asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on a report which referred to the collapse of the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva; and the steps the Government now proposes to take to extend this country's fishing limits.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishing Limits Extension.
19.
The Geneva Session of the Law of the Sea Conference did not collapse. The third session thereof was scheduled to take place from 17th March to 10th May, 1975, and was adjourned at a formal plenary meeting on 9th May when the next session was arranged to begin in New York on 29th March, 1976.
The Deputy will observe that we have gone on to another question.
That is something I was not aware of. Neither the Chair, the Minister nor the Government have any need to be concerned when we have our own slow legal answer to internment here.
The Geneva Session made slow progress but at a plenary meeting single negotiating texts from each of the chairman of the three committees were circulated which provide a basis for negotiation at the next session of the conference.
In addressing the plenary meeting of the conference in Geneva on 18th April the Attorney-General expressed the view that States should not take unilateral action on matters falling within the mandate of the conference pending its outcome and no such action is contemplated by the Government.
I did not hear the earlier part of the reply.
That was not my fault.
If the Parliamentary Secretary had waited until the Deputy on his feet had resumed his seat, the answer would have been heard.
It would have been heard if Deputy Blaney had obeyed the Chair.
If there was less bullying of the Chair the answers would be heard.
Let the Parliamentary Secretary not talk of bullying.
May we have the answer to Question No. 19 again, please?
The Geneva Session of the Law of the Sea Conference did not collapse. The third session thereof was scheduled to take place from 17th March to 10th May, 1975, and was adjourned at a formal plenary meeting on 9th May when the next session was arranged to begin in New York on 29th March 1976.
The Geneva Session made slow progress but at a plenary meeting single negotiating texts from each of the chairmen of the three committees were circulated which provide a basis for negotiation at the next session of the conference.
In addressing the plenary meeting of the conference in Geneva on 18th April the Attorney General expressed the view that States should not take unilateral action on matters falling within the mandate of the conference pending its outcome and no such action is contemplated by the Government.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what progress has been made with regard to the extension of our limits?
The question of maritime limits is one of the questions before the conference but it has not been finally dealt with. In fact, it is nothing like finally dealt with. The attitude of the Government is that unilateral action should not be taken by any State until there is international agreement on the extension of maritime limits.
In view of the fact that no progress has been made, will we now be faced with a situation that our limits will remain as they are for some considerable time? In view of the action taken by Iceland and the action which Norway is reported as being likely to take, is it considered that we should try to get positive results in this field?
There are two sides to Deputy Gallagher's supplementary question. The first side relates to the question of whether the conference failed or not. I would not agree that it failed. It did make headway although not as much headway as had been hoped for. It made this much headway that the chairmen of the three committees into which the conference was divided succeeded in producing before the conference ended a unified negotiating text, which is a large step forward in a conference in which a big number of nations are represented. This text will form the basis for negotiation at the next session of the conference early next year. The second part of Deputy Gallagher's question relates to the question of our own maritime limits. The Government's present position is that not only ought we not to act unilaterally but that other States should not take unilateral action on matters falling within the mandate of the conference. The Deputy's reference to Iceland envisages a situation which has not yet arisen. When it does, it would be a new situation and the Government would have to consider it then.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is a fact that as of now and for some time past, even within three, six, 12 or whatever miles you wish to take from the shore, we may not control our seas eastward of Malin Head to the estuary of the Foyle and whether this matter has been at any stage raised at this conference or will be raised?
I am not aware that the matter referred to by Deputy Blaney was raised at the conference.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that what I have said is a fact?
No, I am not so aware and I think it is a separate question.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary inquire as to whether we may not from Malin Head eastwards to the estuary of the Foyle control our seas at any distance from the shore?
I will inquire.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary make available to interested Deputies on this side of the House copies of the negotiating text to which he has referred?
I cannot see why not. I will inquire whether, in the first instance, the text is available and, secondly, whether it could be made available to Deputy Molloy.
And to Deputy Gallagher.
Yes. I do not see why not.