asked the Minister for Fisheries if he will give details of the proposals he put forward during his recent discussions in Brussels towards the establishment of national coastal conservation zones.

35.

asked the Minister for Fisheries if he will make a statement on his recent discussions in Brussels regarding the formulation of a common fisheries policy.

36.

asked the Minister for Fisheries if he will give an assurance that he will continue to press this country's claim for a 50-mile coastal zone.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 34, 35 and 36 together. I can assure the Deputy that I have continued to press for an adequate coastal conservation zone reserved for the fishermen of this country and my demand for such a zone remains on the table.

My suggestion at the Council in Brussels on 16-18 January, to which I presume the Deputy is referring, was that the Commission should consider proposing as an interim measure a combination of coastal conservation zones reserved to coastal fishermen and controlled fishing under fishing plans within the 50-mile zone we are seeking.

At the discussions on 16-18 January there was broad acceptance of the Commission proposals on technical conservation measures, quotas and control and structural measures but, as the House knows, the resumed Council of 30-31 January ended without any final agreement. We are now taking steps in consultation with the Commission and the other member states involved to regulate fishing by national measures based on fishing plans which will aim to secure a reduction of fishing effort in our waters. I am anxious to have these plans put into execution at the earliest date possible.

In other words the Minister has abandoned all hope of an exclusive 50-mile limit.

In response to the remark—it is hardly a question— made by the Deputy, I might say that in connection with the preparation of these fishing plans I have had preliminary discussions in Brussels with the IFO and I am seeking their help in the formation of such proposals. I am very confident that their help will be forthcoming and that on a constructive basis we, with them and with other interested organisations, both on the catching and on the processing sides can prepare such fishing plans to the maximum benefit of our fishermen. That is the challenge before us and it is in that context that we should co-operate together at every level of the industry in order to ensure that we achieve through these fishing plans the maximum benefit to the Irish fishermen and to the Irish processors.

Is not the Minister saying in effect that he has abandoned the 50-mile exclusive fishing limit that was his party's policy before the general election and which he and his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, repeated on many occasions during fishery debates in the European Parliament when they said that this was the least that Irish fishermen and the Irish nation need as a fisheries policy?

What I am saying is that we can get the same advantage from fishing plans by the incorporation of a reserve zone for Irish fishermen within a fishing plan context. Already I have initiated these talks. With the interested parties in the industry, the IFO, the IFPO, the various shore-based bodies concerned with the development of the industry and in consultation also with the Commission and with other member countries, we can devise fishing plans that will give us the same advantage as we would receive if we had a reserve zone. In other words, we can incorporate a reserve zone within the fishing plan concept. So far as the talks in Brussels last week, in Berlin the previous week and in Brussels the week before are concerned, this can be done so far as Ireland is concerned. The important matter is to detach Ireland from the British position. Britain is our particular problem in the North Sea but that is separate from our problem.

Can the Minister recall the Minister for Agriculture saying that no Irish Minister could come back with any plan that constituted less than a 50-mile exclusive zone? Is the Minister saying now that that policy was wrong and that he has changed his footing in that regard?

In this respect the Deputy is way out of step with the representatives of the Irish fishing industry.

I am quoting what Deputy Gibbons said in the European Parliament.

The agreement to which we subscribed is that we should seek on a trial basis to incorporate a reserve zone for our fishermen within a fishing plan concept and on the lines of the type of co-operation and discussion I have mentioned; also, that if we can get something like this working this year, it will prove a major achievement. Our only approach so far is that this is be done on a trial or experimental basis for 1978. On that basis both Mr. Murrin and Mr. Doyle, both of whom were present in Brussels, agreed with me.

They are not here today.

They are here and listening to the questions.

For a landlubber like myself would the Minister be good enough to elaborate the difference between an exclusive zone and a conservation zone?

That is a separate question.

Briefly, in conservation one is concerned about conserving fish.

But not exclusively. Am I correct in interpreting the conservation zone to be one which would allow access? Would it be reasonable to say that the Minister now accepts that there is no possibility whatever of an exclusive 50-mile limit and that this conservation zone which he is ready to embrace would allow the kind of access into Irish waters which was not his policy heretofore?

The question of access to Irish waters as long as it did not impinge on conservation was always a factor. Such access could be beneficial if it resulted in catches being landed in Irish ports. The important aspect is the conservation of the species of fish available so as to ensure that they rise in numbers, that there is no reduction in the efforts of Irish fishermen fishing these species and that there is a reduction in the efforts of member states in fishing such species so that there is more fishing available for Irish fishermen.

One last question.

The Minister's eloquence does not hide the fact that he has caved in on the issue of a 50-mile exclusive limit. Is it true that, under the guise of these new fishing plans, French and Dutch fishermen will be able to fish to within six miles of the Irish coast and not 50 miles as we had hoped and as Fianna Fáil promised before the election?

This was a crucial area of the negotiations. They have been fishing to within six miles of the Irish coast under the London Agreement of 1964. For hundreds of years they had historic rights to fish up to six miles from our coast. They have these rights already.

We have gone from 50 miles to six miles.

Answer the question. Is it yes or no?

The Minister is wriggling on the hook.

For hundreds of years the fishermen of certain European countries, particularly the French, have fished up to six miles from our coast. We are now seeking to move them further out so as to secure a reserved zone for Irish fishermen and to reduce their fishing effort within Irish waters.

How far?

That is some basis on which to negotiate. The Minister is accepting the six-mile situation.

There is no question of accepting that.

The Minister is doing that. That is the point from which he is negotiating.

The legal fact is that these historic rights exist. They are there. I cannot wish them away.

The Minister cannot wish away the signature on the Treaty of Accession in 1973.

The Deputy's bluffology did not help matters out there.

Yes or no?

Order. I am calling the next question.

The carry-on by Deputy Donegan and Deputy Fitz-Gerald during the negotiations is the talk and disgrace of the EEC.

Six weeks ago the Minister was courting the British; to-day the most important thing is to stay separate from them.

Our case was not helped by the Deputies concerned moving in contrary directions at the same time and saying different things to the same group of people.