asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it is his intention to declare a 200-mile off-shore fishing limit; and, if not, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Offshore Fishing Limit.
34.
The question of off-shore limits is among the items to be dealt with at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea at present in session in Caracas. The Government do not propose to make a decision on our off-shore limits pending the outcome of the conference. They favour the creation of a 200-mile economic zone within which the coastal state will exercise fisheries rights the exact nature of which will be worked out at the conference itself.
The Minister's reply is totally at variance with the reply to a similar question to which the Minister for Lands replied on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I am pleased that the Minister will examine the possibility of the 200-mile fishery limit. Would that be a correct reading of his answer?
The 12-mile limit is one of the subjects for discussion at the conference. It would be inappropriate and not useful for us to take a unilateral decision on it or on what we think the limit of the economic zone should be or what its character should be until this is fully discussed at the conference. Naturally our concern will be to secure the maximum area that will be of benefit to this country.
May we take it that if the results of the conference are favourable the Minister will coordinate his own efforts—I think they are genuine efforts—with the efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the efforts of the Minister for Defence in relation to the matter of fishery protection vessels? It is clear at the moment that the Government are not co-ordinating their different views in regard to this matter.
I do not understand what would give the Deputy that impression, because the whole policy of this conference has been the subject of the closest co-ordination between the various Departments and is something on which there is complete agreement between all the interests concerned. I am not aware of any conflict as between my reply and the reply given earlier, and I do not understand what point the Deputy is trying to make.
When I asked the Minister for Lands was it his intention to declare a 200-mile off-shore fishery limit he asked me was I serious. It now appears that the Minister for Foreign Affairs——
We are now engaging in argument.
I think the Minister for Lands was saying in another way what I said, that you can scarcely be serious in suggesting we declare something unilaterally at a time when a conference is taking place dealing with that very matter.
I did not suggest that. My intention was to inquire about examining the possibility of creating such a zone.
The Deputy should have made his intention a little clearer.
I made it very clear.
Did I understand the Minister to say that this has been discussed at Cabinet level, the stand that the representative of the Irish Government will take at the conference taking place in Caracas?
The Deputy is not correct in understanding I said so, but that it is in fact the case.
The Minister's colleague was unaware of the Cabinet discussion, I gather from his reply to Deputy Andrews.
On the contrary. But the Deputy is being a little bit facetious and mischievous.
Could I ask the Minister——
For some time past the Chair has been indicating a desire to make some progress. Question No. 35.