Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 1964

Vol. 58 No. 1

Private Business. - Maritime Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill, 1964—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill now be read a Second Time."

This Bill proposes to amend the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, insofar as that Act dealt with the exclusive fishery limits of the State. As members of Seanad Éireann will know, under the Act the fishery limits were made co-terminous with the territorial seas of the State at 3 miles from the coast, or straight baselines. Under this Bill, it is proposed to extend our exclusive fishery limits to 12 miles. The territorial seas of the State will remain as set out in the 1959 Act at 3 miles. The other matters dealt with in the 1959 Act, and in particular the drawing of baselines, and the Orders made for that purpose under the Act, are not affected by this Bill.

Section 2 of the Bill before you provides for the extension of the fishery limits to 12 miles from the coast or from the straight baselines where such are drawn. As Senators are aware, by means of Orders made under the 1959 Act straight baselines have been drawn around most of our coasts.

Under the provisions of the Fisheries Convention and the associated Agreements and Protocol, which were concluded in London at the beginning of this year, and which we have signed but not yet ratified it is proposed to allow the fishing vessels of States which have habitually fished in particular areas in the six to 12-mile belt between January, 1953 and December, 1962 to continue to fish in those areas. In this context, the Government will be making, as soon as possible, an Order under section 3 (1) of the Bill in respect of Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.

It is also proposed that, in respect of the three to six-mile belt, the fishing vessels of those countries should continue to fish until the end of 1965 where no straight baselines are drawn and until the end of 1966 around the remainder of the coast. This provisional arrangement, which is covered by one of the associated Agreements concluded in London, is intended to allow the fishermen in question a certain period of time to adapt themselves to their exclusion from the areas of the three to six-mile belt in which they have been accustomed to fish. In the circumstances, this is not considered an unreasonable concession.

The Government propose to ratify the London Fisheries Convention as soon as this Bill has been passed and the necessary Orders under it have been made.

This is a Bill which must receive the full welcome of this House. Indeed, it received almost a full measure of welcome in Dáil Éireann. Coming from a part of the country where the question of limitation on fishing on some trawlers has caused considerable trouble in the past and is still causing trouble to a lesser extent by reason of the excellent activities of the limited protection resources available to us, I can fully understand the necessity for welcoming a measure such as this. I can understand, too, the great heart it will give to the smaller men who have been fishing off our coasts with small boats and small gear, particularly when I recall that their gear has often been destroyed by the presence of poachers within the limits.

On the question of the extension of the limit to 12 miles, this is a very valuable asset to our fishing industry as it will enable the industry to be built up within those limits without fear, so that the little man, if I may say so, will grow bigger and bigger as time goes on. The concession allowed to 1965 and, in other circumstances, to 1966 to people who traditionally fish in our waters is a reasonable concession, one which will probably be accepted by them with the same degree of reasonableness as we have shown to them.

Apart from generally approving of this measure, there is one point I should like to have clarified. After 1966, we shall be allowing the people who traditionally fished our waters outside the three mile limit but inside 12 miles to continue to fish within the belt of from six to 12 miles. Are we under any obligation to protect that area for them? I should hope not because of our limited resources. In the event of other countries apart from those we propose to allow to fish within that belt coming in there and crossing bows, as it were, with the traditional fishermen in that area and a row ensuing, are we involved in any way in that row or do they have to get out of it as best they can, the winner surviving? Perhaps it has already been adverted to by the Minister at the conferences. It is something on which the House and the country require clarification because it could easily lead to trouble in the years to come, particularly since our protective resources are so small. I know it is the province of another Department to see that protection is there and that it is adequate, and, accordingly, I am precluded from referring to it, but I feel sure the Minister for External Affairs will be in close touch with the Minister for Defence on these important matters.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Is céim ar aghaidh an rún seo na teora a leathnú ó trí mhíle go 12 mhíle san aimsir atá romhainn. Ar ndóigh, tá an rud céanna déanta ag lucht rialta tíortha eile agus tá orainn féachaint chuige ná beidh iascairí na hÉireann chun deireadh. Ar an ábhar sin, cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil saol crua ag na h-iascairí agus gur ceart dúinn gach rud is féidir a dhéanamh chun an saol sin a fheabhsú.

Tá a fhios agam freisin gur gnó maith atá san iascaireacht ach nach bhfuil sé gan dua. Is obair í nach féidir a chur chun cinn i gceart gan an cóir agus an feisteas ceart. Mar sin, caithimid féachaint chuige go bhfuil báid mhóra, oiriúnacha ag na h-iascairí ionnas go mbeidh an sochar ceart le fáil acu ón dtionscal seo. Tá airgead mór san iascaireacht ach tá caillteanas ag baint léi leis muna bhfuil an córas ceart ag na daoine atá páirteach inti. Mar sin, is dóigh liom go bhfuil sé riachtanach cabhair cheart a thabhairt do na h-iascairí agus an scrúdú ceart a dhéanamh ar an dtionscal go léir. Caithfear báid oiriúnacha a sholáthar ionas go mbeidh ar chumas na n-iascairí aghaidh a thabhairt ar an bhfairrge le linn soineann agus doineann.

Do thagair mé do chóir agus d'fheisteas na h-iascaireachta ach tá rud eile ann freisin. Caithfear eolas a chur ar fáil trén gcóras gairmoideachais ar ealaín na loingseoireachta. Caithfear é sin a dhéanamh chun an tionscal seo a dhéanamh níos leithne. Ar an ábhar sin, ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do chúrsa atá ar siúl ag lucht gairmoideachais Chontae Loch Garman.

Ná leathnaigh an díospóireacht.

Tá sé ag cur síos ar chúrsaí oideachais anois.

Ar eagla go ndéanfainn an díospóireacht a leathnú, níl le rá agam anois ach go gcuirim fáilte croíúil roimh an mBille seo.

In a sense the Seanad is all at sea this afternoon, but not in the sense of being at a loss. This is the second Bill today dealing with maritime affairs. This is to prevent poaching, and the former Bill was to prevent pollution of the seas. There is just one small drafting point which I should like to raise. If we could get rid of this small feature we would be saving lawyers and readers of Bills a great deal of trouble in the future. I need hardly say it is unlikely that the Minister would want a special amendment to take back to the Dáil on this point, but it is a matter of general, though small, importance.

In section 3, subsection (1), it is stated very clumsily: "...the states the fishing vessels of which may fish therein." I am sure all of us had to read the subsection twice before we knew what it meant. The same wording is used in subsection (2): "...by order specify the states the fishing vessels of which ..." I would appeal to the Minister to ask the drafters of Bills to use the word "whose" in cases of this kind: "by order specify the states whose fishing vessels". It makes it simpler to read; it saves print; and it is neater.

I know there is some prejudice in some quarters against the use of "of which" for inanimate objects. But I refer the drafters to the standard book on this matter: H.W. Fowler's "Modern English Usage", printed in 1926. He quotes Milton, Shakespeare, and puts his own full authority behind the use of "whose" for "of which". I take this opportunity of appealing to the draftsmen, whose care and accuracy I know well from experience in a private member's Bill, in future to use "whose" when they can.

Senator Stanford seems to be very learned in grammar and legal phraseology, but this phrase was taken from the London Agreement and I think it is better to use it.

It was devised by native speakers.

Gabhaim fíor-bhuíochas leis an Seanadóir Ó Ciosáin agus leis an Seanadóir Lindsay as ucht na fáilte a chuireadar roimh an mBille. Tagaim leis an Seanadóir Ó Ciosáin gur cóir eolas ar ealaín na loingseoireachta a chur ar fáil do lucht iascaireachta.

Senator Lindsay raised the question of the protection of our coast. No international agreement can compel us to do any more than our best. After a year or two we will have a better chance of controlling the area of the six to 12 mile belt than we have of controlling a narrower belt. Up to the present a vessel need only escape beyond the three mile limit and it cannot be touched, but now a vessel belonging to a country not in the schedule can be followed up to 12 miles. Vessels of countries that have traditionally fished and now have the right to fish in the six to 12 mile belt, if they come within six miles will expose themselves to a little more danger of being caught than at the present time.

However, I think the extension of the exclusive fishery limits will give fishermen a better opportunity to organise and equip themselves than they had heretofore. If the production of fish goes up, if the number of fish caught in those areas goes up and it becomes a very valuable trade, then the State can afford to pay more to protect the industry. If only £½ million worth of fish are caught in our seas we cannot economically spend £¼ million to protect fishing, but if the catch goes up to several million pounds worth, we can better afford to spend £½ million on protection than we can afford to spend £¼ million or whatever the amount is at present.

However, that is a matter for the Department of Defence and I know the Minister for Defence will be anxious to ensure that his Department will do all they can to provide efficient protection for all the waters in which we now have exclusive rights to fish.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill considered in Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

In connection with the Minister's prompt and effective defence of the drafting here, might I point out that in the explanatory memorandum the words "of which" are used. I can only express regret that we did not take the opportunity to teach the English themselves how to use good English. It would not be for the first time.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share