asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the communication, if any, the Government had with the British Government arising out of the recent British claim to a 200-mile economic zone extension from Rockall.
4.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Economic Zone Extension.
3.
andMr. Keaveney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he proposes to take to counteract the British Government's recently delineated 200-mile zone which infringes this country's national rights.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
The Government made an order on 22nd December, 1976, extending the exclusive fishery limits of the State to 200 miles. In places where our limits meet similar British limits the limits have been fixed as a line being basically an equidistance line measured from the low water mark of the two coasts, account being taken only of larger islands within three miles of the mainland.
In the same circumstances the British have set their limits at a line which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines of the two countries. The recent British Act claims a 200-mile fishery zone around Rockall. This means an overlap of jurisdictions. To date there has been no communication with the British Government, but the British Government are well aware of the views of the Government on the question of Rockall and claims by the British Government to make or enforce any prohibition on fishing in the seas around Rockall have been rejected by the Government in the past.
A protest is in preparation to the British Government at their action. which is not, in the Government's view, consistent with the applicable principles of international law. It is hoped, nevertheless, that this matter will be resolved without undue delay and that a mutually acceptable dividing line will be determined either by agreement or by a settlement of disputes procedure.
My question has at least aroused the Government to issue a protest. Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the designation to which I referred took place almost two months ago? Can he confirm that the arbitration to which he referred yesterday will deal with all issues in relation to what one might call the Rockall question, first the Continental Shelf and, second, the economic zone which extends from Rockall and which will include fisheries and exploration, so that all outstanding issues between the two Governments, whether or not they are based on any title, national or otherwise, to Rockall will be resolved in this arbitration?
I hope they will. I share the Deputy's concern about this. However, I cannot give that undertaking because we have not yet seen the terms of the British consent, which will be received, I am told, before the end of the week. It may be that the British may specifically wish to exclude certain matters from the terms of their consent. If that is the case, I will immediately tell the House about it. It may also be—and this is not excluded —that the matter will be settled in the course of arbitration without specific settlement of the issues of principle involved. That is also possible.
The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that these are all related issues?
I appreciate that.
If I may summarise, if Rockall can generate its own economic zone, then you are talking in terms of 200 miles fishery and exploration rights out of Rockall. Then you have the Continental Shelf which derived from the Geneva Convention. That also is an issue between us, but they are both related issues. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that we at least must insist that all these issues will be arbitrated on. Otherwise we will be only dealing with a fraction of the case, and whether Britain is agreeable or not, it would seem only logical that all the issues be resolved.
The Government are well aware of the importance of both the fisheries and the Continental Shelf issues. The arbitration I referred to yesterday refers only to the Continental Shelf. It is true that, if it is pursued to the point where issues of legal principle have to be determined, the determination will equally govern the questions between us on fisheries.
The Deputy must understand that we cannot insist on the arbitration being of this or that kind. We have no compulsory arbitration machinery in force on this issue with the British. We are dependent, if we are to have an arbitration, on their agreeing to submit the dispute to arbitration along with us.
The Deputy will also appreciate that there is a curious conflict between our interests in connection with fisheries on the one hand and the Continental Shelf on the other. If we succeed in establishing that Rockall cannot generate an economic zone of its own, it will suit us so far as the Continental Shelf is concerned, but it will have the automatic concomitant result of depriving the whole community of fishing water which it would otherwise have because of its claims on being able to share British waters. It will not prevent us making the best case we can on either front but I draw the Deputy's attention to that fact and also the attention of the House.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary at least clarify that there are two separate but related issues? He has told us that the arbitration relates only to Rockall. Surely it is absolutely essential that the other issues be clarified at the same time? I want to ask the Government—apparently they have not made this formal request—formally to request that the fisheries and the exploration rights within the national 200-mile economic zone of Rockall be included. If the Government do not ask they cannot complain that the British Government have not responded.
The negotiations which have been going on with the British at official level through a long series of meetings culminating in our request, made last April, for arbitration, to which a reply is only now coming in, dealt with the Continental Shelf only. The Continental Shelf division to the north-west in the Rockall area but also the division of the Continental Shelf to the south-east and issues in connection with islands—not quite such extreme issues—arise thereto. We have not got an outstanding dispute specifically with the British except in so far as Rockall is relevant. If the question of Rockall is settled by arbitration through an enunciation of a principle which deprives Rockall of status that will automatically clear the fishing issue as well.
What about Question No. 4?
I took Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
The two were taken together.
I did not hear you say that. The sound on these backbenches, which I have complained about on many occasions, is totally inadequate.
The Chair will facilitate the Deputy if he has a question on No. 4.
I am really concerned, whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of it, that the repeated screening on television of the map of delineation of claims of the 200-mile limit which is really around our north-eastern shores by the British means that off the Donegal coast if we take away Inishowen Head, Shrove Head and the mouth of the Foyle there is not anything left there. We do not seem to have any waters left in so far as the Foyle, Shrove Head, Inishowen Head and Malin Head are concerned because of the delineation that has so often been publicised by the British on their television screens. What are we doing about it?
This is a technical and local question. I would like to have had notice of it. I do not think it is covered by Question No. 4. I am not in a position to discuss the Foyle specifically or any other situation.
It infringes on our national rights. The Foyle is part of our national rights, as are all of the seas around the foreshores of the country.
If the Deputy is talking about the Foyle estuary——
I am not particularly. I am just instancing this to the Parliamentary Secretary in order to highlight what is so obvious in what has been publicised repeatedly, and I believe deliberately, on the BBC television screens.
I can assure the Deputy that what the BBC do is not law and will not affect the outcome of an arbitration or anything an international court may do.
This is not a matter of arbitration. There is no question that any counter-claim is being made by the Government.
If the Government were to make counter-claims for everything they saw on television or any of their members or supporters saw on television we would not have time to do anything else.
Arising out of what the Parliamentary Secretary says——
I want to get on to another question. Question No. 5.
I cannot be held responsible for not being able to hear what is going on up here in this alleged amplification system, which I have complained about repeatedly. It is no better than it was. Nothing has been done about it.
The Deputy is dead right.
Deputy Callanan agrees with me. It is dead when anybody speaks from these things here. It is all right from the front benches. Have the Government abandoned the claim to the rights of the seas around this island or have they not? The issue is as simple as that.
The Deputy will understand that the factual situation is that the soveriegn power, rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, for the moment anyway, on the east bank of that river is a different State.
I am not talking only about the river.
I am afraid we cannot resolve this matter.
With your permission I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment due to the absolutely unsatisfactory nature of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply.
I will communicate with Deputy Blaney in that matter.
Perhaps the Deputy would also communicate with me because I do not know what he is asking for.