Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Mar 1977

Vol. 297 No. 11

Fishery Management and Conservation Measures: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of and approves of the progress made in EEC negotiations towards settling management and conservation measures, in the interim and for a permanent fisheries regime.

I want to refer the House to the debate of 14th July, 1976, in the Seanad when the Taoiseach reiterated our position in relation to the 50-mile limit and to say that that is Government policy and that is what we are aiming for. The Government fisheries development programme is between 1975 and 1979 to increase our fleet to 300 vessels and to increase our tonnage from 75,000 tons to 150,000 tons. On February 22nd the Government moved a unilateral decision to outlaw boats of over 33 metres—110 feet—and over 111 horsepower from an area around our coasts which is now referred to as the Irish box. This area is bounded on the north by 56º.30 north latitude, on the west by 12º west longitude and on the south by 50º.30 north latitude. That area of the Irish box is 50 miles from our coast in some cases and as much as 100 miles from our coast in others. There was an immediate reaction from the Commission. That was the value of the unilateral action we proposed to take. If there had been no reaction from the Commission the decision of the Government was to take that unilateral action.

Is it intended to circulate the Minister's speech?

There is no written version of the speech. I am speaking from notes. The debate was only mooted yesterday by the Opposition and we met them by having the debate today. In the meantime, there was no opportunity to produce a written speech; I am speaking from notes. This reaction from the Commissioners was valuable because it meant that they were taking account of our proposed unilateral action, an order for which I have signed. They came forward with their proposals. First, I should like to put on the record an official letter from Commissioner Gundelach to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of 22nd February which states:

Following my letter of 16th February and the meeting held on 21st February with officials of your Government and with the other Member States concerning the unilateral conservation measures envisaged by your Government, I must inform you that it leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that the measures you have proposed raise wide ranging issues which would make it impossible for the Commission to give its approval at this time.

I understand the disappointment of the Irish Government seeing the Community unable, up to now, to find an appropriate solution for all Irish fishery problems. However, although there was lack of agreement on one point during the last council meeting, others like the ban on Celtic Sea herring and the prohibition of factory ships were accepted. Therefore, the Commission, for its part, does not preclude the possibility of arriving at a Community solution on the matter still under discussion. Obviously, we need some time to find such a solution and on behalf of the Commission I must, therefore, ask your Government to postpone the date of application of the proposed measures at least until 15th March. Such a gesture would certainly be appreciated by the other Member States, and I can assure you that the Commission will be ready to do all in its power to look for an early and satisfactory solution.

I hope also that we will have the possibility of discussing this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Yours sincerely,

FINN GUNDELACH.

May we have a copy of Mr. Gundelach's letter?

I have only one copy here but I shall gladly give the Deputy a copy. Of course, it will be on record.

The Government then had to decide whether to go on with this unilateral action or to give the EEC Commission an opportunity to make their proposals to us. It is no harm here to go back to the situation in 1972 when the previous Government was in office and when the Treaty of Accession was signed by that Government. I refer the House to Article 100 on fishing rights and I quote:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2141/70 on the establishment of a common structural policy for the fishing industry, the Member States of the Community are authorised, until 31 December 1982 to restrict fishing in water under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, situated within a limit of six nautical miles, calculated from the base lines of the coastal Member State, to vessels which fish traditionally in those waters and which operate from ports in that geographical coastal area; however, vessels from other regions of Denmark may continue to fish in the waters of Greenland until 31 December 1977 at the latest.

Subsection 3 states:

If a Member State extends its fishing limits in certain areas to 12 nautical miles, the existing fishing activities within 12 nautical miles must be so pursued that there was no retrograde change by comparison with the situation on 31 January 1971.

The previous Government left the incoming Government in the position that the maximum area over which that Government had any jurisdiction as far as fishery protection is concerned was 12 nautical miles. There the matter lies. The Opposition are now eager and ready to jump on the bandwagon and support the very legitimate objective of 50 nautical miles laid down by the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and others and with which the Government readily and fundamentally agree. The Opposition's attitude is to try to place the Government in the position of not being in favour of this laudable result. We are in favour of that result.

What was the extent of the waters of sovereignty of 1972? What was the extent of sovereignty then?

I am not interested in that.

Are you not? It is important.

(Interruptions.)

That was what was left by the outgoing Government in 1972. We were left with 12 nautical miles at a maximum. In the period from the postponement of unilateral action up to the day before yesterday there were high level meetings of officials from this country and the other countries of the Nine to see if a solution could be found. There were moves forward in that time. The prohibition of factory ships was a move forward and there were other moves forward as well.

The day before yesterday in Brussels two fundamental steps forward for the Irish fishing industry were taken verbally. The Commission undertook to put to the Council of Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries before the middle of April proposals for a permanent fishing regime and laid down a deadline for reaching a Council decision—30th June, 1977. That was never there before. We regard that as a very serious step forward so far as our relations with the EEC are concerned.

It must be remembered that our unilateral decision was temporary in as much as it was to have been in force until the end of this year. I have already mentioned the offer made in Brussels the day before yesterday. The position is that not only would there be quotas but the number and size of boats must be indicated and boats will be shown by name and by number. Anybody not licensed, whose name and number are not available to this country, would be a poacher and could be arrested or reported to the Commission as breaking the agreement. The length of his stay in Irish waters must be specified and could be reduced. The actual fish stocks to be caught were to be determined. This range of protection measures was to apply solely and specifically to Irish coastal waters.

By way of clarification, is the Minister referring to agreements with third countries or to agreements with Community countries?

Community countries. In relation to Irish coastal waters there is offered to us now the restriction on other countries fishing not in the Irish box but in a smaller area. This means that around our coast we will have this total restriction. There is the advantage that if you have a large area and impose a restriction on the number of boats or the fish they may catch, there could be a larger number of boats and bigger quotas. They could all fish in our waters for their quotas and denude our stocks. Therefore there is a fundamental advantage in having the size of the Irish box reduced. This means that the reduction in fishing and the taking of catches would apply to the areas around our coast. This is what we want. This would refer to zone 7. There is at the moment in abeyance——

Where is zone 7?

From 55º latitude to a point on the Mayo coast. I was about to address myself to subzones 6A6 and 6A7.

May we have a map?

I will give Deputies a map as soon as I have finished. In abeyance at this moment and not offered to us are the subzones 6A6 and 6A7. This was indicated by me to the chairman and secretary of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation before I went to the negotiations in Brussels. In the course of the negotiations I did not succeed in getting subzones 6A6 and 6A7, which are largely the areas off the Donegal coast, included. It will be for our high level officials to argue the importance of these zones to us and to say that we want them included.

This is another indication that we are coming from the position of the 12-mile limit which we had in 1972— there is no criticism of the previous Government intended here—to our final target of a 50-mile limit, step by step. I will be delighted to give the Opposition copies of a French map which will give them the position of subzones 6A6 and 6A7. That matter is to be argued in the ten day period up to Thursday week when I will be back in Brussels trying to get all I can, or we can invoke our unilateral measure.

The unilateral measure is subject of an order which I have made and signed. We are ready to invoke that unilateral measure by Government decision, not by my decision, if we are not satisfied with what we are getting from the EEC. I want the Opposition to understand completely that this is not a matter that can be finalised in a moment or even in a week. It can only be finalised in meetings of the Council of Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries while, at the same time, having high level meetings with our officials who can bring their successes into the political and larger forum of the Council of Ministers.

I now want to deal with the matter raised by the Opposition in relation to who is handling fisheries. When fisheries are discussed in the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, the relevant Minister to discuss these matters at that Council is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When they are discussed at the Council of Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries, the relevant Minister is the Minister for Fisheries. There is complete confidence between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and myself at all times, but we both accept responsibility for fishery negotiations at these forums. It is not our choice that these matters are discussed at the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs. Any Minister for Foreign Affairs at the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs may raise a fishery measure as it applies to foreign affairs. Having so raised it, the relevant Minister to put forward our case is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If these matters are raised at the Council of Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries, the relevant Minister is myself.

I note that in all debates on fisheries over the past few years we heard from the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Kennedy, and their spokesman on Fisheries, Deputy Gallagher. The objections of the Opposition could be termed political playacting. The Opposition spokesman for Foreign Affairs knows that it is his duty to discuss the matter as it is discussed in the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Gallagher knows it is his duty to do the same thing.

Have there been occasions when both Ministers were at discussions?

Yes. There were discussions two or three weeks ago when both of us were present, but I did not intervene.

What kind of meeting was that?

The meeting at which the Minister for Foreign Affairs moved in respect of our proposed unilateral action.

A meeting of whom?

A meeting of the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs. At that meeting our proposed unilateral action was moved. I went to it on the advice of my officials. I was a new Minister. The proposed unilateral measures were under discussion and I felt it was proper I should be there. The appropriate Minister was the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I did not intervene.

I will be replying to any other points which arise during the debate. As Minister for Fisheries, the House may take it that I will not be a political lollipop-man, merely standing in the way. I will be working as hard as I can to secure the interests of our fisheries. There have been newspaper comments in the past few days which undoubtedly will be taken up by the Opposition like a peach thrown into their after dinner sweet. I will deal with such criticisms when I come to reply.

I move the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"condemns the Government for the inconsistent and confused manner in which they have mismanaged the EEC fishery negotiations to the detriment of the Irish fishing industry."

One has to look at the whole question of fisheries and the manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Government since they took office when speaking on this amendment. Membership of the EEC conferred certain benefits on the Government which should have enabled them to plan for the future expansion of the industry, but the Government have not made any effort to get any such plan under way.

By way of parliamentary question and debate we have tried to impress on the Government the necessity for such planning, and the IFO have gone to the trouble and expenses of producing a plan for the industry, realising that EEC funds are available, help that heretofore has not been available. However, the Government have ignored all suggestions and efforts made in relation to our fisheries.

We realise that the derogation clause in the EEC fisheries agreement, which will be valid until 1982, was put there to give the Irish Government a breathing space in which to take a look at the whole question of fisheries so that at the end of that time we could find ourselves in a competitive position vis-á-vis other member states when it comes to fishing and the development of the industry. The Government have not taken advantage of this, and as an example of how serious the situation has become, in 1974 grants for boatbuilding were insufficient and notice of it had to be given to the Government by this side of the House. As a result, the Government increased the grants at that time to keep the boatyards moving. A similar situation developed recently in a boatyard in the south of the country and workers there were notified that 30 per cent of them would be laid off.

Last week in the Dáil, in reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Fisheries told us he was not satisfied with the amount of money being made available for the purchase of secondhand boats. We have been accused of playacting and political——

Call it what you like. All our efforts have been constructive. I will quote from a speech I made at the 1976 Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis:

The fishing industry may now be sufficiently large to justify a large scale development plan, including the training of more fishermen and skippers, the building of substantially more and bigger boats, more protection vessels, better harbours, greater marketing, etc. These developments would in my opinion represent a desirable form of economic and regional development based on a local natural resource, giving substantial employment in just those areas most in need of it.

Later, I said:

This type of development plan could and should be part of any real regional policy. The EEC aid as at present administered is given to schemes already in preparation rather than in providing a framework for new exciting developments in the underdeveloped regions of the country which could transform them as is the intention.

In November last I said at a debate in UCG:

The terms of the agreement negotiated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs recently suggest the necessity for a huge injection of capital in the industry over the next two years, i.e., building of 300 boats, creation of extra jobs on shore and the improvement of harbour facilities and improved protection for our fleet. Allied to this is the need to improve our research educational and marketing facilities.

If our EEC partners are serious in their claim that they are treating Ireland as a special case—although one would question this in view of what has been happening with the non-payment of FEOGA grants to fishermen—let us hope that the Government will provide the necessary structures, leadership, impetus and finance to make these projections a reality.

I am suggesting to the House that from the beginning we have been constructive and have tried to play a positive role in regard to our fishing industry. During the debate on the Maritime Jurisdiction Bill the Minister for Foreign Affairs accused us of hindering the EEC negotiations, a charge which was unwarranted and unnecessary. It is typical of the Government that when things do not go to their liking they look for some scapegoat to cover for their mismanagement.

I will refer briefly to The Hague meeting when the hopes of our fishermen were raised as a result of the wonderful guarantees given to them by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. All the projects we had at that time in relation to providing an extra 300 boats by 1977, expansion of harbours, improved processing facilities, were forecast to yield extra employment on shore and in fishing in general of up to 1,800 jobs.

Again one has to relate this to what has been happening in the Dáil and the amount of money made available for fisheries. On 11th November, 1976, I asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of boats over 80 feet now on order by Irish fishermen and the reply was:

Ten boats of over 80 feet in length are at present on order and all are due to be completed by September, 1977.

On 23rd February the Minister for Fisheries in reply to a question asking the sum available to BIM for administrative purposes and for development in the current Estimate for fisheries said that the sum of £1,790,000 was available. In reply to a question on 9th March, 1977, regarding the amount available for loans we were given the figure of £6,319,000. When one realises that the last large fishing boats in the Irish fleet cost £1,100,000 we can see that the projections given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to the expansion of the whole fisheries question are indeed very far removed from the amount of money that has been provided in the budget.

On Wednesday, 1st December, 1976, I asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what plans his Department had for the provision of further major harbours and if he would state where these are to be developed. The Minister replied:

Five harbours are scheduled for development as fishery harbour centres under the Fishery Harbour Centres Act, 1968. I do not propose to add to the list of such harbours.

Where are the famous promises made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a result of The Hague meeting? On Thursday, 4th March, 1976, I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of research vessels being used by his Department. There was none. A similar reply was given by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on 10th March, 1976, that at that time we had no research vessel operating. Fishing is a resource that has to be managed and controlled and we have to understand that the only way that the fisheries can be controlled here is by the provision of a 50-mile coastal band. The position in relation to quotas which has been suggested by the EEC is not at all suitable when the Irish situation is being considered and we have to be able to control the fisheries ourselves. We cannot expect the EEC, who have plundered their own areas, to try to preserve or conserve our stocks. We have to have research facilities. We have to be able to tell what stocks are there and the amount and type of fish that can be taken out at any time. Unless we are successful in securing the 50-mile coastal band we can forget about developing the fishing industry. I am sure our EEC partners are well aware of this situation.

Since March, 1976, the IFO have had constant talks with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to the importance of providing the 50-mile coastal band and they have tried to impress on him how important it is for the future of the industry. While the Minister seemed to accept the suggestion, he has always been trying more or less to emphasise the importance of having a fall-back position. In other words, he is going into battle without being fully convinced himself that 50 miles should be sought. This has been proved by the way he has come into this House on a number of occasions and voted against motions from this side of the House in relation to having the 50 miles provided.

No Minister could have supported that.

At the same time he keeps telling the fishermen and the public—and we have the Minister today telling the House once again— that the Government are pursuing this objective of getting a 50-mile band. We have had so much coming and going that at this time we do not know exactly what the Government are proposing or what they intend doing in relation to this very important question.

I have been dealing with the fisheries end of matters and I hope that some of my colleagues will deal in greater detail with the actual negotiations and the handling of them. One has to have sympathy with the fishermen at this time because of the manner in which they have been treated by the Government in their handling of this business. The organisation have given a great deal of time and thought to these matters and going back and forward to Brussels has cost them a good deal. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken them into his confidence and the Minister for Fisheries has been acting in the same manner up to recently, until just a few weeks ago, when it was obvious the Government were backing down once more on the question of unilateral action they were told they would be kept informed of developments. Unfortunately, they have not been kept informed as to what the Government proposals are or as to the specific proposals from the EEC and we are at a disadvantage today in not knowing exactly what proposals have come to the Government in regard to the future of the industry.

If the Deputy does not know then he does not read the papers.

Now we can take it apparently that whatever appears in the newspapers is correct. I thought that was not the case.

What am I to do?

We read them yesterday and we were not too happy about what appeared in them. The whole position is most unsatisfactory. The Government are not working as a team. There are disagreements in the Government. We hear one story from the Minister for Fisheries and we get another story from the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Yesterday when we asked for a debate on this matter we got a very definite "No" from the Taoiseach. Now we are having that debate. This is just part of the inconsistency we find in the Government and in the way they do their work.

We will continue to fight on this side of the House for a 50-mile coastal band. We cannot move one inch from that position. There is no other way whereby we can expand and develop the industry. We have here a map which was given to us as we came into the House. This map does not mean a thing to me and I am sure that our fishermen, if they were provided with this map, would not be happy with the situation either. The Minister said some of the boxes were free to us and other boxes could be fished by foreigners. It is all just one big muddle. The situation is getting worse from day to day.

The EEC have had plenty of time to come forward with positive proposals. This matter has been under debate for at least six months. One day there is talk of quotas and, when we refuse to accept that suggestion, they take it back, rephrase it and present it to us in another way. It is quite obvious the EEC have done no real thinking and have no real plan in mind for the future of the fishing industry. It is up to us then as a member state to ensure that some positive thinking is brought to bear on the matter. At the moment, as far as I can see, all the Commission are interested in is catching as much fish as they can for themselves. The whole underlying principle of the EEC and its foundation is being forgotton. Unless we are able to come forward with positive thinking and planning we will not get the results we should get from the EEC.

Take this map, for instance. The Minister has told us it is a French map. Where, I wonder, is the Irish map? Can the Minister produce it? Can he tell us what exactly we have presented to the EEC? If he has brought anything positive to the EEC we are entitled to be told about that.

I told the Opposition what we obtained.

Is this a Commission or a French Government document?

It is a French Government document we are using for convenience. We will draw our own map for the Opposition tomorrow and issue them with 150 copies of it.

I assumed this was a Commission document. It now transpires it is a French Government document.

Is the Deputy horrified?

Good man.

The fishing industry is in one sorry mess since this Government took office and I am not surprised they are not making any progress with the EEC. We will try to inject some sanity into the situation even at this late hour and try to direct the Government as to what steps they should take to provide a proper fishing industry. As I said earlier, we now have advantages that were never available to us before for the development and financing of the industry. We must draw up plans. We must be positive in our approach. We have no evidence of any positive thinking on the part of the Government and, until we have, we cannot expect any real progress.

I want to say a few words about one aspect of this matter. It is an aspect which has got more attention than any other aspect in the last few weeks. I refer to the confusion about the role of different Ministers and different arms of the Government. There is no confusion except that which the Opposition are diligently trying to create and that which the media which report what the Opposition say spread among the people. Government is a collective authority and it is in the nature of things that in a large number of matters, particularly new matters which have not arisen before, something is bound to entrench on the jurisdiction of two or, perhaps, even three different Ministers. It is quite easy to draw up a theoretical distinction, as I will now do, between the function of the Department of Foreign Affairs, on the one side, and the Department of Fisheries on the other. It is easy to say—it is the truth—that the responsibility of the former Department is largely a negotiating one and the responsibility of the latter largely a technical and economic one but that statement of principle will not prevent a large number of issues arising on which the constant co-operation and consultation and mutual replacement substitution at one juncture or another by the two Ministers concerned will not be necessary. No Government that ever existed has found it possible so to define and delimit the area of activity of a Minister so that no Minister was ever in any doubt or the public ever in any doubt as to into whose responsibility a particular matter fell. There is no confusion that I can see, no difficulty, no overlapping or conflict of rules that I can see, and the only confusion is that which the Opposition have been doing their best over the last couple of weeks to propagate. There was one single incident in which I must agree there was room for misunderstanding. There was a misunderstanding, but it was a very simple matter, namely, whether a particular telephone call was made before or after the Minister for Fisheries and I had been in Brussels interviewing Mr. Gundelach. That telephone call was before that interview.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn