andMr. Keaveney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he will state his intention to settle for no less than a 50-mile exclusive fishing limit.

In the negotiations which have been taking place for a review of the EEC Common Fisheries Policy in the context of the extension by the member states of their fishing limits to 200 miles, we have put forward a demand for an exclusive coastal zone of up to 50 miles. We have however indicated that we would be prepared to accept, in the outer area of this coastal zone, "artisanal" fishermen from other member states who have traditionally fished off our coasts.

Our negotiating position is of course affected by the fact that on Ireland's entry to the Community the then Government accepted the existing Common Fisheries Policy enshrined in Council Regulation 2141 of 20th October, 1970, which provides, among other things, for equal conditions of access to and use of the fishing grounds situated in the maritime waters coming under its sovereignty or within its jurisdiction. The Accession Treaty provided only for certain derogations up to 31st December, 1982, from this principle of equal access in the six-mile zone, extending to 12 miles from Cork Harbour to Lough Foyle and on the East coast for shellfish.

In consequence of the situation thus created the negotiations have proved extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the fact is that we have made it clear, and have had it entered in the minutes of the Council of Ministers, following the meeting in The Hague on 30th October, 1976, at which the special position of Ireland was recognised, that we consider that the continued 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 we consider agreement on this issue to be a precondition for the negotiation of agreements for reciprocal fishing rights with non-EEC countries. At present only interim arrangements are in operation with those countries.

Deputy Haughey rose.

I am obliged to call Deputy Blaney.

Deputy Blaney has indicated he has given way to me. Is it not becoming increasingly clear to the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues day by day that the fatal mistake made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and by the Government in regard to this matter was the declaration of a national 200-mile limit without first getting cast-iron guarantees for the protection of our fishing industry?

In reply to that question, would the Deputy tell the House what difference it would have made in terms of boats and fish had we omitted to do so?

Does the Parliamentary Secretary admit that the EEC as such cannot declare any territorial zones, that it is entirely a matter for the national member states to declare fishing limits, and that, had we refused to declare a 200-mile limit without first getting the guarantee we gave, our position would be impregnable?

It is not the case that the 200-mile limit was up in the skies before the 1st January. Before then the greater part of it was the high seas open to all comers. Had we omitted to declare a 200-mile zone it would still be the high seas open to all comers. We would have had nothing to say out there at all even about the third countries.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not admit that in order to persuade us to declare this 200-mile limit the Community would have to come to terms with us on some reasonable basis? Does the Parliamentary Secretary admit that we have no baragining power as a result, that the situation has gone from bad to worse since the 1st January, 1977?

The position is that the Minister will not consent to concluding permanent agreements with third countries in regard to exploitation of any part of Community fishing waters unless we can arrive at a regime satisfactory to ourselves.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary specifically whether he has said yes or no to the question as put down on the Order Paper? Would he clarify the answer to the specific question whether the 50-mile limit mentioned here is a point beyond which the Minister will not settle?

I emphasise to the Deputy that it is one thing to take up a position in regard to something which you have and which somebody else is trying to get away from you and say: "We are not going to give you more than this", because then you know that you are in a position to sit on the rest and prevent anyone from getting it. We are in the opposite position. We are trying to get concessions from other people, and the Deputy expects us to say truculently "We will not settle for anything less than your giving us something". These waters were not ours and we had no claim to them under international, national or any other kind of law until the 1st January. To the extent that we have an extended claim our Community partners have a black and white claim in the treaty to share them with us.

That has been challenged.

It has, but the Deputy, unless he wants to quote from Hansard again and redouble the false impressions he has given the House in this regard, will admit that until that claim comes to hearing and has been ruled on by the High Court, merely to say that there is a summons out gets us no further. Until the 1st January we had no rights in any legal system beyond the 12 miles. We now have in international law a right out to 200 miles but that right is qualified vis-à-vis our European partners by the Treaty of Accession and no amount of talk and inviting the Government to be truculent will get away from these facts.

I am still asking a straight question to which there are no tags attached. Have the Minister and his Government got a position beyond which they will not settle, in other words, for less? Have they got any fixed point at all?

The Minister is determined to do everything he can.

Has he a position or has he not?

The position is that the minimum regime we will accept as a permanent settlement of a common fisheries policy will be an exclusive 50 mile band. The House must not forget that we could drag on like this for a considerable time with no permanent regime and there would be no legal order which would prevent Community fishermen from fishing in the waters to which the Treaty entitles them to have access.

We are concerned as much about third countries as we are about Community fishermen. All this hoo-ha about this 200 miles is not worth the paper it is written on. Are we going to put our foot down regarding this industry or are we not? We can fiddle along as we have done for so many years talking about increases by so many per cent and in fact we are fishing for tiddlers in a pond instead of getting after the industry properly.

The Deputy understands the position.

I do understand. It means nothing.

I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.

You yourself, a Cheann Comhairle, have from time to time upheld here the rule about matin ters which are sub judice. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that he is in order in giving a categorical legal opinion about the situation regarding the 200-mile territorial zones when this matter is at present before our courts for decision? Does he not accept that until our Irish courts give a decision on this the matter is sub judice and that he should not express a categorical opinion about it?

I do not accept that. Parliamentary privilege would be worth nothing if it prevented me from continuing to repeat the Government's view and advice.

Since the Parliamentary Secretary seems to hang his argument heavily on this case now pending before our courts, is it not the case that those courts administer the laws as passed by us and if those laws are not suitable to us can we not change them so that we get a proper verdict?

I am hanging no argument on the case that is presently before the courts. It was Deputy Haughey who mentioned this a minute ago and I would not have adverted to them had this matter not been mentioned from the far side of the House.

7.