I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Maritime Jurisdiction (Exclusive Fishery Limits) Order, 1976,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 7th day of December, 1976.
This motion arises out of the need to extend Irish fishery limits beyond the present limit of 12 miles.
The legal status of coastal waters, the extent of the jurisdiction of the coastal state, the rights and duties of the coastal state as well as the rights and duties of other states therein, are among the main topics under discussion at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. As you would expect in the case of such complex questions, and where so many states with such varied interests are taking part in the negotiations, there is a wide spectrum of positions at the conference. The land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states continue to resist the concept of an exclusive economic zone while the maritime powers feel the coastal states' powers should not be too wide. Fishing rights for other than coastal states, especially the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states and in particular the developing countries among them, are still among the major unresolved issues. Coastal states are anxious to retain the present draft articles, herewith, in the single negotiating text and there is a view at the conference that the solution lies in general acceptance of an exclusive economic zone.
The slow progress at the conference towards reaching world-wide agreement on the issues before it, including that of economic zones, has resulted in an increasing trend towards unilateral action being taken by a number of states to extend fishing limits to 200 miles for conservation reasons. Already Iceland, Norway, Canada and the United States have stated their intention to claim or have claimed 200 mile exclusive fishing limits. This has led and could continue to lead in the future to extra pressure on the waters adjacent to the State and to overfishing immediately outside our existing limits not only by our Community partners but also by boats from other countries. This is so not only of waters adjacent to us and of the waters near the coasts of other Community countries, but overfishing has been widespread throughout the North Atlantic area. The effect of these activities on catches in our waters and in the waters of other coastal states has been highly damaging.
It is my view that agreement on a world wide scale is the best method of protecting the interests of all, and in particular the interests of small states. I am also convinced as a result of the Law of the Sea Conference that a large majority of governments now consider states should be entitled to 200 mile fishing limits and I expect that whatever convention the conference adopts it will include such a provision.
In the meantime, we cannot face the extinction of our fishing industry and we also must take action to extend our limits if we are to protect the fish stocks and the interests of our coastal areas.
The Community also, in the context of the common fisheries policy, has been considering the question of extension of limits. The Council at its meeting in July 1976, wishing to protect the rights of Community fishermen and stressing the need for the member states to act jointly, adopted the principle of concerted action under which member states would be led to extend the limits of fishing zones to 200 miles, and agreed to consider the matter further in the light of the outcome of the fifth session of the conference. By resolution of 30th October, 1976, which was formally adopted through written procedure on 3rd November, the Council of Ministers agreed that from 1st January, 1977, member states should extend the limits of their fishing zones to 200 miles of the North Sea and North Atlantic coasts and that from that date the exploitation of fishery resources in these zones by fishing vessels of third countries should be governed by agreements between the Community and the third countries concerned.
By extending our limits we will be excluding boats from other countries, other than those countries with which we have undertaken contractual obligations, from fishing within those limits. As members of the European Community we are subject to the common fisheries policy.
The common fisheries policy as you are aware, was devised by the original six member states and was put into effect shortly before the three new members joined the Community. We maintain that it reflects the interests and needs of the Six and was, in effect, imposed on Ireland as part of an otherwise acceptable Accession Treaty. The Accession Treaty, indeed, allowed us certain derogations from the principle of common access, which were to be reviewed before 31st December, 1982, but overfishing on the part of third countries, and some of our partners, in adjacent waters has resulted in decreasing catches for Irish fishermen and a threat to the development and even the maintenance of our fishing industry.
In the light of developments in the Law of the Sea Conference the Commission made proposals in September this year for certain elements of a new Community fishery regime. These proposals were unacceptable to Ireland in as much as they provided for nonexclusive bands of not more than twelve miles width, and relied on quotas to conserve fish stocks. Our partners were persuaded to agree at The Hague on 30th October that Ireland is a special case, and they committed the Community to applying the common fisheries policy so as to secure the continued and progressive achievement of our fisheries development programme for coastal fisheries.
This was secured without our having to concede one iota of our claim to a coastal band of up to 50 miles—indeed, our claim to such a band is in practice greatly strengthened. We do, however, recognise that some of our partners have a very strong political interest in preventing the present coastal bands being retained, never mind enlarged, after the end of 1982 and that very difficult negotiations lie ahead.
At the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels on 15th/16th November, 1976, I reiterated our view that the importance of reaching early agreement on an internal system should not be lost sight of. Work on this question should continue to have a high priority as it is vital for the future of the Community's fishing interests that measures for the conservation of fish resources within the extended zone should be agreed upon and implemented as soon as possible. I also stated that Ireland was particularly concerned about the regime which will operate after 1st January, 1977 within the 200-mile zone. This regime must, in our view, involve the application of the common fisheries policy in such a way as to secure the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry. I repeated again that the Government's view is that this development can be achieved only through the operation of an exclusive coastal band.
At this Council I also stated that if agreement on an internal regime was not achieved before 1st January, 1977, the Irish Government would, as a temporary measure and in consultation with the European Commission and interested member states, have to take interim steps to ensure progress towards the achievement of the objectives for the development of the Irish fishing industry agreed between the member states at The Hague on 30th October last.
The Commission has in the past week come forward with proposals for an interim fisheries regime to operate for 1977. In their present form these proposals, the details of which must, for the present, remain confidential, are unacceptable to us. We consider that any interim system adopted should apply, inter alia, to clearly-defined Irish coastal waters and should be such as to secure the achievement of the objectives of our fisheries development programme to which our partners in the Community have clearly committed themselves. Moreover, any interim system adopted should not prejudice our claim for an exclusive coastal band of up to 50 miles.
As regards third countries, we have, of course, agreed to postpone our right to veto agreements with third countries, something which is vitally important to many of our Community partners, until such time as permanent agreements come to be negotiated to replace the interim agreements which the Community is now seeking with Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, or until the moment comes to open actual negotiations between the Community and other countries for reciprocal access arrangements to the 200-mile zones to be proclaimed by member states on 1st January next. In the case of third countries which are not in a position to offer reciprocal rights to our EEC partners, our contention is that their fishing in European Community waters should be phased out as rapidly as possible, we would envisage within six months.
Apart from the member states of the Community, Spain also has rights, as a party to the London Fisheries Convention, to fish in certain waters round our coasts. The Community will, therefore, now negotiate a new fisheries arrangement with Spain in the light of the action taken by member states to extend their fishing limits.
The Council of Ministers of the European Community, both Foreign Affairs and Agriculture, will meet in Brussels early next week and the question of fisheries will be discussed in depth by them.
The Government is empowered under section 6, paragraph 2, of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, to make an order extending the exclusive fishery limits of the State. Any such order may be made only if a resolution approving the terms of the draft shall have been passed by each House of the Oireachtas. It is the intention of the Government to make such order with effect from 1st January, 1977.
The purpose of the order is to extend the fishing limits of the State to 200 miles and in areas where a 200-mile limit would cross with a similar limit taken by Britain and France to indicate a fixed line in those areas being a line equidistant from the nearest point on the coasts of the respective countries and this line is defined in a schedule to the order by reference to co-ordinates. It will mean in effect an overlap of jurisdiction pending agreement on a mutually acceptable line. It has not been possible in the short time available to work out an agreed line and official discussions are continuing at present. Meantime it is hoped that the Governments concerned will co-operate so as to ensure that unilateral conservation regulations would be in harmony and that conflicts in attempted enforcement in the overlapping area will be avoided.
It has been agreed that an Opposition motion calling on the Government to make an order restricting fishing in waters situated within 50 nautical miles should be taken in conjunction with the motion which I have moved so that the two may be debated together. I should like before concluding to refer to this Opposition motion.
This motion is based on the argument that the relevant section of the Accession Treaty dealing with fishing rights, and comprising Articles 100 to 103 of that Treaty, is "rendered inapplicable by the extension of exclusive fishery limits by all member states".
Regrettably this assertion is ill-founded. The section of the Accession Treaty referred to in the Opposition motion is expressed in the form of a temporary derogation from the provisions of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2141/70—later consolidated in Regulation 101/76—on the establishment of a common structural policy for the fishing industry. The terms of these articles of the Accession Treaty provide for a temporary derogation permitting member states for a period to restrict fishing in waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction situated within a limit of six nautical miles, which is, however, extended to 12 nautical miles for certain areas specified in Article 101.
Basically what we are bound by is Council regulation 2141/70 subject only to such derogations as were agreed at the time of membership and as are incorporated in the Accession Treaty. The relevant article of Regulation 2141/70 is Article 2 which says that "rules applied by each member state in respect of fishing in the maritime waters coming under its sovereignty or within its jurisdiction shall not lead to differences in treatment of other member states. Member states shall ensure in particular equal conditions of access to and use of the fishing grounds situated in the waters referred to in the preceding subparagraph for all fishing vessels flying the flag of a member state and registered in Community territory".
Unfortunately for us nothing in the form of the derogation negotiated by the preceding Government with the European Community of that time modified or purported to modify the broad provisions of Article 2, save to the extent that a temporary derogation within limits of six or 12 miles was agreed.
I think it unfortunate that at the time of the negotiation we did not succeed in securing a more fundamental modification of Article 2141/70 which would have covered the case that the Opposition are now belatedly making. As I have said on a previous occasion in this House, I am not conversant with the details of these negotiations, and therefore I am not in a position to say whether any attempt was made to seek a more fundamental modification of this kind. Whether or not this was attempted, the fact is that it was not achieved and we are left with a position which has been succinctly summed up by the legal department of the Council of Ministers in the following terms: "As the arrangements under Regulation No. 101/76 (which consolidates 2141/70) apply to maritime waters over which a member state exercised its sovereignty or jurisdiction, they would therefore apply ipso facto to the 200-mile zone, with the proviso that, within the 12-mile zone, they applied having regard to Articles 100 et seq. of the Act.”
Consequently the making of an order by the Government under section 3 of the Maritime Jurisdiction (Amendment) Act, 1964, restricting fishing in waters situated within 50 nautical miles, calculated from the base-lines of the State, to vessels which operate from ports in the State, would be in conflict with the terms of Regulation 2141/70 and would accordingly have no legal force in Community law or, by virtue of the Constitution as amended in 1972, in the domestic law of this State.