asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether that part of the fisheries agreement which refers to review after ten years is designed to protect Irish fishing interests.
15.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Fisheries Agreement.
14.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, further to the recent fishery negotiations at the EEC, he will state the contents of the review clause and procedure as agreed.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.
I have had circulated to Deputies the details of the arrangements on fisheries which we agreed with the Community on 12th December.
I am fully satisfied that, under the review clause we have agreed, such arrangements as we shall require to ensure the maintenance of the livelihood of our fishermen, the conservation of fish stocks in our waters and the continued development of our fishery industry can and will be continued after the initial period of ten years.
Has the Minister considered the possibility of the Norwegians continuing their negotiations and ending up with an agreement which may disappear into the one we have got? Would the Minister consider whether our review clause can be altered in the light of any further gains made by the Norwegian side?
The House is aware that the Norwegians were waiting until everyone else was finished and there were rumours that they would get special treatment. No matter how long I waited to make my decision the Norwegians would wait longer. In those circumstances we had to get on with it and we received the categorical assurance of the Community that the review clause, and the procedures prescribed, represented the final Community position and that they must be of uniform application to the present member States and to all the applicant countries. It was on the basis of that categorical assurance that we were able to reach a final decision with the Community.
Might I ask the Minister was it not possible for him to secure for the south-east the same terms with regard to territorial waters as he got for other parts of our coastline? Why are we to be subject to that extension only in the case of certain shellfish and not in the case of anything else?
In my consultations I found out quite clearly where the fish are. My information was that the herring are within six miles of the east and south-east coasts. In the west the herring go out between the six and the 12 mile limit. What I got was got in terms of protecting our fisheries. As I am sure the Deputy is aware the six to 12 mile limit has already in it six other countries with traditional rights; they are already fishing there for certain types of fish. The main protection was directed towards fish within the six miles in that area. The other countries have lost nothing. They have gained something.
Could the Minister say whether there is a possibility that the Community may interpret the review clause in a special way for the Norwegians, without changing its wording, and, if something of that kind happens, is he clear that he can and will go back and ensure that we get whatever further concessions Norway may get by a form of interpretation over and above what we have got at this stage?
We have to be quite clear on this. I interpret the review clause to mean that in ten years time an examination will be carried out and the considerations that were brought to bear on the present negotiations will be brought to bear on these further negotiations as a result of that examination. My interpretation is that we will then be in a stronger position because we will be a member of the Community and, as a member, we can continue, I believe, after the ten years to protect the rights of our fishermen and our fishery development, just as we have done now. If that interpretation has anything added to it in future negotiations for the benefit of the Norwegians I would expect that further interpretation to apply also to Ireland.
And the Minister will insist on that?
We have to multilateralise the agreement. We could not possibly, on behalf of this country, accept anything added to the review clause that would diminish in any way the present position.
Or any special interpretation of the clause to benefit Norway?
I understand Norway has an enormous fishery problem and Norwegians may need to have it spelled out to them that, in the review clause, the special position of their fishermen will be taken into account. I have already pointed out our special position with a developing fishing industry. Anything that applies to the extension of the review clause should apply to other countries.
The Minister says concentration of shellfish on the east coast is between the six and the 12 mile limit. Does he not appreciate the tremendous damage that can be done on the south-east coast in the ten years before a review is undertaken?
By whom?
By the Polish fleet which is in there now.
By all those overfishing it at the moment.
That is another question. I was not dealing with that. There are traditional rights on the south-east coast and it is in danger of being overfished, but that has nothing to do with my negotiations.
And the Minister can do nothing about it?
We can. We are entitled to draw up rules for the conservation of our own waters.
And put out the Belgiums and the French?
You cannot put them out. They are in the Six 12 mile belt by right and nothing in my negotiations can change the London Convention of 1964. To answer the Deputy's first question, what I said was that shellfish on the east coast go out to 12 miles and, for that reason, we got 12 miles on the east coast. To make it quite clear, I was offered crustaceans and I included prawns, oysters and scallops, et cetera, and the word “shellfish” was brought in to cover all types. On the east coast they go out to 12 miles. On the south coast they go out to six miles. They are protected on both.
Is the Minister aware that one of the richest herring fishing grounds is off Dunmore East and he has abandoned the 12 mile fishing limit there?
I think the Deputy should know——
I think the Minister should know that this is one of the most lucrative herring fishing grounds in Europe.
That is right.
And he has allowed all trawlers from the Community countries to come within six miles of the south-east coast.
They are there already. They are entitled to be there.
Is the Polish fleet entitled to be there?
They are not entitled to be there. The ones that fish for herring have rights and protection on that part of the coast, as far as we are concerned, is required in the inner six miles. The new agreement might bring in fishermen from Norway and Denmark, but I doubt if it will. There is nothing in the European negotiations which would change the London Convention of 1964. There was no possibility of cutting out. I had to deal with the situation in which there was a regulation in the Community giving access not alone to baselines but right into the shore and into the estuaries and I got them out from that to cover all our fish.
The fishermen do not like it anyhow.
They liked it until they got the word.
Neither you nor I do.
Ask them. They made a statement when they saw the agreement and they made a statement afterwards.
The Minister made "a bags" of it.
I think they should put up a monument to me.
A Deputy
They probably will.