asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his hopes for the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Law of the Sea Conference.
82.
The conference committee chairmen are now working on unified negotiating texts and already several have been prepared but not circulated. The texts will be available for intersessional consideration and as the working document for the next session of the conference, which may be the final substantive session.
When will the final conference take place?
The next conference is provisionally foreseen for early 1976, probably in either New York or Geneva. I am not sure if it will be the final one.
Is there not a serious conflict between the NATO countries and small island countries like ours that can be resolved because, in 1976, we may find ourselves like France and Belgium and part of Germany with very few fish?
I am not aware of any such conflict. I do not understand the Deputy.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that pending the outcome of this conference our Government should oppose any step taken, such as that taken by the British Government extending the area of their claim of Rockall Bank to 52,000 square miles?
That is a different question and the Minister explained the position on an earlier occasion.
I am talking about the claim they made after the last Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva extending the area of Rockall to 52,000 square miles for exploration purposes. They did this after the conference had been convened.
That claim has not been conceded.
Why should it not be? Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that they base their claim on conclusions reached at the Geneva Conference in 1958?
This conference may easily be inconclusive, but the Deputy's question is a quite separate one. I have been asked what hopes the Minister has for the Law of the Sea Conference; it is very general and I would, I think, require notice of it.
It is not by any means a separate question because it arises out of the former conference, to which this one is simply a followup, and the British base their claim on that conference. However, I will give the Parliamentary Secretary notice.
It was a very short answer to a question to which I expected a comprehensive reply. I have not been told anything.
A comprehensive reply would take me an hour or an hour and a half to deliver.
That is all right.
I have one coming up that will take a quarter of an hour.
83.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the case presented to the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva by the Irish delegates which includes claims to exclusive fishing rights up to 200 miles is being made jointly with other EEC countries; if so, whether these countries will have access to waters off this country's shores from January, 1983; if not, whether Irish fleets only may fish within this limit; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
All member states of the EEC except Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy accept the concept of an exclusive economic zone 200 miles in width. In that zone the coastal states would have the right to manage the living resources and to exploit them to the maximum of their capacity, subject to rights for neighbouring states who traditionally fish in the zone to continue to do so on the basis of regional or sub-regional agreements. The coastal states' rights as regards management and exploitation are, in all proposals made at the conference, directed towards conservation and rational exploitation. There is agreement among all the Community states, except Britain, that the fish which the coastal state cannot take in the zone, should be available to the fishermen of other states on the basis of a predetermined priority. The question of access by fishing vessels of member states to fish in each other's waters is not a matter for the Law of the Sea Conference. After the expiry of the period of derogation, Community vessels will have free access to all Community waters as Community rules stand at present. This position is, of course, accepted by all member states. A set of draft articles was transmitted by eight of the member states to the chairman of the Second Committee together with a covering letter on the 30th April, 1975.
This means that countries which are using suction methods of extracting fish and factory ships will have free access to all the waters within the 12-mile limit which are now our own preserve and we run the risk of finding ourselves in the same situation as France and Belgium and parts of Germany which have discovered that they have no fish left.
As rules now stand, there will be for member states total access to each other's waters at the end of the period of derogation. I emphasise "as the rules stand". I have no doubt the rules will be looked at again.
May I ask the Parliamenary Secretary to urge the Government to resist the free availability to foreign vessels of our waters.
The Deputy will be aware—he has drawn attention to it himself in his next question—of the operation of existing rules but, if fishing techniques change in the way mentioned by the Deputy, I am quite sure appropriate steps will be taken.
The Russians and the Japanese are using these methods. Will the Parliamentary Secretary urge the Government to resist admission to traditional territorial waters, at least up to 50 miles?
To non-member states?
To member states.
I am not in a position to urge the Government to resist something which existing rules may oblige us to accept. The Deputy may be interested to know that eight of the nine member states submitted to the Law of the Sea Conference at the end of April of this year and they drew up draft articles governing the fishing regime and these draft articles cover four fools-cap pages. I do not want to weary the House reading them out but I am quite willing to do so if the Deputy wishes.
These articles are the basis of the question and I am fully aware that the fishery waters around France and Belgium have been denuded of fish and, if these vessels are allowed free access, they will denude our seas of fish. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary will the Government resist this possibility?
I am not sure that I quite understand the Deputy. He referred a moment ago to Russian and Japanese ships. The proposal from eight of the Nine States is that, after the expiration of this derogation period, access to fishermen of other nationalities should be on the basis of a system of priorities and a system of priority is actually proposed in one of the articles. That does not apply to fishermen, of course, who are members of the EEC.
It is no longer economic to fish in the waters off the coasts of France and Belgium. If we allow other nations to fish in our waters we may find ourselves denuded of fish with consequential massive unemployment and waste of a massive investment in our fishing industry.
I accept that that technical possibility is there and I am quite certain the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are keeping the situation under close scrutiny. Any change necessary in the rules the State may consider necessary in its own interests will be made.
Who will represent us at the resumed conference?
It has not yet been decided who will represent us at the next session. At the recent conference we had representatives at official level and we also had the Attorney General.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that fishermen's associations will be consulted and given some attendance status at the resumed conference?
I do not want to enter into areas in which I have no responsibility but, unless I am prejudging the area of responsibility of someone else, I would be inclined to give that assurance as far as my own authority goes.
The remaining question will appear on the Order Paper of the next sitting day of the Dáil.