asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the concessions that have been received from the EEC in the recent negotiations for the Irish fishing industry.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishing Industry.
26.
I take it the Deputy is referring to the agreement arrived at in the Council of Ministers regarding the special position of Ireland. Agreement was reached at a meeting of the Foreign Ministers in The Hague on 30th October, 1976, on a resolution which includes the following provisions:
Having regard to the economic relationships which characterise fishing activity in Ireland, it (that is the Council) declares its intention so to apply the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy, as further determined by the Act of Accession and adapted to take account of the extension of waters to 200 miles as to ensure the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry on the basis of the Irish Government's Fisheries Development Programme for the development of coastal fisheries.
The same resolution also contained a provision in regard to fishery protection in the following terms:
The Council recognises that the protection and the control of the fishing zone off Ireland must not result, because of the size of this zone, in a charge, for that member State, which is disproportionate to the volume of the Community fish resources which can be exploited in that zone by the fishermen of that member State. It agrees 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 ensue will be shared equitably.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that a development programme, in keeping with the suggestions made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs after The Hague agreement, has been prepared by the Government and that sufficient moneys are made available in this year's budget to make a start on this programme?
I would like to give the Deputy a satisfactory answer but the question he has now asked falls under the Department of Fisheries and not the Department I serve.
My question related to an answer given by the Minister when he mentioned a development programme the Government would be asked to prepare in conjunction with the promises given at The Hague. One would assume he should have that information available when the question related to fisheries.
It would be wrong of me to offer an opinion about a technical matter of a fisheries programme when answering a question falling under the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept that a sum of £1,790,000 which has been made available to BIM and is expected to cover administration and development, is an adequate sum to make any kind of start on a developing programme?
That would seem to be a matter for another Minister.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that from the original territorial waters, 12 miles, to the extent of the new economic zone, 200 miles, the only State competent in international law to patrol that band against any third country is the coastal state, in this case, Ireland? That being so, surely by definition the Minister should not come back presenting as an achievement the fact that we are being given extra finance which he negotiated——
Is this a question? This is Question Time.
Yes, but sometimes one needs to clarify facts. Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept it is misleading to suggest that because finance will be made available from the Community to enable the waters in question to be patrolled that that is a a significant negotiating result?
I accept that. It stands to reason. If the 200-mile zone were to be exclusively ours, for our exploitation and from which we could exclude all others, whether inside or outside the EEC, then it would be up to us to find the money to patrol it effectively. Even if we achieved our demand for a 50-mile exclusive band, that would still leave 150 miles of ocean which we have to share with at least eight other States, apart altogether from States we might be obligated to under other instruments. We must share them with the fishery fleets of our EEC partners. Because of the contractual obligations to which we are parties, and since the Community are deriving benefit from it, it is not unreasonable that they should share the cost which will fall on us.
It is good to have this clarified because some people had the impression that this was an achievement in negotiations, when there could be only one outcome. I take it that the Minister and the Government will continue to press for adequate financing to support the patrolling and policing of this zone by the only nation competent in international law to do it, namely, Ireland.
I cannot allow the Deputy to get away with the implication that it is not an achievement. I think it is an achievement, but very often it is an achievement to get other people to see reason.
That is not reason; it is a fact of law.
It is an achievement that the Council of Ministers recognised the special situation resulting here from the enormous contribution to the extended waters which the Community will now enjoy, given to them by reason of Ireland's membership, and that they recognised our relative incapacity to patrol effectively this enormous band of water, from which they will derive a great deal of benefit, out of our own resources. To get people to see that much reason is an achievement.
If the Parliamentary Secretary calls that an achievement then the European Community must be even more confused than I thought they were. Does he accept that it can never be within the competence of, say, a German, French or Dutch boat to arrest, say, a Russian boat within that 200-mile band and that, therefore, the only nation competent to do it is Ireland? Accordingly there is no achievement in getting the Community to recognise what is a fact.
This is leading to argument.
The Deputy is quite right. It is my understanding that the only State in law which can enforce its laws about our fishery zones is ourselves. The amount has not been decided but we are going to get, on the basis of this resolution, substantial financial assistance to go some way towards covering the cost of defending that zone. These are two separate things and I cannot see how the Deputy cannot see that.
Thanks for nothing.