asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the estimated stocks of blue whiting, hake, and horse mackerel within the Irish 200 mile limit and the scientifically recommended annual total allowable catch for each species.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishing Grounds.
4.
Estimates of stock size and total allowable catches are not calculated by reference to national fishery limits but by internationally accepted statistical areas that is ICES areas, most of which encompass waters within the fishery limits of more than one country.
The 1979 total allowable catches recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea for the species in question in European waters and adopted by the EEC Commission are as follows: Blue Whiting, 580,000 tonnes, Areas IV, VI, VII, XIV; Hake, 43,000 tonnes, Areas IV, VI, VII, VIII; Horse Mackerel, 250,000 tonnes, Areas IV, VI, VII, VIII.
Were these figures available to the Minister when he was in Oslo two months ago discussing with the Norwegian Government the possible admission of Norwegian ships under Irish flags to Irish waters in exchange for an Irish concession on the Norwegian oilfield?
I was not in Oslo two months ago and no such discussion took place. The Deputy should not act in such a misinformed manner.
Had the reports attributed to the Minister for Fisheries some part in the negotiations or approaches between the Governments?
Question No. 5.
If there were no fish in these waters the matter would be of no importance.
The Deputy is engaged in idle speculation.
Is there some truth in the reports which attributed some part to the Minister in the negotiations and approaches between our Government and Norwegians in regard to the possible exchange of an admission to our fishing waters in return for a stake in the Norwegian oilfields? Had the Minister no hand, act or part in those negotiations?
I engaged in no negotiaions in Oslo or Dublin or anywhere else, in regard to the matter mentioned by the Deputy.
Question No. 5.
Does the Minister realise that that flatly contradicts what he said in this House not more than four weeks ago?
This is engaging in an argument which is barely relevant to the question.
Will the Deputy sit down and behave himself and not act like a naughty schoolchild.
I was in conflict with the Chair before this today, and the Chair was 100 per cent wrong on that occasion. This time, I feel entitled to pursue under Question 4 the question whether the species mentioned by Deputy Deasy in his Question are likely to be eaten into by a Norwegian entry into our waters whether under the Irish flag or otherwise.
There is absolutely no question of that. I cannot be more emphatic than that.
We need a little more than that from the Minister in order to be sure.
(Interruptions.)
If the Deputy presumes to tell the Chair how to behave I will tell the Deputy that I have had enough of these irrelevant questions. There is a limit to even the Chair's patience.
I do not wish to be in conflict with the Chair more than is absolutely necessary, but this question clearly relates to the blatant possibility of over-fishing.
The question the Deputy is pursuing is whether the Minister had negotiations about oil or not and that does not arise.
Leaving the question of the negotiations out of it, may the House take it that the Minister would be against the admission, whether in concert with the other EEC countries or not, of non-EEC fishing vessels to the Irish 200 mile zone in order to fish for the species mentioned by the Deputy?
Of course.
Of course, the Minister will be against it?
Of course, yes.
Is that an unqualified yes?
Yes, it is.
Deputy Mitchell wishes to ask a supplementary question.
The Minister must be aware of the newspaper reports about a deal with Norway. Did the Minister's Department issue any denial of these reports?
Did Deputy O'Malley not say——
Deputy Mitchell is only a short while in the House, but if every Minister spent every hour of every working day chasing around denying all the reports made about him and his Department it would be a full-time job.
Question No. 5.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister agree that these reports were attributed to Government spokesmen?
(Interruptions.)
The question does not refer to newspaper reports. I am calling question No. 5.
It is one of the weaknesses of Deputies like Deputy Mitchell that they tend to be run by newspaper reports; they do not know what politics is about. Politics is about making decisions here, not running after newspaper reports or chasing headlines for cheap publicity.
5.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will take steps to ensure that the EEC adhere to the recommended total allowable catch for mackerel off the Irish, British and French coasts in view of the events which have been happening in recent years.
The 1979 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) proposed by the EEC Commission for the mackerel stock in question (that is the Western Mackerel Stock) coincides with that recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. This TAC has been accepted in principle by all member states of the EEC but no quotas have as yet been adopted.
Is the Minister aware that the total allowable catch of mackerel was exceeded in 1976 by 70 per cent and by 30 per cent in 1977 and that there is a fear these stocks will be greatly depleted unless controls are rigidly enforced?
I agree with the Deputy. This whole question of control is bound up with the as yet non-existent EEC Common Fisheries Policy. As the Deputy is aware, the difficulties which have been encountered in the achievement of that over the past 12 months have been almost entirely due to the intransigence of the last British Government. There are signs that that is changing rapidly, and I hope for substantial progress towards such a settlement being made at the June meeting of the Council of Ministers. There are already indications that the present British Government is taking a more positive view than the negative view consistently pursued by the last British Government.
6.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the proposals, if any, he has for the surveying of fishing grounds out to the 200 mile limit, the length of time it is estimated that such a survey will take, and if he has sought financial aid from the EEC for such a project.
I am in the process of placing an order for a new fisheries research vessel which will be capable of operating out to 200 miles from the coast.
As surveys of fishing stocks are on-going it would not be possible to place a time limit on completion of the task.
EEC funds are not available towards the cost of fisheries research undertaken by member states.
Is the Minister quite certain that EEC funds could not be made available for such a survey, has the Minister made a formal approach?
As the Deputy is aware I have done reasonably well in getting £30 million for surveillance activities. I sought to get money for research but research is regarded by the Commission as a national endeavour.
This vessel is a modern Norwegian designed vessel. We purchased the design and the drawings from Norway. The vessel will measure 150 foot long. I hope to have the construction of the vessel put in hands very shortly at the cost of about £3 million and I hope to have it finished within the next 18 months.
When was the decision made to purchase this vessel?
The decision was made some months ago and I decided that the quickest way to get some action in the matter was to purchase the drawings and the design from a Norwegian firm in Bergen, who had constructed a number of up-to-date fishery research vessels for the Norwegian Government. Therefore, we are assured of having a top-class, modern design. It will, of course, be built in an Irish shipyard. There is no question about that—the order will be placed in an Irish shipyard.
I should like to question the Minister's priorities. I know protection is vitally important and that the Minister is getting £30 million for protection vessels, aeroplanes and so on, but surely £3 million for research is extremely little in comparison? As we know so little about our fish stocks in that area surely we should be spending a far greater amount.
I agree with the Deputy that research is important. We are making a start now—we have got one—and I would hope to have another one. In the meantime the more urgent necessity was to ensure the protection of our 200-mile limit. We could not have afforded that protection out of our own resources having regard to the costs involved. We are now proposing to spend £40 million on the construction and purchase of protection vessels, helicopters and planes by 1981. It was a substantial advance to secure £30 million from the EEC. Research is really outside the scope of this. Research is our responsibility, and is the responsibility of every member country of the EEC. The surveillance aspect was different because there we are protecting, if you like, our part of general Community waters. Therefore we could make the case very strongly that our protection there against third country vessels was performing a Community function as well as a national one.
Is not it a fact that the bulk of the fish in our waters is caught by other member states? Furthermore, because of that, should not there be an onus on the EEC to pay for this surveillance?
I am afraid I tried that and it is not on. But I was very happy to be able to secure the other money in the other area I have mentioned.
I want to ask the Minister two questions arising from his reply. The Minister said that the decision to buy the design for this new vessel was taken some months ago. Could he tell us just how many months ago it was taken?
I have not got the exact date, Deputy. If the Deputy wants that information, I will convey it to him by letter.
Could the Minister give us the name of the firm from which the design was bought?
Certainly, I will get all that information for the Deputy.
The Minister has not got it on his file?
I have not got it on the file, no.
Was the transaction with this firm—whichever it was and whenever it was negotiated—part of a package deal involving other elements?
That is so obvious and so futile. I thought the Deputy was coming to that; he did it very painfully. It has nothing whatsoever got to do with it. The Deputy should not be chasing hares.
Does that mean the answer is "No"?
The answer is "no", Deputy.
It is very hard to extract answers.
When the Deputy asks stupid questions it is very hard to be nice to him.
The Minister should not be abusive.
7.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the total catch of fish by the Irish fleet in 1978 within our 200-mile limit, and the estimated total amount of fish in that area which could be caught annually without depletion of stocks.
Catches of fish by the Irish fleet are not recorded in a way which would enable me to say whether they were taken inside or outside our 200-mile limit. As I indicated in reply to Question No. 4, total allowable catches are not calculated by reference to national fishery limits.
Surely it should be very easy to calculate, because we hardly fish at all outside the 200-mile limit?
We do actually. On the west and south coasts, what the Deputy says is correct—all the fish taken by Irish vessels are caught within the Irish 200-mile limit. But on the north coast and in the Irish Sea Irish vessels habitually operate on both sides of the median line between ourselves and the United Kingdom. Quite a substantial catch is taken in UK waters by Irish vessels off the east and northern coasts; off the west and southern coasts the position is as the Deputy said.
I still think the Minister should be able to give an estimate. The last part of the Minister's reply is really an indictment of our lack of research. It is obvious that we do not know what lies out as far as the 200-mile limit.
I am inclined to agree with the Deputy that our research does need to be strengthened and that is what I am at at present. Just as a matter of interest, the total catch of sea fish recorded in Ireland was in the region of 100,000 tons. To a fairly large extent that would be caught within the 200-mile limit, if that is any indication to the Deputy. But there is a proportion of catch taken on the UK side of the east and north coasts.
I asked the Minister if he could give us an estimate of what is there, what could be caught annually without depletion of stocks?
I could get an approximate figure only for the Deputy but I will certainly try to do that.
Will the Minister do that?
I will certainly convey that information to the Deputy.