asked the Minister for Fisheries the names, registration numbers, length, tonnage and horse-power of all French, Dutch, West German, Danish, Belgian and English motor fishing vessels within this country's 200-mile fishing zone.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fish Conservation Measures.
19.
The information requested is not available in my Department.
In view of the fact that this information is not available to the Minister or to the Department of Defence how is it proposed to have arrests of EEC boats carried out?
The arrest of a boat is based on observation and identification of a boat. Each boat, according to international marine law, carries a number and carries identification not only of its name but of its home port. I would think that the Naval Service would make the arrest in that manner. I have some further information that might be of use to the Deputy. The data required is not available at present but it is likely that it will become so in due course through sightings and boardings by the Naval Service in the 200-mile zone when the proposed strengthening of the Naval Service and the Air Corps takes place. If a licensing system is adopted for EEC vessels, as envisaged by the Commission, in the long term this would make the information readily available. We have some details of the number and size of French vessels operating in our waters as given to us by the French authorities: under 85 feet, 213; 85-125 feet, 146; over 125 feet, 97; total, 456. It is not clear at present whether these are registered or overall lengths.
Is the Minister now telling the House that if our naval boats go out to arrest any of these EEC boats they will be just using guess work, that they have no positive information to indicate the size of the EEC boats fishing our waters?
I am not so indicating.
Of course the Minister is.
In view of his original proposal on conservation can the Minister say how he intended or if he still intends to implement this proposal when obviously it would depend on the making available of the necessary information by those he was proposing to arrest?
I do not so accept. The Naval Service go out as they did last year and the year before. They identify a boat and board it. They ask to see its papers. They see them and if they wish they can measure the boat. There is no reason at all why the Naval Service cannot do their job.
Is the Minister trying to bluff the House? Is he not aware that there was no question of the size at that time? Is he not aware that it was just a question of a foreign boat fishing within the 12-mile limit? Irrespective of length it could then be arrested and taken in by the patrol boat. Is the Minister now trying to bluff the House with this kind of shilly-shallying information?
I have never tried to bluff the House and I do not shilly-shally.
20.
asked the Minister for Fisheries the names, registration numbers, length, tonnage and horse-power of boats from non-EEC countries licensed to fish inside this country's 200-mile fishing zone.
A total of 58 licences have been issued by the EEC in respect of vessels from the USSR, Poland and the German Democratic Republic authorising them to fish for limited quantities of fish within the 200-mile zones of member states generally up to 31st March, 1977. The quotas are related to specified areas as designated by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, parts of which come within the Irish fishery limits but not closer than 50 miles from our coasts.
As the information requested by the Deputy in relation to the licensed vessels is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to circulate it with the Official Report. Following is the statement:
Vessels licensed to fish in the waters of the Member States of the EEC until 31 March, 1977
|
Name |
Registration Number |
Length (Metres) |
Gross Registered Tonnage |
|
USSR |
|||
|
Berezniki |
M-31530 |
107.8 |
3,273 |
|
Zhamya Pobedy |
M-33712 |
83.9 |
2,327 |
|
Lovozero |
M-33717 |
83.9 |
2,327 |
|
General Chernyakhovsxii |
M-30091 |
102 |
3,960 |
|
Nina Anilova |
M-31161 |
102 |
3,930 |
|
Tsemesskaya Bukhta |
M-31175 |
102 |
3,930 |
|
Znamya Truda |
M-31178 |
102 |
3,960 |
|
Truzhenik Morya |
M-31196 |
102 |
3,960 |
|
Olentui |
M-27950 |
83.1 |
2,986 |
|
Khermann Arbon |
M-30424 |
84.7 |
2,690 |
|
Ekholot |
M-29345 |
102.7 |
3,813 |
|
Prof. Sergei Dorofeev |
M-33420 |
73.1 |
1,976 |
|
Bogdan Khmelnitskii |
M-24466 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Derbent |
M-24469 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Rybachii |
M-24520 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
(Not Named) |
M-24585 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Nakhodka |
M-24691 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Yantarny |
M-27026 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Renda |
431 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Pravdinsk |
786 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Eniseisk |
M-24056 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Ekvator |
2161 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Vetluga |
M-24062 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Uglegorsk |
M-27037 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Kholmsk |
M-27301 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Rybinsk |
M-24234 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
(Not Named) |
M-24219 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Mersrags |
2246 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Alushta |
M-24555 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Selga |
2249 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Zandarts |
439 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
(Not Named) |
M-24337 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Burtnieki |
2262 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Babite |
498 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Bolderaya |
486 |
39.2 |
264 |
|
Peter Lizukov |
29737 |
82.2 |
2,657 |
|
Nikolai Brovtsev |
29764 |
82.2 |
2,657 |
|
Sheventoi |
M-31058 |
82.2 |
2,657 |
|
Kursograf |
M-310072 |
82 |
2,211 |
|
Diplot |
M-31080 |
82 |
2,211 |
|
Gefest |
31200 |
101.8 |
3,930 |
|
Perle |
3971 |
58.7 |
768 |
|
Poland: |
|||
|
Mielno |
NA |
NA |
800 |
|
Morag |
440085 |
57.9 |
797 |
|
Wigry |
440087 |
57.9 |
800 |
|
Wicko |
440089 |
57.9 |
800 |
|
Sejno |
NA |
NA |
800 |
|
Jamno |
NA |
NA |
797 |
|
Jasien |
NA |
NA |
797 |
|
Barycz |
NA |
NA |
650 |
|
Przemsza |
NA |
NA |
648 |
|
Tanew |
NA |
NA |
674 |
|
Nida |
NA |
NA |
673 |
|
Nidzica |
NA |
NA |
686 |
|
German Democratic Republic: |
|||
|
Bitterfeld |
ROS 222 |
NA |
938.54 |
|
Cottbus |
ROS 225 |
NA |
942.89 |
|
Fredrich Wolf |
ROS 303 |
NA |
2,949.99 |
|
Peter Nell |
ROS 307 |
NA |
2,962.12 |
NA=Not yet available.
Can the Minister tell us if the names of the boats from third countries, that is Russia and others, who have licences to fish inside our 200-mile limit are available in his Department.
The list is here and will be circulated in the Official Report.
21.
asked the Minister for Fisheries if instructions have been issued to the Naval Service in relation to the arrest of boats over 33 metres in length and over 1,100 horsepower fishing inside this country's 200-mile fishing limit.
22.
andMr. Gallagher asked the Minister for Fisheries the reply, if any, the Government have given to the request of the Commission of the European Communities to postpone unilateral conservation measures until 15th March; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 21 and 22 together.
The Government have agreed to postpone until the 15th of this month the measures set out in the orders made by me on 16th February last pending consideration of new proposals for the conservation and management of fishery resources in Irish waters to be put forward by the EEC Commission. Details of these proposals are awaited.
Do I take it from the Minister's reply that no new EEC proposals are available to the Government at this time?
At this time that is so. The meeting in Brussels on Monday was between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, myself and officials and Mr. Gundelach and officials. Mr. Gundelach indicated to us that he would endeavour to get proposals from the Commission which he would send to us as agreed proposals which we could consider. At that time, last Monday, there were no such proposals available to us. I was permitted by the Government to indicate to Mr. Gundelach that we would give him the 14 days postponement and await the production of his proposals. We are still waiting for these proposals at this time.
In view of the fact that no positive proposals were available from the EEC, and in the light of our experience in dealing with the EEC on fisheries, would the Minister accept that it was unwise of him to change his original decision in relation to unilateral action on the fishing industry?
I would not so admit. The business of this Government and of the nation with the EEC is extremely large and important. When somebody of the stature and responsibility of Mr. Gundelach indicates to a Government, as he did by letter, that he is endeavouring to get the Commission to agree proposals to put to us and is asking for a short postponement of 14 days, the Government are wise to agree to that postponement.
In view of the fact that the Minister has now disclosed that all Mr. Gundelach said was that he would endeavour to get proposals from the Commission, is it not quite clear that the Minister has gone back on his original position? Was the Minister aware when he made his original proposals in regard to unilateral action on conservation that there were matters of major interest concerning Ireland's involvement in the Community? Since he made those proposals, what has happened to make him climb down now when the Commissioner has only told him he will endeavour to have proposals?
I would not accept that there was any climb down. This is merely a matter of wise business dealing. The situation is that Mr. Gundelach, having received protests from member states such as France, Germany and Holland in respect of our unilateral proposals, is endeavouring to get agreement with the Commission which will mean that he can put proposals to us which at least would be as good as or better than the result of the unilateral decision. We do not know if they will be or not. We have not that knowledge until we get the proposals, and we are still awaiting those proposals.
Can the Minister confirm that Commissioner Gundelach communicated personally with the Minister for Foreign Affairs by telephone?
In bed in Palmerston Road.
Can the Minister confirm that?
No. The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not communicate with Mr. Gundelach on Monday and Mr. Gundelach did not communicate with him. What happened was that when we left the meeting in Brussels the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs telephoned his Minister—Mr. Dillon the Ambassador also rang him—to indicate what had transpired. Mr. Gundelach did not correspond with the Minister for Foreign Affairs nor did the Minister correspond with Mr. Gundelach.
Does this mean that, contrary to all reports, there was no communication between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Mr. Gundalach on Monday or Tuesday?
That is a fact.
Will the Minister comment on the statement attributed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that what the Commission would be likely to propose would probably be better in the nation's interest than what the Minister was proposing in this House some weeks ago?
All that happened was that a newsman asked a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister indicated that a postponement was justified—I have his letter here which says so—as long as there was a possibility of a solution emerging. From that there grew up all kinds of press speculation for which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, nor the Government nor I are responsible.
Before the Minister for Foreign Affairs gave any view to any pressman or anybody else, is it true that he was not in communication with the Minister who is present in this House and that any views offered to a pressman were his own spontaneous views, which were a very adverse comment on the Minister for Fisheries?
I do not accept that.
Does the Minister not accept that this is a very strange way to conduct this country's negotiating business?
I do not, nor will I accept that my colleague created any embarrassment for me. All that happened was that my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, received telephone calls from his Parliamentary Secretary and his Ambassador indicating the result of the meeting. Somebody in the Press asked him a question and in the most natural way he indicated that a postponement was justified so long as there was a possibility of a solution. From that we have all the press speculation imaginable.
I am sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
It is not clear from what the Minister said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs made this statement without any communication with the Minister who was responsible in the negotiations? That in itself is a reflection on our negotiator's——.
This is leading to argument.
Not at all. It is no reflection at all.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs communicated with the news desk of RTE on Monday evening requesting that they present this development in a toned down fashion? Has he any comment to make on reports to that effect?
I have no comment to make on such reports. I am only telling the House what my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, indicated to me he said. Are you going to pick him up on all——
(Interruptions.)
This matter cannot be debated now.
This is the most important question we have had today——
And the Chair has allowed wide discretion.
If the reports are true about the communication between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the RTE news desk——
That is a separate matter.
If they are true, does it not clearly indicate to this Minister, to the House and to the public that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has no confidence in the Minister to whom the negotiations were entrusted and that the Government are divided on——
The Deputy is widening the scope of this question.
(Interruptions.)
We have so much confidence in each other that we are in danger of becoming cocky.
The Minister is the only one who believes that.
In view of the fact that the Minister mentioned a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will he make it available to the House?
No, I will not make a copy of a personal letter from one Minister to another available to anybody.
Does it start off "My Dear Paddy"?
I will not make that letter available.