I move:
That Dáil Éireann, conscious of the vital importance of a developing fishing industry to Ireland's economic development and of Ireland's legal and equitable rights, declares its total opposition to any future European Community common fishery policy which does not reserve exclusively to Irish fishermen a coastal zone of 50 miles.
Just before I stood up my colleague, Deputy Joe Brennan, gave me a piece of paper which purports to be a proposed amendment from the Minister. I do not know whether or not there is an amendment. I was informed some time this evening that the Government were considering putting down an amendment, but I could not get a copy of it, and I do not know whether what I have been given here represents that proposed amendment. If this is the case I must protest in the strongest possible manner for his not allowing us to have note of it considerably in advance of this debate. An amendment of this kind would represent a significant change in attitude on the part of the Minister. However, I shall say no more about it until such time as he may present it to us formally.
In the first instance I wish to put this debate in its proper context. Obviously our people generally are very much aware that at this time important eleventh-hour stage negotiations are being conducted on their behalf by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, negotiations which will affect vitally not only our fishing industry but, through that industry, the development of our economy in the years ahead. For that reason it is essential that we here discuss something which has not been discussed already, namely, the basis of the case on which we rely to protect, first, our fishing industry and, through it our economy. Secondly, we must point out the legal, the equitable and the economic arguments which are cogent in terms of the motion before the House, a motion which accords with the argument the Minister has been making at the Community on our behalf, the argument for an exclusive 50-mile limit for the fishing industry.
I should hope that this debate will have the effect of highlighting some points which may not have been presented already by the Minister and will highlight also the common stance on the part of all parties here. This in turn will strengthen the Minister's position in bringing the negotiations to a conclusion. We intend the debate to be used for that purpose and we trust that in considering the legal and economic implications of the situation very positive points will emerge.
In order to put the whole question of this new fishery regime within the Community in its proper context we must recognise that this debate has been brought about by the fact that a new concept has emerged within the past four or five years within the sphere of international fisheries and international waters. I refer to the concept of the economic zone. When we signed the Treaty of Accession to the EEC the economic-zone concept as it has developed now—a 200-mile economic zone for the coastal States such as Ireland—had not been even promoted internationally although it had been mooted by a couple of countries in South America. Therefore, our Treaty of Accession in January, 1972, was embarked on in the light of the situation as it was then and that situation did not include the concept of a 200-mile economic zone. I do not think anybody within the EEC would argue to the contrary.
The development of this concept had certain consequences both for states which basically were landlocked and for those which basically were coastal. For basically landlocked states such as Germany, Holland and Belgium, the consequences by comparison with the consequences for this country were that for them coastal states such as Norway, Iceland and ourselves for that matter but particularly those outside the community would take positions which would be in accord with international law but which on their waters would extend the rights of these coastal states to 200 miles. Obviously, this would limit the rights of other basically landlocked states which up to then had used these waters for the purpose of fishing.
Perhaps the Community would have wished that this concept of an economic zone had not been promoted because by having major economic zone areas through their coastal states by comparison with such countries as Norway, Sweden, the US and Canada, the Community would stand to yield more to this new developing international right than it stood to gain. This new development was promoted from South America, to Canada, to Norway and right around the African coast. The EEC had to take account of this concept and to a very considerable extent to take measures to protect their position or, to put it more correctly, to diminish the impact on their fishing fleets in particular and on their fisheries policy generally. The situation was summed up concisely for us during a recent visit to the Commission when one of the senior officials there remarked that the Community's proposals represent a sharing out of the misery because to some extent there would be involved an element of misery compared with what had been the situation previously.
It is quite clear, from the Commission's proposals which were published in great detail on 23rd September last, that the first priority so far as the Commission are concerned—the Minister has emphasised this point—is to give the Community a negotiating stance with these third countries which are extending their fishery waters by way of the economic zone concept. Because such countries as Denmark, Norway and Iceland and others are taking this step, it is important from the point of view of the Community countries that have fished traditionally within what will now be the economic zones of third countries that their rights are protected. In pursuance of this protection the Commission in their proposals stated that in their consideration present circumstances called for immediate action for the Community to protect their legitimate interests in those maritime zones which are most likely to be affected seriously as a result of such extension measures. Therefore, it can be recognised from the start that the Commission and the Community, perhaps understandably, are concerned as a first priority in this regard to protect the right of access of fleets of member states to third country waters. Accordingly, they propose that the limit would extend to 200 miles so that the Commission on behalf of the Community could negotiate a quid pro quo so that Britain, for instance, would have rights to access in certain traditional grounds in Icelandic waters, or Norwegian waters, and France similarly and others. All of this has to be done before 1st January, 1977, because that is the date on which Norway, Iceland, America, Canada and many other countries will be extending their coastal zones.
We can see the priorities in the minds of the Commission and the European Community. I readily acknowledge that the Minister has already pointed up this, at least from the manner in which I have interpreted the reports coming back from the European Community. In the rush —and one has to acknowledge it is a rush—to give the Community negotiators a common position vis-á-vis third countries to protect the fleets of the major economies within Europe, the European Community have not looked within the Community itself to see what should be done, what is just, right, legal and equitable within the Community in the first instance, to create a position whereby they can have this common stance against third countries.
Putting it simply, it seems that Ireland in particular is being asked to give the European Community the mandate the Commission seek through the Council to negotiate with third countries by 1st January, 1977, by making this declaration and, when we have done that and given that benefit to the Community, they will look to the internal regime within the European Community and share out, on a certain basis to which I will refer, what they regard as being the diminishing fishery resources of the European Community. In other words, as a small undeveloped country, we are being asked to contribute in advance to the European Community what they can only get through us, without any firm recognition of our right to a guarantee for our fishermen and our economy for years to come. If we were to acknowledge now, without conditions which would protect our fishermen and our economy, that we will give the major extension in the waters off the European shores, those off the Irish coast, and afterwards negotiate, we would be in a very weak position indeed.
It is sometimes overlooked that it is only through us, as a coastal State, that the Community can have any extension to 200 miles off our coast out into the North Atlantic. We are the only agent of the Community who can give them that exclusive 200 miles from which will be excluded the fishing fleets of third countries, Bulgarian, Russian, American, Canadian, or whatever. Fortunately for the Community, Ireland has off its shores a major economic zone which, by making this declaration, we can bring into a new Community pool which would not be there without us as an island state. The Community have to recognise our major contribution in ensuring that at least from 50 to 200 miles of that economic zone would be reserved for Community boats.
It has to be stated at this stage that there are certain natural advantages and disadvantages to being an island. For long we have lived here with the natural disadvantage of being an island in terms of the European Community, namely, being on the geographic periphery of the European Community. This natural disadvantage can be illustrated in very many ways but mainly in the increased transport costs we have to bear both as to the importation of our raw materials and the export of our finished goods. Being an open economy, Ireland relies more than most—and on this the Government and the Opposition are ad idem—on imported materials for our industry, and we rely to a very considerable extent on exports to the Community for the continuing development of our economy.
That is the natural disadvantage we have vis-á-vis Germany and Holland, and others, who are in the centre of the market and who, fortunately for themselves, have exploited that natural advantage to the point that the Community have always been talking in terms of the regional imbalances which exist between the centre, notably Belgium, Germany, Holland, France, and so on, and the periphery, notably ourselves and probably the south of Italy and now, it seems, Britain as well to a certain extent. That is the natural advantage they have of being in the centre of the market which they have exploited.
It does not compensate fully for that natural disadvantage of being on the periphery, but we have a natural advantage of being an island with resources off our shores which the landlocked countries, with all their advantages, have not got. In terms of the whole principles of the Community, in terms of the principle of the Community's regional programme, that of the eliminating of regional imbalances, in terms of the principles and the motivations of the Treaty of Rome, and in terms of the determination of the Community to move towards economic and monetary union and, through that, towards political union, surely we have a very strong case for saying we should at least be allowed, and not only allowed but encouraged and assisted, to develop our natural advantage. Our Community partners should be very reluctant, indeed, to deprive us of our present advantage and our future potential so that they can cushion the blow—and it is a blow to some extent and that has to be recognised—which these powerful economies have faced as a result of the introduction of this economic zone concept.
Had Ireland not joined the Community, where would these countries be in relation to the development of this economic zone? Basically, they would have no rights apart from off the coast of France and Northern Scotland, certainly no rights which would compare with what they will now have within that economic zone, which we are contributing and only we can contribute to the European Community. On that basis—and that is why we have mentioned legal and equitable rights— there should be some quid pro quo for the major contribution we are making to the Community at this stage of the international development of new concepts.
This is necessary for the record. I want to refer to the single negotiating text of the International Law of the Sea Conference which makes it quite clear that this economic zone concept which is now being very consistently supported is a concept, as described in Article 45, which gives sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, including fisheries, to the coastal states. Such countries as Iceland and Norway, and many others, will be exercising sovereign rights in relation to that economic zone.
These are the rights which we are now prepared to share with the Community. In this connection it is important to recognise that if we did not make the unilateral declaration on our part by January, 1977, all the waters to within 12 miles of our shores would be open waters to the fleets of every nation, Russia, Bulgaria and so on. This the Germans, French, Dutch, Belgians and the Danish would have to share with all other nations, because there is no reference in that text of the Second Committee of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference to a Community bloc of nations as coastal states. There is no such position. It is a coastal state alone which has the right conferred or proposed to be conferred under the law of the sea single negotiating text.
I want to refer to some of the legal positions that arise here. There is one of them which applies to us and us alone. I refer to our Treaty of Accession to the European Community and particularly to Article 103 of that Treaty. I say to the Minister that I am glad that belatedly he brought Article 103 into play at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers. I attended an all-party delegation from this House in Brussels about two weeks ago. I have been calling on the Minister for some months here to state the legal position which I have raised in relation to the Treaty, to the international law and to other matters, which secure our position. From the reaction we got from the Commission officials less than two weeks ago in Brussels, it was obvious that the first that they had heard of the argument based on Article 103 was when I presented it on behalf of this party, but as a member of the Commission, to that Commission on that day. At no stage was there any evidence in their reaction but that this was the first time they ever took account of this very cogent argument. I am glad the Minister subsequently acknowledged that and used it, but he did it a bit late in the day.
I have been saying for the last six months that it is our legal position, even disregarding the Treaty, which gives us our strength. I refer to Article 103 of our Treaty of Accession which caused a significant change of position on the part of the Community officials who were there then.
It reads:
Before the 31st December, 1982, the Commission shall present a report to the Council of the economic and social developments of the coastal areas of the Member States and the state of stocks.
That is obviously a contemplation of a new regime to be introduced by the beginning of January, 1983. That was what was contemplated on the date of our Treaty of Accession, before the economic zone was ever brought into being. Before a new fishery regime could be introduced by the Community they would do a survey of the social and economic developments of the coastal areas of the member states and the state of stocks. This is understandable, because they could not introduce a new regime with all its effects without knowing the existing position of the economic and social development of the coastal areas. Therefore, whatever they would introduce as a new proposal would take account of that.
The Community, as became clear to us on that occasion two weeks' ago, have not even initiated a survey of the economic and social developments of the coastal areas, much less concluded a report which would enable and entitle them to introduce a new fishery regime of the type they are now proposing. Then they come to talk in terms of vital needs of areas. How can they talk of vital needs when they have not conducted a survey of the social and economic position of the coastal areas? I am glad we made this breakthrough and that belatedly the Minister followed it up. It is one of the strongest cases we have in this area, even relying on the Treaty of Accession, that the Commission are not yet ready, on their own admission under that article, to introduce new proposals.
Let me now refer to how evident it is that they are not so ready. I refer to page 12 of the explanatory memorandum of the Commission, and I quote:
It is therefore proposed that a Community reserve stock should be established for each of the main species and that the amount of this reserve stock should be fixed each year on the basis of the vital needs of the fishermen in these regions and the extent to which hatches have been reduced below their previous level.
That is the reference to vital needs. Nowhere in this document is there a definition of what "vital needs" represent. How can there be when no survey has been done of the social and economic development of these areas concerned? So we are asked to accept an allocation on the basis of vital needs which are not defined. Then we find:
The allocation of these should be done primarily on the basis of the Member States' fishing performance in the past related to a reference period to be determined.
Now we come to the suggestion that the quotas proposed in this document would be on the basis of our fishing performance in the past. That takes very little account of our vital needs in the present and future. Over and above that it is totally unacceptable because quotas based on fishing performance in the past do not take account of the developing state of our fishing industry. These are based on the fact that those countries who have exploited and over-exploited the waters we are now trying to protect will be the ones to gain the advantage. Those of us who have not exploited them in the past, in the sense that we have not almost cleared them out as some others have done, will not be able to gain the advantage having regard to the historical performance basis. Also we take the firm view that quotas, in any event, cannot be properly monitored or effectively implemented. Therefore, the Community stance in relation to that is contradictory and it must be pointed out to be so. They cannot suggest that these quotas should be reviewed at the end of every five-year period, for in a five-year period the whole Irish fishing industry could have been totally undermined with nothing that we could have done about it in the meantime. They must recognise that this is not a satisfactory position for them to take up. Quotas are also unacceptable to us because they are based on assumed rights of member states as distinct from what I would propose before I conclude, an agreement, a concession, a licence from the member states, to those which would not interfere with the development of our fishing industry and which would ensure that our fishing industry, after consultation regarding the interests of our fishermen and others, would not only be protected but be developed.
In relation to the Council regulation of 19th January, 1976, the recitals setting out the reasons why that regulation is introduced and laying down a new common structural policy for the fishing industry have no reference to this. The Minister will know what I mean by "recitals". The need to develop a new structure for the fishing industry is pointed out but nowhere is there any reference to the special need there is for coastal regions and for development of coastal regions or to the undeveloped coastal regions which should be central to any future European Community fishery policy. That is a Council regulation of 19th January this year. I do not know whether the Minister entered any caveat, doubt, restriction or whatever to that regulation when it was being passed, but it seems that on the face of it it is there to protect the Community fishermen as a flock and is not in any way geared towards protecting the interests of coastal states or of inshore fishermen of our coast.
There is Protocol 30 to our Treaty of Accession, and it is well to refer to it at this stage. It binds the high contracting parties to recall that the fundamental objectives of the European Economic Community include the steady improvement of the living standards and working conditions of the people of the member states and the harmonious development of their economies by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less-favoured regions. That is quite clear as a special protocol recognising our position. On the basis of that I agree to recommend to this end that the Community institutions implement all the needs and procedures laid down by the European Economic Community Treaty. Unless that Protocol is to be totally ignored, here is a clear case where the regional imbalance and the economic disadvantages of Ireland are spelled out and are evident. Equally clear, the Community's obligations to us must be ensured to a new common fisheries regime.
My colleague, Deputy Gallagher, will be dealing with the actual fisheries aspect but in the short time at my disposal it is important that I refer to what seems a reasonable position for Ireland to adopt having regard to our rights under international maritime law and under the Treaty of Accession. At least the Community must conduct the survey they are obliged to conduct before they introduce a binding new regime. I do not know why we should be asked to suffer as a nation at this late stage of the day simply because the Community have failed to do this, that is, if they were ever asked to do it. I suspect they were not asked to conduct this survey until about two weeks ago, until we attended. I should like the Minister to let us know if he has asked the Community during the last six or 12 months to do this survey. I doubt it because the reaction of the officials in the Community when I mentioned it was that this was a new point that would have to be considered.
We support the Government's position and that of the nation generally in calling for an exclusive 50-mile zone. In doing so we will be conceding to other member states what they would not otherwise have, namely, exclusive rights from 50 to 200 miles. It is important to recognise that the EEC countries in any reference period in the last five, ten or 15 years, have probably taken more than 75 per cent of the catch from what will now be the new 50-mile limit we are proposing. I cannot speak for the fishermen but I think they recognise that they could not fully supply the market in Europe on their own, even if they were given an exclusive 50-mile zone. To that extent it appears we have a position where we can negotiate very effectively, namely, that our exclusive right as a coastal state be acknowledged. We are not asking for 200 miles—although other coastal states will be doing that at the Law of the Sea Conference—but we are asking for 50 miles and that we would do in relation to fisheries what we are doing in relation to exploration in other areas, namely, negotiate licences to be reviewed annually with the fishing fleets of certain member states in designated areas within the 50-mile zone. These licences would be reviewed at the end of each year after consultation with the vital interests of the fishermen and those connected with the fishing industry.
There is ample precedent for this position also in the single negotiating text of the Law of the Sea Conference which has been adopted. That precedent will be found in Article 51 (2) of that text which states:
The coastal state shall determine its capacity to harvest the living resources of the exclusive economic zone, namely, 200 miles, but where the coastal state does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch it shall, through agreements or other arrangements, and pursuant to the terms, conditions and regulations referred to in paragraph (4) give other states access to the surplus of the allowable catch.
Paragraph (4) clearly indicates that such surplus can be agreed by negotiation, by licence, to specific fleets in designated areas and the cost of this licence would be of benefit to the national economy, as would happen in exploration areas. This is what Iceland is doing at the moment, not within 50 miles but within 200 miles. That country is bartering its surplus catch in an economic exchange of other products that are crucial to the Icelandic economy, as they would be crucial to us.
This would guarantee the development of our fishing industry. Secondly, it would ensure that any decision would be taken in this Parliament in relation to any development or further extension of licences, having regard to the needs of our fishermen and the economy. Thirdly, it would be fair, reasonable and equitable so far as the EEC is concerned in ensuring that the market would continue to be supplied.
Some arguments have been made about the difficulty of policing an area of 50 miles. Commission officials recognised—some even suggested— that it is easier to police an extended zone than a narrow zone, despite what the Minister for Defence has said, for the simple reason that if a boat comes in from a long distance to within ten or 20 miles of the shore it will take a longer time to get out. It has been the experience of Iceland that it is quite practicable to police the extended zone they have introduced because of the time it takes a boat to get in and to go out. It has also been the experience of Iceland—a smaller economy than ours—that they have been quite well able to police the waters, sometimes with trawlers that were converted for that purpose.
I am sorry that the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has been doing so much on our behalf in the Community—subject to the qualifications I mentioned—should have been so totally and utterly undermined by a Minister of his own Government when he was negotiating. The Minister for Defence freely conceded, wrongly as it happened, that we could not police a 50-mile limit.
As a result of some of the arguments on the legal issues and on the basis of international agreements which have been presented to the EEC, I believe there has been a change of stance which will enable our Minister to negotiate effectively to give us the minimum guarantees for our fishing industry and for our economy and to share with the Community what they would not have were it not for us, namely, the benefits our economic zone can confer on them.
