asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the present position in relation to securing a 50-mile exclusive fishing limit for this country.

As the Deputy is aware, the Foreign Ministers of the Community discussed the question of fisheries at their meetings in The Hague on 29th and 30th October, 1976, and in Brussels on 15th and 16th November, 1976. At those meetings I reiterated our demand for an exclusive coastal zone for Ireland, adequate to ensure the continued development of the Irish fishing industry.

At the meeting in The Hague on 30th October, 1976, the Ministers agreed that the provisions of the common fisheries policy, as further determined by the Act of Accession and adapted to take account of the extension of waters to 200 miles, would be so applied as to secure the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry on the basis of the Irish Government's fisheries development programme for the development of coastal fisheries.

At that meeting I made a statement on behalf of the Government of which the council took note and which was recorded in the minutes. This was to the effect that in the view of the Irish Government the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry can be secured only by the establishment of an exclusive coastal belt of up to 50 miles and that the Government consider agreement on the coastal belt issue to be a precondition to the adoption of new directives by the council for substantive agreements with third countries on the reciprocal fishing rights which would be designed to follow on the conclusion of framework agreements and of such interim arrangements as may be required before substantive agreements on quotas and zones can be put into effect.

At the council meeting on 16th November, 1976, I stated that I hoped it would prove possible to agree on sufficient elements of the internal fisheries regime in order to secure the application of the agreement reached at The Hague with effect from the date when the 200 mile zone comes into effect, that is, 1st January, 1977. I added that if this did not prove possible the Irish Government would have to take as a temporary measure and in consultation with the Commission and the interested member states, interim steps to ensure progress towards the achievement of the objective in respect of Irish coastal fisheries agreed at The Hague on 30th October, 1976.

Is the Minister aware that fishermen and the nation as a whole are gravely concerned that the Government seem to be getting away from the idea of the 50-mile fishing zone and we are talking in terms of a 30-mile zone? Will the Minister tell us what the position is in this matter?

I do not think there is public concern. I think the people are satisfied that we have made significant progress without conceding anything. Secondly, no reference to a 30-mile zone has passed my lips or those of my officials in any discussions or negotiations. Any such reference in the newspapers is newspaper speculation. I am not aware of any proposals for a 30-mile limit. All we have said is precisely what I have stated in my reply, that we consider that the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry can be secured only by the establishment of an exclusive coastal zone in belts of up to 50 miles.

Will the Minister tell us why he did not contradict the statement in regard to the 30-mile limit when it was published and thus let the fishermen see that he was interested in pushing the question of 50 miles?

There is a physical difficulty about contradicting every speculative newspaper report on every issue, nor do I think it is necessary. I have, however, sought to clarify fully for the fishermen the position of the Government by writing an article for a fishery magazine which will come out shortly. I think it is important that fishermen should have the maximum first-hand information on the position and I hope the article will help to clarify the position on these points. In so far as there is any confusion arising from the reference to 30 miles, I am grateful to the Deputy for giving me the chance to clarify it. There is nothing whatever in that proposal—there is no question of a 30-mile limit and there has not been in any discussion.

Would the Minister indicate to us in regard to the establishment of a 200-mile fishing zone the procedure to be followed? Will a motion of this House be necessary?

That is a separate question and a somewhat technical one. If the Deputy puts down a question on it I shall be glad to answer it.

I can give the Minister the answer to it.

In that case there is no point in the Deputy asking the question. At the moment I am answering a question about securing a 50-mile limit. I am not answering technical legal questions.

Fifty-mile and 200-mile zones are very close to each other and involve the same procedures.

No.

Is it the Minister's intention to come before the House, in pursuance of his promise which he has obviously given to the Council of Ministers, to extend Ireland's fishing limits?

The necessary steps will be taken.

What will they be?

Will the Deputy put down a question on the matter? It does not arise on the question now before us. If the Deputy desires to make any more mileage out of the propaganda he tried to produce——

We have come to the end of questions. Let us finish on a harmonious note.

Perhaps it might be suggested we are fishing in troubled waters.

The Deputy has been extending the question from 50 miles to 200 miles.

I have been trying to extract some information from the Minister. There is the question of a 200-mile limit and we as a country must make that declaration. I understand the Minister has promised the Council of Ministers that he will make such a declaration. There is another question of a 50-mile limit. I want to know what are the appropriate procedures for, on the one hand, declaring a 200-mile limit and on the other hand declaring for ourselves a 50-mile limit.

It does not arise on this question. The mechanism is one that involves this country as a State declaring a 200-mile zone by the legal and constitutional procedures appropriate to this State, which do not arise on this question and which are a matter for the Attorney General and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I am not prepared to go into them on this question. On the 50-mile zone, the process is one of negotiation with a view to securing agreement on a regulation or directive, as the case may be, of the European Communities.

It seems astonishing that the Minister for Foreign Affairs does not know——

I know what is irrelevant to the question asked and what is relevant.

Is it a fact that in The Hague talks the Minister agreed to do two things, one, that Ireland will establish a 200-mile zone and, two, that the negotiations in regard to that will be handed over to the Commission and will not be retained by this country?

It is totally irrelevant to the question. If the Opposition are not capable of framing relevant questions——

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

I have asked a very legitimate question——

I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude.

I think the House would agree that the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be permitted to finish his questions.

There are only two more.

Will the Minister agree that he has agreed to extending our limit to 200 miles and that he has agreed to hand over negotiations on the situation to the Commission— that he has given away completely and totally our national position without getting a single thing in return?

The Deputy is referring to the accession treaty which he negotiated, and as a result of the wording of that accession treaty and the specific wording of its articles in regard to fishing rights in the future as well as in the past, any extension of fishing limits that brings new waters within the control of the common fisheries policy—that is the clear wording of the treaty——

That is not so.

It is not true.

That is the legal position as interpreted by the Commission and the Council. It is the legal position we now have. The Government then, in agreeing to the terms of the treaty, did not so word it as to limit the application of the common fisheries policy to the existing limits. That was a fundamental error in the negotiations. That error has proved disadvantageous to us. I regret it happened.