asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the United Kingdom Government have lately extended the limits of their offshore territorial jurisdiction to 12 miles and that this extension purports to operate also in respect of the island of Rockhall; whether he proposes to protest at this attempt to attribute territorial status to an uninhabitable rock far distant from the mainland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - UK Offshore Territorial Jurisdiction.
16.
The limit of the territorial sea now generally accepted by the international community is 12 miles measured from baselines. Ireland was among the large majority of countries which supported the incorporation of this rule into the new UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The Government are aware that the British Government are proposing that their territorial sea be extended from three to 12 miles and that a Bill entitled "The Territorial Sea Bill" has recently been introduced in the British Parliament.
In regard to any claim that this proposed legislation would apply to Rockall, the position of the Irish Government remains that they have never recognised British sovereignty over the rock and, accordingly, they do not recognise any claims to maritime jurisdiction based upon it. This position was specifically recalled to the British Government in the most recent protest which was being made to them about the proposed legislation.
Could the Minister give the date on which the protest was conveyed to the British Government arising out of the legislation just introduced.
I do not have the date but I can get it for the Deputy.
It is not material but I would have expected it since the question was put down. I also wish the Minister to consider two aspects of the British Bill which has passed through one of their Houses and is now with the other, first that it purports to attribute a very widely extended jurisdiction over the seabed around islands such as Rockall notwithstanding that those islands are uninhabited and unhabitable. Secondly, it will have the effect in the North Channel, between Antrim and Scotland, of not leaving one yard of high sea; the entire North Channel passage will now be British territorial waters. Will the Minister assure the House that both these aspects will be looked at in the light of the reported debates which have already taken place in the House of Lords from which both the points I made have become clear, and complain elaborately to the British — more fully perhaps than has been the case — if he sees any reason to think that the interests of this country are prejudiced?
I am looking into every aspect of this matter including territorial waters, fisheries waters and the economic zone. The Deputy's question relates purely to territorial waters but the other aspects are also important and are the subject matter of pending arbitration and continuing negotiations at present. I will keep the House informed in regard to these matters.
In view of the fact that I understood negotiations were in train to have an arbitration between ourselves and the British about the delimitation of the seabed between the two countries — it is 12 years since I saw the file on this matter which was then nearly a foot thick — is the Minister not perturbed by a unilateral legislative act which purports to extend the jurisdiction over the seabed in the Rockall instance from about 28 square miles to over 450 square miles at one stroke? Does he not regard this as a pre-emption of an arbitration on a disputed matter between the two countries in which the status of Rockall is central? Nobody wants the strip of water but it is the effect it creates in territorial waters which is important.
Let us keep this matter on a rational plane. With respect to Deputy Kelly, there is a distinction between the 12 miles territorial limit around Rockall and the further wider economic zone which we have secured on the Continental Shelf which Britain has also secured. The second matter is under arbitration and negotiation pending arbitration, and the first matter is the subject of legislation before the House.
I appreciate that they are separate matters but I am anxious that the Minister would understand or at least explore the possibility that our acquiescence in the arbitration of territorial status to this rock may weaken our case when it comes to drawing the dividing line along the seabed between the two countries. The status of Rockall is central to this and may make a difference of many tens of thousands of square sea miles and the bed underneath.
I appreciate the Deputy's interest in this matter. I had a full discussion with my officials in this regard yesterday and we are pursuing lines which will be beneficial to this country.
Could the Minister give us any details regarding the arbitration to which he referred?
The arbitration is currently under discussion in the light of negotiations dealing with the wider issues referred to by Deputy Kelly which are not the subject matter of this question. There is the question of the economic zone on the Continental Shelf and how it should be divided, which is current business.
Have the terms of the arbitration been agreed?
The current business to which I referred was slept on for the past four years.
We will now move to Private Notice Questions in the names of Deputy T. Fitzpatrick and Deputy Farrelly.