Vol. 299 No. 4
asked the Minister for Fisheries the action, if any, the Government proposes to take in respect of member states of the EEC who have failed or refused to submit plans or proposals to the Government in respect of the operation of their fishing fleets in Irish waters.
23.
asked the Minister for Fisheries the number of member states of the EEC which have submitted plans or proposals to the Govvernment in respect of the operation of their fishing fleets in Irish waters; and the outcome of the Government's consideration of these plans.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 22 and 23 together. In the absence of fishing plans which satisfy the Government's requirements, the orders signed by me on 16th February last will continue to be enforced. To date, fishing plans have been received from the Netherlands, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany and these are being examined in my Department. We expect plans to be submitted shortly by the other member states who intend fishing in our waters.
In view of the fact that the interim position is due to expire at the end of June, does the Minister not think it is rather late now to be expecting the other member states to be submitting plans shortly? Was not the purpose of these plans, as announced by the Government, to enable the Government effectively to control and police this area even during the interim period?
I agree with the Deputy it is getting near 30th June and, indeed, there is far too much being made of this interim period up to 30th June but neither I nor the Government can make the other member states submit plans if they will not do it. As far as we are concerned our unilateral action stands and we await the plans. If they do not put them in we can do very little about it.
Surely the Minister should have considered in advance, when announcing this interim period which was based apparently on this plan submission proposal, that the likelihood was that so many of them would not submit plans and does it not make the Government's position, to say the least of it, seem less effective when these others can ignore what the Government expect them to do?
I do not accept that. The position was that the Commissioner, Mr. Gundelach, had indicated he would have in fact the permanent proposals which are much more important, of course, with us by 15th April. He withdrew this promise afterwards. We had talked him into a situation where we hoped they would produce them. However, as things stand at present, we have examined the plans we have and we are awaiting the others. We are far more interested in the permanent scheme.
In the meantime if action is taken at the behest of the Commission to bring us before the European Court in respect of any action taken by us within that limited conservation area will the Government abide by that action because there seem to be contradictory reactions, if I may say so, between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Fisheries? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated the Government will abide while the Minister for Fisheries stated today on the radio that other states have, in fact, bent the rules from time to time and we will do likewise. What exactly is the position that will follow any ruling of the Commission of the European Communities?
The Deputy is putting words into my mouth. The Deputy is a lawyer and he knows perfectly well that a lengthy judgment delivered by many judges of the European Court will have to be considered not in a "yes" or "no", black or white situation but in respect of every judgment delivered. If it is not going to be a black and white situation we will have to look at every detail, assess it and act accordingly, while staying within the rules of the Community, in the best interests of our fishermen and the nation.
From the point of view of accuracy, I listened to the Minister and the Minister said precisely, and I quote him——
Please, no quoting at Question Time.
The Minister stated there have been instances of other Governments bending the line a little bit and this was something we would consider. This is entirely contradictory to what he is saying now and what the Minister for Foreign Affairs is saying. Which is the Government's position? That is what I want to know.
I do not think it is contradictory at all of what I said on the 1.30 p.m. news. I presume it will be a lengthy judgment and it will have to be considered in every detail and, naturally, within the framework of our liabilities and undertakings to the European Community, we will certainly see to it that the Irish fishermen and the nation get the best bargain. Why should we not?
One last question. Will the Minister indicate to us in view of the Minister for Defence's statement today—we bloody well did and we bloody well will again——
Arrest them, yes.
——if what the Minister for Defence said in the House today represents a conflict with the Minister's position that, when people infringe our areas as designated by him, we will take action while he says we will simply give a warning.
I am not speaking for the Minister for Defence but I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that this was the first time after our unilateral action that an arrest was made and on that first time it would appear to me as a logical conclusion that there might have been a warning. The fact that a policeman catches you when you have no light on your bicycle and gives you a warning does not mean he will give you a warning on every subsequent occasion. In fact, having given you the first warning the likelihood is he will summons you forthwith. We will arrest and we will bring them to court and we are not at odds.
You are at odds.
We are not.
Even today in this House.
