asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will outline the efforts made by him to have the 1984 mackerel quota increased in view of the imbalance between the UK and the Irish quota.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mackerel Quota.
13.
I do not accept the inference in the question that Ireland is discriminated against vis-á-vis the UK in the allocation of mackerel quotas. I am satisfied that our 1984 mackerel quota is fully in accordance with the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy and of the 1976 Hague Agreement.
What is the Irish mackerel quota, vis-á-vis the British one?
The Irish mackerel quota is 85,300 tonnes.
And the UK?
I do not have the exact figure.
If the Minister does not have the exact figure how can he suggest that there is no imbalance between the Irish and UK quotas? I am not here to give information but can I tell the Minister of State——
The Deputy may be able to put it in the form of a question.
Does the Minister realise that the Irish quota is in the region of 20 per cent of the UK quota? That is not sufficient. Does he admit that the increase we got last year would have been obtained even if he and the Minister never went to Brussels?
I do not accept that. I will give the percentages based on historical performances. The average catch for 1973 to 1978 in relation to mackerel was UK 54.74 per cent and Ireland 9.14 per cent. The percentage agreed under the Common Fisheries Policy in relation to mackerel for 1984 is, Ireland 21.3 per cent and the UK 58.7 per cent. These figures are based on historical performance. These are the arguments which are put forward when the fish quotas are being allocated. We have done rather well by increasing our percentage by two and a half times while the UK got a small increase from 54.74 per cent to 58.7 per cent.
What year is the Minister of State referring to?
The percentage catch for 1973 to 1978.
With all due respect, does the Minister of State appreciate that there was no mackerel fishing on any commercial scale taking place in 1973? If he does not know that he should reconsider his position as Minister of State. If they are the kind of figures he is getting from the Department, he should throw them back in their faces.
I am talking about the years 1973 to 1978 and not specifically the year 1973. I am prepared to accept that there was very little mackerel fishing in 1973 and indeed until 1975.
The Minister is trying to create the impression that by isolating the mackerel percentages we have done very well. That is not the position. We have been doing badly overall. The mackerel percentages were not isolated in the Community from the overall arrangements. The Minister of State will be aware that because of the concentration on mackerel in recent times there is now a greater dependence on it than in the past. As a result of our special position we need a more substantial increase in the quota. Has any effort been made to increase substantially the mackerel quota for the coming years? If no effort was made the industry will suffer.
Deputy Daly will know the position because he was involved in negotiations there prior to our taking over. We continually asked for an increase in the mackerel quota. We got a small increase last year of 5,200 tonnes.
Totally inadequate.
Every increase counts at this stage. We will continue to press for an increase in the mackerel quota.
Does the Minister of State admit that if neither he nor the Minister went to Europe——
That is argument. I am calling the next question.
——we would have got the increase?
I have already said that is argument.
It is a fact. We would still have got the same percentage as we got in 1983 — 21.23 per cent. It would not have made any difference if we did not have a representative there. Does the Minister of State accept that the landings of the six large super-trawlers at present fishing off the Shetland Islands are deducted from the quota? Does he appreciate that the quota which we have is not sufficient for those six trawlers not to mention the numerous other boats depending on mackerel fishing for a livelihood?
The Deputy asked if neither I nor the Minister went to Brussels would we have got 85,000 tonnes. I wish to inform the Deputy that the proposal on the table was for 70,000 tonnes and we had to fight to get the other 15,000 tonnes. There was a reduction in the total catch last year.
There was not.
There was.
Not in mackerel.
Had we not been there we might have got 70,000 tonnes but not the other 15,000.
What about the super-trawlers?
It will take a long time to discuss fish quotas. I am calling on Deputy Daly for a final supplementary.
Can the Minister indicate the position of the mackerel stock? Is it not a fact that because of the changed stock position there is a much stronger case for an increase in the mackerel quota? We should be getting in the region of 110,000 tonnes now. Is it not a fact that the stock situation has changed?
Our scientific information does not indicate that. I must point out that it is all right catching mackerel but selling it is a different thing. In County Donegal there were 20,000 tonnes of mackerel in cold storage for six months. We had to do a lot of work to get Nigeria and Egypt to take that mackerel. As Minister of State responsible for fisheries I am stating that it is just as important to have the markets before we have a big increase in catches.
That is a serious accusation.
I am leaving this question now. I gave the last question to Deputy Daly.
If the Chair intended it for me I did not get it.
Is the Minister suggesting that a price of IR£200 a tonne last Monday night is a depressed price? Is that not true?
Ceist 14.