I move:
That Dáil Éireann rejects any agreement on a common fisheries policy which allows non-national boats to fish up to six miles from the Irish coast, within waters that should be available exclusively to the Irish fishing fleet.
As a party we find it necessary to move this motion in view of the proposals now being considered by the EEC Fishery Ministers. If these proposals are accepted they will have a long-term serious effect on our fishing industry. Fishing is one of our basic natural resources and there is great potential for expansion of it not only at sea but in processing the product. We must preserve at all costs any natural resources we have. If the proposals of the Fishery Ministers are accepted they will halt any expansion in the industry and, in the long-term, will seriously damage the livelihood of those engaged in the fishing industry.
It is only right that we should recall the background that led to this situation.
The announcement by the then Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on 22 February 1978, that he was abandoning the country's claim for a coastal zone for our fishermen marked the culmination of what must rank as the most inept performance by any political negotiator in the 56 years of national independence. In the Hague Agreement of October 1976, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, won the following four concessions: that Ireland would be treated as a special case as far as fisheries were concerned, requiring privileged treatment by comparison with other countries, including Britain; we were to be allowed double our catch between 1976 and 1979 and to continue to increase it rapidly thereafter; we were given the right to take unilateral conservation measures in the interest of perserving stock until such time as a common fisheries policy was agreed and we were to get massive aid for our fishery protection fleet and for back-up services such as aircraft and any equipment needed. The latter was the only part of the agreement that was carried out to the full. We did get finance for protection vessels and the one aircraft we have in operation.
Deputy FitzGerald was negotiating for a coastal band up to 50 miles in all the discussions he had. He never deviated from this principle of a coastal band of up to 50 miles. By last June the need for such a band, at first rejected outright, was beginning to be recognised and accepted and then we had a change of Government. By February 1978, within six months, Deputy Lenihan had reversed our favourable negotiating position vis-à-vis Britain while that country actually continued to hold out for a coastal band. He threw away our most powerful bargaining card, the right of veto over agreements between the Community and third countries for fishing rights which other member states badly needed and for which they would have been prepared to make concessions to us. Finally, he sold out on the coastal band abandoning our claim and accepting a fishing plan based on the kind of quotas which Fianna Fáil had unremittingly denounced while in Opposition as being ineffective. They proved to be so in the course of time.
The Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, during the course of a debate on the Maritime Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill, 1976 on 14 December 1976, as reported at column 630 of the Official Report said:
This Bill should be seen as a second attempt on our part to protect the Irish fishing industry and to secure its future. On Wednesday, 8 December 1976, this House authorised the Government to make an order extending Irish fishing limits to 200 miles. On that occasion we sought to persuade the Government at the same time as they were making that order to make another order reserving the first 50 miles of the 200 miles exclusively for Irish fishermen. That seemed to us to be necessary.
We were very much aware that the making of an order extending our fishing limits to 200 miles as and from 1 January 1977, was a very important step from the point of view of our fishing industry. It was something that in normal circumstances everyone in this House would welcome. Fishermen, all those engaged in the fishing industry and members of the general public interested in the subject, would give a warm welcome to the decision of the Government to extend our fishing limits to 200 miles. However, because the Government refused to make the order we asked them to make concurrently with the principal order, this extension of our fishing limits to 200 miles is illusory and is not guaranteed to confer any benefits whatever on Irish fishermen or on the fishing industry. Indeed, it is likely to be detrimental to the Irish fishing industry as things are developing.
I should like to put on record what other members of Fianna Fáil said about the same Bill. The late Deputy Joe Brennan, then Deputy Leader of Fianna Fáil, said that we have the right to declare a 50 mile limit without reference to anybody. Deputy Bobby Molloy said that Fianna Fáil, if given the opportunity before too much damage was done, would take that stand, would protect our fishing industry and our fishing community and ensure the creation of an exclusive 50 mile limit. The spokesman on Fisheries for Fianna Fáil at the time, Deputy Denis Gallagher, said Fianna Fáil would continue to fight for a 50 mile coastal band, adding that they could not move one inch from that position.
The Treaty of Accession provides, in Articles 100 to 103, that there would be a ten year derogation which expires at the end of 1982. It provides that before the expiry date the Commission will carry out a survey to determine (1) the condition of stocks and (2) to determine the social and economic circumstances of any decisions taken as a result of any changes made. As far as the stocks are concerned it is my belief that a limited survey was carried out and the second survey was carried out but was completely inadequate. The Minister should have sufficient argument to persuade the Commission not to interfere with the limits that exist. That argument must be used not only in the interest of our fishermen but in the interest of our economy. The Minister must use The Hague Agreement which was negotiated by Deputy FitzGerald. Unfortunately, Deputy Lenihan, the previous Fianna Fáil Minister responsible for Fisheries, permitted a weakening and watering down of our position as far as such arguments are concerned.
Some of our colleagues in the EEC are waiting patiently for our coastal zones to be opened up. With regard to herring fishing in the Celtic Sea and the 12-mile limit, the French have spent approximately £290 million to modernise their fleet, and 40 of their 45 trawlers are to be built for Brittany in the north-west of France. A large percentage of these trawlers will work on our white fish and prawn stocks around our coasts. Although most of these trawlers are replacing older ones, no doubt there will be an increase in the number of boats, because a number of French skippers are already having trawlers built to fish prawns off the Porcupine Bank which has only been worked for the past two years. Not one boat of the Irish fleet has worked in this area. It is being worked exclusively by French trawlers. There is a freezer fleet, ships with freezer equipment, operating there for the past two years and I have evidence that four more of these ships are on order and will be in operation by 1983. These ships are 78 metres long, have 4,000 horse power engines and can freeze 150 tonnes of fish per day. On our west coast these ships were taking 1,200 tonnes in eight days during last year's mackerel fishing season. They also fished for mackerel off the south coast during the summer and 15 to 20 ships of the older freezer type worked on that coast for mackerel and herring. This is an indication of how well prepared the French fleet will be in 1983 and the Minister must take this into consideration when making any decision on our behalf.
It is pointless for the Minister to produce figures that prove good catches because the bulk of these catches, especially in the last few years, were mackerel caught off the north-west coast. This catch is limited to a couple of dozen trawlers and is of very little benefit to 90 per cent of our fishermen. These figures may distort the overall picture. If the Minister wants evidence of what the economic situation is he need look no further than the boatyards around the country. I have clear evidence that approximately 28 of these boatyards closed down in the last three or four years. Those that remain are in a very serious financial position. They have had redundancies and that is a clear indication that the fishermen are not maintaining their boats and that the money and margins of profit are not being made by fishermen generally.
I should like to mention fish that comes from Iceland, Norway and the third countries. There have been unlimited quantities of imports, particularly of herring, into Germany. This is depressing the market considerably and conditions are being abused left, right and centre. This abuse is known to the Commission and nothing has been done about it for the past two years. The Minister should bring this to the attention of the Commission and make it clear to them what our attitude is.
Our trawlermen are on their knees at present as a result of wholesale importation into EEC countries for the past couple of years. The entire price structure has collapsed and when we look at prices in other countries, especially in France and Germany, there is no comparison whatsoever. I should like to point out differences in prices. In Ireland, haddock is £297 per tonne; in Belgium, it is £458 per tonne — a difference of £167. In Ireland, whiting is £167 per tonne; in France, it is £411 per tonne — a difference of £244. In Ireland, mackerel is £83 per tonne; in France, it is £200 per tonne — a difference of £117. In Ireland other white fish is £297 per tonne; in Holland, it is £542 per tonne — a difference of £245. If we accept this agreement these are the kind of prices we will have to compete against when our waters are opened to foreign trawlers. In the case of cod, Denmark and Germany had lower prices than ours, but France were £333 per tonne higher and the situation was more or less similar as far as the price of herrings was concerned. These figures clearly show that the Irish fleet are losing out on earning capacity, a position which is further distorted by the extensive State aid to foreign fleets.
On the other hand, our import costs are the highest in the EEC, and this must be changed. Our fishermen will be expected to have the equipment to compete with these people in 1983 if this agreement goes through. The Minister must take this into consideration when making any decisions on our behalf.
Something will have to be done to help the boat building industry. A good modern boat building industry is very important for the fishing fleet. Other countries provide subsidies in this area, but our boat building industry does not get any subsidies. I know of an Irish boat owner who wanted to buy a 65-foot boat, the Irish price was £650,000 and the French price was £350,000. That gives some indication of the differential as far as costs are concerned. There is no doubt in my mind that the difference is being made up by subsidies. Our boatyards are falling very far behind in regard to modernisation and their equipment is obsolete. We cannot compete, not only with regard to fishing but in repairing or building new boats. Another fisherman complained to me that while it took two years to build a boat here the same boat could be built in France in approximately 11 months. The Minister cannot look at any one area of fishing in isolation; he must take the overall picture into consideration.
In the final agreement it is essential that the marketing regulations must provide for minimum prices and for protection from third countries. This has damaged our marketing of fish for the past three to four years. We must not be allowed to go below a certain price level and if necessary we must have intervention prices for our fish. I think the Minister would agree that there must be an end to the dumping of fish back into the sea. It is an awful sight as we so often see it on television while at the same time half the world is starving. Surely we must have some fishery policy under which these fish can be supplied to other countries. It is peculiar that we are dumping fish while at the same time we have regulations which allow importation of fish from third countries into the EEC and the EEC are paying for the dumped fish. Surely this is not logical policy and must be examined closely.
There will be pressure from the Germans in particular for the importation of fish from third countries, but it is essential that we stay steadfast on the price structure regulations before any agreement is concluded. Whether that price structure be a quota price for the amount of fish caught or marketing regulations, we must get a minimum price to ensure that our fishermen can get some margin of profit in order to carry on business.
Like agriculture, the fishing industry has got very little assistance in the past ten or 15 years. One could describe it as minimal. At the same time our EEC partners have poured money into fishing. I think they have poured hidden money into that industry, money of which we know nothing. There is a glaring example when France — quite an expensive country — can build a ship for half the price of building it in Ireland. That is a clear indication to the Minister of what is happening. The French are very clever in their moves and they will be our greatest enemy in this situation.
Fishing is important to the nation, just like agriculture. Margins of profit are important to the fishermen. They cannot continue in business unless they have a reasonable profit. The Minister must take this into consideration. Whatever is agreed in the final package must include price structures for Irish fishermen. The differential between one country and another must be made up. I am sure the Minister will agree that this is important. I appeal to him that no agreement be signed until the prices are also fixed. This is as vital in fisheries as in agriculture.
As we now move to the conclusion of the common fishery policy, which is being pushed upon us by this ten year agreement which must end in 1982, it is a very important matter for Ireland. As the debate moves closer to a conclusion we must consider what is in the whole package and be very careful of our country's interests. There will be many arguments in the EEC and one of those will involve the total allowable catch. I understand that scientific research on our seas would estimate what the total allowable catch may be. Quotas may be arranged in accordance with the total allowable catch. I believe we must be very careful in this area because we were given an undertaking that from 1975 to 1979 we would be allowed to double our catch and, more, important, allowed to expand thereafter. We must bear that in mind.
The Hague agreement gave a clear commitment to recognising that we were a disadvantaged region in the Community and that is the basis of matters as regards our fisheries. We must keep these things in mind at this time. Other countries will try to persuade our Minister that they are doing a great job for us. The Minister will try to persuade the House that he is doing a great job. I do not say he is not, but it is our duty in Opposition to bring to his notice the areas where he can put forward arguments on behalf of the fishing industry. I claim that the terms of The Hague agreement drawn up by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald must be adhered to. I would be very much aware of the condition of the Community before we joined, because once we join it is stated that all Community waters belong to the Community and that every country shall be allowed to fish right up to the other country's coastline. We must remember that this does not apply to ourselves. We have the traditional rights situation and this is the basis on which countries are bringing forward arguments to be allowed to fish in our waters. We must look at the condition in the agreement itself in regard to traditional rights. If these are adhered to they are dangerous for us.
I looked at the agreements which are now before the Minister in regard to these traditional rights. No doubt the Minister has closely studied this particular document. It is rather extraordinary that the only traditional rights the Irish fisherman seems to have are very small rights on the British coast, but practically every country in the EEC has traditional rights right around our coastline. I have reason to believe that in preparation for the ending of the ten year period certain countries encouraged and subsidised their fishing fleets to create these traditional fishing rights over the ten year period. This could be very serious for us because we have neither the fleets nor the money to encourage our fishermen to establish any traditional fishing rights outside our own country with the exception of a couple of areas in Britain.
When we examine the coastal waters of Ireland and the traditional rights established by France in particular, we find they have a very widely established right to fish in our waters. One could almost say they have a right to fish in all waters of this nation. That is very serious. From Cork South, to Carnsore Point South in my own county they have unlimited rights to fish all species of fish. If the Minister agrees with them they will be first in there — they have it written here in the conditions — for prawns, shellfish, mackerel, and white fish. For practically anything you look at, they can go right up the west coast to fish in our waters. They have established that; they will stick to it. They have the Minister across a barrel on that. The Minister is up against it and must hold out very strongly. There can be no weakening in that regard. Even the British do not have anything like the same rights as the French. They have an amount of rights in regard to fishing in our waters. They have unlimited fishing for three species from Mizen Head South to Stags South. That is a very large area. From Carnsore Point South to Haulbowline South East, with the exception of shellfish they have unlimited rights for fishing for all fish. The same applies to most other countries in the EEC. They have established their rights. Germany and the Netherlands have the same coastal rights.
In the document itself we find that the coastal rights in the UK form a completely different picture. The UK coastline is fixed at 12 miles. While some other countries have herring fishing rights there, the UK have protected their coastline far better than we have protected ours. As far as these rights are concerned we are over a barrel in these negotiations. Once it is on a quota basis it cannot be policed. It has been the policy of the Governments of other countries for the past ten years to build up in this area and they have done so, but it seems that we have done the direct opposite and our fishermen have been under very severe pressure, particularly for the past two years. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara were compelled to defer payments over a two-year period. In France they received grants to help them make their payments; we did not get grants. The fishermen were told that OK, they were granted deferment on their payments and I understand there was no extra interest charged and the fishermen should be thankful for that.
Nevertheless as far as this agreement is concerned we must look at the position vis-à-vis other countries. We must be able to weigh up our competitive position and how we are to compete against them if agreement is reached on the suggestion in this document. I feel very strongly about the establishment of these traditional rights and that has been the policy of these countries for the last ten years. It was not our policy, and that is a serious matter.
The effect of any serious cutback on fishermen can be very detrimental for many fishing villages all over the country. We are a coastal country and as we look at the map we realise that fishing provides a great supplement to the normal income of many families. We have approximately 6,000 full-time fishermen, about 6,000 part-time fishermen, 3,000 on-shore fishermen, all directly involved in fishing at the moment. I have stated that, like agriculture, this is an area with tremendous potential. If this agreement which is now before the Council of Fishery Ministers in the EEC comes about it will mean that our fishermen will be competing in very serious conditions against the fishermen of the other countries. Unless any Government here, either the present or an incoming Government, are prepared to take drastic action in the matter of an investment of large sums of money in our fishing fleet on the one hand and into the processing area on the other hand, we cannot compete against the fishermen of the other EEC countries. In the agreement with Germany in particular we must insist on certain conditions for our own fishermen before we allow those countries to impose their conditions, particularly for herring.
For the past two or three years we have preserved the fish in the Celtic Sea, especially herrings. We must ask ourselves now for whom we preserved the herrings. Was it for our own fishermen or those of the EEC countries? If this agreement is reached as laid down in the conditions here, we have preserved our herrings in the Celtic Sea for the other EEC countries, not for our own fishermen. These other countries have the equipment, the boats and the facilities to fish these seas and our fishermen have not got the equipment. The Minister must accept that, and I appeal to him that, whatever conclusions he may reach, he will bear in mind on the one hand the potential the fishing industry has for our country, not just in the sea but on the land, for processing. As with agriculture, very little, if any, effort and money have been put into fish processing. The processing of fish should be carried out near to the port where the fish is landed. This would reduce overheads considerably. As with agriculture, the potential for exporting the processed product is tremendous and it could help to reduce our balance of payments.
We have put forward this motion not just to come in here to talk about fishermen and make a nuisance of ourselves. Like the Minister, I come from a maritime county where people are very interested in fish and fishing. Many villages in my county, as in the Minister's county, make their livelihood from fishing. In the past seven or eight years the people there have made very serious commitments, yet today they are receiving the same price for their fish as they got five years ago while their overheads have gone up five times. I understand that the greatest problem they have is that the largest percentage of their overheads is concerned with oil, the price of which has trebled in the last five years. That is a clear indication of the need for a reasonable agreement on behalf of our fishermen.
Fishing is a source of wealth with great potential for expansion and fish is one of our few natural assets. Raw material is important to any country and is the basis of job creation. Any material that can be provided at home should be harnessed and the best possible use made of it. It should be processed and translated into jobs and where possible it should be exported. Our greatest problem as a nation is limited national resources, and our coastal waters provide all that is needed to give a good living to those directly engaged in fishing and working at the processing end. Above all, there is great potential for expansion. We call on the Minister to take this natural resource and fight our case at EEC level. My opinion is that the minimum the Minister brings back to our fishermen must be a 12 mile limit. This should be obtainable in view of the arguments he has at his disposal to fight our case.
