Vol. 44 No. 5
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state what progress, if any, has been made since the matter was last raised in the Dáil regarding the disputed question of the ownership of the waters of Lough Foyle.
Also, if there has been any approach to the Governors of the Irish Society or their lessees or otherwise with a view to determining the rights of fishery in Lough Foyle.
I propose to reply to the two questions relating to Lough Foyle together.
As I stated in my reply to questions put down by Deputy Blaney and Deputy Dillon on the 5th July, two separate and distinct issues are involved in connection with Lough Foyle (1) the claim of the lessees of the Irish Society to a several fishery in Lough Foyle, and (2) the question of jurisdiction over the waters of the Lough. As the Deputy is aware those questions had been discussed in London during the year 1931 between officials of the Department of External Affairs and officials of the Dominions Office in London. As I stated in my reply to the questions put down by the Deputies referred to the discussion was resumed with the Dominions Office during the month of July, 1932. The proposal of the Government was that with a view to preserving order on the waters of Lough Foyle an interim administrative arrangement be concluded pending settlement of the fishery dispute and without prejudice to the general question of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State over the waters of the Lough. It was hoped that that proposal would have resulted in a temporary settlement of the matter under discussion satisfactory to both Governments. The British Government, however, made it a condition precedent to any interim arrangement that the Government of the Irish Free State should agree to arbitration by a British Commonwealth Tribunal of the legal issues involved in regard to the boundary between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom in the Lough Foyle area. The Government of the Irish Free State decline to submit any Treaty issue to a British Commonwealth Tribunal. We are prepared, however, at any time to conclude a temporary arrangement on the lines already indicated. The incidents which have been taking place in Lough Foyle during the past few years have arisen out of the attempt of the servants of the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company to enforce against Irish Free State fishermen an alleged right of several fishery which has been in dispute and has remained unlitigated in the Courts of the Irish Free State since the Irish Free State was established. It is that disputed claim which has caused the trouble which has made the discussions which have taken place necessary. The natural and proper course to take in the circumstances is to conclude a temporary administrative arrangement for policing and preserving order on the Lough pending the settlement of the fishery dispute. It is wholly unnecessary to raise the general question of jurisdiction on this particular issue. The Government cannot therefore agree to that part of the British proposal which raises that question, nor, of course, could we at any time agree to the submission of an issue raised on the Treaty of 1921 to a British Commonwealth Tribunal.
May I take it that the answer to question 7 is that no progress has been made as to the question of the jurisdiction over the waters of Lough Foyle?
That is correct.
What has happened is that only some protest has been made?
What happened before in the Deputy's time?
With regard to question 8 has any approach been made to the Governors of the Irish Society?
None.
Would the President state when the question of submitting this to an Imperial court was first raised? Was it raised during the administration of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and has he any information to give to the House as to what their attitude was?
I would have to have notice of that question.
In the President's reply was there not a statement that when arbitration was offered to an Imperial court this administration refused to submit to an Imperial court?
That is my recollection.
Is that in the answer just read and if so can we have it repeated?
The Deputy will have to wait and see the answer.
It is important that we should have it now because further supplementary questions may follow.
If the answer is unsatisfactory the Deputy can put down another question.
I object to that. I asked a question and I now ask that the reply should be repeated.
Replies are very freely given to the Deputy in answer to his questions.
Am I to take it that the procedure now is that the President reads an answer which, as shown earlier, he does not completely understand and refuses to go over the ground again?
The Deputy can get the reply and study it and if he has any further questions to ask he can put them down and they will be answered.
The President cannot give one sentence from it?
The President exercises his own discretion in the matter.
