asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will make a statement on the decision to discontinue the export refund scheme for mackerel; the efforts he is making to have the fund restored; and the proposals he has put forward to remedy the situation.

I have made every effort and am continuing to explore every avenue open to me to secure a review of the decision by the EEC Commission to reduce to nil the rate of refund on frozen mackerel exports to certain third countries. I travelled to Brussels on Friday, 28 October to discuss the position personally with the President of the Commission, Mr. Thorn. During our discussions Mr. Thorn indicated that the Commission decision had been taken in the light of the buoyancy of third country markets for Community mackerel exports in general but conceded that the decision had created particular problems for Ireland. Mr. Thorn said he would ask the Commission to examine possible measures which might help to ameliorate the adverse effects of the decision for Ireland.

I have also consulted with BIM and industry interests as to what could be regarded as acceptable alternatives and I will be in contact with Mr. Thorn again during this week. I should like to add that a document prepared in consultation with the exporters and BIM is being submitted to the Commission in support of our case today.

Was the refund reduced by 10 per cent in January and if so what action was taken about that reduction?

It is correct to say that the refund rate was reduced by 10 per cent. We protested at that time. This took place prior to the agreement on the Common Fisheries Policy and we were given to understand, as were other member states, that this rate would be kept under constant review. It was only towards the end of October that the review took place and this resulted in applying a nil rating from 1 November. Prior to this proposal I took the matter up with the Fisheries Commissioner, Mr. Kontogeorgis. I presented him with a written aid memo on what would be the effect for us and expressed our strong objection to any reduction in the export refund.

Is the Minister saying he was misled by the Commission about the termination of the scheme?

I was aware of a pending decision. I did not expect it would come as quickly as it did because I understand the intention was to have a decision that would be operative from 15 November, not 1 November.

Am I correct in stating that the Minister did not raise the matter at any Council meeting since January of this year?

As the Deputy should know, and I am sorry to have to refer to this again, it is not a subject matter for Council decision or Council input. The only time it comes to Council is when proposals by the Commission are discussed by the Management Committee and if they give a negative decision or vote against the Commission proposals there is a facility for bringing that subject matter back to Council. In this case that did not happen.

Did it come back to the Council?

No, because the decision given by the Management Committee was a neutral one, neither for not against under the weighted voting system.

This is a major issue.

Possibly it is too major a matter for a question.

Possibly it would require a full debate. I should like to know from the Minister when he was made aware of the decision?

I have not the actual date here but, as far as I recall, it was about 26 October.

Will the Minister tell us what case he could have made between 26 October and the day we were offically notified the scheme was terminated without consultation with the people concerned?

The minute I was notified of the impending decision and prior to the meeting of the Management Committee, I sent a very strong telex of protest to Mr. Thorn. My representatives from the Department on the Management Committee were instructed as to what line they were to take. Every effort was made to ensure that our views were made known to the Management Committee meeting and also to the Commission through the office of the President, Mr. Thorn. Before a final decision was taken I spoke personally to Mr. Thorn.

Is the Minister saying——

We must move to the next question. I have allowed several supplementaries on this matter.

This is a very important matter. There is a sum of £1,500,000 involved.

I do not disagree about the importance of the question. Perhaps because it is so important the Deputy could find another way of raising the matter of greater length.

It is a pity the Chair did not view it in the same light last week when the matter of hotels that were already sold was taken before this hot potato. I should like to ask a final supplementary on this question.

The Deputy should not criticise the Chair, either directly or indirectly. If he has any complaint about a ruling of the Chair he has a way of dealing with it.

It is an opinion of mine and I feel very strongly about the matter.

That may be, but Deputies should not give their opinions about the Chair, either favourable or unfavourable.

It was my opinion that this matter was more important but it was the opinion of the Chair that it was not as important. I do not see why we should get too hot about it.

I refer the Deputy to his leader's remarks in this House on 14 December when he deprecated agrument with the Chair.

If the Minister was aware of a pending decision regarding the reduction of 10 per cent, did he discuss the matter with the industry? Further, is he aware that in the middle of this year the industry entered into firm contracts with Third Countries but those people and the fishermen are at a loss as a result of what has happened? Is the Minister not critical of himself and his Department for this highly irresponsible act?

Is is not normal for a Minister to be critical of himself. The industry was aware of the situation. I have discussed on many occasions with the industry what might happen in the interim. People in the industry made me aware of their strong objection to any further decrease in the level of subsidy on exports of mackerel and that was transmitted to the decision-makers in Brussels who are dealing with this matter. I met members in the industry last Tuesday. They understand the difficulties I am in; in fact, they are much more understanding than is the Deputy because they are aware of the technicalities involved. As I told them, every effort is and will be made to ensure that one of two things will happen; that some form of subsidy will be restored or else that some other form of compensatory measures will be introduced to make up for the loss of subsidy. The industry is not worried as to the name that may be called.

Will the Minister accept——

I am calling Question No. 8.

Will the Minister accept that processors have entered into contracts——

I have called on the Minister to answer Question No. 8.