I move.
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Maritime Jurisdiction (Exclusive Fishery Limits) Order, 1976,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on the 7th day of December, 1976.
Maritime Jurisdiction (Exclusive Fishery Limits) Order, 1976: Motion.
This motion, already passed by the Dáil on 8th December last, arises out of the need to extend Irish fishery limits beyond the present limit of 12 miles.
By the Maritime Jurisdiction (Amendment) Act, 1964, the Government established Ireland's 12-mile limit following agreement with those countries having an interest in fishing in the waters concerned, the terms of which were included in the London Fisheries Convention. There has been since that time an increasing trend in the international community towards claims on the part of coastal states to the resources of the sea and the legal status of coastal waters is one of the main topics under discussion at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. A majority of states at the conference now favour the establishment of economic zones extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the coast and of particular importance in this context is the right of a coastal state over fishery resources. Difficult negotiations, however, still remain to be conducted at the conference which is the largest international conference held to date and which has many complex issues before it.
Because final agreement on a global basis on a regime for the oceans may yet take some time many states have already taken unilateral action to establish national fishing zone of 200 miles. There is an increasing threat to present fish stocks from over-fishing especially in the North Atlantic and, as a result of the unilateral action of others such as Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, in the waters immediately beyond our present fishery limits. There is therefore an urgent need for us also if we are to preserve fish stocks to take action for conservation reasons.
The Council of Ministers of the European Communities in a declaration of 27th July this year emphasised the threat to fish stocks in the waters of member states of the Community posed by the decision of a number of states to extend their fishing zones and expressed its determination to protect the legitimate interests of Community fishermen. By resolution of 30th October, 1976, adopted by written procedure on 3rd November, the Council of Ministers agreed that from 1st January, 1977, member states should extend the limits of their fishing zones to 200 miles of the North Sea and North Atlantic coasts and that from that date the exploitation of fishery resources in these zones by the fishing vessels of their countries, should be governed by agreements between the Community and the third countries concerned.
By extending our fishery limits we will be excluding boats from other countries, except Spain, from fishing within those limits. Spain as a party to the London Fisheries Convention has rights to fish in certain waters round our coasts. The Community is at present negotiating new fisheries agreements with Spain. The only other countries which had fishing rights in our waters under the London Fisheries Convention are member states of the Community.
By virtue of our membership of the European Economic Community we are bound by the common fisheries policy which was established by the Council of Ministers by regulation in 1970 giving equal access to Community fishermen to the use of fishing grounds in maritime waters coming under the sovereignty or within the jurisdiction of member states. The common fisheries policy therefore continues to apply to any waters coming under Irish jurisdiction. Ireland was allowed under the Accession Treaty certain temporary derogations from this principle of common access, and in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy which is taking place at present it has already been agreed that Ireland is a special case and that the renegotiated fisheries policy must be applied so as to secure the continued and progressive achievement of our fisheries development programme. From 1st January non-Community countries will be permitted to fish within our extended fishery limit only as agreed. Senators will have noticed reports that Bulgarian and Roumanian vessels will be excluded from Community waters from 1st January and that Soviet vessels will also be excluded from 1st April unless an agreement has been concluded with the Soviet Union before that date.
We have Community agreement on securing the proposed increase in our catch in accordance with our development programme. The fisheries policy is of course the subject of negotiations in Brussels and these negotiations are continuing following the extention of fishery limits, which is the subject of the present motion.
In this context perhaps I should expand on the review of the common fisheries policy taking place at present. In September of this year, the Commission, in the light of developments in the Law of the Sea Conference, made proposals for certain elements of a new Community fisheries regime.
These proposals were unacceptable to Ireland as they provided only for non-exclusive bands of no more than 12 miles in width and they relied on quotas to conserve fish stocks. The Minister for Foreign Affairs made Ireland's attitude to the proposals very clear when he spoke at the Council of Minister's meeting in Luxembourg on 18th and 19th October, 1976. Subsequently, at a meeting held in the Hague on 30th October, 1976, the other member states were persuaded to agree that Ireland is a special case and they agreed that the common fisheries policy of the Community should be applied so as to secure the continued and progressive achievement of our fisheries development programme for coastal fisheries.
The Government have at no stage abated their claim for a coastal band of up to 50 miles. Senators will be aware that the Council of Ministers of the Community met yesterday in Brussels to discuss the Commission's latest proposals for an interim regime on fisheries to operate for the period pending agreement on a revised common fisheries policy.
The Commission's latest proposals were forwarded to the Government on a confidential basis and consequently I cannot make details of them available. I can say, however, that in their present form they are quite unacceptable to us. The Minister for Foreign Affairs made this attitude clear in Brussels yesterday and insisted that the interim arrangements must be such as to ensure that fish stocks are available to fulfil the programme which the Council guaranteed on 30th October, without prejudicing our claim to a 50-mile zone.
It is imperative that an adequate and acceptable common fisheries policy should be worked out by the Community as soon as possible. I should remind Senators that at the meeting of the Council of Ministers held in Brussels on 15th and 16th November, 1976, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that if agreement on an internal fisheries regime was not arrived at before 1st January, 1977, Ireland would, as a temporary measure and in consultation with the European Commission and interested member states, have to take interim steps to ensure progress towards the achievement of the objectives for the development of the Irish fishing industry agreed between the member states at the Hague on 30th October. Senators will appreciate that for obvious reasons I am not free to reveal what these measures may be.
The question of third country agreements is extremely important for some of our Community partners. We have agreed to postpone our right to veto such agreements until such time as substantive access agreements, providing for quantities, come to be negotiated with third countries or until such time as the interim agreements being negotiated with Iceland, Norway and the Faroes come to be replaced by permanent agreements. In the case of third countries which are not in a position to offer reciprocal rights to our EEC partners, our contention is that their fishing in European Community waters should be phased out as rapidly as possible.
Section 6, paragraph 2, of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, empowers the Government to make an order extending the exclusive fishery limits of the State. Any such order may be made only if a resolution approving the terms of the draft shall have been passed by each House of the Oireachtas. The Government wish to make such an Order with effect from 1st January, 1977.
The purpose of the Order is to extend the fishing limit of the State to 200 miles and in areas where a 200-mile limit would cross with a similar line taken by Britain and France to indicate a fixed line in those areas being a line equidistant from the nearest point on the coast of the respective countries and this line is defined in a schedule to the order by reference to co-ordinates.
It may mean in effect an overlap of jurisdiction pending agreement on a mutually acceptable line. It has not been possible in the short time available to work out an agreed line and official discussions are continuing at present. Meantime it is hoped that the Governments concerned will co-operate so that the overlap does not lead to any practical difficulties.
The matter with which we are dealing at the moment is one which is of extreme importance to this House and to this country, because we are not merely dealing with the problem of fisheries but with our membership of the EEC. I think it is true to say that no issue which has arisen during the time we have been members of the EEC is so important or has such ramifications for this country as the problem with which we are dealing today. It is, of course, true to say that when we joined the EEC this question of fisheries and fishery protection was discussed at some length. It is true that we took a chance in joining the European Community knowing that the situation in regard to fisheries was not quite clear, that we had no cast iron guarantees and that it might be a problem. Now it is a problem, the problem has arisen and it is one of paramount importance to this country.
In many questions which come before the European Community the situation of Ireland is much the same as other countries, perhaps a little more or a little less important than other countries. But this is one situation in which no other country in the EEC is in the same position as ourselves. Certainly in regard to the part which fishing has played in our economy and, far more important, the part fishing could play in our economy, this is a matter of very great importance. It can be said of this country that we have not developed our fisheries as much as we should have in the past. Looking at it purely from that point of view, fisheries play a relatively small part in our economy. Nevertheless it is quite clear that very considerable progress has been made in recent years and that the potential is very great indeed. Consequently, this is of paramount importance to us. The potential is immense. It is true to say that there is no area in our economic life where there is greater potential for growth than in fisheries. That is why this plays such an important part not only in our economic life but in our social life, because there are many parts of the country where fisheries can not only contribute very greatly to our economic growth but from the social point of view, from the point of view of keeping people living and earning a living in that area, it is of very great importance to this country.
Looking at the other countries in the EEC of course the UK is a country which has also a very considerable interest in fisheries and, like ourselves, has a particular viewpoint, in the sense that most of the waters about which we are talking are around our shores and those of the UK. So they are in a rather similar position to us. On the other hand, they are interested in negotiating agreements with Iceland and other areas of that kind and they are wearing two hats—they have an interest not merely in preserving their own fishing grounds but possibly in negotiating for a quid pro quo with other areas. Although in some respects their interests are similar to ours, in other respects they are dissimilar.
As far as the remaining countries in the EEC are concerned, their interests are quite dissimilar from ours. They have everything to gain from the kind of situation which is developing and almost nothing to lose, where we have almost everything to lose and nothing to gain. Consequently, we must look on this problem which is developing as a very serious one. We must realise that it is one of the issues which has arisen in the EEC which is of paramount importance to us. We must take the line that, if the EEC is to have regard for the interests of all of its member countries, this is a unique situation—perhaps not unique but certainly a very special situation—and that it merits special consideration. We have to ask and insist that special agreements be entered into in regard to fishing. We all have regard to the fact that Iceland, in a similar situation —a country which can be compared to ours—felt that its interests were so much affected that they were prepared to go to almost any lengths to insist that those interests were protected. We should take a leaf out of their book and take the same kind of attitude in regard to this situation.
There are a number of ways in which we could approach this problem. The problem is conservation of fish, to ensure that the waters around our shores are not fished to an extent where very few fish remain. Consequently, Ireland is not in the position of saying "We do not want fishing boats from other countries in our waters" merely because we do not like the colour of their nationals' eyes, skin or anything else. We have, positive, sensible and logical reasons for not wanting an unlimited number of boats fishing around our coast. The reason is of course that fish are being depleted at a very alarming rate, not only around our shores but in many parts of the world. I suppose this problem would not arise at all were it not for the fact that many of the fishing fleets of the big countries have been fishing so extensively in areas in which very few fish are left. We want to avoid a situation in which that will occur in the area around our coasts.
There are a number of ways in which this problem can be dealt with. Conservation is a neutral acceptable word which everybody accepts in principle. But the problem is whether it can be a real protection to the areas around our coasts. Past experience has been that the conservation measures taken by international organisations, European organisations and so on, have not been effective. Certain measures were taken by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission which proved to be almost useless. The end result, certainly in the Celtic Sea, was that the measures were not effective and, in fact, were so ineffective that there is now a very serious situation in that area. It would be generally accepted that in the context of an international convention, however well-meaing and expert from a scientific point of view they may have been, these measures have not proved effective in the past. Because the large fishing fleets of the bigger countries are finding it more and more difficult to find areas in which they can catch fish, the measures of these international organisations will probably become less and less effective in the future.
Therefore, it means, if we are serious about this problem, if we have the sense of urgency about this problem that we should have, that we have to have a situation where this country will take the measures which are necessary to ensure that our fisheries are not fished out. In taking this view we are not being parochial; we are not taking an unusual point of view; we are not doing something that many other countries are not doing. The idea of having a 200-mile exclusive fishery zone is being adopted by many countries throughout the world at present and, of course, this is what is envisaged by the EEC. The problem is whether the kind of measure which the European Community is about to take will be sufficient to preserve the fish in our area and preserve it in a way which will enable our fishermen to not only continue to earn a living but to expand in a way, vitally necessary to the economy of this country. Therefore there is a situation where many countries are extending their limit to 200 miles.
We have another problem—I do not say this in a critical way—in the sense that we are members of the EEC and we must have regard to that. The situation where we are compromising by suggesting an exclusive 50-mile limit is very reasonable. It is the very limit of what can be acceptable to this country. We must bear in mind our obligations to the EEC and not do anything which is disadvantageous to the Community. But, taking, perhaps not the short-term but the medium-term and certainly the long-term points of view, what we are suggesting is very much to the advantage of the Community because there is no doubt whatever in my mind, and I think in the minds of most of our people, that unless measures of this kind are taken there will not merely be no fish or very few fish for the fishermen in this country but in the long run very few fish for any of the fishing fleets in the Community.
We can justify our stand on this on the basis that we are doing something that is not merely in the interests of this country but also in the interests of the European Community. Again, I do not think it can be said that we are alarmist or that we are exaggerating the situation. Already there are clear indications of a decline in the number of fish in the area around this country and it is only matter of whether we can arrest that decline. In any event for a few years it will probably continue in the way it is going and what is suggested—the 50-mile limit—is the very minimum that can make any practical impact on the problem of the fishing out of the fish in this area. It is not a question of our being over-prudent or overcautious or of saying that we should take these measures because possibly if we do not do so there may be an effect on the fisheries in the area. It is quite clear that the problem is already on us. It is quite clear that the situation is already very serious indeed, and measures of this kind are the very minimum that we should take if we want to make any serious contribution to the protection of our fishery position.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs recently announced that the EEC were willing to make financial contributions to our fishing industry, and from what he said it appeared that finances would be available to help us to build further boats, to make available shore facilities and so on. That in its own way would be very useful if there are still going to be fish to catch but if the present situation is not remedied and protected, if something very tangible is not done, it would be quite useless to have finance available for the purposes which were announced at that time. In regard to the major countries which are providing fleets and which have already very extensive facilities in regard to boats and shore installations and in regard to everything that is necessary for fishing inshore as well as for medium- and long-distance fishing, it is clear that the problem is no longer one of capital, no longer one of not having the facilities, but because they realise they have far more facilities than are necessary to catch the fish that are available. It is not a very useful contribution, not a very sensible one and is really quite futile for the European Community to say as a kind of an encouragement to us, a kind of compensation, that they will provide finance or help of one kind or another to expand our fishing fleet, our fishing facilities, if in fact that means this is a kind of a bribe to persuade us to agree to measures which will mean in the long run that there will not be any fish available in the area and that the extra facilities we have will be of no use to us.
One of the approaches to this question which is mentioned on many occasions and which is put forward as a solution, as a way of preserving fish in the area, is the quota system. This system sounds very good in theory, but in practice it is virtually useless. It has proved ineffective in the past. I know of at least one situation where a particular country agreed to a quota but halfway through the year in question the fishermen, having caught their quota, downed tools on the basis that they could not pay any more repayments to what was the equivalent of BIM in their country. They said they would withhold any further payments and they put pressure on banks and various other people, and in the end the Government of the country in question allowed them a second quota for that year. This kind of situation, this kind of blackmail on the particular country and Government concerned, is bound to occur in the future particularly in a situation where fish will become less and less available unless very serious measures are taken.
With regard to the question of approaching this problem on a quota system, all the indications are that it is merely an excuse, merely a way of suggesting how the problem could be solved. It is mere window dressing. It will not work. It is almost impossible to check whether these quotas are being observed. It is almost impossible, even where they are observed in a certain way, to say if the controlling authority in question will be able to take any effective measures in regard to them. It has failed in the past in a situation where the pressures were not by any means as great as they are at present and certainly not as great as they are going to be in the future. Our fishermen take the view that a quota system is not an effective way of dealing with the problem. They are quite positive that they are not going to be satisfied with this. Their point of view is that some kind of a limit, maybe a 50-mile limit, is the only way in which there is an hope of preserving the fishing industry around our shores, preserving the fishing industry for our people and, I emphasise again, of ultimately preserving the fishing industry for the European Community.
This is, without any question, the most important issue that has arisen since we joined the European Community. It is vitally important not alone to our economy but to our social structure, to our way of life. Fishing has always been an important way of life for us. Perhaps from the economic point of view it has not been very great in the past, but it is very great now and is of immense potential in the future. We are in a situation where we should be digging in our heels with regard to the European Community. I say this as a person who has always been in favour of joining the Community and who is now still satisfied that membership of the Community is of great advantage to us but if concessions are not made on this issue, membership of the Community is something which we must seriously question. We must consider whether we can remain members in the future or whether this is the issue on which we might possibly break.
I am entirely in favour of having a 50-mile limit. I am entirely in favour of insisting that these are our minimum terms. No matter what the consequences are for us we must insist that this is the minimum we should have. If we give in on this, not only would it be a bad thing for this country and not only would it be a bad thing for the Community, but I think we would lose all credibility in the future as members of the Community.
I agree with the last speaker that this motion, which affects the future of the fishing industry, is one of the most important motions to come before this House.
I have a considerable amount to say this afternoon on the future of the fishing industry and on what has happened, but I will try to confine myself to the more substantive points. I must refrain too from any excessive sympathy with those who now suggest that there are immense disadvantages about joining the European Community, who are discovering this for the first time.
Senator Eoin Ryan is an honest Senator. He campaigned unreservedly, but I think without caution, in favour of Ireland joining the European Community. I campaigned quite unambiguously against Ireland joining the Community. This afternoon I propose to try to give the benefit of my experience as a person who lives in a city where the fishing industry was once great, where the fishing industry is recovering now, where it might be great in the future, but where it has been run down in recent years.
In the university in which I work there are a number of departments which specialise in the marine sciences and in marine bology in particular— the department of oceanography; the department of biology; the department of botany with its marine emphasis. Indeed that university was recommended in the Cahill Report commissioned by the National Science Council and published in October, 1974, to become a European centre for marine studies.
My interest in the future of the fishing industry, in the development of the fruits of the sea, is something that has not developed this week. The issues that are raised go very deep and we should treat them very seriously. May I refer to the kind of issues that are at stake and about which we should be careful? I do not think that the declaration of the 200-mile economic zone or a 50-mile coastal band especially for Irish fishermen can be considered in exclusion from more general questions, great questions, and, I suggest, universal questions. For example, what use have we made traditionally of the sea? To what use are the fruits of the sea to be put to feed the population of the world? To what use is science to be put in equipping young people to put to sea to catch food? The history of the economics of the sea to date has been that they have been based on greed. In one research article by Dr. Mercer two years ago published in Technology Ireland, Dr. Mercer, a distinguished marine biologist, pointed out that applied technology had made blue whiting suitable for human consumption. The fish of the world could feed the population of the world. The way the harvesting of the sea has gone on so far has been to deny meaning to the term “harvesting”. What we have seen is the plunder of the seas, and that systematic plunder of the seas has been no accident. The seas have been approached not as a source of food for millions but as a source of profit. That is why when one looks at a map of Europe and considers the countries that have made money from fish, these countries who made huge profits were not depending on the sea to provide them with food.
Among the issues then involved are these: are we, as a people, going to subscribe to an opinion which regards the fruits of the earth and the fruits of the sea as adequate provision for the population of the world? Allied to that, are we to employ science and technology, as it is developed within the member countries, to extract from the sea products for profit rather than the provision of nutrition for people? There are core issues involved, as to the use we make of the sea and the relationship of science to that usage —whether we decide to use what we have as food.
I have believed always that the most responsible, political decision which politicians could take on behalf of their country was to defend their population from want, particularly in relation to food, to provide them with shelter and to ensure the maximum amount of freedom so that they could live a full, free and enhanced cultural life. The use of the sea for profit has meant something like this. The sea and what is in it and beneath it was just one more asset, like coal and steel and so on, a resource not to be developed in accordance with human need but to be used for profit. It is this mentality, which has extracted, taken, from the sea at the most rapid rate possible, that has produced a real conservation problem. It is one of the curiosities of such a mentality that it believes that all world resources exist to provide the maximum profit possible, irrespective of the structure or flow of those profits; that it will take from resources in such a manner as to create a distaste among even the proponents of its own economic system. Thus, last year, when Dr. Gibson, fisheries adviser to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, spoke in Galway on the dangers which had arisen due to overfishing in Europe, he said that the evidence available to fishery scientists all over the world now points with cold stark clarity to the fact that the upper limit to the global production of fish and marine products by natural fishing methods is very considerably less than that which had been thought 15 to 20 years ago. He went on to give as some of the reasons for that, the development of highly sophisticated electronic fish detectors of an ever-increasing sensitivity and accuracy and the development of increasingly efficient nets and traps for catching fish in ever-increasing quantities. He referred to the effects already produced by technological advances.
Scientists agree that conservation is a very real issue. I mention this because I believe that the world fishery stocks are in danger unless there is universal responsibility for conservation levels. It is mindless of course to have a conservation policy unless one has techniques for the management of that conservation policy. I use those two terms "conservation" and "the management of a conservation policy" because they occur again and again in the documentation of the debate taking place at present about a Community Fisheries Policy. They occur more than a dozen times in the document leaked from the European Commission to the Council and dated 23rd September, 1976. Reference Com (76) 500 Final.
What I find dishonest, and I wish to put this on the official record, is the abuse of language involved. The necessity for conservation comes about because of an abuse of the resource which was there. The necessity for management of a conservation policy is a technical question but this document, which was literally thrown in front of members of the Secondary Legislation Committee when we visited Brussels last month, totally ignored the reason for there being danger to European fish stocks. The reason can be stated simply and in a way that every Irish person will understand it. The reason why stocks are in danger is due to the greed which motivates countries to abuse the fishing industry for profit.
When I speak in such a manner some people regard it almost as a matter of curiosity, a matter of some humour. It is a very black humour when I see fish fingers being advertised in a vulgar way and at the same time I know of the protein requirements of the Third World. I realise that even my living in Ireland at present and my allowing of the continuance of the consumer society is to be a partner to famine in other parts of the world. My claim for conservation is one based on the universality of human need and a belief in the necessity of rationality, in using world resources, particularly the seas, to satisfy universal needs. When the word "conservation" occurs in this document, it is hollow and meaningless, as if this had all happened by accident. In the appendices to the report one dramatic graph shows an almost exact inverse relationship between the increase in units of capital employed in fishing in north eastern Europe and the actual catches. Increasing amounts of money are being spent to catch less fish: Reference Pages 164, 165 Com. (76) 500 final.
There is a real conservation need, a need for a conservation policy. But, consistent with the flimsy politics which have replaced European politics, people will not ask the deep question: why was there greed? Why were the fish taken out? This is the question which must be answered. It is not a matter of diplomatic play as to what will be gained by one Minister or another. I do not wish to lay the blame on one person or another because I can document quite well what I mean by saying that we have neglected this question for a long time. Now I support a maximum demand rather than diplomatic nicety.
Before the Senator continues, is the document he referred to available in the Library?
Yes. The document which I quoted is the communication from the Commission to the Council. Perhaps I can help the Cathaoirleach here. In so far as the procedure by which leaked documents from the Commission arrive in the Library of a member country is not regular, I am willing to have the document which was leaked to the Irish delegation placed in the Library if the Cathaoirleach so wishes.
The concern of the Chair is that, when quotations are made from documents in the course of the debate, these documents are available to other Members so that they can follow up the particular quotation and know exactly the context and the full nature of the documents.
I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach for his guidance. The documents to which I shall be referring will be those of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, the National Science Council Report of 1974, known popularly as the Cahill Report, several issues of Technology Ireland—I shall mention the volume numbers and pages. I intend also to make reference to a private document prepared in Bruges by a student, Mr. Martin McDonagh, and one other document prepared by Dr. Gibson. Both of these are not published and I will arrange to place them in the library.
I am grateful to the Senator.
When the Community speaks of conservation it cannot be taken very seriously. Its own document, Community Document 76 (500) Final Version, Brussels 23rd September, 1976, shows the details of their over-catching. The graphs to which I referred showing the trend in fishing activity and catches in respect of the North Sea for different species are contained particularly in pages 163 and 164. They show that, by the Community's own admission, stocks were being fished out and they documented this in a very detailed way.
I wish to clear up some other technical points. I have said that the word "conservation" has no real meaning unless you trace out what caused the shortage for which the conservation measures are now necessary and be prepared to implement solutions. In July this year, on a visit to Denmark, I met a member of the Danish Parliament. I made a proposal to him that, if the Community were serious about conservation of fishery stock, the most logical thing to do would be for the Danish fleet to be reduced by 35 per cent and for similar fleets to be reduced by over one-third and that the vessels made redundant could be sold to Irish fishermen, Scottish fishermen and fishermen off the coast of England. He laughed at me. Commercial people frequently laugh at such sensible suggestions. What the Community is about is economics and about getting away with as much as you can. Those are its principles. I support the needs of our fishing community now and in the future rather than the hucksters.
I began my remarks by saying that, at the base of any appeal for conservation, you use the resources you have to satisfy the population needs which you must serve. We should be using our food resources to sustain the existing and expanding population of Ireland in good health. Because of the nature of the under-capitalised Irish fishing industry, we probably could manage a better balanced industry than any other member country of the European Community. This would mean that we would treat the sea with respect.
The sea, as I have pointed out, has been plundered. I challenge any Senator to tell me that the herring species are not in danger because of over-fishing. In one technical document after another, we see that species such as cod are about to become in danger. If life in the sea becomes extinct, it is because of our actions and we have to take responsibility for them. As we take more responsibility over the sea, this motion is not merely a matter of what we will say at The Hague, or what will be the outcome of one diplomatic encounter after another. As Senator Ryan has rightly pointed out, it is a board debate. It is a debate on how we have approached the sea and how we propose to use the additional area of the sea over which we propose to extend our maritime jurisdiction. If we implement new concepts we will need the power to use our new maritime areas as we wish.
When the Community came to making a proposal and suggesting a management policy invoking the rhetoric of conservation being necessary, ignoring the fact that the major perpetrators of damage to stock were the original founders of the Community, and countries such as Russia and Rumania, what did they come up with? Contained in the same document—I refer again the Community Document 76 (500 Final Version, Brussels 23rd September, 1976—is the suggestion that when it comes to establishing a quota system the quota system should take account of historic performance. In other words, the people who plundered the stocks must acquire the biggest quota. The people who create the necessity for conservation must be taken into consideration as deserving the largest quotas. Thus it appears that this document moves from one level of absurdity to another. It speaks of historic performance.
Very few Senators opposed Irish entry to the European Community in the referendum. Many canvassed for Irish entry. They said again and again there was a protection there for the Irish fishing industry. They were referring to the Protocol which makes reference to fisheries and which is attached to the Irish Treaty of Accession. Under that Treaty, in at least one of its articles—I refer particularly to article 103—it was indicated that a special survey would be carried out as to the level of dependency of coastal communities on fishing as an activity. It was also pointed out that surveys would be carried out on the state of stocks.
When people suggest, as has been said in one press release recently, that the Irish Treaty of Accession is an integral document—actually, you like bits and you do not like others—I would remark that, at the same time, in the referendum, in the same Treaty of Accession, reference is made in the protocol to a regional fund which would reduce disparities between different parts of the Community. Is this regional fund in existence to such an extent that it can reduce, and is reducing disparities between different areas of the Community? If this is not in existence how can it be that the Treaty of Accession with its protocols, and its broken promises, becomes such a sacred document that the Community must not be upset by Ireland stating a case which would defend a natural food resource for its population?
I have often wondered why Ireland, and the good Europeans indeed, have not stated a case to the European Court of Justice citing specific breaches of the Irish Treaty of Accession. I cannot take, therefore, with any degree of seriousness the suggestion that we are all Europeans now; fisheries and everything else are common resources and so on. I have been giving instances of broken faith. It may be said the crude way of putting that argument is that you give away your fish for what you gain in increased revenue to the agricultural sector. If anyone feels like replying I would ask Senators to reply to this question: how many people are now involved in agricultural production compared with when we joined the European Community? We could have the wealthiest agricultural sector in Europe. We have a high-priced food policy and for that policy, which does not give a net benefit in social terms, we may now be asked to give away wonderful opportunities of expanding our fishing industry.
The Secondary Legislation Committee visited Brussels last month. I have read this document and by the way I share the Cathaoirleach's concern about the lack of availability of these documents. I have referred before now to the distribution of information from Europe as something rather like a hierarchy of leaks. One wonders which document is in currency at present. There is no orderly presentation of documents or information to any of the people affected by decisions taken by the different institutions. In fact, it is a disgrace in terms of fundamental participatory democracy. When the expert on fisheries was asked a direct question by me about Article 103 he told me, in the presence of other committee members: "You have not had time to read the document yet. We have just given it to you"—the naïve Irish. But I had read it, read it too closely for him.
There is an aspect of the fishing industry which is extremely important —and here I want to turn again to the remarks with which I began. I would offer for consideration to this House a hypothesis that fishing as we have known it historically is finished, that man will not be able to relate himself to the sea in the way he has related himself to the sea in recent centuries. The opinion of brilliant marine biologists, brilliant marine scholars such as Cousteau, and others, has been that perhaps man has taken so much from the sea that different forms of marine life are now in danger, and that what we should speak of are possible areas in the seas of the world where, in fact, there is a conjunction between certain kinds of tidal movements, aquatic food, and the seas might be farmed to feed the population of the world. It may well be that people should desist from commercial fishing as it has been practised to date.
I have already made reference to Dr. Gibson's suggestion as to the implication of some technological developments. He mentioned, for example, the developments within electronics and their effect on the ability to detect fish. Many people will have seen on television programmes such as "Féach" German factory ships off our coasts. The short-term reaction might be: what a pity we have not got factory ships like that. I would argue we are lucky we do not have factory ships like that, because fish should never be taken from the sea under those conditions. It represents man's abuse of his natural resources when capital is used in a manner such as to destroy a wonderful and valuable resource which exists in our waters.
Anybody who has attended international or national scientific seminars on the future use of our seas knows the concept of farming the sea has become established. This means one treats the sea with respect. If one speaks of farming the sea, one immediately sees the importance which such farming might have for community development in the peripheral regions of Europe. I would ask: Why is it not possible for us to speak meaningfully on the development of farming the seas and of allowing, for example, communities who live near the sea to come to terms with what might be their ally, instead of what might be, as it has been in the past, the great threat to their lives, with many of them losing their lives, what might be their ally in an entirely new way? The greatest threat to that is the international structure of the fishing industry as we have known it. It is this we must resist in every way, by every means possible.
Instead of the European Community turning their attention to this tremendous assault on the resources of the sea, they are turning their eyes on the last of the fishing stocks of Europe. Herring are in danger. Cod are about to move into danger and several other species are below the reproduction level. What do they do? They look at the Irish waters, the newest member, and see in the Irish waters an opportunity for continuing the greed which will practically make fish species extinct. That is the record of those countries who have been involved in industrial catching of fish. Those people we saw on our television sets who own those boats which suck fish from the seabed and the gentleman we met in the Berlaymont Building in Brussels spoke about the ability to introduce a quota system. Might I just offer this suggestion? Anybody who has been on board a factory ship can see what happens. The offal of the fish is reduced to a powder and the suggestion that undersized or young fish, or breeding fish could be separated from fish that might be usefully caught under conservation measures, is just not practical because such fish are in powder by the time they reach the shore, unless one were to put a conservation official on board every vessel. That is the kind of nonsense being offered to the Irish public by way of reasonable comment and discussion on fishing.
Lest people think I am exaggerating, I turn again to the speech of the adviser to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dr. Gibson, speaking in Galway in 1975. I do so lest people think these are wild fantasies on my part, he said:
In the period from 1950 to 1967-68, the Atlanto-Scandinavian herring fishery was one of the largest in the world. The biology of this herring has been studied by Norwegian and Icelandic scientists to the point where its annual stock abundance was known with certainty. In conjunction with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, recommendations to reduce the catch level of this stock were made as long ago as 1964. However, while catches in 1966 and 1967 were still running at over 1,000,000 tons no one took the warnings of the scientists seriously. In 1967, research work by ICES on the state of these stocks sounded the warning bells, not only was the stock in bad shape, it was on the verge of collapse.
I am quoting from someone who has participated in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The facts I state are not figments of my imagination. I now continue quoting from Dr. Gibson:
Still no action to curtail fishing was taken, so that by 1970-71, the fishery was over, finished...
The verb is his.
...boats returning dejectedly to Norwegian and Icelandic fishing ports with no herring. In 1973, a massive hunt of the North Atlantic between Iceland and Norway by the research vessels of many ICES nations, in the words of one Icelandic scientist, "produced one bloody herring larva".
He goes on to say the same story is already true of the north east Atlantic cod fishery, which at one time was the world's second largest cod fishery. Today, because no one acted on the conservation recommendations of ICES, it is reduced to a mere fraction of the original production. We had scientists commenting from 1964 our "partners", perpetrating the end of fish species documented by international scientific bodies, bodies to which we send representatives. These are the nations whose representatives we have to listen to, whose representatives we are being asked to take seriously and who speak to us of conservation. How can we take them seriously? Left, after all, were the Irish waters.
The Parliamentary Secretary said this afternoon:
It is imperative that an adequate and acceptable common fisheries policy should be worked out by the Community as soon as possible.
Will this common fisheries policy be framed in terms of the criteria I have mentioned, such as the responsibility for the use of a food resource to feed the population of this world? Or, alternatively, must we continue to use this resource to maximise profit? The community of Ireland are entitled to know if they are a partner in the latter. Or do they wish to embrace, as I said, what might be the most imaginative new use of the sea experienced so far?
When we speak of a new common fisheries policy, it is a very appropriate time indeed to consider the circumstances in which the common fisheries policy which now appertains was drafted. Many Senators will remember it was the breakdown in the negotiations on this policy which led to the decision by Norway not to join the European Community. Articles 38 and 39 of the Treaty, I think, are those which refer to fisheries policy. What is the common fisheries policy? Articles 38 and 39 give five principles: free access to Community fishing waters; a free market for fishing within the Community; exporters of fresh fish to the Community must respect reference prices as fixed but all quantitive restrictions will be abolished; the producers' organisations will be responsible for the market organisations; there will be no State intervention. This latter is a very good one incidentally—there will be no State intervention. The usual battering of Community ownership and control.
The objectives of the common fisheries policy are: to increase the productivity of the fishing industry by stimulating technical improvements and by the optimum use of the available resources; to raise the standard of living of persons working in the fishing industry; and to stabilise the market situation. This, admittedly, is not a verbatim account but it is quoted from The Times of 21st October, 1970.
At the time of the putting together of all the pieces of the so-called Community common fisheries policy, we were allowed certain things. We were allowed to derogate for a certain period and clear indications were given, as I mentioned earlier, that surveys would be carried out as to the state of Irish stocks and the degree of dependence. I will be very interested to hear the legal opinion as to why, in fact, the failure to comply with these conditions has not been pursued.
I will not bore the House with the history of the negotiations. I want to see what truth is in the remark so popularly made that, faced with new members, particularly Ireland and England, the Community quickly put together a common fisheries policy. Indeed, such is the case. A draft policy was quickly put together so that the community would have something and so that they would be able, as they now attempt to do, to cast their envious eyes on the waters, and what lives in those waters, of the new member states. In December of the year in which Ireland was able to find agreement with their "potential" partners, as they were then, Norway decided the terms were unsatisfactory.
I wonder now what the people around the country are saying. Senators will be going back to their constituencies—and whatever your ideological beliefs you have to speak outside churches in this country to be heard—they will remember the promises they made on regional policy, social policy. When, as I was referred to, the lunatic fringe stood up and said: "There is nothing in the document to defend the fisheries of Ireland", one after the other they said: "These are the kind of mad allegations made by those left-wing people". That is what was hurled at me.
The same as the Senator made before the general election.
I am sure Senator Killilea will be able to repeat the speeches he made at the time of Irish entry. In fact, I intend to remain in this House to hear him making the same speech in which he will be guaranteeing to the people of Galway that they are having a wonderful time in the European Community. I can assure him that I will be one of the most attentive members of his audience.
The people who negotiated that Treaty signed it on behalf of the Irish people. Treaties are not just formal events with people in attendance pushing documents in front of Ministers. They are signed on behalf of the entire community, on behalf of the people. I argued then that the fisheries of Ireland were in danger. I argued, too, that there was no protection in the Protocol, and I repeat that now. Let me say also there are organisations in this country —notably the Irish Council of the European Movement—which purport to offer information of an objective kind about Europe. Did the Irish Council of the European Movement in that time systematically examine the fisheries documents and point out the dangers to Ireland? The answer is "No" because they were too busy convincing the people that we should rush in. That is the history of this country. The short-term gain superfically attractive must replace any long-term vision.
The answer was "yes".
The answer was decidedly "yes". But one of the hallmarks of a democracy, with respect to Senator Ryan, is this. All sorts of people have been popular in their time, including Hitler. People do not justify his actions. Distinguished people who approved of him at the time later repented. I am one of the incurable optimists in politics. One of the reasons I come into this House and speak so often is that I am hopeful of convincing these people who continue to make decisions on the most short-term basis, economically and politically, that they might cast their minds a little farther than the end of the year when there is apparently more money in it, even to ten years. Earlier on I spoke about responsibility to future generations for what will be available in the seas of the world.
Let me clear up another remark concerning the extension of our limits. The notion of the word "limit" is appalling to me as a world citizen. I always think and speak in terms of universal responsibility and the use of the resources of the world for the population of the world. I am very grateful that debates in the Seanad are progressing and that I am getting such a dialogue from my conservative opponents. But limits we must have faced with internationally organised capital; and we must defend those limits for our alternative vision.
I mentioned the circumstances which led to the putting together of the common fisheries policy which will now be replaced by another one. I said it was a flimsy policy, but not accidental, careful, deliberate, calculated to make maximum advantage for the then Six at the expense of the three applicant countries. The Norwegian negotiators saw through what was being proposed better than any other applicant. They made the wise decision and they decided that their fisheries were too important.
And their oil.
Yes, their oil. Fisheries must be reviewed as a resource. The main burden of what I am saying is that resources can be used for the community and for the profit of a few. I want to turn now to something more mundane. In the communications from the negotiations which have gone on, people have made reference to whether a plan exists for the expansion of the Irish fishing industry. Here I am allowed one of those rare periods of humour which often sustain me in politically bleak times. Does the plan exist? Does it not exist? Has it been hidden away somewhere? The sea has been there for a long time. We have been an island for a long time. People have been writing about the sea and the relationship of the Irish community to it for a very long time. It is arguable historically that the time when there was the most appropriate relationship between the sea and the peripheral communities depending upon it, particularly in some of the coastal regions, might have been sometime in the 19th century.
I think we would all agree that we must expand our fishing industry, that we need a plan to do so and that if we are to extend our limits there must be some good reasons for doing so. I just want to raise some questions about this. The National Science Council, in October, 1974, published the Cahill Report entitled Ireland, Science and the Sea. This work was put together by two scientists, Fergus Cahill, who was seconded from the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, and Owen Sweeney, who was then a research officer with the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. An example of the confusion that arises in a society committed irrevocably to private enterprise economy is that there we had a State body and a national trade union interested, two scientists seconded from the trade union and the professional research body coming up with substantive proposals, some of them very good proposals. They were ignored. It was they, for example, who drew attention to the different international organisations in which Ireland was participating and which had drawn attention to the state of fish stocks.
One of the proposals they made was that University College, Galway, become a European Centre for Marine Studies. I have been asked earlier for exactitude, so I propose to be very exact now. That proposal is on page 227, paragraph 1, of the report to which I have referred. The document suggests "the establishment of a European centre for marine studies at Galway, Ireland, with the support of the European Economic Community".
It appears to me that to have a plan and a policy one of the things needed is accurate scientific information gathered by international standards. If different agencies of the Community had goodwill towards this country they would see that we have an under-capitalised fishing industry. From what I said earlier, it can be seen that the major responsibility for the danger to stocks comes from countries other than Ireland. We are not blameless totally but the major blame can be laid on other countries. It is arguable, therefore, that one could reduce the fleets of the other member states, but particularly because of the under-capitalised nature of the Irish fishing industry capital could be invested to expand it in a way which would not endanger fish stocks and which would use the sea in a new way.
It is a great pity that these proposals were not implemented. If the Centre for Marine Studies had been established at Galway and if the oceanography department at that university had been allowed to develop, we should know more about the sea, about tides, about the dangers which are entailed in putting to sea. This would mean that the more one knew about the sea the more attractive it would be for people to take up occupations dealing with the sea. The scientific base which is necessary for the establishment of a policy was there and is there. However, we need to act on it quickly.
In summary of what I have to say about the immediate issues which face us, I have said that there are different kinds of choices and options open to us, but I turn now to some other issues. One will immediately arise. It is a very interesting question in international law as to whether treaties of accession can apply "prospectively"—I am probably using an unhappy term legally. A country may decide to work in association with another group of countries. If some circumstance happens later which enables it to acquire rights or assets, does the treaty which placed it in relationship with those countries then apply to assets which could not be foreseen at the time? I would give as an example the proceedings of the Law of the Sea Conference, adjourned and resumed so many times, one of the outcomes of which has been the declaration of limits of economic zones of 200 miles. This was not a foreseeable outcome at the time of the acceptance of the Treaty of Accession. I would argue also that this is a reasonable opinion. I offer it as an opinion as a non-lawyer.
There is an aspect to law, including international law, if I understand it correctly, which is generally regarded as "the principle of good faith". The common fisheries policy which prevails today was one which was not completely and carefully explained in its implications or in its facts at the time of Irish accession. I would argue also that, given information was available to some of the existing member countries which was not available to Ireland at the time of accession, it would be difficult to regard the document which was signed between this country and other member countries as a document that was full in the sense of the full provision of information. The information was lacking, in particular in relation to the state of stocks and the degree of capitalisation.
Taking these two points together, the development of the Law of the Sea Conference, the possibility that Ireland might declare a 200-mile economic zone and whether such should be regarded as a European community action or a national action. Here I would welcome opinions which might be offered. I merely suggest that it is a matter upon which one cannot conclusively argue in favour of any one interpretation. In that situation it is a matter of diplomatic initiative. I take the point that all of the facts cannot be given away to the public at any one time. However, I would argue this further point, which is an interesting one to me. Ireland has signed a number of conventions other than the Treaty of Accession. Particularly, Ireland is a participant in a number of international bodies all directed at conservation of marine resources. It subscribes to the United Nation's policies, for example, and the committees of the United Nations as they effect the conservation of species. It might be argued as to where Ireland's primary loyalty might lie at the present time given that one's partners are in fact mounting some of the major threats to conservation of fish and given that one has internationally accepted that the importance of conserving food resources and fish resources is not the loyalty which one owes, I would suggest to the deeper commitment, to the broader commitment, to the world commitment. It is not an appropriate international strategy for us to be seen to join in greed. If the choice is between international responsibility about the use of marine resources and European greed we would come off very badly if because of a Treaty we had shown ourselves to be part of the same shabby group who have devastated our seas.
I have already criticised the curious way in which a quota system was developed by the European Community. I refer to the document published in September. I know that there was another document published in October to which I have not had access. But the quota as it was in September gave the greater quota to those who had been historically taking out the most fish. We know how absurd that is. But let me be clear. Why should a quota system be taken very seriously from a body which has acknowledged in at least three of its publications concerning total acceptable catches that a quota system cannot be implemented? It has acknowledged that the greatest danger to different species has come about because of the lack of ability to implement different quotas for particular conservation purposes.
I think, then, that the kind of situation in which Ireland finds itself at the present is this. It is not merely a European question. We know from our reading of the Order Paper of Seanad Éireann that the motion is to extend our maritime jurisdiction to 200 miles, and countries other than the European Community have done so. The participants in the Law of the Sea Conference are drawn from many continents. So when we come to decide whether or not we are going to extend to a 200 mile economic zone we have to look at the spirit which informed that conference and the many divisions which took place at that conference concerning the uses of the seas—for whom they would be used, the role of the nation states, for example, in controlling and policing different states. There was a strong body of opinion, it was a minority opinion, that the seas belonged to everybody. This body of opinion is one to which I subscribe, incidentally, because I believe that international fishing as we have known it to date is finished and that we will have to devise new ways of relating our commercial expertise to our seas in the future.
I think that when Ireland comes to create a 200-mile economic zone it has to decide a number of questions. What is the Irish attitude to international usage of the sea? We must consider all of these larger questions which I raised earlier. Is Ireland in favour of the use of the sea to feed the millions in the world who are without food, for example? All of these larger, bigger, deeper questions can be assented to and can become part of our international policy. Always acting as a pressure on us, of course, is the fact that we will be asked to set aside such deep considerations for short-term economic reasons. They will often be referred to as very abstract or airy fairy. Of course they are nothing of the kind. They are broad, general and most importantly humane. We will be reminded of a document that we signed in 1970s, we will be told that that document related us with other countries and that our resources are their resources and that we are all now sharing resources.
We should say to the Community that its fishing performance, viewed internationally from a conservation point of view, from the use of resources internationally, from an economic point of view, is scarcely defensible at all. I might offer a further opinion here. Recently The Irish Skipper carried a photograph of an Italian boat which had been built at a cost of many millions of pounds. In my view, it should never have been built. We should say we propose to use the sea in a sensible way, in a way in which it has not been used previously in Europe.
May I make one further point? We have already seen factory ships sucking fish out of the sea. If you take a species—cod, for example—there is no doubt whatsoever that the greater proportion of the threat to that species came from the enlargement of the amount of capital which the Russians put into their fishing fleet. Therefore one might welcome the exclusion from our waters of different nations practising this. But I see no advantage whatsoever in saying to non-member countries of the European Community that they must now stay out of our waters except when they are taking negotiated quotas of fish. To summarise again: We should be saying that we disapprove of the practice by which these fish are being taken out. We disapprove of the manner and the volume in which they are taken out, with its incidence on the ability of the different species to reproduce itself.
Let us carefully examine our options at Community level again. Is there any indication whatsoever that among the Community countries there is a willingness to look at fishing and to descale the fishing industry down to more responsible proportions? I have offered my own conversations with people in Denmark and in other countries as evidence. They have shown a reluctance to stop putting capital into their fishing fleet. But if more capital is put into the fishing fleet of these countries, even if non-member countries are kept out, there is no way that you will be able to responsibly manage conservation of the species or the stock. What we should possibly do now is to call attention internationally to the use of the sea and how it affects our ability to sustain our world population. We should not be narrowly European but universal in our responsibility. In the immediate negotiations which will follow from our possible declaration of a 200-mile limit we need to make certain demands that the sea will not be abused as it has historically been abused in Europe.
Then too, when we speak about science, I think we need to investigate the fears which have existed in our coastal population for so long towards the sea. We need to manage the sea and we need to do it with respect. We need to establish that we are going to approach the sea in a fruitful way in the sense of not making excessive demands. Our eyes should not be envious ones cast at the factory ships of other nationalities, as I mentioned earlier. We should encourage our people to realise what a travesty it is to have these ships operating in this way. Having encouraged the countries with whom we are related to a new concept of the fishing industry and a new kind of universal responsibility, we should demand the right to say that, while the Treaty of Accession might be an agreement reached at a particular time, in so far as it did not take cognisance of developments which took place at the International Law of the Sea Conference it could not even consider possible future developments in Ireland's role with a larger zone.
We are entitled to demand the right to experiment with something entirely new and I think that if we did this we would look odd and we would be odd, but we would be odd by comparison with the people who have put the fisheries of Europe in jeopardy and it is an oddness that we should choose. We should choose quite consciously to use the fishing industry for, first of all, the major benefit of our coastal community. We have seen these coastal communities decline. They were referred to in the agreements. They were not surveyed. Their dependence was not assessed. As a practising sociologist, I am aware of the surveys which are carried out about social and economic dependence in the west coast and I know that the section which was mentioned in the Protocol to the Treaty of Accession of the degree of dependence was never implemented. I believe that at the European level there is not a great deal of interest in it.
I think, too, that in the short term, when we get past this debate, we should take the Cahill Report and implement particularly that recommendation to have a European Centre for Marine Study in University College, Galway. If we did that we could encourage people to look to the sea in an entirely different way. I must say that the younger generation, particularly students who are now approaching marine science in increasing numbers, are motivated by a tremendous wonderment and respect for the sea, not so much for what it can commercially yield. The truth is, if we want it, is that the sea has been asked to yield up too much. I quote now Mr. Gundelach, Assistant to Pierre Lardinois. His words to us were: "We are dividing up the misery." The community of Europe, Europe's powerful rich men put an end to at least one species, put two or three others in danger and did it all in the name of profit. Many of the people who are taking the profit out of the fishing industry live far away from the sea and, at the same time as the species were dying off, communities which were peripheral in Europe, on the edge of the sea, never came to encounter the sea with a familiarity and with respect.
In my view we could create a completely new, valuable and respectful relationship with what is possible from our sea if we decided that we would have something specifically Irish. It would be in this sense: that we would start it but, it would be universal in so far as it would be ecologically responsible. If we are to do this at all it would be extremely important that we should not allow within Irish waters the irresponsible plundering of the sea which has gone on in Europe, which was warned about by scientists in the 1950s. It was agreed in 1964 by the International Council for Environment of the Sea that if we decide to allow this plunder to continue we will be doing something that is not merely in the short-term sense politically or commercially wrong, we will be participants in a tremendous devastation of nature, by which we will be judged very harshly in the future.
I would ask the Seanad when it comes to debate this extension of limits to consider that the word "limit" is a word that has very careful, explicit usage in the dictionary. Limits to what? Are we putting limits to our greed? Are we putting in limits to anybody else's greed, or are we putting limits to our own hopes? I would like to think that when we acquired greater international jurisdiction we were extending our hopes for the future of humanity, instead of putting a limit to what might be a tremendous marine asset. What a tragedy if we limit the emergence of socialist man on our seas.
I agree with most of what Senator Higgins has said. He referred back to the time of our entry to the Community and asked me to quote today what I said then. When we joined the EEC we put ourselves in the market place. I agreed then and I agree now. If there are little wrongs and if there are extraordinary rights, then they are in a market place and are available for negotiation. After all, if you are in a market place you are there to sell and to buy. In my opinion, that is what basically the Common Market means. I stood over that decision then and I stand over it now. I think I am correct in standing over it for the betterment of every aspect of Irish life since we joined.
If rape is inevitable relax and enjoy it.
We can go back to the primitive ways. We can go back to the imaginary situation in which, I think, Senator Browne quite often lives. If we were not in Europe today, would he explain where we would be?
The Chinese would buy our cattle.
I do not know where we should be but I should like to know it. We cannot be perfect. The EEC cannot be perfect, but if there are wrongs let us right them. Certainly on the fish question there are wrongs. On conservation Senator Higgins says, and I agree, that we are creating a limit. Is it a limit for the greedy, for the greedy within, the greedy without or the greedy for conservation?
I think conservation is the theme and it must be the theme. But what has created all the furore about the sea? I was with the Joint Committee on EEC Secondary Legislation when I heard the remark that they in Europe were dividing the misery of the North Atlantic ocean. Yes, that is true. It is borne out in any fish surveys that have been taken in the last ten years. There is nothing left in the North Atlantic, but from where do you look at the North Atlantic? A lot depends on what part of the world hemisphere you stand in to describe what the North Atlantic is. As far as I am concerned we are living in the east Atlantic and that is a different situation altogether. As I say, a lot depends where you stand. We are certainly not in the place where they have savaged the sea to the extent that they have left nothing. I should like to bear in mind that it has not been Russia and it has not been all the other foreign countries that have savaged the sea. Members of the EEC are the biggest plunderers of the sea. Let me point to one, Denmark.
I will give a statistic which is astounding. In 1964 Denmark caught 442,802 tons of fish and in 1975 Denmark caught 2,449,153 tons. That is fact given by themselves in replies to a questionnaire requested of them by the Council of Europe when the latter were doing a report on fish conservation. That is an open admission that within the EEC itself was the biggest plunderer of all, Denmark. It was known by fishermen in Senator Higgins's constituency for the last ten years, just as it is known today.
While we talk of the Russians off the south coast, Denmark have been plundering for years past, to the extent now that they have devised echo-sounders that can take fish from their normal habitat to a sandy point and suck them into their mother ships, daughter ships, or whatever they call them. Denmark has been the biggest plunderer of the sea and remains so. I have said that before in other places and it has not been denied. Yet they sit at the table, in the division of the misery, and from what they call their historic rights they claim, with others, that this or that should be done. They are the people who are strongest at the negotiating table. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries know those facts.
There is another point that must be borne in mind, that is, the social aspect of the fishing industry in Denmark. In 1964 the number of people employed on the sea was exactly the same as the number employed today. Yet they have had an increase of over 2,000,000 tons of wet fish per annum. Nevertheless they will not let the world know that they have rights in Greenland and in the Faroes, while we have nothing but what surrounds us. Yet at EEC negotiations they constitute one of the major obstacles to a proper agreement on fishing with reference to this country. This is a point which must be made as and from now.
What countries are left? Germany and Britain for the greater part. Sixty seven per cent of the total catch of the German fleet is caught outside their territorial waters. Britain caught 804,000 tons of fish in 1972. In 1976 they caught approximately 406,000 tons of wet fish. The reason is that Iceland told them to get out, put them out, and rightly so. They put them out on the one basis to which we should apply ourselves, that is, that of conservation.
If one has not the technical knowledge one cannot advance an argument at a conference table. Above all nations, we lack that knowledge. There is no doubt about that. Let me illustrate that point by saying that when the Council of Europe sent a questionnaire to every government in the 19 nations Ireland was one of the countries that did not reply. In my opinion the reason we did not reply to it— after numerous requests by me and other members of the delegation to the Council of Europe—was that Ireland and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries were not able to answer it because they did not have the necessary technical or scientific knowledge. I blame everybody concerned because as a nation we did not appreciate what the sea had to offer. However, that does not mean that we as a nation cannot bargain in Europe. We, the Government and the negotiators know that in respect of the Accession Treaty, a coach and four were driven through it on numerous occasions by the Italians, Germans, French, Danish and English. We have been, as it were, vegetarians on the subject, but never pressing the matter home. I agree with Senator Higgins when he says that this is our opportunity. If we base our argument on conservation, we will and must win our case.
May I deal now with historic fishing rights? The world knows what happened Britain with their historic fishing rights in Iceland. The people who have the historic fishing rights are those who ruptured the ocean and stole the fish from it. Now they are the ones who claim, whether by quota or any other system, that they should get the most because they were the people who raped the ocean.
Our first need is a conservation policy. It is an easy thing to have if we set about it properly. If we are to apply limits of any description, we must know, first, why we are applying them and be able to give a factual result of their application each year. We have no conservation policy. We do not know where are the spawning or feeding grounds. Wherever there are shoals of fish we charge out ruthlessly without trying to have the scientific knowledge why the shoal was there in the first instance and where it came from in the second. This is important from a national point of view. After all, it is a natural resource. But it is one that must be treated in a very kind and genteel way. If we are to be a responsible people, it is important that we treat this resource accordingly.
If we can come up with a conservation policy, then we can sit at the conference table and give our reasons. Today we have the fishermen's organisations and other associated organisations demanding, as my party demand, that we have an exclusive 50-mile limit. We must have a 50-mile limit. It is a necessity of life apart from its politics. We must educate ourselves in what we can do with this national resource. This nation and its fishermen are not entitled to give away this natural resource just because other plunderers in the North Atlantic have cleaned the seas. In the division of whatever misery is left we should be included now as a nation that certainly has not committed a sin in regard to anti-conservation. That is a responsible and forthright way of viewing it.
We must also examine what is happening the fish themselves. It is a point that has been left out of many debates and is worthy of mention even at this level. What are Europeans doing with the fish themselves? Here the application of conservation is a necessity. In 1966, 1.7 million tons of Atlanto-Scandinavian herring were caught in the North Atlantic. In 1970-71, 21,000 tons were caught. Every possible fleet caught whatever was possible. They have cleaned the seas.
It has now been ascertained that over two-thirds of the herring was put into fishmeal for animal feeding. In an EEC context, Denmark, Holland and England continue, despite the scarcity of such food for human consumption, to savage and process this fish for animal feed while soya bean meal is being burned in other nations. It is a mortal disgrace and something we should examine closely. Indeed, we should prohibit immediately the manufacture of fishmeal from the full species of fish. If we could utilise the offal then we would be doing something constructive. If we could present our fish on the home market and keep the offal for the manufacture of fishmeal, then do so but under severe scrutiny. We are not a nation of father ships, mother ships or whatever. We bring our fish ashore and therefore should know what happens to them and their offal. We should apply proper conservation methods in the manufacture of fish products.
We must apply the 200-mile limit. The nation as a whole is agreed on that. But we must have also—we cannot suffer anything less—a 50-mile exclusive fishing zone for our fishermen. Within that zone, we must as a nation have a conservation policy. We must know what fish stocks and species we have, where we get them and where we are sending them. Following on that in the outer band between the 50-mile and the 200-mile limit we must have a system under which every boat fishing in that band will report to this nation at an arrival point what species of fish it is fishing, what time it arrived and will depart. This is vital for conservation also. We should then know in any one year what fish was being and could be caught within our 200-mile limit. The Parliamentary Secretary might inform the Minister for Foreign Affairs that this is an important factor in our fisheries negotiations. We must control our seas, what they contain and know what fish are taken from them. It is a natural progression. If conservation has to be applied, then in later years we will know exactly what to say, where to go and whom we should tell.
In our negotiations we must refer to those countries within the Community that have savaged the seas and tell them to withdraw. We must inform them that they cannot walk in here like looters and take what rightfully belongs to us, just because they have scoured their own waters. It is essential that we have a conservation policy and preparation should be made immediately. I endorse completely Senator Higgins's idea of establishing a scientific centre in Galway city. It is a service point for all of the west coast and adjacent to the south west as well. There is a "tub" in Galway with people diligently trying to get some scientific knowledge, but with their present equipment it is impossible. Rather than have the Government pay, the cost of this research could be borne by the fishing industry. Fishermen would be only too delighted to pay a small levy to service the establishment of such a scientific centre. They are the most intelligent people I have seen organising themselves as a unit. Such a centre might be established in Galway or somewhere on the west coast where they could gain additional knowledge of the sea.
The Government should take example from Iceland and see what they have done. They are a nation of 200,000. Their fishery system and their fishermen are an example to the world. It is no wonder they ran Britain and Germany from their shores. They knew their fishing industry and what they were talking about. We should, even at this late stage, get down to work. We should examine also the inshore fishing situation where there are abuses each day —for example, spawning lobster, precious throughout the world, being caught off our shores late in August and into September. There should be a ban on the sale and fishing of lobster after the 20th August any year. Even that is probably late. It would be a disgrace if this species of fish, unique to this country, were allowed to be sold ad lib so late in the year. An investigation must be carried out forthwith.
I wish our negotiators good luck in their task of creating a new coach-and-four to drive through the Accession Treaty so that we may benefit from a conservation point of view and, as a nation, play our part in conserving a food becoming scarcer daily. If we do drive that coach-and-four through the Accession Treaty, we shall do so for a specific reason in respect of which we will be accredited later.
Generally, Senator Eoin Ryan speaks so wisely and carefully that I found it hard to receive from him his observation that we should reconsider our whole position and the wisdom of our joining the European Community. I shall not do anything other with regard to that observation—I do not think it is appropriate that I should be debating an order entitled Maritime Jurisdiction (Exclusive Fishery Limits) Order, 1976—except to dissent very strongly indeed from it. In so far as he was complimented by Senator Michael D. Higgins and will, no doubt, be later agreed with by at least one other Senator, it is right to say that we are in no position yet to make a final assessment of the effect on this community of becoming a member of the EEC. There are all sorts of factors, at once social and economic and, if you like, spiritual, which can only be judged over a much longer period of time. There is no doubt about one thing. A serious critic of the EEC and the manner in which its institutions have been run, Michael Shanks, who was Director-General of Social Affairs in the Commission and published an article in Encounter entitled “Can Europe Reform Itself? Brussels Between Rhetoric and Reality.”, wrote and I quote him:
Nobody could fault the Treaty of Rome from the point of view of the promotion of overall economic growth. In the period up to 1973, Europe achieved a rate of growth and prosperity unparalleled in world history.
"Unparalleled in world history." That is to be one of the tests. While we recognise that there has been a worldwide recession since then at least it was a wise thing for us to have joined it. There is evidence in the growth of investment in this country, the volume of manufacturing exports to the EEC, and the benefits materially to a certain stratum of Irish farmers.
I should like to take up a question which Senator Higgins put: whether or not changes have occurred or can occur in international law which can create conditions which will entitle a party to repudiate the Treaty? In passing I should like to assume that this is such a Treaty which, if substantial changes had occurred, could be withdrawn from. I shall assume that, though I have the other view as to the legal consequence of our having joined the Community. If circumstances had changed, circumstances in the contemplation of both parties to the Treaty, circumstances which were fundamental to both parties in making the Treaty, then there is at least provision for the repudiation, for a unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty in the 1969 Convention on the law of Treaties which provides in article 62 that:
A fundamental change in circumstances which has occurred in regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty and which was not foreseen by the parties may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless—
(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty and
(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
There has been a lot of commentary as to the precise position if you have a treaty of that kind. I shall assume that we have a treaty of that kind. I shall assume that the Executive here were, instead of determining to make an order with the approval of a motion of these Houses entitled "The Maritime Jurisdiction (Exclusive Fishery Limits) Order, 1976", considering the wisdom of a unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty on the ground of fundamentally changed circumstances.
The very order before the House today is evidence, in itself, that circumstances have not so changed. The point is relevant to the success attaching, may I add, to the negotiators of the Accession Treaty. That order is made, in fact, under a statute entitled the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, as amended by the Maritime Jurisdiction (Amendment) Act, 1964. In 1959, not alone in 1972, the Legislature were sufficiently aware of the possibilities of the international situation with regard to this matter to provide, in section 6, and I am reading it as amended by the 1964 Act:
For the purposes of Part XIII of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, the exclusive fishery limits of the State shall comprise all sea areas which lie within the line every point of which is at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of the base-line.
Subsection (2) reads:
The Government may by order provide that the exclusive fishery limits shall include a wider area of sea than that to which subsection (1) applies and may, by order, revoke any such order.
Perhaps I should not have read the first subsection, as I did, amended, because in 1959 the jurisdiction was "over the sea areas which lie within the outer limits of the territorial seas". But, in 1964, that three-mile limit was extended to 12 miles. The original Act provided for a further extension, even beyond the 12 miles.
If Senator Higgins will look at the regulation which is pertinent to the matter and which lays down a common structure or policy for the fishing industry, which had been made in 1970 before our Treaty of Accession, he shall see recited:
Whereas, subject to certain specific conditions concerning the flag or the registration of their ships, Community fishermen must have equal access to and use of fishing grounds in maritime waters coming under the sovereignty or within the jurisdiction of Members States;...
The regulation then made was intended to and did give power to the Commission to regulate waters which were not under the jurisdiction of the member states at the time of their accession, either the original six or the additional three but came under their sovereignty or within their jurisdiction. This was handed down in a judgement in a case called the Kramer case in July, 1976, where it was held that the Commission had the power to do this. There has been no change of circumstances which would make it possible, if it were such a treaty as I have assumed, for us to make such a judgement. What it raises is the question as to whether our negotiators, when they negotiated the provisions in the Treaty with regard to derogation, were as sufficiently informed by their Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries as they ought to have been in relation to the developments in the international law field with regard to this whole matter of the limits of jurisdiction.
I just ask for Senator FitzGerald's opinion. Does this not entirely negate the assertion so frequently made that no loss of sovereignty was involved by Ireland's accession?
I do not give opinions here. The point raised by Senator Higgins seems to me to be political in nature and not capable of legal comment. The whole question of the effect on our sovereignty of membership of the Community is one for a debate other than that arising on a Maritime Jurisdiction Order. I would hope that Sentor Higgins would allow me to have a discussion on that some other time, perhaps in this House.
I should like to pursue my comment on this question of the degree of information that was available to us and to our people, who are not to be thought of as entirely foolish because they elect us to these Houses, merely because they gave a massive majority in favour of joining the Community. It is not to be assumed that they do not know what is going on in the world. It is not to be assumed that they did not know there was a row between Britain and Iceland. The relations between Britain and Iceland had been extremely tense for all the period from 1948 when the Icelandic Parliament passed a law permitting the Ministry of Fisheries to subject to Icelandic control all fishing areas lying above the country's Continental Shelf—a good stretch. That entitlement was exercised by the Ministry in Iceland in 1961 when the area was extended first to four and then to 12 miles. Then there followed the famous Cod War involving naval encounters, which no doubt we read about and even had the miserable and disgusting taste for looking at. There was an abatement of that. In 1961 there was an agreement entered into. Subsequent to that the Icelandic people repudiated the agreement and extended the limit to 50 miles. None of this can be assumed not to have been known to the people at the time. Neither can it not have been known to the people that the South American countries— shall we call them republics although most of them are dictatorships of more or less military character——
The word "republic" covers a multitude of sins.
It does not cover sins. It seems to begin to expose them anyhow.
It is supposed to cover them.
And nearly all right-wing dictatorships.
That is not entirely clear in every case. I do not think they much mind what ideology they use to confuse the people as is the case in most dictatorships with which Senator Browne is familiar. I do not think they consider themselves obliged to be over-precise in the rhetoric they choose to retain power or in the methods they may employ to retain power. I am merely concerned to draw the House's attention to a fact which is relevant to a question of an interesting kind put to me on the international law position of our membership of the Community. Some of the language used at a certain stage by nine Latin-American states would appeal to some of the sentiments expressed by Senator Higgins. These countries put their position rather well. We know that the entire problem today cannot be attributed to greed. It is progress that has brought about the present situation. The predatory animal is the progressive animal. The most predatory animal of all gets into the Seanad. After that he exploits the sea in his spare time.
(Interruptions.)
The predatory animal, man, has this extraordinary ability to continue despite interruption. Senator Higgins has made a lengthy speech. I do not intend to make a speech for quarter as long. The International Law Quarterly for January, 1973, published at page 102 the following quotation from the 1970 Declaration of Montevideo:
The scientific and technological progress made in exploitation of natural resources of the sea has created a correlative danger of exhaustion of biological species ...
This is very pertinent to the question of the extension of limits and very pertinent, too, to the question of the value of property and to the care we take of the pieces of furniture we own compared with the care we take of the park bench. It is very relevant to this whole social question that interests Senator Higgins as well as myself. The quotation continues:
...which is the foundation of the right claimed by coastal States to prescribe the necessary measures to protect said resources within jurisdictional zones that are broader than the traditional ones.... Rules relative to delimitation of national sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea ... must always be mindful of the ... special economic and social environments of the less developed States....
All of this is close to the Senator's heart and to mine, too. The quotation continues:
Similarly, the 1970 Lima Declaration based its conclusion that States may establish the limits of their maritime jurisdiction "in accordance with reasonable criteria," on the ground, inter alia, that States may take steps to protect themselves against “the dangers and damage resulting from indiscriminate and abusive practices in the extraction of marine resources,” and against “grave dangers of contamination of the waters and disturbance of the ecological balance.”
All pretty sound stuff I should have thought, and it is lying, I think, at the heart of this matter. I just hazard the view that we may not even need to make this order to have this jurisdiction. If my view is correct it is possible that at least by virtue of international law it is already ours without making this order. There are all sorts of difficulties with regard to this convention not related to the exclusive economic zone so much as to the sea, which, as Long-fellow said, at once unites and divides mankind. When we go beyond the Continental Shelf, which, it would seem now, takes in not merely the Shelf but the Shelf's slope and rise, when we go out to the middle ocean, terrific problems arise. This is where we may find ourselves playing a very useful role. We have taken a public stance. It is somewhat hypocritical, but the art of hypocrisy is part of the art of living. If we must have a public stance it is right that we should be going on all the time about having such sympathy with people because we share their fate as ex-colonial people. We got many more benefits from being an ex-colony than many of them got, although they got more benefits than they are now pretending they got. But that is another matter.
We are taking our position there. We have an influence with them. We are not one of the group of 77, I understand. I do not think we vote with them all the time. But we have a useful role because we are a western people, we are part of Europe, we have an interest in Europe and we are interested in the future of Europe. A foreign policy must be hard-headed and materialistic in a sense in so far as it should be formulated primarily to look after the interest of its own people—regarding their welfare viewed in its broadest possible sense—and it must use methods to achieve success which might not be open to every individual in his own affairs.
We are taking a longer view in the north-south economic circumstances. I could see not merely a development similar to the shift of wealth to the oil-producing countries, a shift of the balance in which the northern countries lead the southern ones. The diplomatic problem of the future is to prepare for that economic shift and to establish relationships which will be good. International law tends to follow power, tends to follow actions that are not resisted. When we get to the area of the abyss, the middle part of the ocean where there are all these things of great interest to the mineral producers, a very serious question arises: unless there is a conference on that which produces a convention of some kind, a practice will develop. It is interesting to think that nobody objected to the right expressed by one of the great scientists, Darwin, to dig nodules out of the ocean in the 1870s. No one said this was the common property of mankind, the common heritage of mankind, which is the proposition now being put forward with regard to that.
There has been a case where an American company have gone through the procedures, have made their discovery in the business of mining these manganese nodules and under excellent advice—for which, alas, they have not come to Dublin—have proceeded to give notice to everybody in the world who could possibly be interested and are thereby seeking to establish an unchallengeable claim to exploit the area in question. Ranged against countries such as America, Germany and France, where this high technology alone exists for doing anything yet in these areas, are all the countries, some poor, some with perhaps some wealth but without the high technology required. This is where the problem will arise.
I could not understand a single piece of the text which appears in the Schedule to the Order. I could not understand why Part I was divided from Part II. I wonder if there is anything in the Constitution which would prevent us having a map annexed which would show exactly the areas we are talking of. It used be a great comfort to young British children to be given Chums and such publications and to see the globe marked pink all over the place. It would be so nice if we could show our children the map of Ireland with our jurisdiction extended in green——
As far as Tír na nÓg.
Or those parts of the world marked pink these days. That would be a pleasant change.
There is a series of conflicting colours in pink. Unreconciled positions result in a pink occupation.
I expect that one part of the Schedule refers to the northern line and the other refers to the south.
It would be useful if we had a map accompanying the Bill. Senator Ryan was not present when, in a sugary context, I dissented to some extent from his observation in regard to our membership of the EEC. We cannot ignore that fact, but notice has been given that another step is proposed to be taken by the party of which Senator Ryan is a member. I refer to a Bill which has been circulated. It would be wonderful if it were passed so that the new President could do his duty of referring it immediately to the Supreme Court, who would immediately, without wasting any time, find it to be unconstitutional. It is the clear move of the Government to accept this Bill and ask the President to hurry it to the Supreme Court, who will immediately knock it. I would hope that the explanation for this Bill is to show how strongly behind the Minister for Foreign Affairs we are in this 50-mile business. Of course, we are.
It would give an opportunity to the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some more observations on constitutional law.
Perhaps we could continue to discuss the motion before the House rather than the Bill that is not before the House.
I was proposing to do that in the context of the speech with which the Parliamentary Secretary presented the matter to us and in the context of negotiations in Brussels.
There could be double motives in the seeking of an exclusive 50-mile band. We could be saying that we take nothing less than the 50 miles and then if the Minister fails to achieve this, it might be said that he was a failure, that he only got 43.2 or 30 or 20. On the other hand, there could be a genuine desire to strenghten his hand in these negotiations. I have not the faintest idea why everybody is fixed on 50 miles. Why not 60 or 40 miles? Perhaps a better way to frame the question would be this: on what kind of scientific basis, on what sort of environmental knowledge, on what type of defence availability, on what knowledge of the manner in which species migrate from one part of the sea to another is the 50-mile limit based?
I am prepared to get as many votes from the Irish Fishermen's Association through the county councils as is anyone else in this House. But merely because they say they will not be satisfied with anything less than 50 miles does not prove to me that they are right. It all depends on whether they are right, and that depends upon evidence being offered. The Minister has indicated that he has not given up one iota of his claims to the 50 miles; and no doubt, therefore, he must judge it.
I think Senator Higgins will agree with me—and I do not think there is anyone else in the House now who was with us then when certain members of the Joint Committee visited Brussels—that in looking for the 50-mile limit, the Minister is facing fierce opposition. The impression we all got in Brussels was that this was going to be an extremely difficult matter. Taken in the context of our only having a right to derogate until 1982 in relation to six and 12 miles, to look for an exclusive band forever of 50 miles, as the quid pro quo to this new expanse of water, seemed to me to be setting the number of points too high for it to be possible for the Minister to pass the exam. I believe that we ought to prepare ourselves for a package within this 200 miles which, on the basis of the Montevideo and Lima Declarations, we must have to do the job for the Community of protecting the species that would be the easier to be protected from the coasts which are closer to them.
There have been a number of very good contributions on all aspects of this subject, including Senator FitzGerald's usual excellent comments from his own special legal knowledge. One is necessarily disarmed by the frankness with which he declares the existence of hypocrisy. It makes it very difficult to become annoyed with anything he may say because he sets the sights so low that it is difficult to judge at which point one may score an unfair point on him. In his general contribution he mirrored many of the uncertainties. There was very little, if any, uncertainty about Senator Higgins's contribution, which was excellent. As to the question that Senator FitzGerald asked—why 12, why 50 or why 200 miles?—in a way he was asking the same question as Senator Higgins, that of the use of a raw material for the welfare of the whole world. Senator FitzGerald brought us back briskly by suggesting that to even hope for this kind of thing in the world in which we live verges on hypocrisy and that one has to take the reality of the great power struggle which is in process in the world and in particular within the Common Market.
I did not see the relevance of the point Senator FitzGerald made about the constitutional propriety of overruling our right included in the Maritime Jurisdiction Act of 1959 and amended in 1964. This is where we define the line, every point of which is at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of the base line for outer limits of territory. Then there were the other points which we defined within that 12-mile limit and where we gave certain concessions within the six-mile limit and then within the three-mile limit. That seems to me to represent the epitomy of the exercise by a nation of its jurisdiction to establish a clear right, a right not only to define the limitations of its own resources—in this case fishing— but also to decide that other nations could have access to these rights.
Surely this is the nub of the point? That right has disappeared. Is that what Senator FitzGerald was saying has not disappeared? Has it not disappeared in so far as the Common Market now is the super power which most of us were very frightened of, because we felt it had this anonymity, this unnecessary preoccupation with the welfare of its own central great powers, and that—I remember saying this at the time—what happened to the people on the western seaboard, small farmers and part-time fishermen could not greatly concern them, that they must take a kind of detached over-view of the position and that our problem then obviously became a very much smaller one.
When we talk about the establishment of a 200-mile limit on this motion, when we talk about establishing the exclusive fishery limits which the State shall include, how does that measure up to the fact that we are going to share them perforce? Is that not so? We will share the exclusive fishing rights with our partners. Even if we reduce it down to the 50-mile limit which the Minister for Foreign Affairs is attempting to negotiate, we understand, what has happened to the right we had under the 1964 Act? Has accession to the Common Market deprived us of this right to make a declaration about the 50 miles, just as we did about the 12 miles, the three miles and the six miles under the 1959 and 1964 Acts? That is one question which seems to me to be particularly important. On the question of the 50 miles, why 50 miles and not the rest?
I seem to open most of my speeches with this kind of phrase, but the misuse or failure to use a priceless raw material which the fishing industry could have been over the past 50 years by all Governments here is extraordinary. It is quite a remarkable achievement of incompetence and ineptitude on the part of successive Governments.
The reality is that we are facing an overwhelming challenge from countries who have invested enormous resources in the development of their various fishing fleets for the obvious reason, to win as much as possible from harvesting the sea, for their own use, for commercial use, for industrial purposes. With access, and with no great competition, certainly not the pressure on us at present, to use a famous phrase, we sat idly by over the best part of half a century and did precious little about it.
I remember talking this over with James Dillon years ago when he was Minister for Agriculture. I was astonished to see a figure here for the number of fishermen of 6,696. I remember asking why in Heaven's name we did not have a proper fishing fleet, mid-water and deep sea fishing fleets, and his reply was effectively that there was a very powerful vested interest among the inshore fishermen, who numbered 7,000. I remember the figure well. I am astonished to see that the figure at the moment is 6,696 which is under the 7,000.
I am not saying the fleet is the same as it was 30 years ago, but it is remarkable that none of the Governments appeared to have had the initiative, or the courage, or the wit, to use the wonderful good fortune of a nation on the threshold of the enormous wealth in the Atlantic. Now that we are faced with a threat, of course our unfortunate fishermen are completely unprepared. I deprecate the fact that some years ago the State decided to get out of the development of the fishing industry except on the promotion side, and left is largely to private enterprise. The result can be seen. It is just another outstanding example of the total disinterest—I think I can use the words total disinterest—of the private enterprise group in control of the fishing industry to care other than for their own greed needs, the profit needs of the industry which gave them, no doubt, a good living. We are now left in a parlous condition, faced with the challenge of many many countries and the enormous advances of capital intensive factory ship-type competition from the great nations.
In October, 1974, the National Science Council produced its report, Ireland, Science and the Sea, which showed Ireland's catch as 10 per cent of the total catch in Irish waters; Scotland, 47 per cent; Denmark and Norway, 98 per cent; Norway 87 per cent; France, 73 per cent; Ireland, 10 per cent. The same in relation to the volume: Belgium, 43 per cent; Denmark, 127 per cent; Ireland, 38 per cent; Norway, 178 per cent; and these are not the great industrial nations. These are nations in some ways comparable to Ireland. Again there was a failure to develop a national resource. The fishing industry has been a neglected national resource, handed over to private enterprise. The zinc and lead mines are in much the same position. There is enormous wealth in the country and this wealth is not exploited for the welfare of the people as a whole.
We are attempting to threaten the members of the EEC. We are attempting to tell the great countries they may not fish within our territorial waters, when we know we can do nothing at all to keep them out. Not only could we not keep them out in the physical sense if we wanted to do so, if it came to that, but we have not even a fleet capable of fishing the waters ourselves. Obviously this leaves us in a very weak position. What will happen if we are given a quota? Say we do accept the idea of a quota which I do not think we should. Why should the fishing fleet expand more rapidly in the next five to ten years in order to take up the quota than in the past ten, or 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 years? What stopped it developing during all that time? Is it not much the same level of blind ineptitude? Does it not still prevail in relation to our attitude to the whole of the fishing industry? What has changed?
Read any of the annual reports and you see the same. The most recent I have is the 1974 report. On page 4 of the 23rd Report of Bord Iascaigh Mhara it is stated that this increase in total unit value was not accompanied by an increase in the volume landed, which fell slightly from 85,700 tonnes in 1973 to 84,600 tonnes in 1974. Then one reads of 11 new craft being produced of over 50 feet, and so on. Quite clearly we are not prepared for any kind of allocation, whether it is a 50-mile limit or a quota system. We are now paying for generations of incompetent management by successive Governments.
In introducing this motion the Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt to say what we are going to do. There is a vague reference to a fishing policy, but surely this is something we should have had 20 years ago. We criticise the countries which have factory ships, and the industrial processing of fish and the manufacture of fish meal, and so on. If we had developed our fishing fleets, would we not have found it necessary to use the factory ship as being the most economical way of fishing for large amounts of fish?
I was very interested in Senator Higgins's reference to the fact that the hoovering of the sea takes up the spawning fish and the small young fish and, to that extent, clearly it would be a good reason for not developing a fishing harvesting policy. I agree completely with him in his use of the term harvesting the sea in the proper sense of the cessation of fishing in the spawning period, and so on. How long do we keep to the idea of the small boats we see which are frequently unsafe, as unfortunately we know from time to time, in which some very brave men put to sea, particularly on the western seaboard which is very dangerous? Why have we not equipped our fishermen with the proper facilities for fishing and, even more important, why have we not developed this complicated industry in a way which would get the optimum value from the work done by our fishermen even in these small trawlers? In the Sea Fisheries of Ireland Report at page 33 they refer to the low value of the product and go on to say the lack of shore facilities is a primary cause of the low value of landed fish but other factors are the low demands in the domestic market, the market system and the lack of sophistication in the food processing industry.
Is there a more complete and total indictment of the staggering inefficiency of all our Governments? This is 1976. There is a lack of shore facilities in a maritime nation such as ours with the enormous possibilities of wealth within the fishing industry, low value of landed fish, low demands on the domestic market—we do not eat fish. Once we leave Dublin we cannot buy fish anywhere virtually. Then there is the market system and the lack of sophistication in the food processing industry. Why is there no reference to that? Why is it just simply accepted year after year with these reports, the last one, as I say, conceding that in fact the volume of fish taken has not increased. What right have we to go to Europe and complain? The Minister for Foreign Affairs is expert at driving a coach and four because he manned it on its way into the Common Market. What case can he make to these people when they turn to him and say: "You people have been there for all those years, and you have had your own nation for the past 50 years and you have done nothing about it. Why whine to us now?"
I am not criticising the unfortunate fishermen at all because they, of course, are simply the victims of Government policies over the years. What will this Government do about it? If we are to allow these great nations to come in and fish within our waters, then quite obviously they will take what they want and we are quite possibly not in a position to even take our quota if it is set particularly high. One of the sad personal tragedies of this is the fact that a number of young men went into the training scheme in Donegal and eventually became skippers, got their own boats and money lenders lent them the money to buy boats. A number of them are now finding themselves with enormous debts within the fishing industry. Because of the reduction in size of the various catches, many of them are in a very serious financial condition. This is one of the reasons you have this phenomenon which I have seen in the part of Galway where I live, where they tend to fish rather dangerously because they are trying to follow the shoals in and they have to take risks because life is getting so difficult for them. This is part of the terrible incompetence which has landed them into this position.
I am in a dilemma nearly amounting to a measure of hypocrisy when I start talking about limits at all, because I have never accepted the right of any individual to say that the fish in a lake or a river belonged to him. I never accepted this piscatorial rights business at all. However, having faced the realities that we are dealing with this kind of society, I believe there must be no concession. Whatever about the 200-mile limit, there must be no concession on the 50-mile limit deal. The idea that we should be given money so that our fishing fleet will be built up to make it possible for us at a particular time to fish the full quota and so satisfy ourselves could be a chimera, a meaningless agreement, a meaningless undertaking on their part. It is very easy for them to take a tiny country like ours and throw us the pour boire to build up our fishing fleet. Meanwhile they plunder the fish from the seas around our coasts so that, when the time comes for our fleet to be ready to fish them, there will not be any fish left to fish.
There has been no mention of the very important question of conservation which Senator Higgins raised. The Parliamentary Secretary should have referred to that supremely important point. There will not be any fish for any of the nations to fish unless we do something about recognising the damage done by the factory ship fishing system, uncontrolled and unprotected. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary, in concluding, deals with this question, we certainly are speaking very much in the dark.
I am sorry to interrupt the Senator. I did not specifically refer to that, but I did implicitly refer to it in connection with the measures which we will be obliged to take if we do not get a satisfactory solution.
We do not know what those measures are. We simply believe that you have an idea. When you are speaking in a place like this, particularly when you have a person like Senator Higgins who is clearly much more expert than I am on this subject, it would be a good thing to put on the record the minimum conditions we think should be established as preconditions to any concession we make. I have much the same fears without any scientific knowledge. I watch on the west coast the continual fishing for lobster, for instance, which goes on apparently uncontrolled. I understand there are certain nominal regulations. At present they go straight off to France. I do not think they go to Dublin or Galway. The French are indirectly pillaging our coasts now in the same way as they did on the coast of Brittany. They have to come to Ireland now and they are taking shellfish of various kinds from our coasts.
If the story is half as bad as Senator Higgins says it is, I do not think any moves at all should be made prior to the decision as to how we will control these people. Quite obviously, putting an inspector on every boat in order to attempt to assess catches when they come in, especially if they are in powder, is impractical. It must be impractical in more ways than simply where you are dealing with factory ships. How are you to enforce the very necessary conservation requirements when things like the salmon fishing regulations, and the lobster fishing regulations, and various other regulations, are really continually breached with impunity?
We seem to be very undecided. It is part of the general policy of this Government to not really be clear on what they intend to do. One gets scare headlines such as that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is thumping the table and telling them they will be hunted out of our fishing grounds. Later on, the tone is changed and one reads about quotas and negotiations going on, quite obviously, moving away from the blanket 50-mile declaration which other Governments have been able to negotiate. In yesterday's papers we had a declaration that the Russians will be put out by April or the middle of next year, and various other countries by 1st January. What reality is there in that? How do you put these people out? Do you operate in the same way as the Icelandic people did with the British? Do you go around with your gunboats running people down and cutting their nets?
How will it be done if a number of these countries simply do not recognise the existence of the Common Market and its right to decide what anybody's exclusive fishing limits are? Is there any reason for us to be in any way fearful that we might get involved in a situation we were not prepared for if these people resist and decide they will not get out? If these people refuse to recognise the court, as the historic phrase is, if they refuse to recognise our authority or the EEC authority, what are we committing ourselves to? Is there going to be some sort of a naval fleet? Are we going to be part of that naval fleet? Is there any kind of NATO involvement implied in this? Is there any underlying suggestion that we might become involved in some sort of NATO commitment?
I regret very much when I see the headlines of one nation ordering another nation to get out of its fishing grounds. If your bluff is called, what do you do about it? These are all the various dangers involved in the serious failure of successive Governments to develop our fishing. On the west coast we have young men with trawlers for whom there are few fish, and there will be less as time goes on, with nothing but debts to be repaid. We also have a number of processing plants, at least one of which I know is closed down because they cannot get fish. This is again a personal tragedy for the local people who had great hopes for it. Because unemployment is so high everywhere else, this is simply adding to it. A number of people make quite a good living out of this kind of fishing. I must say I do not agree with it. I have always felt that we should have had a mid-water and a deep sea fishing fleet, and that it was an enormously neglected raw material, rather like the zinc and lead mines which could have brought enormous wealth and prosperity to the country and to our general welfare.
I do not see why the 7,000 inshore fishermen could not have been employed in a properly organised State-run fishing fleet. We now have the fact of the factory near us closing down. This Government and the previous Government put a lot of money into the development of the Rossaveel Harbour. From what one can see now, it will not be much use to our fishermen because of the difficulties they will be faced with in the years ahead.
In some ways one must have a certain sympathy with the Government because they are dealing with a situation for which they are not entirely responsible. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was the most enthusiastic proponent of the idea that the Common Market would lead to great prosperity and an improved standard of living for all of us. Probably in every aspect of our lives, with the exception possibly of agriculture—and that in a most unhealthy way: the fat cattle side, the least valuable way of processing grass—it has been a tremendous disappointment, helping to bring about great unemployment and a competition for which we were not able. Whatever about being unable to cope with the competition in industry there is no doubt, and all the figures show, that no matter how heroic our fishermen may be or how well-meaning or well-intentioned or dedicated they may be society has left them perilously unprepared for the challenge ahead of them.
I believe the Minister for Foreign Affairs should attempt to get control of the 50-mile limit exclusive fishing rights for our fishermen. There is only one proviso. I do not know enough about it to know whether it is a valid one or not. That is, if we get the 50-mile exclusive limit, can we be sure the fish will be inside it? I understand that if there is a fishing fleet outside the 50-mile limit the fishermen within the zone catch virtually no fish and that it is an illusion to think that there will be a marvellous fishing ground within the 50-mile limit. Is that true or not? Is it worth having the 50-mile limit or is it better—I should like scientific evidence about this—to have a 100- or 200-mile limit in which the country gets a quota and can be sure of getting one under fair terms—harvesting the seas, as Senator O'Higgins said? Would we be misleading ourselves by thinking that if we had a 50-mile limit it would solve all our problems?
I am glad that we have come to the conclusion that a 200-mile limit is imperative. Having said that, I am not enamoured of the thought of sharing that area with our EEC partners on the terms which they have been trying to dictate for a number of years. It is well known that the six original members of the European Economic Community suited themselves when they drew up the common fisheries policy shortly before Ireland, Britain and Denmark joined it. That policy was self-centred in its entirety. It was designed to prevent Ireland, in particular, from negotiating a reasonable agreement on the fishery issue. Even at this late stage we should be tough. In fairness to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, he has fought a wonderful battle, his negotiating skills are without equal in the country and he has proved this is the course of these discussions. However, he is outnumbered by eight to one, a formidable majority in any discussion.
For those of us who are interested in the fishing industry it has been most disappointing to see the way in which the British have opted out and have left Ireland to carry the can when it comes to seeking a reasonable limit for our fishing industry. Presumably, the reasons are those which have been stated in the Press, that the British want to make a reciprocal arrangement with other countries outside the EEC. In order not to prejudice their case, they want to bargain some of their territory with other nations, Norway and Iceland in particular. It is most unfortunate and unfair that we should be the victims of this type of horse trading. This is the keynote of my speech, that the common fishery policy is unfair. The attitude being adopted by the other eight members of the Community is entirely unfair and, unless they agree to the proposals of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we get an exclusive 50-mile limit, we will have been treated in a most unjust manner.
The whole meaning of the word "community" is comradeship, that people share and help one another. In this context the other members cannot argue against the Irish fishermen's case. In the Community the stronger members are supposed to help the weaker members. We are undoubtedly economically the least well-off member of the European Community. Italy is probably a close second. Potentially fishing should be our second greatest industry. It could rival agriculture as the greatest industry if it were developed properly. Our partners in Europe would be doing a service to us and to themselves if they helped us to develop our fishing industry in a proper manner.
In the remote areas of the country, such as the west coast and parts of the south coast where unemployment is rife and the chance of jobs very slim, we should do everything possible to expand our fishing fleet and increase our catches, and also increase employment on the shore by establishing expensive processing plants. We cannot do this with the financial resources at our disposal. Obviously there are too many calls on our meagre resources. Unfortunately the fishing industry over the years has taken a back seat when it comes to expenditure of public funds. Even at this stage, we are still not in a position to spend large amounts of money in expanding our fishing fleet, building harbours or providing the type of processing industries I mentioned. This is what is needed if we are to get the full potential from the industry.
Our partners are in a position to help us financially. We could do their work for them in this field. There should be no need for the Germans, French, Dutch and Belgians to come to the Irish coast to catch fish.
They are highly industrialised countries with great job opportunities. Why not leave the job of catching fish and providing employment in processing plants to Ireland? They could finance our fishermen and finance our potential industrialists in this regard.
One would need to have a large scale map of Northern Europe to illustrate the case for the Irish fishing industry to a full extent. Now that Iceland have declared a 200-mile limit and Norway has declared a 200-mile limit, there is nowhere else in Western Europe other than the Spanish and Portuguese coasts where the fishermen of Europe can secure their catches. The only remaining area is off the west and south coast of Ireland, plus an area to the north of Britain. If we are to allow the Common Market partners to fish in our waters, and when I say "our waters" I mean within the 200-mile limit, as they would wish, I can see a very limited future for any fishing industry in this country.
One need only look at the map of Northern Europe to see that the 200-mile limit off Iceland together with the 200-mile limit off Norway leave very little room for anybody to fish in the North Atlantic. The Faroes are part of Denmark. When one considers a 200-mile limit around the Faroes, such as we will have come January 1st, there is absolutely no room for anybody at all in the North Atlantic other than the countries specified— Iceland, Norway and Denmark. I am aware that the Danes are in the European Community, but they have an interest in swopping fishing grounds with the other countries mentioned and also with the Russians. They fish in these other countries' fishing grounds. We do not. We have no interest whatsoever in going into the North Sea. We never had and it does not look likely that we will. On the other hand, all the other eight will be fishing in our grounds.
We are told today in the newspapers that arrangements will be made with certain third countries so that they may also fish in our grounds. It was stated that they have traditional rights in Irish waters. From my knowledge, which is fairly extensive, of fishing and those who traditionally fish in Irish waters, there is only one third country which has traditional rights in Irish waters, and that is Spain. For years past they have traditionally fished off the south-west and west coast. They fish grounds which are not normally fished by Irish fishermen. They fish in a manner which is not damaging to Irish fish stocks as we know them. Their boats are small and their methods of fishing are conventional and fair.
The other countries which have been mentioned as having certain rights should be completely excluded. According to today's reports, Bulgaria and Roumania are to be excluded from our shores to a limit of 200 miles from the 1st January. However, certain other countries are being given a three months' reprieve in which to make reciprocal arrangements on the basis that they had traditional rights off our coasts. I do not believe they have traditional rights. The Russians, East Germans, Poles and Japanese have as little right to fish within that 200-mile limit as the Bulgarians and Roumanians. I cannot see why we have extended this reprieve. The whole lot of them should have been pushed out immediately.
The damage which the Russians in particular have caused off our coasts in the last three or four years is difficult to visualise for the ordinary Irishman or woman. The quantity of fish they have caught is absolutely fantastic when one thinks that our entire fishing fleet in a year could hope at best to catch 75,000 tons and the Russian fleet is reckoned to have caught annually something in the region of 650,000 tons of fish in this region off our coasts. That illustrates the magnitude of fishing by these fleets and the damage they must be doing.
It is not uncommon for fishermen on the south coast to see a Russian mother ship, as it is known, come along in June, July or August, lower 14 or 16 huge trawlers over its side and take the catches from these trawlers as they clean up whole areas. The catch is processed on the mother ship. The catching power of one of these mother ships plus its ancillary trawlers alone must be almost as great as the entire Irish fleet. There was a time when that fleet of mother ships, and factory ships as well, would concentrate on herrings. But the bottom has fallen out of the herring market because there simply are no herrings left. Nowadays the Russians concentrate on mackerel and sprat. If we are to allow these people in to catch quantities of this magnitude, how can we possibly hope to keep these fisheries alive? Imagine the effect on our stocks of removing 650,000 tons of fish per annum.
That is just the Russians. The Poles, Roumanians, Bulgarians, East Germans and even the Japanese are also there in large numbers with their huge ships. It is not proper to call them trawlers. Our concept of a trawler is a wooden-hulled boat of some 50, 60 or 70 feet with a very limited catching power. These people have got fantastic craft and as a result catch enormous quantities. I would advocate that these people be given no rights, be it on the 1st January or the 1st April. They have no tradition on these coasts.
There are not enough fish off our coasts at present to satisfy the needs of the nine members of the European Economic Community. Why try to fool ourselves and try to make arrangements and give somebody fish which we can ill afford to lose? I understand that certain members of the Community fish in the Barents Sea. I would imagine that the Danes and West Germans in particular catch quite a number of fish there. That is not sufficient argument to allow the Russians to continue to fish to that magnitude in our waters. According to today's papers they are to be allowed to take some 200,000 tons of fish in the first three months of 1977. How can we justify that when our own fleet is only capable of catching 75,000 tons?
We all know the British are trying to play the two sides in these negotiations. I regret that they have done this. I also regret that the British inshore fishermen and the British inshore fishing industry have not forced their Government to adopt a reasonable attitude and thereby strengthen our hand in the negotiations which are going on at the moment. The fishermen of Devon and Cornwall as well as those in Scotland have a lot in common with the Irish fishermen. They are basically inshore fishermen. They have seen their stocks of herring and mackerel ravished by the East Europeans and Russians and also by their greedy partners within the Common Market. Unfortunately a political muzzle seems to have been put on the British politicians who represent these areas and that has had a detrimental effect on the stance that we have been able to take in these talks. Notwithstanding that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has worked wonders without the stiff support which we could have expected; we would not have been wrong in expecting it. It should have been forthcoming.
I notice from today's news bulletins that the British are beginning to change their stand in midstream. They have realised belatedly that they could have fought a tougher battle for their inshore men and they might have succeeded because they see that the Irish are going to have a measure of success. They see there is a reasonable chance that we will get the 50-mile limit we are looking for and they are inclined to backtrack at this late stage. It is a pity they did not see this trend earlier on in the discussion because we could have made a much tougher stand, fought a much harder case and probably got much greater concession.
The British have a vested interest in reciprocal arrangements. We are all aware of that. They catch a large quantity of cod off the Icelandic coast in particular. The quantity has been diminished since the Cod War started and Iceland declared a 200-mile limit. They are getting concessions at the moment. We realise that they are negotiating to have these concessions maintained and that the deadline for the negotiations is almost up. They feel that, not to prejudice their case, they will have to be seen to hold out for a reciprocal arrangement of some kind. They also catch a quantity of cod and haddock off the Norwegian coast; and again they are endeavouring to make arrangements with the Norwegians because the Norwegians catch a quantity of a species of cod known as pout off the north British coast and off the Shetland and Orkneys. There is a reason for horse trading there. On balance I do not think the British were fair to us and I think that too late in the day they may have realised their mistake.
People say we might have been looking for too much when we looked for a 50-mile exclusive limit within the 200-mile European limit. I wonder if we have not been too generous. There are areas off our coast where to my mind we might well have sought a limit of 100 miles and we would have been justified in doing so. Some of the finest fishing grounds lie as far out as 100 or even 150 miles off the Irish coast. Up to now Irish fishermen have not been able to utilise these grounds as we would have wished. That is really not the argument that should be made against us, because as we all know our fisheries are merely developing and our fishermen are getting bigger and bigger boats every year. It is not many years ago since the largest boat we had in this country was 50 feet, maybe 60 feet. Now they have gone up to 70, 75 and 80 feet, and even as large as 85 feet. Our fishermen are capable at the moment of fishing out as far as 20 or 25 miles. Previously they rarely ventured beyond a ten-mile distance. With financial backing from the European Community there is no reason at all why we should not be able to fish out as far as 100 or 150 miles.
It is all a matter of financial backing and technique. Our fishermen are the most able and adventurous group of men one could possibly imagine. I have never seen such ambition and initiative in any sector in this country in recent years as I have seen among the young fishermen who are willing to go into debt to a huge extent in order to work at this industry. One can verify that fact from Bord Iascaigh Mhara who have been inundated with requests from young fishermen around our coasts to buy bigger and better boats in the hope that the industry will be given the chance. They have the skill and initiative but they need the opportunity and this is what we must see they are afforded.
Referring to the fishing grounds within that 200-mile zone, which are very valuable and which are outside the 50-mile area, take in particular the Nymph Bank, which runs from the Waterford coast almost all the way over to the Cornish coast. This is an extremely rich fishing ground. It is generally referred to—and the neighbouring areas—as the Celtic Sea. Celtic Sea is a relatively recent name for it, which has come in during the last ten years. It is not a new fishing ground. It has been fished for hundreds of years by fishermen from the southern coast. Unfortunately, a 50-mile limit will take in part only of this very rich area.
Off the Cork coast we have another extremely rich area, known as the Lombardy Bank. This is approximately 50 or 60 miles out from the coast and is an area where herrings congregate, having spawned in the inlets and bays. It is an area where foreign boats have made huge catches in recent years. Unfortunately, with our 50-mile exclusive limit, they will have access to these grounds still and they will probably proceed to polish off a stock of herring which is fast diminishing and is relatively small at present.
Off the west coast we have the Porcupine Bank. This is situated approximately 150 miles west of Galway and is renowned to have huge quantities of a species of fish known as the blue whiting. Marine biologists have said it has an unlimited amount of these blue whiting. Of course, that could hardly be the case. But it seems that there is an enormous quantity of this species in the area, that the Porcupine Bank is quite extensive and has not yet been fished commercially. At present, Irish boats are just not in a position to go out so far. We should not give in in these negotiations too easily to our counterparts within the Community. If anything, we should try to safeguard the rich fishing grounds off our coast. These are areas in particular over which we should have very strict control. I will refer to that point later.
It has been mentioned that if we get a 50-mile limit we will not be able to protect it. This is a fallacy. The Icelandic Government have merely five patrol boats and they can protect a 200-mile limit with great effect, as we have seen in the last two years. At present we have five fishery protection boats also. We have three minesweepers, the Deirdre and the recently-commissioned boat, the Isolde. There is no reason why we should not be able to protect a 50-mile limit even more effectively than the Icelandic boats can protect the 200-mile limit. We have made a number of arrests in recent years. Invariably the people who have been caught are from European countries —formerly the majority of them were French, Dutch or Belgians with the occasional British boat. More recently our Naval Service have apprehended some of the monsters from Eastern Europe, notably a Bulgarian and a Russian boat. At present if a foreigner comes within a mile or two of the limit his chances of escape are not great if there is a patrol boat in the general area. With a 50-mile limit if a foreign trawler came, say, ten or 15 miles inside the limit the captain would be absolutely petrified because his chances of getting out, if there was a tip-off about his presence, would not be great. So it is not true to say we cannot police a 50-mile limit fully.
In accordance with the agreement made earlier, this debate is now adjourned and we will proceed to discuss Item No. 2.
When will we resume this debate?
At 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.
Debate adjourned.