asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the effects the removal of the subsidy on mackerel exports will have on the fishing industry in County Donegal.
13.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mackerel Export Subsidy.
12.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he proposes to make a Government subsidy available to exporters of mackerel to Third World countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together.
I am informed by the trade interests involved that the removal of the EEC mackerel export refund will have an adverse effect on the profitability of their operations and could lead to reduced prices being paid for mackerel to the fishermen.
It would not be possible, however, to provide an Exchequer subsidy to compensate for the removal of the EEC refund. Apart from other considerations the present budgetary position would preclude the provision of such subsidy. I would point that such subsidy would probably be in breach of EEC rules in regard to competition.
The Minister has pointed out that any Government subsidy might be in breach of EEC rules. Does the Minister accept that the subsidy withdrawal will have serious repercussions on the industry in Donegal?
I do. I discussed the matter with the processors as late as last week. I am aware of the consequences of the removal of the subsidy in the light of contracts entered into and the importance of the mackerel catch vis-á-vis our overall catches. As I have said, every effort is being made by me to salvage the position by either having the subsidy restored in full or having compensatory measures provided by the Commission to replace the loss caused by the withdrawal of the subsidy.
There have been references to discrimination. Does the Minister accept that we in Ireland have been discriminated against in regard to the mackerel subsidy? All other countries fishing for and processing mackeral have obtained the benefit of the £25 subsidy and their season has been terminated, particularly in Britain. We are at a special loss.
I agree we are the hardest hit for the reasons mentioned by the Deputy. Our season is now commencing. Our mackerel catch represents about 60 per cent of our total catch and 73 per cent of our total fish exports. I therefore appreciate the importance of our mackerel catches and exports. I am operating along these lines and I am impressing it on the Commission at the moment.
There has been reference to the possibility of a national subsidy being contrary to EEC rules. I should like to equate that with what has been said by the Minister and Deputy Gallagher in regard to contracts having been entered into. There have been breaches of those contracts by the withdrawal of the subsidy during our season although this did not happen in regard to any of the other EEC maritime nations. Since the Minister is still working on either getting the subsidy restored or the provision of some compensatory measure, despite the budgetary situation and in spite of any EEC rules, a national subsidy should be given on a temporary basis for the remainder of the season from the national Exchequer in the hope that it can be recouped through the efforts of the Minister. The season would be over before any repercussions in regard to any violation of the EEC rules might come to light. If there would be a violation it would be on the part of the EEC who have knocked the industry, who have knocked the contracts and who have done grave damage. If this is allowed to go on without compensation from the national Exchequer we will not have markets in the coming years——
The Deputy's question would do justice to many a speech.
That is a matter for the Chair.
The seriousness of the position in relation to mackerel exports has not been lost on me. The provision of a subsidy from the Exchequer might appear to be a nice idea but the problems we face in regard to budgetary matters and the availability of finances are such that even if it were within the EEC regulations on competition I do not think it would be feasible.
Will the Minister accept that there seems to be a complete lack of policy in the EEC in relation to these matters? The subsidy has been withdrawn in the middle of the mackerel season. Could the Government not justify a case for making a subvention from national funds?
I would correct the Deputy in relation to a misapprehension he may have about the subsidy. I have been told by the President of the Commission that the subsidy has been withdrawn because the market is now a viable, buoyant one. When the question was put if it was for reasons of saving money he denied such allegation categorically. The Commission said it is on the basis of the market now being buoyant and viable. He also vouchsafed the information that, of course, because of fluctation in the market place this would be kept under constant review and, if remedial action was necessary, such would be taken.
Would the Minister accept that on the fishing front it is the fishermen who will suffer most as a result of this reduction of £25? Has he any plans, if these fishermen are unable to meet repayments to BIM, to try to alleviate the situation? Would the Minister accept that it is not a question of buoyancy, that it is a question of the Germans, through their strength in the EEC having asked the Commission to withdraw this subsidy because most of our 70,000 to 80,000 tonnes, which up to this would have gone to Nigeria, must now go to Germany at a much lower price? Will the Minister accept that we did not voice our dissatisfaction soon enough? We should have done it in January but we did not do it until 26 October.
I deny that categorically. In January the Minister expressed his dissatisfaction at the reduction and was aware that the whole subsidy issue was under review. The moment I was informed of an impending decision I took the appropriate action. We must remember that it was a matter for the Commission not for the Council in which I would have an input.