asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position for 1977 in relation to fishing off the Irish coast; if the EEC issued any instructions in relation to quotas; and, if so, if the fishermen have been advised accordingly.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishing Industry.
4.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the present position in relation to (a) fishing by third countries and (b) fishing by EEC member states inside this country's 200-mile fishing limit.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.
With regard to third countries the Council of Ministers of the European Communities agreed on 13th December, 1976, on the general lines of an interim regime to operate for these countries in the fishing waters of member states following their extension to 200 miles on 1st January, 1977.
Details of this interim regime for vessels of non-EEC countries for Irish waters were given in a statement issued on 31st December last by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The main features are as follows: Bulgarian, Cuban and Rumanian vessels are excluded altogether from Irish waters from 1st January, 1977.
Vessels of the USSR, Poland and the German Democratic Republic will be permitted to continue to fish for the first three months of 1977 on a limited basis. They will be confined to certain sub-zones of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission statistical system which means in effect that they will not be entitled to fish within 50 miles of the Irish coast. Their catch will be confined to mackerel and horse mackerel, so far as the Irish zone is concerned. The quantities of these fish which they will be permitted to catch in the outer part of the 200 mile zone are laid down in quotas for each subzone, based on the average of their catches in the period 1965 to 1974, minus 15 per cent. This should result in a substantial reduction in Eastern European fishing off our coast.
Detailed control measures to apply to those countries are still under discussion in the Committee of Permanent Representatives.
Certain countries which have entered into preliminary negotiations with the Community will also be permitted to continue to fish in the Community zone in the three months period. Of these only Spain, Norway and the autonomous Faroe Islands are relevant to the extended Irish zone.
Neither Norway nor the Faroes has done any significant fishing in the Irish 200-mile zone, and this position will be maintained during the next two or three months, pending Community negotiations for permanent arrangements with these countries. Spain has certain contractual rights under the London Convention of 1964 to fish off the Irish coast and pending negotiations by the Community with that country, Spanish fishermen will be permitted to catch a quota of hake and horse mackerel for the three months to be caught in waters of the Community states. Some part of this could be caught in Irish waters.
These arrangements were communicated to the countries concerned by the Government of the Netherlands on behalf of the Community and also by Ireland bilaterally.
With regard to fishing by other member states of the Communities, pending agreement on a review of the Common Fisheries Policy, this is governed by the Accession Treaty and Regulation 2141 of 1970 which provides for equal conditions of access to the waters of individual member states. The Accession Treaty provides for certain derogations from this principle in the 12-mile zone, subject to the continuation of traditional rights outside six miles.
As the Deputy is aware, negotiations have been going on for some considerable time to revise the Common Fisheries Policy in the light of the trend towards extension by coastal states of their waters to 200 miles. When it became clear that agreement would not be reached by the end of 1976, the Council attempted to reach agreement on interim conservation measures. The Commission put forward a proposal for these interim measures to the Council of Ministers on 20th December last which provided for quotas for each eight coastal states on an annual basis in respect of most species, and on certain additional conservation measures. Under this proposal the quota for Ireland would permit a considerable increase in the catch for 1977 over the previous year's catch, while that of all other member states would be reduced. The Minister for Foreign Affairs rejected these proposals as being inadequate for Ireland. In our view the interim quotas and conservation measures proposed do not adequately meet the terms of the Council resolution agreed at The Hague on 30th October, 1976, which declared its intention so to apply the common fisheries policy as to secure the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry on the basis of the Government's fisheries development programme which envisages doubling our total catch by 1979. Negotiations are still continuing in this matter on the basis of further proposals put forward by the Commission and by Ireland. It is expected that it will be again discussed at a meeting of the Council of Ministers to be held on 8th February, 1977.
Do I take it that we have a quota system operating during the interim until final decisions are reached in relation to the fisheries question?
No, Sir, these proposals were not agreed. They were not agreed by the Minister and they are not now operating.
In relation to the reply to Question No. 5, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it has been confirmed already that the Russians and other nations have in three months already reached the quota allocated? Have the Government or the EEC any policy for the protection of fishery stocks?
If the Deputy will let me answer the following question I will deal with that.
The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the proposals put forward by the Commission had not been accepted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does that mean in effect that from 1st January, 1977, the new Irish territorial waters extending up to 200 miles are available without restriction to all our Community partners and, to a large extent, to third countries?
It means that the regime laid down in the Accession Treaty remains in force unqualified. It has not been qualified by any interim arrangements. We have had to agree to it though it is unsatisfactory to us.
The upshot of all this coming and going and to-ing and fro-ing and of the activities of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government is that we have sacrificed completely our whole position in regard to our fishing industry, and that in so far as we went through the motions of extending our fishing limits——
The Deputy seems to be making a statement.
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary if in the final analysis what it all amounts to is that our declaration of a 200-mile limit for Irish territorial waters is that we have placed these resources at the disposal of our Community partners without any protection for our own fishermen, and to a large extent that third countries who fished in these water before can continue to do so with impunity.
This is just a later stage in what I suspect to be a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to confuse the public on this issue. The 200-mile limit which we and our partners have declared on a national basis is the result of a shift in international law in that direction. However, whatever we have acquired, we are obliged in law under the Accession Treaty and under a supplementary instrument which we debated here before Christmas to share with our Community partners. We are trying to make the best we can, and the Minister is determined that we will do it, of the moral claim based on the argument that since we did not have 200 miles to negotiate about when we were acceding to the Treaty, negotiations which were provided presided over by the Deputy's party, we could not be taken to have involved ourselves in bargaining for the future. We did not know we were going to have it. There is a strong moral case but our advice is that it is not a strong legal case. The Deputy must face up to the fact that his Government freely signed an Accession Treaty which bound us in black and white to share our waters with our Community partners. If we do not want to do that our only logical alternative, and one advocated by the Deputy's colleague, Senator Eoin Ryan, in the Seanad, is to leave the EEC.
I want to dissuade the House from attempting to debate the situation.
I want to establish what is the position of the Government at the moment. Their position shifts from day to day. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that his contention that we are bound legally to share this new 200 miles of territorial waters with our Community partners is not accepted by this side of the House? Does he agree that the Irish fishermen's organisation have instituted legal proceedings in our courts to establish the veracity of what he is saying and will he now state categorically what is the attitude of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in these negotiations? Before we adjourned for Christmas we were led to believe that if satisfactory interim arrangements were not arrived at by 1st January of this year the Minister for Foreign Affairs unilaterally would take such action as he decided was necessary?
It was reported shortly before Christmas and repeated early in January in the newspapers that the Minister had decided to postpone the implementation of interim measures because, on the basis of his impressions of continuing negotiations at official level as well as Council of Ministers level on 20th December, he calculated that something might be gained from postponement. He was optimistic that he might make headway on 8th February. I cannot give an impression of these meetings because I was not there, but that is the Minister's position as far as I can understand it. I know the Irish fishermen have launched an action and I wish them the best of luck with it, and if they succeed in establishing in the Irish courts that we are selling ourselves short or that our appraisal of the legal situation is wrong, no group will be more pleased than the Government. If Deputy O'Kennedy will establish in the House or anywhere else that we have a stronger legal case than we think we have, we will publicly thank him for it.
Are we to take it therefore that there is no change in the position in relation to our own fishermen—that we are still operating under the derogation clause of the agreement?
That is true. There is no change. There is a change in the rules vis-à-vis third countries but it is correct to say there is no change vis-à-vis our partners. We are hoping to achieve an agreed regime which will give us the exclusive zone we are looking for but it is important to differentiate between the moral claim which we believe we have and the legal claim which the Opposition think we have but which our advice does not lead us to think we have.
In other words, we have not achieved anything for our fishermen.
6.
andMr. Keaveney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he will state his intention to settle for no less than a 50-mile exclusive fishing limit.
In the negotiations which have been taking place for a review of the EEC Common Fisheries Policy in the context of the extension by the member states of their fishing limits to 200 miles, we have put forward a demand for an exclusive coastal zone of up to 50 miles. We have however indicated that we would be prepared to accept, in the outer area of this coastal zone, "artisanal" fishermen from other member states who have traditionally fished off our coasts.
Our negotiating position is of course affected by the fact that on Ireland's entry to the Community the then Government accepted the existing Common Fisheries Policy enshrined in Council Regulation 2141 of 20th October, 1970, which provides, among other things, for equal conditions of access to and use of the fishing grounds situated in the maritime waters coming under its sovereignty or within its jurisdiction. The Accession Treaty provided only for certain derogations up to 31st December, 1982, from this principle of equal access in the six-mile zone, extending to 12 miles from Cork Harbour to Lough Foyle and on the East coast for shellfish.
In consequence of the situation thus created the negotiations have proved extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the fact is that we have made it clear, and have had it entered in the minutes of the Council of Ministers, following the meeting in The Hague on 30th October, 1976, at which the special position of Ireland was recognised, that we consider that the continued development of the Irish fishing industry can be secured only by the establishment of an exclusive coastal belt of up to 50 miles and that we consider agreement on this issue to be a precondition for the negotiation of agreements for reciprocal fishing rights with non-EEC countries. At present only interim arrangements are in operation with those countries.
Deputy Haughey rose.
I am obliged to call Deputy Blaney.
Deputy Blaney has indicated he has given way to me. Is it not becoming increasingly clear to the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues day by day that the fatal mistake made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and by the Government in regard to this matter was the declaration of a national 200-mile limit without first getting cast-iron guarantees for the protection of our fishing industry?
In reply to that question, would the Deputy tell the House what difference it would have made in terms of boats and fish had we omitted to do so?
Does the Parliamentary Secretary admit that the EEC as such cannot declare any territorial zones, that it is entirely a matter for the national member states to declare fishing limits, and that, had we refused to declare a 200-mile limit without first getting the guarantee we gave, our position would be impregnable?
It is not the case that the 200-mile limit was up in the skies before the 1st January. Before then the greater part of it was the high seas open to all comers. Had we omitted to declare a 200-mile zone it would still be the high seas open to all comers. We would have had nothing to say out there at all even about the third countries.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not admit that in order to persuade us to declare this 200-mile limit the Community would have to come to terms with us on some reasonable basis? Does the Parliamentary Secretary admit that we have no baragining power as a result, that the situation has gone from bad to worse since the 1st January, 1977?
The position is that the Minister will not consent to concluding permanent agreements with third countries in regard to exploitation of any part of Community fishing waters unless we can arrive at a regime satisfactory to ourselves.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary specifically whether he has said yes or no to the question as put down on the Order Paper? Would he clarify the answer to the specific question whether the 50-mile limit mentioned here is a point beyond which the Minister will not settle?
I emphasise to the Deputy that it is one thing to take up a position in regard to something which you have and which somebody else is trying to get away from you and say: "We are not going to give you more than this", because then you know that you are in a position to sit on the rest and prevent anyone from getting it. We are in the opposite position. We are trying to get concessions from other people, and the Deputy expects us to say truculently "We will not settle for anything less than your giving us something". These waters were not ours and we had no claim to them under international, national or any other kind of law until the 1st January. To the extent that we have an extended claim our Community partners have a black and white claim in the treaty to share them with us.
That has been challenged.
It has, but the Deputy, unless he wants to quote from Hansard again and redouble the false impressions he has given the House in this regard, will admit that until that claim comes to hearing and has been ruled on by the High Court, merely to say that there is a summons out gets us no further. Until the 1st January we had no rights in any legal system beyond the 12 miles. We now have in international law a right out to 200 miles but that right is qualified vis-à-vis our European partners by the Treaty of Accession and no amount of talk and inviting the Government to be truculent will get away from these facts.
I am still asking a straight question to which there are no tags attached. Have the Minister and his Government got a position beyond which they will not settle, in other words, for less? Have they got any fixed point at all?
The Minister is determined to do everything he can.
Has he a position or has he not?
The position is that the minimum regime we will accept as a permanent settlement of a common fisheries policy will be an exclusive 50 mile band. The House must not forget that we could drag on like this for a considerable time with no permanent regime and there would be no legal order which would prevent Community fishermen from fishing in the waters to which the Treaty entitles them to have access.
We are concerned as much about third countries as we are about Community fishermen. All this hoo-ha about this 200 miles is not worth the paper it is written on. Are we going to put our foot down regarding this industry or are we not? We can fiddle along as we have done for so many years talking about increases by so many per cent and in fact we are fishing for tiddlers in a pond instead of getting after the industry properly.
The Deputy understands the position.
I do understand. It means nothing.
I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.
You yourself, a Cheann Comhairle, have from time to time upheld here the rule about matin ters which are sub judice. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that he is in order in giving a categorical legal opinion about the situation regarding the 200-mile territorial zones when this matter is at present before our courts for decision? Does he not accept that until our Irish courts give a decision on this the matter is sub judice and that he should not express a categorical opinion about it?
I do not accept that. Parliamentary privilege would be worth nothing if it prevented me from continuing to repeat the Government's view and advice.
Since the Parliamentary Secretary seems to hang his argument heavily on this case now pending before our courts, is it not the case that those courts administer the laws as passed by us and if those laws are not suitable to us can we not change them so that we get a proper verdict?
I am hanging no argument on the case that is presently before the courts. It was Deputy Haughey who mentioned this a minute ago and I would not have adverted to them had this matter not been mentioned from the far side of the House.
7.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if any agreement has been entered into with EEC member states in relation to fishery protection inside this country's 200-mile fishery limit.
At the meeting in the Hague on 30th October, 1976, the Foreign Ministers agreed that protection and control of the fishing zone off Ireland must not result, because of the size of that zone, in a charge which would be disproportionate to the volume of the Community fish resources which can be exploited in that zone by Irish fishermen. The Ministers agreed that the implementation of available means of surveillance or those to be foreseen must be accompanied by appropriate measures to ensure that the charges which ensure will be shared equitably.
The Government has already entered into discussions with the Commission in regard to the measures which will be necessary and the action to be taken by the Community to implement this agreement. It is not, of course, possible to reveal details of these discussions at this time.
In view of the fact that most of the member states are members of NATO, would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House if this agreement might get us involved in a military alliance and would he ensure that that is not going to be the case?
The Deputy is raising another matter.
There is not the slightest danger of that. There are two questions down to the Minister for Defence which may be reached next Tuesday on which he will give definite details of his plans in this regard. I can tell the Deputy in a general way that what is envisaged is to expand our own protection facilities and to recoup a very substantial contribution in respect of the cost of them from Community sources. In other words, the control of this enormous expanded area of sea will be undertaken under the Irish flag but the expense will be minimised by a substantial Community contribution.
That was mentioned in the budget speech.
It would be better if I left this to the Minister for Defence.