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——