asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the extension of the territorial waters by the United Kingdom authorities; and the steps, if any, he has taken on the matter.
8.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - UK Extension of Territorial Waters.
5.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps, if any, the Government has taken to ensure that Irish vessels have free passage through the North Irish sea, following the declaration of the British authorities to extend its territorial waters from 3 to 12 miles; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
34.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action, if any, he has taken to protest against the enactment by the British Parliament of legislation increasing its jurisdiction over coastal waters including Northern Ireland and Rockall; the reaction if any to such protest; the further steps if any he now proposes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
39.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has raised with the British Government their recent announcement regarding the extension of their territorial waters to 12 miles: the response, if any, he received to his representations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 5, 8, 34 and 39 together.
International law permits coastal States to extend their territorial sea to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles from baselines. I refer the Deputies to my reply to a parliamentary question from Deputy John Kelly on 24 March 1987 in which I set out the position of this country in relation to this issue.
As I informed the House at that time, the views of the Government regarding their legislation extending their territorial sea were conveyed to the British and it was made clear that the Government would not accept any action which affected Irish interests. The British in their response relied on their rights under international law to extend their territorial sea to 12 nautical miles.
Quite apart from our claim to jurisdiction, international law recognises a right to unimpeded passage for all vessels through straits and this law must apply also in the area between Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I do not propose to take any further steps in the matter at present, but should the British authorities take any action which does not conform with international law and which affects any Irish interest or the interest of its citizens the Government will immediately take the matter up with the British Government.
The Minister referred to his reply to Deputy Kelly on 24 March. On that occasion specific reference was made to court action by the British and the action taken by our Minister in response to their action. At that time the Minister undertook to inform the House of the steps he had taken and the date on which he had lodged a protest. Could he now inform us of the present position and what action he took consequent on the British implementing their court action?
To what court action is the Deputy referring?
On 24 March, in reply to a question from Deputy John Kelly, the Minister was asked to comment on recent legal initiatives by the British authorities in relation to Rockall specifically.
That was not a court action. It was an arbitration between Britain and Ireland and other countries which indicated their interest in joining the arbitration to seek their rights, namely, Iceland and Denmark with its Faroese interests. It was an international arbitration, not a court action.
I thank the Minister for correcting the terminology. However, he gave an undertaking on the occasion to inform the House of his precise comment on that specific arbitration and the actions he envisaged following it.
There are ongoing discussions at the moment concerning that arbitration. I also have instructed my Department to propose legislation which I hope to have in the House in the next session in which we will claim our rights to the 12-mile territorial sea which the British have also claimed. That puts us in exactly the same position as the British. This can be done by a very simple amendment of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act.
Is it true that the arbitration is, in fact, between the British Government and the Irish Government and does not involve Denmark and Iceland?
As of now it does not. However, Denmark and Iceland are seeking to get joint "in", which is a complicating factor. As of now, it is between Britain and Ireland.
I do not think the Minister should use the words "as of now". We do not recognise Denmark's or Iceland's claim to any of this. Therefore, the arbitration is between only Britain and Ireland.
The arbitration at the moment is between only Britain and Ireland. Any discussions are between those two nations. Ireland cannot stop the Danes and the Icelanders from pursuing claims which we, of course, reject absolutely. There is no question about that. Under international law they are entitled to be joined into arbitration; that is their right. We reject any claim that they have in the area mentioned. This does apply to the North Atlantic area on which they are seeking to establish rights.
Given the fact that these arbitration discussions are going ahead at the moment and have been for the past 12 months, would the Minister not consider that it is unfriendly of the British Government to extend their territorial rights while those discussions are taking place?
Without using that pejorative term, what we are doing is the best possible declaration of our position by bringing in equivalent legislation ourselves which we can do by a very simple amendment of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act. I hope to have, and will have, that legislation in the House in the autumn session.
May I ask who are the arbitrators?
No arbitrators have yet been appointed. Discussions are going on with the British Government on the terms of the arbitration. They will be complicated by the fact I mentioned earlier but specific arbitrators have not been appointed yet.