I should like, at the outset, to draw attention to the fact that it is now 10.42 p.m. I assume that extended time of 11 or 12 minutes will be granted.
Adjournment Debate. - Extension of Fishery Rights.
The Deputy had better proceed to make his case.
I put down a Question to the Minister for External Affairs today relating to the extension of our fishery rights, and that Question was answered by the Taoiseach. Subsequent to the Taoiseach's reply, many members of the House expressed dissatisfaction and annoyance because the reply was not audible. Were it not for the inaudibility of the Taoiseach we might not have had to take this Question on the Adjournment. It is a very important Question.
Having perused the reply when it was submitted to me some hours later, I found that it was untruthful, and I hope that, before concluding my remarks, I shall be able to prove beyond doubt that the substance of the Taoiseach's reply was mainly of an untruthful nature. This is not the first time the House has addressed itself to this important question of extending our fishery rights. It has been frequently discussed, both on the relevant Departmental Estimate and by way of Parliamentary Question. Answers were usually of a similar pattern: "We are doing the best we possibly can to get international agreement to extend these rights but are unable to do so."
It is unnecessary for me to stress the importance of the fishing industry. In many of our maritime counties, and in my own constituency of West Cork, fishing gives remunerative employment to a goodly number of people, and I have no doubt that, were it not for the encroachment of foreign trawlers on our fishing grounds, that number would be substantially increased. It is, indeed, very difficult to estimate the havoc wrought by these trawlers on the fishing grounds around our shores. We all know the difficulty of protecting our fishing rights even within the present three mile limit.
We know that recently a number of our fishermen suffered severe damage at the hands of foreign trawlers and did not receive any compensation whatsoever. Their nets were broken; they were put out of action, and had to get replacements of nets and other equipment at a big cost to themselves and to their crews. I am sure that if that matter were aired in the House sympathy would be forthcoming from every member of this assembly.
We all know that in an island such as this fishing is naturally a very important industry; we all know, too, that many people come from outside countries, from Russia, Germany, Britain and other European countries, and tresspass in the waters contiguous to our shores. We do not trespass on their waters in any way whatsoever. A case was made by Iceland within the past few years for an extension of their fishery limits, and we are all very pleased to know that the agitation in that country has come to a more or less successful conclusion. I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot make similar representations. We have some of the best fishing grounds in this Continent and I suppose there are no fishing grounds which are more poached in than the fishing grounds contiguous to the Irish shore. Fishermen tell me—and I have no doubt rightly so—that these foreign trawlers do extensive and irreparable damage to the breeding centres which are more or less outside the three mile limit.
In his reply the Taoiseach said: "We have pressed, and we will continue to press, for the acceptance by international agreement of a régime on the lines of the Canadian-United States proposal at the Geneva Conference last spring, which failed by only one vote to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority." In what way did the Taoiseach or the Irish Government press at this International Conference held in Geneva over an extended period, from March 17th to April 26th, to secure an extension of our territorial waters?
I said at the outset that that statement is untruthful and I maintain here to-night that it is still untruthful, unless the delegation we sent to represent us at the Geneva Conference acted contrary to the expressed views of the Government. We were represented at that Conference by no less a person than our Attorney General who, I am sure, is very closely associated with the Government. He led the three man delegation to that Conference from March 17th to April 26th. What did he say at that Conference about the extension of the fishery limits of this country of ours?
As reported at column 131 of the official records of the Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Mr. O'Keeffe (Ireland) said:
His delegation, being anxious for the Conference to achieve success, was prepared to make concessions to that end. Though Ireland was not a "new" country in the sense in which that term had been generally used during the discussion, it had gained its freedom less than fifty years ago, and had known "colonialism". It did not favour a broad territorial sea, finding a belt of three miles measured from the applicable baseline adequate for its purposes.
Let us repeat that statement by Mr. O'Keeffe, our senior representative at this Conference.
It did not favour a broad territorial sea, finding a belt of three miles measured from the applicable baseline adequate for its purposes. Mindful of the duties, as well as the rights, which the possession of property entailed, his Government was unwilling to assume the additional responsibilities that would ensue from a wider territorial sea.
That is a full paragraph quoted from the opening statement of Mr. O'Keeffe at the conference. Why did the Taoiseach not say today that that was the difficulty that confronted him? Instead, he made a statement contrary to that which Mr. O'Keeffe made at the international conference. Here is the Taoiseach's statement:
We have pressed, and we will continue to press, for the acceptance by international agreement of a régime on the lines of the Canadian-United States proposal at the Geneva Conference last Spring, which failed by only one vote to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. That proposal envisages a 12 mile exclusive fishing area, subject to the right of those states which have customarily fished in the waters concerned to continue to fish for a period of ten years in the outer 6 miles of the 12 mile area.
That failed by one vote. Even though the Irish delegation voted contrary to their expressed views, I have no doubt that their contribution helped to a large extent to defeat the motion, having regard to the narrow margin by which it was defeated, one vote.
Mr. O'Keeffe had an addition to make to his statement. As reported at column 132 of the same Volume, he said:
The Irish Government was against permitting an extension of the territorial sea up to twelve miles. Ireland's merchant navy and international airlines were expanding, and his Government agreed with certain others that such an extension might make it necessary to lengthen sea and air routes and create other unpredictable difficulties.
In other words, they did not want it. They were not seeking the same accommodation from this conference as was Norway, the Faroe Islands, and so on. Russia has twelve miles. Russian fishing boats come close to Cork and Waterford, sometimes within the three mile limit. If we had boats which could go long distances to fish, they would not be allowed to go closer than twelve miles to some of those countries.
Assuming the twelve mile limit were imposed on us or the agitation were a success, we might be faced with unpredictable difficulties, according to Mr. O'Keeffe. There is no mention of unpredictable difficulties in the Taoiseach's reply to me today. The leader of our delegation did not favour Ireland's gaining any addition of territorial waters. In fact, he was quite clear he did not want it. He was sympathetically disposed towards the case made by other countries and expressed keen sympathy with the case made by Iceland.
Paragraph 24 on page 132 of the same volume reads:
Ireland was ready to consider sympathetically any reasonable concession to countries like Iceland, the population of which was overwhelmingly dependent for its livelihood on fishing, but he doubted whether the Icelandic proposal would command support as it stood.
Whether he doubted it or not, the Icelandic proposal has now almost been implemented.
I believe the leader of our delegation was the only member to address that Assembly. I assume he represented the point of view of the Government. Mr. O'Keeffe made quite clear in very easily-understood language what the Government's intentions were. I am assuming the Minister has not changed his mind since Mr. O'Keeffe made this statement as our Irish chief representative on 11th April, 1960.
Everyone knows how often representations have been made to the Government with a view to getting extensions of territorial waters. Everybody in this House and the interested parties outside it, mainly our fishermen, believed the Government were doing their best. They viewed the position with sympathy. They felt international complications were involved and that the Government could not do anything better.
The Taoiseach's reply today more or less said to our fishermen, through this House: "We are doing our best, lads. We had a narrow defeat at the Geneva Conference in 1960. We are pressing and will continue to press to get your proposals accepted." Since the Geneva Conference concluded on 26th April, in what manner have the Government pressed and how are they continuing to press for this conference to be reconvened with a view to giving Ireland what several other countries enjoy so far as fisheries are concerned?
Let us study the fishery limits of other countries. In Argentina, the limit is 10 miles. In another country in South America, the limit is 12 miles; in Cambodia, 12 miles; in Canada, 12 miles; in Colombia, 12 miles; in Iceland, 12 miles; in Israel, 6 miles. These were all represented at the Conference. In the Lebanon, it is 6 miles; in Norway, 4 miles. Recently, Norway sought an extension of its fishery limits to a 12 mile radius. We have made no such demands. Russian boats were fishing in the Dungarvan and Dunmore area in the past twelve months. In Thailand, it is 12 miles; in Spain, 6 miles; in Yugoslavia, 10 miles. There are other countries also.
The greater number of countries represented at the Geneva Conference had more than three miles. Ireland has the lowest radius of the whole world. I agree that some countries enjoy only a three mile limit, but if an island such as Iceland can prove her case to the world, and win, why should we not press our claim? If we put the same enthusiasm and force into the matter as did Iceland we, too, would achieve the success she fortunately has achieved, No one is more pleased than I am that Iceland was successful in her agitation. I had the privilege of visiting that country in the past year. It is a great advantage to them just as it would be a great advantage to us if we could succeed.
The Taoiseach may state that if he were to agree to take unilateral action to extend our fishery rights, as he could do under the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1949, possibly it would have certain repercussions. The most likely one would be that it might affect our rights in our main export market for fish, the British market though I do not agree it would. I do not see why we should not make a bilateral agreement with Britain in respect of fish. We buy more products from Britain than she buys from us. I have no doubt that if we took independent action, we would eventually secure the approval of the British authorities. Has the British Parliament not lately discussed the proposals submitted by Iceland and not mainly agreed to them? I have no doubt they would similarly agree to proposals by us.
Having regard to the statements made by Mr. O'Keeffe at the Geneva Conference, we are neither honest nor sincere in our advocacy of extension of territorial waters. I must protest in the most vigorous manner I can command against the present attitude of the Government. I urge the Taoiseach to change his attitude to this important question, to bear in mind what it means to the many people engaged in the fishing industry and what it would mean to the economy of the country, if the desirable action I advocate were taken.
There is nothing I can usefully add to the reply which I gave the Deputy today except to try to explain the difference between territorial waters and exclusive fishery limits. We do not seek and would not want to be given an extension of our territorial waters, that is, the area of the sea over which we exercise sovereignty and are responsible for the enforcement of international law and have to police. That is a very different conception to exclusive fishery limits.
Do not try to twist the statement.
We have sought and are seeking to secure an extension of the area of sea in respect of which we would exercise exclusive fishery rights. That is an entirely different matter from territorial waters. If the Deputy had read further through the document he quoted he would probably have found that out for himself.
The Attorney General said that we do not want an extension of territorial waters but are seeking an extension of exclusive fishery limits. The important thing to try to get established at the Conference was that we could get one without the other.
Do not twist it.
We supported the proposal by the United States and Canda for the extension of exclusive fishery limits to twelve miles from the coast base-lines with a temporary arrangement for the outer area. That proposal which we supported, argued in favour of and voted for was defeated at that conference by one vote. In order to establish it as international law it had to get a two-thirds majority. It failed by one vote to get that two-thirds majority. We believe if the Conference were reconvened now that proposal would secure a two-thirds majority. Through the United Nations, we have been pressing for a reconvening of the Conference. We hope it will be reconvened.
A country like this must proceed in the context of an international law. If we cannot get that world conference resumed we are willing to go along with the idea of a regional conference for the North Eastern Atlantic area and would hope to secure a multilateral agreement covering the countries concerned in that area. There is no use in talking about South America and Yugoslavia and so on. The countries we would have in mind are Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, and Britain.
The Spanish trawlers——
Spanish trawlers fish in our waters. It is with these countries we would seek to secure a regional agreement if the wider international conference which met in Geneva last year cannot be reconvened for any reason. There is no sense in talking about Iceland. That country is completely dependent on fish. Ninety per cent. of the total export trade of Iceland consists of fish. At Geneva we supported the idea that no matter what was done for the rest of the world a country in that situation should be given special privileges because its circumstances were obviously different from those of other countries. I do not want to make a point about the fact that the agreement recently entered into between Britain and Iceland is being opposed by the Labour Parties in Britain and Iceland.
That statement indicates that the Taoiseach has no argument. He has to talk about the British Labour Party.
We have to seek to do what we desire in the context of an international agreement. There has been no delay on our part. When, in 1958, an agreement was made permitting of the drawing of straight base-lines we legislated immediately to the benefit of Irish fishermen. As soon as we can get a new agreement, either international or regional, we shall act on it. We hope it will extend the exclusive fishery limits without extending the territorial waters.
The Taoiseach's reference to the British Labour Party indicates the weakness of his case.