubts as to whether it will be done because of the way this problem has so far been tackled.

I have spoken in this debate, which I would not normally speak in because I am not familiar with the fishing industry except in certain special respects and the knowledge I have in those respects is derived from circumstances which make it inappropriate for me to speak on those aspects in the House. Because of the way this matter has been dealt with to date, because of the importance of it and because I have the advantage of access, through my own private sources, to the relevant EEC material denied to other Members of this House, because of the lack of facilities to which I referred earlier, it seemed to me appropriate to speak at some length on this matter. I hope my contribution will be helpful; it is intended to be helpful. If I have been critical of the Government it is because I genuinely believe the Government have been defective and because I feel nothing will help the Government more than some criticism, nothing will more strengthen the negotiating position of the Government than if it is made clear to the Community that there is genuine feeling and concern about this matter here.

Is not the real crux of the matter that entry to the EEC will make our waters open to fishermen from all members of the Community?

I am at a bit of a loss.

Is not the problem the Deputy is talking about that fishermen from England, Norway, France and every other member country would be able to come into our waters and fish?

Is that not a consequence of going into the EEC?

No, not necessarily.

How? Is that not the problem the Deputy is talking about?

I have spoken to the House for two hours and I have spent at least 1¼ hours explaining to the House that this is the problem and what should be done about it. To be asked by Deputy de Valera at this stage to go over the whole ground again is asking rather more than I can reasonably perform and rather more than the Chair would allow me to do by way of repetition. Of course it is the problem that this is proposed in the policy. The whole point of my remarks, and if Deputy de Valera had been here throughout them he would have appreciated this, is, first of all, that we should not accept that the Community should introduce a policy of this kind at this late stage which affects the interests of the applicant countries far more than the interests of the Community and, second, as far as this policy is adopted we should, within the framework of it, seek the kind of adequate transitional provisions which it does not at present contain; and, third, we should take advantage of and use to our benefit legitimately the conservation provisions in this policy. That is what I am saying and have been saying for the last 1¼ hours. I do not think I should repeat it any more.

The inevitable result of the Deputy's logic is that he is saying we should not go into the Community.

For goodness' sake. I went to some trouble in Deputy de Valera's presence to explain that I am a convinced advocate of membership. Of course membership brings with it gains and losses. It is the job of the Government, and Deputy de Valera knows this, to minimise the losses and maximise the gains. That is what the negotiations are about.

Deputy FitzGerald is trying to have it both ways.

Of course I am trying to have it both ways. What else are the negotiations for? Does Deputy de Valera know of any of the hundreds and hundreds of meetings of the Council of Ministers that have been held at which every Minister did not turn up to have it both ways? What does the Council of Ministers meet for except for each country to try and have it both ways? That is what the negotiations are about.

Would Deputy FitzGerald agree that Deputy de Valera's attitude towards it reflects the Government's attitude?

Yes, it is certainly disturbing, if it is a reflection of the Government's attitude. The Government's attitude as shown to date seems to reflect Deputy de Valera's attitude. There is a basic difference here which is becoming clearer as time goes on between this party and the Government party. The Labour Party have their own position. I shall not go into that. Our position is that, like the Government, we believe that the ultimate interests of and advantage for this country lie in membership of the EEC but, like the other applicant countries, and unlike the Government of this country, we believe you will get these advantages by negotiating in respect of the matters that are negotiable effectively and well. We have to do three things : we have to state that we accept what has been done to date, but not necessarily what is being done at this late stage in regard to our fisheries. We must say that we are prepared to accept the political finalities of the Community and, having said these two things, we must from then on negotiate in those particular areas in which there are particular problems. They are marginal to the whole thing.

The amount of the total area in economic terms affected by these negotiations is relatively small. The total economic benefit to the Community as a whole is, perhaps, not enormous, but bear in mind that the hardships that can be inflicted on this community by failure of negotiation in these important marginal areas would be highly concentrated. They will not be spread over the whole community so that everybody will get 5s a week less—oh, no. They will be reflected in redundancy in the motor vehicle assembly industry, in the jute industry, redundancy in the fishery industry, in horticulture and in particular areas——

I would remind the Deputy that he seems to be developing this into an EEC type of debate rather than a debate on Fisheries.

I accept your rebuke, but I think you might have looked in the other direction in making it because I was provoked into this by Deputy de Valera's interruption.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has not been talking for two and a half hours.

No. I recognise that, if I were to deal with all the Deputy's interruptions, I would be talking for 3½ hours and the Chair might not like that.

To sum up, I want to draw particular attention to some of the points I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with in his reply. This may not be a complete list and if the Minister recalls anything else which I do not mention specifically now, the fact that I do not mention it now should not preclude him from answering it.

First of all, will he tell us what are the plans with respect to the establishment of a producer organisation capable of carrying out the intervention functions allocated to it in the EEC policy and will this producer organisation be An Bord lascaigh Mhara or will the requirements of the EEC policy mean that it must be a producer organisation of a different character and what steps have been taken to establish it? That is of vital importance because as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the whole intervention of mechanism is to be carried out in respect of fish, as far as we are concerned, through such an organisation.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

I was summing up the main points I had put to the Parliamentary Secretary seeking clarification on them when he comes to reply in due course. The first point is: what are his plans with regard to future organisation? I have dealt with that so I shall not repeat what I said earlier. Secondly, I want him to tell us something about the comparisons between EEC price levels and price levels here. We ought to have this information now because we know the guide price system is one in which the guide prices in the EEC will be averaged on prices for the previous three years. This is a matter of fact and a matter of record. I take it the Department's record of facts will extend to this. The House should be told what, in fact, this price level is for each kind of fish so that our industry can see what, in fact, will be the gains and the losses in terms of price from the point of view of EEC membership.

I ask for this because, first of all, we have not been given it and, secondly, because all the information we have been given is so curiously contradictory with the suggestion, on the one hand, that we will benefit and there will be some favourable terms for our fishermen—that appears at the beginning of paragraph 5.22 of the White Paper, with the somewhat surprising statement at the end that there will probably be a slight reduction in the prices of the varieties most sought after by Irish consumers. These two statements can, perhaps, be reconciled, but they give rise to a legitimate doubt and they, therefore, need to be reconciled. The way to do that is to come clean and tell us, as the Department of Agriculture has told us in respect of farm products, what in fact is the guide price and, secondly, what will be the withdrawal price—that is, the lowest price to which our price can fall before the intervention mechanism is brought into effect to withdraw fish and we should have that information in regard to each variety of fish we catch.

I ask him, too, to tell us something about the relative price position in regard to crustaceans, lobsters and shellfish, which are so important to us and, perhaps, of disproportionate importance to our fishing industry. None of the information published to date makes any reference to this at all and there is, therefore, a particular need for us to be told how prices will work and what the relative price will be. We also want clarification on the market intervention mechanism. All kinds of fish are mentioned but there is no mention of crustaceans and shellfish. We need to know what the market intervention mechanism will be and what the price level will be for these and other fish.

I ask him also to explain the curious statement with regard to the system of Community intervention in the financing of the withdrawal operation. This reference to the 60 per cent and 55 per cent is something I cannot understand. I ask him to explain to us what this intervention mechanism is and why there is this curious clause that the Community will pay 60 per cent except where the withdrawal has occurred at a price which is not 60 to 65 per cent of the guide price. This is so odd it needs explanation and I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain it. I hope he will comment on these points so that we will have the answers.

I ask him also to state what his plans are to deal with the structural problems that may arise if the Government fail to secure a completely satisfactory outcome. It may be beyond the powers of the Government to do this, even if they negotiate effectively. If there is going to be redundancy what do the Government propose to do? Do they propose to exclude fishermen as they exclude farmers and farm workers? Do they propose, under EEC pressure, to do something about this because it is quite clear the obligation rests with us and the financing will have to be carried out by us unless the Government can persuade the Community to change this.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary taken up with the Community the question of Community financing of this redundancy, for which there is no provision at present, such provision as there is being confined to the industrial and agricultural sectors? What have the Government done and what are their plans to deal with this problem on the domestic front? I have asked him to indicate the Government's plans in regard to conservation? How do they propose to utilise the provisions of the policy with regard to conservation in order to ensure that stocks of fish will be preserved near our coasts to enable our inshore fishing industry to survive?

I raised other matters during my speech but I think these were the main points. However, if I have omitted to recap on any of the matters I referred to in the course of my contribution, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with them? I would impress on him the importance of answering the questions. They are important issues and our people should not be left in ignorance. I have criticised legitimately the failure of the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the matters in his opening speech and he must answer them in his concluding speech.

I would stress our dissatisfaction on this side of the House with what evidence we have regarding the negotiations at Brussels on this issue; our concern with the inadequate presentation of our case and with the fact that our Government were complacent about this matter until quite recently. In contrast to the British and Norwegian Governments, they have not made any concrete proposals to tackle our problems and have been content to make a poor mouth about them. They have said simply how bad it will be if nothing is done and have left it to the EEC to think up solutions. It is not the practice of the EEC to do this; their job is to consider proposals submitted by each country to protect the interests of the Community. It is our job to put forward proposals and the Government have not done this.

I am concerned about the lack of information and I am appalled that this House has not access to any information about the EEC, apart from the Community Bulletin. In this context the bulletin is totally misleading because it does not reveal that the measures proposed with regard to inshore fishing are transitional and will last for only five years. I have urged, and this has wider implications than fisheries, that the whole matter of the availability of information regarding the EEC in the Library should be investigated and steps should be taken to ensure that adequate space and staff are available there. In the decades ahead this Parliament will require an enormous amount of documentation regarding the EEC and attention should be given to the matter. As a result of our neglect in the past it may be difficult to catch up on the backlog of documentation but something should be done about it.

These matters are important and I am glad to have had an opportunity of contributing to this debate. I hope I shall be able to hear the Parliamentary Secretary replying to all the questions I have raised.

Am I wrong in thinking that the Deputy is now making a case against entry into the EEC? I may be stupid, but I think the Deputy is now moving towards the Labour side and making a case against entry into the EEC. Am I wrong in this assumption?

I cannot understand how the Deputy comes to that conclusion. I have stated that there is a problem in one sector but I believe it can be solved. I have stated that throughout the broad spectrum of our economy benefits will accrue and I cannot understand how the Deputy now assumes that I am against entry into the EEC. Of course we should join but, in joining, we should seek the best terms——

To me the Deputy has appeared to make the strongest possible case against entry.

If I had made a case, which I have not, that the fishing industry——

I wondered if it had anything to do with a Labour/Fine Gael coalition.

The Deputy must not have heard my speech; otherwise he would not say that.

Even if he heard it he did not understand it.

It is quite possible that I did not understand it. I can well believe that I did not understand the back-door intrigues—that is for Deputy Cluskey, not for Deputy FitzGerald.

The Deputy should have no problem in understanding back-door intrigues; he belongs to the party that specialises in such matters.

Perhaps the debate is being broadened even more than is appropriate. However, even if I had made the case—which I have not—that entry into the EEC would be disastrous for the fishing industry I would still be of the opinion that we should join. I should like to make it clear that I do not think it will be disastrous for the fishing industry and I have explained my reasons very fully. Even if it affected adversely our fishing industry it would be better for this country that agriculture should get the increased benefits of membership of the EEC. We must remember that there are some 200,000 people engaged in agriculture while there are some 1,800 full-time workers engaged in the fishing industry. I cannot understand how Deputy de Valera has come to the conclusion that I am against entry into the EEC simply because I have pointed out some of the problems that exist. These problems are soluble and it is up to the Government to see that solutions are found.

Now that the implications of our entry into the EEC have been put in a Picasso-like manner, I have no intention of improving on Picasso——

I have never been compared with Picasso before. I am complimented, if a little confused.

We must make comparisons in order that we can get our point over and comparisons can be odious at times.

A comparison with Picasso could never be odious.

Picasso was a genius in his own field.

I accept the compliment, even if it was not intended.

I shall confine my remarks on this Estimate to the implications for the fishing industry in this country. We should put our own affairs in order before we start talking about other people. Whatever may be the possible implications of entry into the EEC, I would prefer that we would make every effort to help this major industry in regard to the domestic market.

Our fishing industry has been neglected for many years by various Governments. There are many people living in the midlands who seldom have the opportunity of buying fresh white fish. Not very long ago all fish had to be brought to Dublin markets. I am sure Deputy O'Connor will know about the fish that were caught at Dingle; they were transported to Dublin and eventually were sent back for sale to Tralee—30 miles from Dingle.

In fact, at one time they were sent to Grimsby.

I mention this case to Deputy O'Connor because I know he cannot contradict it. Unlike some of the people who have spoken about the implications for this industry of our membership of the EEC I know something about this matter. The organisation of the fishing industry up to a short time ago left much to be desired. People living in Limerick, Tralee and in areas around the coast were able to obtain fresh fish but this did not apply to people in the midlands. People who lived far from the sea coast were not able to obtain edible fresh fish and, consequently, they did not acquire a taste for fish.

If we are to develop and maintain this industry, which has great potential but has been neglected over the years, action should be taken. The fishermen have been badly treated by the Government. Their livelihood should be more lucrative and attractive. I know the fishing industry well and I know that it was left in the hands of a few in-between men who came and bought from the fishermen as the catch came off the boats. This happened at Dunmore. Dingle, Galway and elsewhere. The people in the business were handsomely compensated at the expense of the fishermen and consumers. It is time that controls were introduced. Fish varies in price from week to week. The retail price of fish depends on the wholesaler's price and the wholesaler depends on the man who buys on the pier. There may be a reason for the variation in fish prices. On some occasions the fishermen may not be able to go to sea because of adverse weather conditions. A scarcity of fish could follow then. The price of fish rises with the demand. The people who have money can buy fish while those who are poor are unable to afford it. This is the position throughout the land today.

The position at home should be improved before we talk about conditions in other lands. I want to see better organisational efforts made on behalf of fishermen, through advertising and prompt deliveries. Ice helps to preserve fish but it melts quickly. Boxes of fish often become very watery before arriving at their destination. Fish is often transported by lorries and improvements must be introduced so that it arrives fresh and not in a sloppy condition. I have tasted fish immediately it came off the boats and have eaten it when out fishing in the Dingle area. I am aware of the processes involved in the industry. The fish is caught, sold, delivered and sold again. The whole process must be handled with efficiency. Fish must be handled rapidly and in an expert manner. This is not being done and for that reason our people are not inclined to eat fish.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should give attention to all the processing. Having done that they could talk about conditions in the EEC. First things must come first. Our own people must get the best of what we have, and not the rejects.

I notice the same amount of money has been given for advertising this year as was given last year. The success or failure of any business depends as much on the publicity a product gets as it does on its sales organisation. People must be often told, through the different media, about an article. If they hear about it often enough they will be inclined to buy it. Repetition brings results. Any good businessman will spend money advertising an article, particularly when it is well-packaged and well-presented. The money spent on advertising will be recouped.

There are many hazards attached to the industry. The men must depend on tides. They may be standing around at 3 a.m. but if the weather is not suitable they must return home and wait for another tide and suitable weather. The compensations involved are good for a crew of men. I want it clearly understood with regard to sea-fishing that I speak of the crew as a whole. They are well-compensated but they are not given the full rewards for the work done. There are too many in-between men. Not long ago there was a strike and much strife between the fishermen and the buyers at Dunmore. There was a prolonged battle between them. The trouble at Dunmore focused attention on what was happening there, but a similar situation existed throughout the whole fishery industry. The men work very hard. From the time they board the trawlers until they come back two or three days later they work hard. It is an interesting business when it goes well. I have spent days out with fishermen around Dingle and I am in a position to talk about their conditions. From the areas from which they come one could say that they have a decent standard of living. That is not enough. The men should get full rewards for their work or if not the prices to the consumer should be reduced.

Fish prices vary from shop to shop and from one street to another. There are variations in the price of fish from week to week and from one month to another. The price of herring or the simple piece of whiting will vary from day to day and from week to week. It has an off-putting effect on the housewife when she finds she has to pay 5s 6d or 6s 6d a pound for fish whereas she can purchase some other article— meat, now, particularly—for much less. All the profiteers are doing well out of this. That is one of the reasons the debts on the boats had to be written off; there were other reasons, of course, also.

I am not a fellow to talk all day about nothing. I want to be helpful in my contribution and to give the benefit of my knowledge and experience. On the subject of our inland fisheries I should like to congratulate a certain firm for sponsoring for the last four or five years some 40 to 50—it was up to 100 this year—fishing enthusiasts from France. They spent their time in the Shannon region and spent 12 or 14 days coarse fishing. Different groups come each year but the story is always the same: "We never knew such a thing existed. We never knew it was so good here." They get great delight in doing things which we would not bother to do. Some of them would be more elated from catching a perch weighing half a pound than would a man who had caught a 25 Ib. salmon off the hook—a rare thing nowadays— or an 8 Ib. eel. Coarse fish are a menace. We all know the damage both pike and perch do. This is a great tourist attraction. There should be a promotional drive in that respect throughout European countries.

Who handed our Shannon fisheries and Erne fisheries over to the ESB? The ESB's first and only task to my mind is the generation of electricity. I cannot understand why the fisheries of the Erne and the Shannon were handed over to them. They made a complete mess of the Shannon fishery. They erected a weir across the Shannon and there is not another of its kind in Europe. There is a fish pass in every weir in every county except in the one at Limerick. The ESB, an autonomous body, would not step down and admit that they made a mistake. They tell us now that they open the gate and let a percentage up the river. Nobody was ever asked to inspect what was being allowed up the river. What is allowed up the river is anybody's guess. The Parliamentary Secretary should ensure that a person closely associated with some of the angling clubs in the area would have the right to go and see what releases are made. We do not know what percentage is allowed up the river. Year after year, we have this criticism and the matter should be attended to forthwith.

Another point is that the ESB have the right to catch and to sell eels. I have not heard what we derived from the sale of eels or the value of eel exports. I know of a person who wanted the contract for the purchase of the full complement of eels that the ESB had to offer but the ESB refused to negotiate the sale of these eels to this person who had a guaranteed market for them in France and in Germany. There, again, the ESB could not admit that somebody else had thought up something better than themselves. No effort is being made to improve the sale or the price of fish on the Continent.

Deputy Tully spoke yesterday about fishing rights and there is the question of the right of a man to fish on his property. We have this problem on the Shannon and on its tributaries. This law must certainly be changed. If a person has the right of way along any river he should have the right to fish off his own land. I think that is accepted law but that is not the fact because of ESB restrictions.

I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity for more fish farms. We have very few of them. I know of only three and I do not know how many exist. Fish farms are essential and should be encouraged in every possible way. I do not know what incentives are given by the Department in this respect but there should be more encouragement for them. I have some experience of the work they can do. I have visited them and I have seen how they operate and I know there is demand for trout from these farms. In the closed season trout from fish farms could be introduced to the market and we could have trout on sale all the year round. That is not being done and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter consideration.

I also want to draw his attention to the fact that he made no mention of the Shannon River and its fisheries although he dwelt at length on other rivers. There was no reference to the great potential of our largest river. I do not know what we have done to antagonise the Department but the Shannon fisheries definitely need consideration. No encouragement is given. The net fishermen in the lower Shannon, who work only in the peal season, find that the issue of licences to them is being more restricted each year instead of being increased so that more peal are allowed on to the ESB salmon weir in Limerick City. That is not just or fair to these men who for generations have been salmon fishing in the lower Shannon.

Very little has been said in regard to development in that area. I am trying to give the Department the benefit of what I know. Unlike others, I talk only about matters of which I know something. I want to be brief because others have gone out of their depth chasing fish they know nothing about. I hope what I have said will command the immediate attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department. Let us first look after our own market and our own people. The only way to encourage people to be fish conscious is to give them a good product at a cheap price. That can be done in regard to fish. Then we can talk of selling what is left elsewhere.

I want to make a brief reference to the shellfish industry. I am particularly interested in the mussel fishermen at the mouth of the River Boyne. I understand that the Department is to some extent held up in dealing with this problem which arose from the fact that mussel beds were being interfered with by the activities of Drogheda Harbour Commissioners in deepening the channel of the Boyne on the part of the river before Drogheda port. I understand that legal proceedings were taking place and that this was preventing any compensation being given by the Department or the Department of Transport and Power to the fishermen for losses consequent on the depletion of the beds. I am told the proceedings have concluded. Whether that is final or not I do not know but there may be an opening for the Department to compensate these men now and I should like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary has investigated this matter and, if so, what he proposes to do.

I should also like him to make very careful investigations to ensure that any mussel beds that are disturbed by dredging operations are replaced so that they can be used for breeding again. My information, which I am not in a position to stand over here, is that they are being dumped out at sea—at least some of them. If that were so it would be a very serious situation and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would investigate the matter carefully. He is in a position to do so whereas I am not.

I am rather vague about this but I have been told that there is a vacancy on the scientific staff of Bord lascaigh Mhara dealing with shellfish. I think it is for a biologist, if that is the correct description of the post, who was due to be appointed but, in fact, was not. I should like to know if this is the case. I am sorry to put the matter so vaguely but I really have not done much preparation for this contribution. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would let me know what is the present staff position in regard to shellfish in Bord lascaigh Mhara and if he could also give me some information on the expenditure by Bord lascaigh Mhara over the past tenor 15 years in regard to the development of the shellfish industry. Could he also give me some information as to the parts of the coast where he feels the greatest potential lies in respect of shellfish.

A row has developed along the east coast about a fish meal factory which is causing a smell. I do not know enough about it to take sides but if the Parliamentary Secretary has investigated the matter I should be grateful for what information he can give. It might help to ease the situation which is becoming one in which a rather serious clash of interests is developing involving the fishermen and those resident in County Louth at Baltray who are affected by the smell. If the Parliamentary Secretary could take any steps towards solving this problem it would be appreciated especially if a solution acceptable to both sides could be found. If he cannot do so, I shall not blame him. It may be an intractable problem but I shall be grateful for his interest in it.

I should like to thank the Deputies who took part in this debate. Most of the speeches have been very helpful but I was perhaps a little disappointed with some of them. I had looked forward to the debate with great interest. Deputies will realise that I am completely new to this Department. I am trying to become acquainted with all aspects of the fishery interests as quickly as I possibly can.

One of the first things I undertook when I was given this responsibility was to go around to the fish landing places of the country and meet the fishermen and all those concerned with the fishing industry, the processors, the fishermen's co-ops and so on. I found this a great help because I had the advantage of getting to know their thinking at first hand. In the many meetings I had, I found them a very enlightened people with high regard for and interest in their industry. I found them very reasonable people in accepting the difficulties I had in relation to my Department. I also found a deep appreciation of the work being done by An Bord lascaigh Mhara and the officials of my Department.

When I took over this post I did not come in here with any preconceived ideas. I heard criticisms in this House of An Bord lascaigh Mhara and of the officials of the Department down through the years and I set out to find out what the people involved in the industry throughout the country thought about it themselves. It is a great satisfaction to me to be able to say here that the vast majority of them appreciate very fully the part An Bord lascaigh Mhara are playing and the part the officials of my Department are playing. That is why I was a little disappointed at the criticisms made by a minority of Deputies of the Department and An Bord lascaigh Mhara. I can say in all truthfulness that I did not find this criticism among the people engaged in the industry.

Much has been said here about the EEC and the big problem it presents. It is only right that I should deal with this aspect of the matter at this point of time. I was disappointed in Deputy FitzGerald's approach to this matter. He made a very lengthy speech and I thought I would find his speech much more interesting than I did. He started by referring to the brief mention of the EEC in my speech introducing the Estimate. He made a comparison between the amount of space in my speech devoted to the construction and improvement of harbours and fish landing places throughout the country and the EEC, and he criticised the fact that we devoted so much space to the work that is being carried out.

He made the charge that the reason I devoted so much of my speech to this aspect of the work was that there were votes to be gained by publicity such as this, and he said it reflected the whole thinking of the Government because we were not giving the attention we should give to the important matters of the EEC.

I was very disappointed at this approach because I set out to give all the information I possibly could to Deputies on all sides of the House. When we were dealing with increased borrowing for An Bord lascaigh Mhara in the House recently, the main criticism I heard was that there had not been a discussion on the Estimate for Fisheries for a number of years and, this being so. Deputies had not got the information to which they were entitled. With this in mind I had prepared a rather lengthy introductory speech.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

The Parliamentary Secretary.

Is no one else offering? I was rather anxious to make a contribution.

The Parliamentary Secretary has been speaking for six minutes.

Unfortunately I was just finishing my tea.

The Whips should not have kept the Deputy out.

I was just dealing with Deputy FitzGerald's lengthy speech. I expressed my disappointment at that speech and I mentioned that he criticised the fact that so much of my introductory speech dealt with the development of harbours and piers and so little of it was devoted to the important matter of the EEC. I referred to the fact that he said the reason we dealt in such detail with the development of piers and harbours was that votes were involved in their development throughout the country.

I should like to point out to the House that this is not so. Deputy FitzGerald must be aware that we have started in the House a debate on the Government's White Paper with regard to our entry into the EEC. When that debate is resumed there will be a full discussion with regard to our entry and its implications for us.

It has not been discussed at all this session. If we were to wait for that we might have to wait until the next session.

I should like to deal with the position of fisheries in regard to the EEC. Since this debate was opened by me there have been further developments in the matter. There are developments going on all the time. To answer all the questions put by Deputy FitzGerald the negotiations would need to have concluded and there would have to be definite answers. Such is not the case. The negotiations are going on and going on very actively indeed as far as we are concerned. The Community are only now adopting their common fisheries policy. Decisions on the broad lines of the policy were taken in June last and the two basic regulations were adopted on 20th October. These deal with structures and market organisation respectively. Certain implementing regulations have still to be made so that the common policy may be brought into operation by the 1st February next. Only when these further regulations have been made will the full details of the common policy be available and only then will it be possible to see precisely all the implications from our point of view. We have throughout been taking the closest interest in the development of the Community's common fisheries policy and have already made representations to the Community on the question of common access to fishing waters which, as I said in my opening speech, is of particular concern to us. Other applicant countries have also been expressing concern about this and other aspects as well. However, the Community made it quite clear that they could not accept the principle of applicant countries participating in the formation of a common fisheries policy for the existing Community of six. We have not been less active, as Deputy FitzGerald would have us think, than the other applicants in our efforts and some progress has, in fact been made.

At a meeting at official level between Ireland and the Community which was held in Brussels on Friday last—this is since I introduced my Estimate here—the Community agreed that there could be meetings between Ireland and the Commission on the fishery regulations that have been made and are shortly to be made. It was also agreed that following these meetings, which will probably be held early in the New Year, there will be discussions with the Community on any problems that would arise for Ireland from implementing the regulations unchanged in an enlarged Community. Deputies can rest assured that any problem's raised by them in the course of this debate will be borne in mind during these discussions and every effort will be made to ensure satisfactory arrangements for the benefit of our fishing industry.

During the debate reference was made to the financing of producer organisations. These bodies will be eligible for financial assistance in their early years to cover their establishment and to facilitate their operation. In addition, the cost of intervention measures by them will be eligible for recoupment from Community funds. It is not correct to say that the cost of such measures in each individual country will have to be met by that country. That is the position as far as the EEC are concerned.

I was disappointed that Deputy FitzGerald cast doubts on our negotiating team and on our Ministers and their capibilities. I have every confidence in our Ministers and in our negotiating team and I know that they will get for us the best concessions possible. I have met the fishermen with regard to this particular problem and have had long discussions with them on it. I found them very enlightened and intelligent in their approach. When something emerges from the discussions I will be having the fishermen and their representatives in again to discuss developments with them. I assure the House that that industry will be kept fully informed of developments as far as I am concerned.

Deputy Begley did not agree with my statement that loans for boats were repayable over a 15 year period. He contradicted this and said that the repayment period was now down to ten years. This is not so. The position is that for new boats the repayment period is still 15 years. Boats financed abroad usually carry a foreign loan repayable in nine years. Perhaps this is what Deputy Begley had in mind. I do not know. Certainly as far as An Bord lascaigh Mhara are concerned the period remains unchanged. He also said there were better concessions to be obtained in regard to foreign loans and that for this reason some of our fishermen were inclined to purchase boats abroad in order to avail of the better credit facilities. He is entirely wrong in this because, as I have said, the maximum repayment period for boats from abroad on the loan basis is nine years. Of course here too some of the fishermen ask for a shorter term and if they do this, this is agreed to.

I have here a booklet issued by BIM which contains all the details with regard to loans and grants. I would advise Deputy Begley to have a look through that book and he will discover that there is no secret about these loans and grants and who qualifies for them. I say this because Deputy Begley made the allegation that one must belong to a certain political party in order to qualify for a loan.

Which one?

I do not think he named it but I do not believe it was the Labour Party. It could have been.

Possibly.

I want to assure the House that the conditions which qualify one for loans and grants are contained in this booklet so there can be no doubt whatever about the question. I was very anxious to clear up this point because Deputy Begley complained last Thursday that he had been contradicted unfairly by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries during a debate on another aspect of the sea fishing industry in this House last May. The Deputy contended that grants and loans are given to people who are not fishermen and who never saw the inside of a boat. Deputy Begley took exception to the Minister's reply in which he said that the policy of Bord lascaigh Mhara is that they will not assist financially in the purchase of boats unless a qualified skipper is involved. Of course, this condition does not apply to smaller boats.

The Deputy, on Thursday last, in support of the charges made by him in May last, instanced a case in his own town where a person is being given a grant and loan by Bord lascaigh Mhara although this man is not a qualified skipper and, according to the Deputy, has no fishing experience. He implied that it was because of this man's membership of a certain political party that he was receiving this grant and loan. As regards the loan, the Deputy is wrong. While he described very clearly the person he had in mind, he did not name him. What Deputy Begley did not tell the House was that the person he described so well has given very good service to the local fishing community in his capacity as chairman of the Fishermen's Co-operative Society and as chairman of the local harbour board. Not only that, but I am informed that there has been no lack of fishing experience in this man's family and, at times, tragic experience.

Is this the type of person whom the Deputy would debar from purchasing a fishing vessel and employing a fully qualified skipper? It is too bad that any Deputy should come into the House and make charges such as those made by Deputy Begley.

The same Deputy raised also the question of deck hands on fishing vessels. He spoke about their conditions of employment and so on. Of course, this is not a matter for the Fisheries Branch. Also on this question, the Deputy suggested that the banks or some other source might provide deposits for young skippers who have received their tickets. Generally, these deposits only amount to about 5 per cent. Therefore, no great hardship would be imposed on a potential skipper by his having to pay such deposit. The fact that the deposit must be paid ensures that people of the right calibre, people of the calibre to take over the responsibility of maintaining a boat, will be the ones to go into the industry.

I come now to the question of rot in the French-built boats. This matter has been mentioned here and elsewhere and again it was Deputy Begley who referred to certain guarantees having. been given to the fishermen by Bord lascaigh Mhara. The Deputy alleged that Board lascaigh Mhara twisted the arms of the fishermen to buy these boats abroad. This is not so. The fishermen bought these boats of their own choice and not because of any pressure either from An Bord lascaigh Mhara or from anyone else. The only way in which the board came into the picture was in relation to the giving of grants to the fishermen. Before these grants were given, the board carried out an inspection of the boats but this inspection did not disclose any defects whatsoever and the defects that have now become evident did not manifest themselves until much later.

I should like to say also that there are only two of those boats not engaged in fishing at present. The others are engaged actively in fishing. A survey of the boats will be carried out when they return from fishing which will be some time in the spring. Bord lascaigh Mhara are doing all they can to help the fishermen in this unfortunate experience. The board have written to the owners of the boats offering to co-ordinate any legal action that they might wish to take against the boatyard in question. Of course, the board themselves are not in a position to take legal action on behalf of the fishermen. So far only one of the owners has taken them up on their offer to co-ordinate legal action; nothing has been heard from the other people concerned. At any rate, I can assure the House that in so far as Bord lascaigh Mhara are concerned, I have their assurance that they will help in this unfortunate matter as best they can.

In relation to this matter also, Deputy Begley complained that a fisherman in Donegal who had paid his deposit on the purchase of a French boat but who now wishes to withdraw from the agreement because of the discovery of rot in these similar vessels, is being prevented from doing so by the board. This is completely untrue. The board do not and will not prevent anybody from changing his mind in regard to the purchase of a boat. However, if a fisherman enters into a contract with a foreign boatyard, the question of withdrawing is a matter between the fisherman and the boatyard concerned. I might add that the board are not aware of any fisherman in Donegal who wished to buy a French boat but who now wishes to withdraw from the contract.

Deputy Murphy referred to the provision in the Estimate of a sum of £396,100 to enable repayment to be made to the Central Fund of advances which have been made to Bord lascaigh Mhara and which, subsequently, had to be written off by the board. The Deputy asked for more details concerning the writing off of this sum of money. This writing off relates to loans given to fishermen on vessels which were repossessed by the board because of default in payments and as well as the outstanding advances, compound interest up to the 30th September, 1969 had to be written off. Sixty vessels of varying sizes were involved. Seventeen of these were up to 40 feet in length, 35 were between 41 and 50 feet in length while eight were more than 50 feet long. Of these vessels, 56 were issued prior to 1963.

I am glad to say the number of boats now being repossessed has reduced considerably. In fact, it is practically nil. It is quite understandable why so many were repossessed but it must be remembered that many of those bigger boats were completely new to the people who were operating them, and that in the early stages they had not the experience one would wish them to have. They ran into difficulties with regard to repayments for one reason or another. They were difficulties which were no fault whatsoever of the fishermen themselves, difficulties in regard to getting parts, weather and so on. As well as that there was quite a financial commitment as far as the fishermen were concerned, a financial commitment with which they did not have to deal before. They found themselves not only requiring to know the technique of managing and fishing but also of managing financial affairs, which was entirely new to them. However, we can quite safely say those problems are now behind us and will not arise again.

The only way of course that one can prevent defaulting of this kind, especially when one is trying to get something new off the ground, is not to make the finance available. I do not think any Deputy would wish to take that line. One has to gamble in the early stages of the development of any new industry in order to bring about the results we all wish to see. I am glad to say we have now got those results and will not have this problem on our hands again.

When boats are repossessed it does not mean that the vessels go out of existence and are lost to the fleet, as was suggested by Deputy Murphy and others. When a boat is repossessed it is put back into service after the necessary repairs have been carried out, and there is no loss whatsoever to the catching power of the Irish fleet.

Deputy Begley mentioned the lack of communication with fishermen and suggested that Bord lascaigh Mhara should have a small booklet or pamphlet telling fishermen what is happening. I am sure Deputy Begley is aware of the Irish Skipper. a publication which is widely read by the people involved in the fishing industry and in which BIM have a special column. I think that meets present needs.

Deputy Lenehan and Deputy Begley accused Bord lascaigh Mhara of forcing unfavourable insurance terms on fishermen for their boats. This is not so. The board do not force a fisherman to accept any particular terms, but they do help in so far as they go to tender for the best possible insurance rates and offer those terms to fishermen. Each fisherman is free to do better if he can with any insurance company of his choice.

Deputy Begley also complained that, when a function is organised in connection with the handing over of a cheque by Bord lascaigh Mhara to a boat owner who has repaid his loan in less than the full period of 15 years, the board do not invite the local Deputies. This is not a matter for the board but entirely one for the local owner. He is the one who decides who is to be invited to this very small function. Therefore Deputy Begley is entirely wrong in accusing the board of ignoring local Deputies in this matter.

The same Deputy criticised severely the membership of Bord lascaigh Mhara and said that the only qualifications for membership of the board was to be a member of Fianna Fáil. This is not so and it is very small-minded of the Deputy to make unfounded allegations like this. He said that fishermen and those with a knowledge of fishing should be represented on the board. The board consists of six members. As soon as I took up this position I had the honour of filling two vacancies that arose on the board, and I filled those vacancies on the specific recommendation of the Federation of Irish Fishing Co-operatives, and I feel sure the federation will not receive favourably the Deputy's aspersions on their nominees. One of these nominees is, in fact, a fishing skipper and the other has always been closely associated with the fishing industry. In my tour of the fish landing places which I mentioned already I heard nothing but the highest praise for what he had been doing for the fishing industry and his understanding of the problems, and I think it is very wrong to cast aspersions on such a person.

Deputy John L. O'Sullivan raised the question of the training of young men for the fishing industry and suggested it should be done in conjunction with the vocational schools and in the vocational schools where possible. I think the training could be done much better by a fishery school as such and, as Deputies know, a new fishery training school is being provided and should be opened by next year at Greencastle, County Donegal. The estimated cost of this school is about £80,000.

It was also suggested by Deputy Begley that the allowances given to boy trainees in the fishing industry should be increased to £8 per week so that they would not be short of money if they wanted to smoke, have a drink, back a horse or go to a race meeting. The Deputy should realise that the trainees at the Department's temporary fishing school at Moville are boys between the age of 16 and 18 years whose parents expect my Department to have some regard for their welfare during the period of training. While undergoing training the boys are lodged and fed free of charge and the allowance of £4 per week, while modest, is regarded as adequate pocket money and nothing more. The amount was recently increased to that figure and I have no intention of increasing it still further to enable the boys to conduct themselves in the manner suggested by the Deputy. The proper rewards of their apprenticeship will come at the end of the year's training period when the boys will be eligible for employment on a share basis as deckhands on fishing vessels. I cannot stress too much how important the training scheme is for the future welfare of these boys individually and for the benefit of the fishing industry as a whole.

Deputy O'Connor and Deputy Begley referred to the position at Dingle harbour. I should like to point out to the Deputies that about two years ago a full cost State grant of £108,000 was offered by Roinn na Gaeltachta on the recommendation of my Department for a large-scale improvement scheme including dredging at Dingle harbour. The offer of the grant was subject to the condition that Kerry County Council would contribute a grant to meet the cost of maintaining the works, especially dredging, when completed. The delay which has occurred in implementing this scheme arises from some legal difficulties in connection with Kerry County Council's acceptance of the agreement relating to the scheme with particular reference to the council contributing towards the cost of maintenance. The council have already passed a resolution under section 7 of the Harbours Act, 1947, relating to the cost of maintenance. The question of that resolution being confirmed by the Minister for Local Government is being examined at present. It is hoped the matter will be settled shortly.

Reference was also made to the neglected harbour works in Kerry. I do not know why this should be so because quite an amount of important work has been carried out in Kerry, as I mentioned in my opening speech. Over the past two years work has been completed on 12 landing places in Kerry, work is in progress on three others and work has been approved but not yet commenced on another six, so nobody can truthfully say we are neglecting Kerry in relation to this development.

Deputy O'Connor and Deputy Begley also mentioned the question of the cold storage at Dingle. In 1963 and again in 1965 the Dingle Fishermen's Co-op Society made application to An Foras Tionscal for a grant towards the cost of quick-freezing and cold storage facilities at Dingle. These applications were unacceptable because they were regarded as over-elaborate for local needs. The society were advised to make a revised proposal on more modest lines and the assistance of BIM was offered for this purpose. The society, however, let the matter drop but recently they contacted BIM about a grant under the board's scheme of grant assistance towards the cost of establishing new or improved distribution centres at fishing ports. This scheme was designed in 1968 to assist co-operatives or small businesses whose activities are outside the scope of normal industrial grant schemes administered by the Industrial Development Authority. The society's requirements are being examined at present.

I should like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that we have been waiting two years for a boring survey to be carried out in Cahirciveen and we have three new boats coming in there. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary cannot claim that the harbours are being attended to?

The Deputy has already spoken.

I want to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to this.

Work at Cahirciveen has been approved and it is about to commence.

After two years.

Yes, but as I pointed out the Deputy must take into account the other development work which has been done in Kerry.

What has been done there is not bringing results.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any information about schemes for south west Cork in his brief?

I am sure Deputy Murphy is aware that the survey is being carried out in Cork. It has been completed in Kerry. Kerry got ahead in the survey and the work is being done.

Mr. Tally

The work is not being done. They have been waiting two years for work to start.

The boring survey has not yet been caried out.

That will be ten years.

Deputy Bruton and Deputy Tully mentioned the lack of a purification plant for mussels at Mornington. The answer is that processing plants are matters for private enterprise, but State assistance is available for such plants if promoters can be found provided they can put up a viable project. The question of processing was also mentioned by Deputy Lenehan.

There are purification plants in numerous places around the country.

Deputy Tully also mentioned the position of Drogheda harbour. I take it the Deputy was referring to the improvement works which are being carried out at Drogheda port by the Drogheda Harbour Commissioners. The scheme consists in the main of the extension of the north training wall, the construction of a south training wall and the deepening of the river channel. A State grant of £175,000 was sanctioned by the Minister for Transport and Power towards the cost of the scheme subject to the condition that whatever measures were stipulated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for the protection of fisheries would be complied with in the execution of the scheme. Further works of the nature mentioned by Deputy Tully may be planned or contemplated by the Drogheda Harbour Commissioners but the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are not aware of them. If, however, any additional works are undertaken at Drogheda port Deputy Tully can be assured that the fisheries' interests will be considered and appropriate measures will be taken to protect them.

The Deputy also referred to the dredging works being carried out by the Drogheda Harbour Commissioners and the possible effect on the mussel stocks.

Not "possible," actual.

Officers of my Department and of BIM have had consultations with officials of the Harbour authority. They have given advice on the execution of dredging operations so as to ensure that the minimum damage will be caused to the mussel stocks.

Have they had consultations with the fishermen?

So far the dredging has been carried out without serious damage being caused to the mussel stocks.

Mr. Tally

That is not correct.

Marketable mussels are available for exploitation and fishing is taking place at present. The Boyne estuary, including Mornington, is a scheduled area under the Health Act which means that mussels taken from the area cannot be marketed fresh for human consumption without first being purified. The erection of a purification plant would be a matter for decision by private commercial interests involved.

Purification is an important question at the moment.

However, as there are two shellfish processing factories operating in the area the absence of a purification plant is not an insurmountable obstacle to the development of the mussel fishery.

Where are the two shellfish processing plants operating in the area?

They are operating in the area. I am sure the Deputy will be aware of that.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say where they are. He talked about one in Clogherhead. I am quite sure he knows the difference. If there is only one that one has the right to offer any price it likes.

There is another one. They are going to Meath.

I was waiting for the Parliamentary Secretary to try that one. I am surprised at an ancient Deputy falling for that one.

The Deputy should know more about it.

I know a great deal more than the Deputy does.

I should like to refer briefly——

I do not want to interrupt, but could the Parliamentary Secretary answer one question : it is the question of the appointment of two people from the Meath County Council on to the board. The Parliamentary Secretary would not know anything about that.

What stipulation did the Department lay down?

Deputies should not interrupt. Deputies may put questions when the Parliamentary Secretary concludes.

Deputy Kavanagh complained that, apart from the major harbours, nothing was being done for the rest. This is not so. The survey team to which I referred' earlier is to examine the position in the entire country and that includes the east coast. Deputy Kavanagh also mentioned Arklow harbour. This is the responsibility of the Arklow Harbour Commissioners and I understand they are in communication with the Minister for Transport and Power about improvements which, in the main, would cater for commercial shipping but would also cover fisheries.

Deputy Murphy and, I think. Deputy Begley referred to the Decca navigation chain and expressed doubts as to whether or not it would become a reality. I can assure the Deputies it will become a reality in the not too distant future. We are in course of acquiring the sites on which to erect our transmitter stations. We have got options on these sites and I assure the House there is no question of this matter being shelved.

With reference to the fishmeal factory at Castletownbere, doubts were expressed about this project also. There is no question of not proceeding with this project as far as my Department is concerned. The Office of Public Works, acting as our agents, have made every effort to obtain agreement on price.

I am very pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary make that definite statement. I do not like interrupting, but I did refer yesterday to this question of agreement on price. The price the Office of Public Works are offering is far less than the actual market value of the land. It is unfair to try to buy land at less than its market value. That is the only interruption I shall make.

They have failed to get the land by agreement and, that being so, there is no option but to proceed for compulsory purchase.

The man is quite willing to sell at a fair price.

As the Deputy knows, if the land is acquired compulsorily, the price is settled by an independent arbitrator. Presumably he will settle a fair price.

The price offered is far less than a fair price.

The survey team is now completing its report on Cork county and this report will be considered as early as possible and the works recommended will be considered in conjunction with the western harbours programme, subject to the availability, of course, of capital.

I do not intend to go into any detail with regard to inland fisheries. The question of nationalisation, pollution and so forth has been raised. There is a commission sitting at the moment and its terms of reference are very wide. The matters raised will be matters for consideration by the commission. They will report on these. That being so I do not think it would be right for me to refer to these matters at this point of time. When the commission reports we will give full consideration to their recommendations.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is sure that the mussels which are being disturbed as a result of the dredging work being carried out by Drogheda Corporation are not being carried out to sea and that they will be re-seeded in areas in which they can breed.

I referred to that when I was speaking. Earlier this year they were being carried out on the tide, but the position is not as serious now as it was earlier. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he could give me some indication as to what was happening with regard to the fish weir at Mornington because it does not appear to be used by the people for whom it was erected.

I will get in touch with the Deputy later on in regard to that matter.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn