asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Iceland is imposing a fishing limit of 30 miles; and if he will state the Government's position in the matter.
16.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishery Limits.
15.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the recent Icelandic unilateral declaration of a 200-mile fishing limit and the express intention of other countries to extend their territorial limits in this respect, he will consider similar action by this country especially since the major nations are, apparently, not prepared to support the smaller nations in the protection of the fishing industry; and if he will take steps to ensure that, if fishery limits are extended by this country, the Irish protection vessels will be as capable of offering protection to Irish fishermen as the Icelandic vessels have proved to be.
17.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the limits within which the Naval Service affords fishery protection; and if these limits are likely to be extended.
18.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has any proposals for the extension of the fishing limit; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose taking Questions Nos. 15 to 18, together.
The Government are, of course, aware of the action recently taken by Iceland when it extended its exclusive fishing limits to 200 miles. They are also aware that the question of similar unilateral action has been considered by some other Governments but the indications are that unilateral action will not be taken by any of them at least before the next session of the Law of the Sea Conference.
Ireland has an exclusive fishery limit of 12 miles, and the Naval Service carry out their duties relating to fishery protection within those limits.
The Government favour the extension of fishery limits but they see international agreement in the widest possible context as being the best method of achieving this and of protecting the fishing industry. They are, therefore, committed to the sucessful outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference where they have supported proposals for the establishment of a 200-mile economic zone in which the coastal State would have control of fisheries. They regard unilateral action to extend fisheries as undesirable because it could jeopardise the successful outcome of the conference.
The Government do not propose to extend Irish fishing limits unilaterally and in this respect they have not changed their view as explained in the reply I gave on 6th November last to a question from Deputy Cunningham.
The question of fishery protection in relation to extended limits does not therefore arise at this stage.
Is it not a fact that these extended limits were expected to be in force as far back as last June and that we, in fact, are becoming the boy scouts of the maritime nations, as we have been of the EEC, and in view of the fact that the EEC are now drawing up proposals for a 200-mile limit could we not at least meet the wishes of the fishermen by introducing unilaterally a 50-mile limit pending the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference next month because their fish stocks are rapidly being depleted?
I do not think it was expected that there would have been agreement by last June as a result of the last session of the Law of the Sea Conference held last May. Some progress was made but the conference did not get anywhere near the end of the work. The conference will be resuming next month. I do not think anyone seriously expected agreement on this matter would have been reached last June. That is the first point. The second point in regard to our status as boy scouts is that we either abide by our international agreements or we do not. We are in fact obliged both under our EEC commitment and under the London Fisheries Convention to abide by our existing limits and, not alone that, but to share them, as the Deputy knows. Unilateral action on our part would be in breach of both of these two agreements and also in breach of customary international law. Thirdly, in so far as the practical interests of the fishermen are concerned, I agree completely that the fishing industry has strong grounds for dissatisfaction and for hope of improvement in its fishing limits and its protection. It is, however, one thing to declare an extended fishing limit and another thing to defend it. The Deputy knows from asking questions about this and listening to answers that the protection this State has been able to afford within the existing limits has very often been the subject of criticism. One can imagine how difficult it would be to extend that protection over grounds roughly 20 times greater in extent than the existing limits.
That is not so.
The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that, as a result of certain unilateral action that has been taken, there has been a concentration of vessels fishing just outside our 12-mile limit and, indeed, sometimes inside it. With this in mind, will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that our fishing interests are afraid that the outcome of the next session of the Law of the Sea Conference may be the same as the last session, namely, postponement for another ten months and by the end of that period all the fish may be gone?
It is possible the next session will not result in finality but the best advice I have got is that it will. It is likely to reach the point where an international convention has been drawn up on the basis of a general 200-mile limit. In regard to the governments who are, as the Deputy says, on the point of extending their limits unilaterally, there is only one European government I am aware of that has done this. It has not in fact made such a decision. It is not a member of the Community and its situation is to that extent somewhat different from ours. If it were to act that would of course change the landscape within which we have to make our decision and any other unilateral acts will, of course, change the general picture and the Government will have to look at it again, but the Government's position at the moment is as I have explained.
In view of the undoubted detrimental effect of the Icelandic decision which has resulted in the diversion of fishing fleets to just outside our limits, and sometimes inside them, would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider we have a case to make to the European Community under the terms of the protocol negotiated by us? A fundamental national interest is involved and we should be allowed to derogate for a limited period until this matter is clarified at the Law of the Sea Conference in order to protect our interests in the meantime.
I think that possibility may have to be considered, but the next session of the Law of the Sea Conference is close upon us—it will be opening in five or six weeks' time, on 15th March—and the Government have decided to hope that the method of international agreement will be chosen by this session of the conference and by the beginning of May the whole picture may be different.
Am I to take it the Government have not in fact made any request to the European Community to allow us to derogate from the fishing limits of six and 12 miles as part of our accession?
I think that is so. I would need notice to inquire about that.
The Government should have done that.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a 200-mile economic zone in which the coastal state would have control of fisheries. Is there a distinction between that phrase and exclusive fishery limits?
If I may repeat the answer:
The Government favour the extension of fishery limits. ... They are, therefore, committed to the successful outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference where they have supported proposals for the establishment of a 200-mile economic zone in which the coastal State would have control of fisheries.
We are supporting this. Whether our commitments in the EEC will make it possible vis-á-vis our partners in the EEC to have an exclusive control is a matter we are not in a position to prejudge.
Would it mean there would be exclusive fishery limits within that 200-mile zone, if it were agreed?
These are the proposals the Government supports.
What is the significance of the reference to 30 miles in Deputy Collins's question?
I am not sure.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this country has entered into an international agreement which would restrict our right to alter the base line from which the fishing limits are drawn and, if not, if the Government are considering changing the base lines which are at present unsatisfactory?
I am not aware of any such proposal.