asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent and location of (i) sea areas in which Ireland has sole mineral and oil rights, (ii) areas under negotiation and (iii) the areas in dispute; and the up-to-date position regarding these negotiations and the attempts being made to resolve the areas in dispute.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mineral and Oil Rights.
24.
In accordance with existing international law, Ireland claims sole jurisdiction in respect of all mineral and oil rights over the entire extent of the Continental Shelf around our coast and designation orders have been made by the Government in respect of most of this area. The Continental Shelf of a coastal state is the natural prolongation of its land territory and the definition of the outer limits thereof and the extent to which a coastal state can claim jurisdiction is one of the issues at present under review at the Law of the Sea Conference. I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave on 22 November 1979 to a question—see columns 1570-1572 of the Official Report—relating to the negotiations at the conference which refers to this issue and sets out Ireland's position.
As well as the question of the outer limits of the shelf there is also the limit which arises in cases where a shelf is a natural prolongation of two or more neighbouring states when it must be delimited between them. In the case of the delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Ireland and Britain this question is being submitted to an ad hoc international arbitration tribunal. The questions to be submitted to this tribunal, including the extent of the areas on which it will be asked to adjudicate, are at present under negotiation between ourselves and the British authorities. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment now on either the location or extent of these areas or on any of the issues which arise in the negotiations.
I have been asking the same question for the past three years and getting the same answer. When is it expected that some decision will be reached regarding the areas in dispute?
I am glad to be able to tell the Deputy that we are coming towards definite conclusions in the matter of establishing the tribunal and preliminary aspects are at present being examined such as the nature of the tribunal, its members and personnel and location. We have taken international advice and engaged specialist consultants to advise us. We are coming towards some finality in regard to the establishment of the tribunal.
Is the Minister satisfied that he has sufficient staff and experts within his Department to advise him properly on this matter?
This is a separate question and I can give the Deputy full details by way of correspondence or in reply to another question. We have employed a French expert in a consultative capacity and will also be taking on a Canadian expert. With this expert advice we have sufficient back-up staff within the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Energy to deal with the matter.
A final supplementary from Deputy Deasy.
Is the Minister aware that Members of this House who are interested in this matter are not happy about the information available? Can the Minister tell us exactly what areas are involved and give us maps and details?
I will be glad to furnish the Deputy with full details of the up-to-date position. I will do so in writing.
In his reply the Minister stated that we had claimed the entire Continental Shelf contiguous to our country but that designation orders had been issued only in respect of most of these areas. Why have designation orders not been issued in respect of all these areas?
There are some areas we obviously cannot claim and this is the whole purpose of the arbitration between the United Kingdom and ourselves since we share a common Continental Shelf which is a prolongation of both territories. There are certain areas which are obviously in one or other. Most of the areas to which we can legitimately lay claim have been so claimed by way of designation orders.
What does the Minister mean by saying there are some areas we obviously cannot claim within the area we are claiming?
Within the total area. At the moment there is no separation of the areas between Britain and Ireland.
We have counter-designated in areas where there is a dispute.
The Deputy is imparting information.
We can and do designate areas in dispute.
There are areas which obviously lie with the UK and areas which obviously lie with us. Then there are disputed areas. I can assure the Deputy that we have more than claimed by way of designation order what we are entitled to claim.
Would the Minister then explain why there are areas we have claimed but not designated?
We have not designated areas to which we cannot lay claim.
I know that.
(Interruptions.)
We will not have argument on the matter.
We have claimed everything possible by way of designation order.
The Minister said the opposite in his reply.
If the Deputy were listening properly he would get my point. Because it is a common Continental Shelf and a natural prolongation of both territories, there are areas which cannot be decided one way or the other and areas which are obviously outside any claim we can make, and these areas have not been designated. Any areas to which we can by any semblance of imagination or through skilful legal action lay claim have been designated.
Question No. 25.
Why have we not continued in the International Court, given that a precedent in our favour has been set by the award in relation to the Anglo-French dispute?
Why have we abandoned the International Court upon which agreement had been reached when we left office? Why are we going to an ad hoc tribunal?
We have taken the most expert advice in the world on this matter, which the Deputy did not do. This is too serious a matter for the country——
Too serious for the country?
The previous Government were very lax in this area. They did not make any attempt to seek the appropriate and necessary expert advice.
The Minister knows that is false.
There is highly skilled and specialist advice available and we have taken this. We have taken the advice of the leading French authority in this matter, Michel Virally. We have also taken Canadian advice and we will take further advice. All the advice available to us indicates that the way to go about the matter is the way we have adopted, by way of a tribunal where we will have a say in the selection of the personnel on the tribunal. Already we are vetting the possible people whom we would regard as appropriate to sit on the tribunal. We are doing this with the help of the most expert advice available from France and Canada. The National Coalition Government did not attempt to do that——
The Minister knows that is false.
The Chair is calling Question No. 25. There is nothing on this question but argument from both sides.
We are getting the most expert advice that is available.
The Chair will insist on the next question being answered.
Will the Minister state when it is expected that the maps and the information will be available?
I will be in touch with the Deputy on the matter. He has been very helpful, unlike his leader who obviously does not understand.