Vol. 393 No. 6
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps, if any, he intends to take to ensure the safety of fishing trawlers in the Irish Sea, in light of continuing incidents where fishing nets have been snagged by submarines; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
37.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he has taken to minimise the danger to Irish trawlers from submarine activity off the Irish coast; whether he has made diplomatic contact with representatives of the countries involved; and if he will make a statement on a call made at the annual general meeting of the Irish Fisherman's Organisation on 16 September 1989, that serious consideration be given to the dropping of depth charges at regular intervals to force submarines to the surface when in proximity to fishing trawlers.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 37 together.
The safety of Irish vessels at sea is a matter of serious concern to the Government. In responding to the specific points raised in the questions, I will first set out the legal position.
Irish territorial waters extend to 12 miles from our coast. Under international law, ships and naval vessels of other nations, including submarines, have a right of innocent passage, without notification, through these waters provided that, in the case of submarines, they travel on the surface like all other vessels and identify themselves by flying their flag. The waters beyond this 12-mile limit are international waters. Under international law, ships and naval vessels including submarines, whether submerged or on the surface may pass freely there.
This is the international legal position, but the matter cannot be left at that. We are very seriously concerned about the dangers which submarines pose to fishing and other vessels especially in relatively narrow sea lanes such as the Irish Sea, even though they may be operating within their rights in international law and in international waters, and about the appalling dangers which could follow an accident to a nuclear-powered submarine in narrow waters such as these. We avail of every opportunity in international fora to highlight these dangers.
In 1987 Ireland raised the problem at the International Maritime Organisation and we sponsored a resolution which focused attention on the problem. This resolution was adopted unanimously.
In New York in September last, in his address to the UN General Assembly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs called for a new sense of international responsibility on the part of the countries which operate these vessels and this point was stressed again by the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations last month. We will continue to try to focus international attention on the problem in this way.
The Government have also taken whatever action is open to them through diplomatic contact with representatives of countries whose submarines have been identified as concerned in incidents with Irish fishing trawlers. These contacts have for the most part proved satisfactory.
As to the suggestion that depth charges should be dropped at regular intervals to force submarines to the surface, I would point out that this would be a hostile act which could be justified only in self-defence against hostile action. The Government do not intend to adopt this approach suggested in the question.
We should be thankful for small mercies.
Would the Taoiseach agree that we should not drop depth charges? I do not know where the suggestion came from. Would he agree also that there has been a warming in the cold war and that there has been something of a demilitarisation taking place in Europe with the reduction in ground troops and in weaponry? Would he agree, too, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should approach the Governments of the USA, the USSR and the UK and ask them to cease using the Irish Sea for war games and training purposes and instruct them to respect Ireland's neutrality, our status as a neutral State? Is the Taoiseach aware that the fouling of the nets of the Contestor P from Skerries resulted in those nets being caught in a communication buoy? That occurrence took place during major NATO exercises. Would the Taoiseach not feel it is his duty to contact the NATO commanders and ask them to desist from using the Irish Sea for war games? Finally, is the Taoiseach aware——
The Deputy has made his point effectively.
——That these submarines are often nuclear powered and nuclear armed and that they travel beneath——
Deputy Byrne is embarking on a speech.
——both freight line boats and passenger boats.
Deputy Byrne, please.
This is a serious threat to the occupants of the boats and of this nation.
I think the Deputy will join with me in expressing the fervent hope that the changes which are taking place in the international scene will bring nearer the day when all these appalling monsters are removed not just from the Irish Sea but from the sea of the world. I mentioned in my reply, that apart from any other consideration, there is always the appalling prospect of a nuclear accident that could have unforeseen and appalling consequences. I can only say to the Deputy that we do avail of every opportunity at international fora to try and highlight these dangers and try to have the great superpowers who are involved in all these sort of things exercise a sense of responsibility.
Deputy Byrne rose.
I am calling Deputy Kenny who has a question tabled on the subject, that is Question No. 37.
May I say to the Taoiseach that the reference to depth charges arises from the total frustration of many fishermen who have repeatedly claimed that they come across submarines inside Irish territorial waters? May I ask the Taoiseach if there are any instances on record where other Governments have informed our Government of a claim for the right of innocent passage through our waters? Do we have any method of actually monitoring whether foreign submarines pass through Irish territorial waters without claiming a right of innocent passage?
I do not think we would have any specific means at our disposal for detecting any such transgressions. We can only rely on the sense of responsibility of the nations concerned and constantly express our anxiety in this matter. Regarding the Deputy's question about notification, yes, we have received some notification and, certainly, when we raise matters with different countries our representations are accepted and, as a general rule, attempts are made to meet our position and our representations.
Deputy M. Higgins rose.
Deputy Barry was offering. I was going to call Deputy Taylor-Quinn.
I am giving preference to the lady Member.
In view of the Taoiseach's reply to the last supplementary question would be not agree that in that event Ireland is in an extremely vulnerable position as we have not got the facilities to detect the breach of the international conventions? We are relying specifically on reports from other Governments and our Navy do not have the necessary detector equipment to ensure that the conventions are complied with. Has the Taoiseach any plans to provide the mechanism to the Departments of Defence or Foreign Affairs to ensure that we, in our own right and as an independent sovereign State, can monitor our own waters to ensure that international conventions are complied with?
I would have to say to the Deputy that I do not think it is within our own waters, within the 12 mile limit, that the problem arises in the main. It is in the international waters and there submarines are perfectly entitled, under international law, to travel under water as they wish. On the charts, of course, areas are delineated as areas where submarines can be expected to be exercising and that, I suppose, is some warning for our fishermen. I would also point out to the Deputy — and perhaps she is aware of it herself — that the great powers go to great trouble to conceal the movements of their submarines from each other, never mind from us. I do not think that is the sort of game we could attempt to enter into and start detecting these sorts of activities. I think we should concentrate our efforts on the moral persuasive side and try, through the international fora, and also bilaterally to persuade people to live up to their responsibilities in so far as both internal and international waters are concerned and continue to point out the great dangers that are involved.
I have some sympathy for the Taoiseach.
Thank you.
When this question was answered by the Tánaiste last year we had the reply about moral suasion. I think he will be stuck with fervent hope and moral suasion. May I ask the Taoiseach if he would consider consulting with some of the Scandinavian countries, for example, in relation to their approach to a similar problem and the more advanced electronic monitoring equipment they use for dealing with a similar problem, the passage through the verges and the actual waters in which they are involved.
They resorted to the depth charges.
The Deputy, as a pacifist, cannot be advocating a war-like stance.
I am talking of electronic monitoring. What I am communicating, a Cheann Comhairle, as a passivist, is the weakness of moral suasion. It is a position I have abandoned long ago.
I know the Swedes, for instance, devote very considerable resources to that area. We could not attempt to match them. I do not think the Deputy would approve of our devoting large resources to that type of area because, as I say, no matter how much we are prepared to spend of our scarce resources in that area it would not be meaningful in the international sort of strategic situations in which they are involved.
This is a point which surfaced over here when people were asking questions. In relation to notification is it not a fact that despite all the odds in their favour submarines have been identified and have been notified to the Department but it was found that they had not given prior notification? Will the Taoiseach agree that it is weak not to make more of that? Will he indicate the sanctions applied on such occasions? To my knowledge the nationality of submarines is not published and they are merely given a gentle rap and told not to come back in the same submarine, while at the same time there may be a dozen here. Where is all this moral policy leading to?
We should not debate this matter today.
I hope the Deputy would not throw moral policy out the window in favour of warlike measures because he and I would have to part company in that regard.
What does the Taoiseach do in this regard?
One uses diplomatic means and international fora. For once, the Deputy seems to be slightly misunderstanding me. He is normally very perceptive in these matters but he is slightly off beam here. The main problem is in international waters, particularly as far as the Irish Sea is concerned. We do not have any great problem about transgressions within our own waters and if there are such transgressions, we hope to deal with them. I must repeat that it is not against international law for a submarine to submerge in these waters.
I want to deal with other questions.
Perhaps one of these days we will have an outbreak of sanity all round the world and people will realise that this business of trying to build up nuclear fleet against nuclear fleet is just rubbish.
We all support the Taoiseach in that regard.
A final — and brief — question from Deputy Byrne.
Submarines are a problem but, on the last two occasions——
A question, please.
Is the Taoiseach aware that in 1987 the Summer Morn and the Contestor P each brought home in their nets a communications buoy? This is an object which hangs out some distance from the submarine and is used to listen for and to detect submarines and surface craft. It also plays a role in identifying fishing trawlers. Will the Taoiseach agree that the captains of these boats should be instructed to stay clear of them in order to prevent the mishaps which have occurred in the Irish Sea? As I said, these are listening devices to identify ships and other submarines——
We have dwelt too long on this question.
In the case of the Contestor P we have the sonar buoy safely in Irish military custody.
Has it not been returned to the owners?
No, it is still under guard.
We must move on to Question No. 11.
