asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the baselines used in determining this country's fishery limits, either 50 miles or 200 miles, will give the best possible advantage to fishermen.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishery Limits.
27.
The baseline from which fishery limits are measured is the low water line along the coast except where the method of straight baselines is employed. Straight baselines may be drawn only where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity.
Under the Straight Baselines Order, 1959, straight baselines were drawn along the west and south coasts which afforded the best possible advantage in determining fisheries limits. It would not be possible to redraw these baselines to greater advantage without contravening the relevant rules of international law.
Would the Minister accept that the baselines as drawn at the moment follow the contour of the coast and that this allows foreign trawlers into many of our bays? Would the Minister not accept that it is possible to draw the baselines as suggested by the Irish Fishermen's Organisation in their policy programme, so that many of our bays could be closed off much better than they are at the moment?
The legal position does not permit that. The baselines, which were drawn in 1959 under the previous Government, represent the maximum which is possible under international law. I cannot fault the efforts of the previous Government and as much was done as was possible with regard to baselines at that time. I am so advised.
If straight base lines can be introduced only where a coastline is deeply indented would the Minister not think that in view of the general extension of fishery limits that is under way, it would be appropriate to consider again the position in Donegal, Dingle Bay and many other places which could be regarded as being fairly deeply indented bays? There might be justification for reconsidering the situation.
The position is that the baselines we have—those were established in 1959—go as far as international law permits. Any attempt to extend them further would not be likely to be successful.
Successful with whom?
I take it from that that there is a possibility of any such attempt being successful. Therefore, would the Minister not exploit that possibility in view of the immense extra benefit that success would involve?
Any such attempt would not be successful. One tends to soften phrases in the House when discussing something in an international context. The fact is that there is no prospect of improving our base lines which, at the time they were drawn, were very strongly contested. It was with great difficulty that the previous Government succeeded in having this opposition allayed. This is an area in which it would not be in our interest to reopen the controversy.
Can the Minister say to whom he applies for opinions as to whether our base lines might be adjusted? Also, can he say whether he has made comparisons between the straight base lines granted to Scotland and those that apply along our west coast because it is clear that the Scottish base lines are much more advantageous to the UK than are the straight base lines of the west coast to Ireland? The case made by way of a motion in my name and that of Deputy Gallagher suggesting changes is in line with the type of decision made for the west Scottish coast.
A question, please.
Has the Minister examined the Scottish situation vis-à-vis our own?
The advice we get in these matters is from civil servants and from our legal advisers. I am advised that the Scottish situation does not provide a precedent or a basis for a different decision here. Again I must say to the House that this matter was considered very thoroughly by the previous Government who took every possible advantage of the possibility of what could be done and there is no way in which this Government can improve on what was achieved then. I say that with reluctance but that is the position.
To whom does the Minister apply for advice?
Order. If the House agrees the Minister will be given the opportunity of answering the next question which is the last one on the Order Paper to him.
If what the Deputy wants to know is where the rules are set out, the answer is article 4 of the 1958 UN Convention on The Territorial Sea.
I take it that it is the Irish interpretation of that which leads the Minister to believe that any case for a change would not be successful.
That is so. It is the Irish interpretation arising out of careful study of the situation and of the negotiations which took place under the previous Government to achieve these straight base lines in a situation where they were contested strongly.
By whom?
By another government.
The Minister——
Order. I have allowed a series of supplementaries on this question but I shall allow a final supplementary before moving on to the last question to the Minister.
The Minister has indicated that the original agreement was drawn up in accordance with article 4 of the 1958 convention but all that has changed totally in relation to the whole question of economic zones and of fishery limits. In view of the changed circumstances since the introduction of the 1959 Act would the Minister not agree that it should be open to him now to consider the matter again?
I am afraid the Deputy is misinformed. The provisions of article 4 are reproduced in the revised single negotiating text prepared for the current Law of the Sea Conference. Their general acceptance at that conference was witnessed by the fact that they drew scarcely anything but approval from all delegations. There is no likelihood, possibility or suggestion that customary international law in this regard will be changed.
28.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when the Government propose to introduce legislation to extend this country's fishery limits in line with similar action taken by many other coastal States.
This legislation will take the form of an order under section 6 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959. The section requires that the order be approved in draft by both the Dáil and the Seanad before being made by the Government. I propose to move for approval of the draft order in the Dáil next week.
Will that involve an extension of 200 miles?
Yes.
Consequently, the Minister will accept that it is only we, as people of a coastal State, who can effect the extension?
That is so.
Following on that, I am sure the Minister will accept equally that the next stage is one where we agree on an apportionment of those 200 miles with our Community colleagues who cannot make such an extension of their own right. Would this not put the Minister in a very strong negotiating position regarding the question of an exclusive 50-mile limit?
The position regarding sharing the 200-mile limit with our partners is that under the Treaty of Accession negotiated by the previous Government. The phraseology used applies, unfortunately, not merely to the existing 12-mile band but to fishing limits in the future as well as in the present. Therefore, because of the wording selected at that time there is an automatic application of the common fisheries policy within the 200-mile zone. This wording may have been forced on the then Government. What it involves depends on the common fisheries policy and on its renegotiation—a task that we have embarked on—but the policy applies automatically.
There seems to be some confusion regarding our negotiating position. Can the Minister say whether the 200-mile economic zone concept was contemplated at the time of the Treaty of Accession?
It seems to me that that concept was not contemplated.
(Interruptions.)
Order. I trust we are not entering into the realm of argument.
Unfortunately the previous Government, despite the fact that 200-mile zones were declared at that time in South America, did not contemplate this possibility and, consequently, agreed to a form of words which applied the common fisheries policy not merely to the existing 12-mile zone but to any future extension. That is where the problem arises. Perhaps the then Government had no choice but it is that wording that puts us where we are.
The Minister is misleading the House and the country.
We have gone away beyond the time for questions.
We should be allowed to have this matter clarified. The Minister has implied that the 200-mile economic zone concept which has emerged only within the past couple of years was actively contemplated and promoted at the time of our signing the Treaty of Accession. That was not so.
The Deputy knows that he must proceed by way of question to elicit information at Question Time.
We should be given the right to reject the Minister's attempt to mislead.
We must have relevant supplementaries.
Is the Minister aware that when we signed the Treaty of Accession there was nowhere within the European Community or within the North Atlantic States——
Words carefully chosen.
——or in any international agreement or consensus, although the Minister may include South America if he wishes, in relation to an economic zone?
When the Deputy asks questions he is given answers regardless of whether those are answers that he likes to hear. In reply to his question the answer is that the 200-mile zone concept existed in one part of the world—Latin America—at the time of the Treaty of Accession. It is a matter of opinion as to whether there existed a possibility that at some point in the future the 12-mile zone could be extended in other parts of the world. As I see it, it seems something that was inherently possible even if it was not under active contemplation at the time. If I am right in saying that such extension was inherently possible it would have been better if the wording of the Treaty had been such as to confine the common fisheries policy to a 12-mile zone. I have not looked at the files so I do not know whether this situation was due to the Government of the day not foreseeing this possibility or whether during negotiations, the possibility was foreseen but that the Government were not able to succeed in doing something better.
Obviously that is something we could argue about for a long time. The Minister knows that there was no concensus in regard to a 200-mile zone at the time of the Treaty of Accession. Has he considered the effects of article 103 which indicates that before any new regime under the Treaty of Accession could be introduced a survey of the economic and social development of the coastal regions would be presented to the Commission and does the Minister accept that such a survey has not been presented and in view of that, that the provision which was negotiated by the Government was a safeguard on which he could now rely if he was in a position to do so and that he is not so doing?
I do so regard it and I have, in fact, as the Deputy is aware, made that particular point in my juridical argument before the Council of Ministers. In my view, the review as I have regarded it at this time taking place now, not being based on a separate and adequate report, is a defective review. I argued that before the Council of Ministers. The Commission argued on the contrary, that their communication to the Council on which the proposal before the Council was founded contains data which it can legally be sustained, in their view, is such a report. I have not accepted that. It seems to me on the facts to be incorrect.
One final question——
This is becoming a debate. I have given the House every latitude. It is now almost a quarter-hour beyond Question Time. How much more tolerance do Deputies expect?
I shall accommodate myself to the Chair's ruling. The Minister would not be aware of the fact that the Commission indicated to the all-party committee which attended there some months ago that they had not any such view as he now says that they presented to him. Would the Minister like to consult with the all-party committee which could assist him in rejecting what they now appear to present as their opinion, as expressed by the Minister to us?
I shall so consult.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.